|
THE CAMP OF WICKED FRENCHMEN
The enormous publicity which the English gave their
“victory” throughout Christendom soon backfired against them.
They sent letters to the court of Rome and to
Christian princes, wherein one might read: «Joan, the Maid, had placed herself in the service of
our capital enemy, disrupting all true peace and renewing deadly war.» By
using the expression «our capital enemy», designating the King of France
Charles VII, the English clearly admitted the true political motives of
this fraudulent Church trial.
However, opinions were divided. “The Journal
of a Bourgeois from Paris”, written by a member of the University hostile
to Joan, testified that «there were some here and there who said she was
a martyr for her good Lord; others denied this».
Among the latter were not only the Anglo-Burgundians:
«On the day after Joan’s martyrdom, writes Colonel Boulanger, Regnault
de Chartres did not hesitate, as Archbishop of Reims, to “give it as his
opinion that Joan the Maid did everything for her own pleasure”. He
circulated or invented declarations by a young shepherd from Gévaudan:
“Upon being told that the English had put Joan to death, he replied that
God had suffered her to be captured because she had taken pride in
herself and for the rich clothes that she had taken; and that she had
not done what God had ordered her, but her own will.”» (p. 114)
Regnault de Chartres had personal reasons for
wishing to sully Joan’s memory in this way. It was well-known that,
right from the beginning, he had belonged to a party opposed to that of
the Maid within the Royal Council; moreover, along with his stepbrother Flavy, he had been the instigator of her capture in Compiègne; finally,
as Cauchon’s metropolitan archbishop in 1431, he had done
nothing to inform Rome of his suffragan bishop’s misappropriation of funds.
According to canon law, the duties of a
metropolitan are «to ensure that faith and ecclesiastical discipline are
rigorously maintained, and to inform the Roman Pontiff of abuses». Regnault’s position was such that he must have known that the trial of
faith brought against Joan by his suffragan, Bishop Cauchon, was an
abuse of power, since he himself had presided over the tribunal of
Poitiers which, in 1429, had already judged Joan “in matters of faith”.
According to canon law, one must never judge the same case twice: Non bis in idem. Joan had herself reproached Cauchon for this: «Why
are you
starting up the trial of Poitiers again?». Regnault de Chartres’ silence
on
all the illegalities and abuses of power committed by Cauchon during the
trial of Rouen made him an accomplice in the unjust sentence brought
against Joan.
His successors to the archiepiscopal see of
Reims
were Jacques and Jean Jouvenel des Ursins. The latter had a good
knowledge of Joan’s “sayings and doings”, as he had been one of Regnault
de Chartres’ assessors at the Poitiers examination in 1429 and had
begun
to write the “the Chronicle of the Maid” there. In the same year as Joan’s
death, he had been appointed Bishop of Beauvais, to replace Lord
Cauchon... Now, curiously enough, two years later, even though the
States General of Blois had given him the task of exalting the great
military leaders who had liberated France, he passed over the name and
miraculous deeds of Joan of Arc in silence. What did this
“lapse of memory” signify?
A STRANGE DISAPPEARANCE
As his study progressed, Charles Boulanger became
increasingly indignant as he came to realise that within the government
of Charles VII, and apparently with his consent, there existed a powerful
cabal opposed to Joan. Thus, in 1449, Jean Jouvenel des Ursins replaced
his brother Jacques in the archdiocese of Reims, the latter being
assigned to the bishopric of Poitiers, while their third brother,
Guillaume, occupied the position of Chancellor of France, that is to say
of Guardian of the Seals... and of the archives.
The three brothers Jouvenel des Ursins found
themselves at the same time in possession of the three copies of the
“minute” of Joan’s Trial at Poitiers, in March 1429! Now, quite
surprisingly, all three of these crucially important documents disappeared
at around the same time.
The disappearance of these precious folios is an
immense loss. It still affects historical research today. Joan referred to these
documents several times at the trial in Rouen. Asked one day what Saint Michael had told her at his first apparition, she
answered: «You will not get that from me today. I am not yet authorised
to reveal what Saint Michael tells me. Ah! how I would like you to
have a copy of that book which is at Poitiers, provided God be
content.»
The simultaneous disappearance of the three
documents served only too well the interests of the party which, to avoid suspicion, had
determined to speak no longer of Joan and her glowing epic. At Poitiers, all the members of the
theological commission summoned by the King had expressed a favourable opinion
of the Maid, referring to her as an authentic messenger of Heaven.
So it was preferable to efface all trace of such documents... The suspicion
is thus confirmed of a veritable plot hatched at the highest clerical,
academic and political levels to prevent any revision of the 1431
trial... even to this day!
THE IMPOSSIBLE REVISION: 1431-1450
The very powerful University of Paris had
rallied to Charles VII “the Victorious” in 1436, when he retook Paris. In
return, it had obtained a general amnesty and the retention of its
privileges, material ones included. And the new bishop whom it
immediately chose to be the protector and “guardian of its privileges”
was... Jean Jouvenel des Ursins.
The choice was well made, and our doctors of the
Sorbonne might well have felt confident. «Taking in hand the cause of
the University of Paris just as it was throwing over the now weakened
English, writes Boulanger, he was happy to have the privilege of
effacing the least brilliant page of its history. He was to be the
“conservator” of the “light” [the Sorbonne!], and to bury
anything
that might tarnish it.» (p. 218)
At the time of the English occupation, the University of
Paris had been so closely implicated in Joan’s condemnation that its interest in reopening the trial of 1431
was rather less than anyone else’s!
Caught between two stools, King Charles appeared
highly embarrassed: on the one hand, strong pressure from learned
academics and their friends inclined him to mistrust; on the other hand,
the common people, simple and holy folk, vehemently clamoured for the
rehabilitation of the one who had delivered France and restored its King
“in God’s Name”. The more the years went by, the less did
Charles VII feel impelled to act from strict justice, and the more
assured was the impunity of those who had “deliberated and
judged” in 1431... Charles Boulanger summarises the situation thus:
«On the day after the execution, was
it possible to attack those who had burned the martyr,
after having done
everything to get her to disgrace herself? Was it possible to avenge
her? In 1436, when Paris was retaken by Charles VII, there was no
question in his mind of alienating his all-powerful University. In 1449, when
Rouen itself was recovered, condemning to the stocks those responsible
for the condemnation trial would again have been to challenge his “Alma Mater”,
capable at any time of fomenting new unrest.» (p. 2)
So would the king always be a prisoner of
Joan’s enemies and of the “Sorbonne defence syndicate”?
THE SORBONNE’S COUNTER-ATTACK
When Charles VII solemnly entered Rouen in
1450, the inhabitants of the Norman city, who had several times tried to
shake off the English yoke, provoking bloody reprisals from the
occupier, «reminded the King what he owed to the Maid’s memory». To
please them, the King decided to open a revision trial that would
undo the injustice of the one of 1431. The people were greatly
delighted by this, whereas the University gnashed its teeth.
It was a matter of simple justice to annul the
sentence of the first trial, not on a point of detail, but due to its
total nullity regarding the very manner in which it had been carried out, so
apparent was it that Joan had been condemned out of political
passion, in a spirit of hate and rebellion. It was necessary to open a
new trial, in which the original judges and their accomplices would be
accused of having shown themselves to be more in the pocket of
foreigners than to have acted as faithful Christians.
The Sorbonne, now at bay, went on the
counter-attack against this threat of a revision trial. The defensive
manoeuvre was facilitated by the fact that the King had entrusted
the dossier to influential members of the “Sorbonne syndicate”, devoted
servants or interested clients of the Parisian University. Thus,
observes
Charles Boulanger, just as the professors of the pro-English Sorbonne had
planned to eliminate the Maid for foreign policy reasons in 1431,
so, in the same way, in 1450, these same academics, or their successors,
planned to justify their colleagues for reasons of
domestic policy, and of personal security...
Our learned doctors were cunning and more
than capable of staging a fabricated trial whose objective would be satisfy the
King and the people by declaring Joan’s condemnation sentence null,
while at the same time “demonstrating” that the judges had been deceived
by false reports and by... Joan herself, yes of course! In short,
all were responsible, but not guilty! This stratagem has
barely varied down the centuries...
In this scenario, the entirely fictitious abjuration
which Cauchon had attributed to Joan was not only useful but essential
for excusing her
judges of 1431. The cunning of the new judges was to make it even more
credible still, twenty years after the events. Until then, it was only
Joan’s enemies who had affirmed her “abjuration”, but it was now to
become an official truth, sealed by the authority of a tribunal
appointed by the King and approved by the Pope. It was the final straw!
For such a deception to succeed, the University
had
to surround itself with a thousand precautions, like a legal network of
barbed wire, in order to transform this revision trial into an
inextricable judicial labyrinth. Its aim was to discourage anyone who
might care to uncover the truth! In this sense, the principal investigator Bouillé, the grand inquisitor Bréhal, the judge Jean Jouvenel des Ursins,
and their associates, played a far cleverer hand than Cauchon and his
notaries.
«Very few have made the effort, writes Boulanger,
to lay bare the framework of the trial in order to free it from the many
entangled accessories where, in the labyrinthine procedures and
carefully controlled consultations, the figure of the “deceased” [as Joan was
called] gradually fades from sight. Legal gobbledygook garnished with a
large dollop of erudition which her keen and forthright words would
quickly have deflated. To venture into this maze means forcing oneself to become
entangled in its imbroglio.» (p. 6) This is what Charles Boulanger did, emerging
victorious from the ordeal, for the honour of the Lady of his thoughts!
The Abbé de Nantes confided in 1991: «I have
meditated a great deal on this silent dialogue, carried on year after
year, between this man of the twentieth century and Joan of Arc, his
beloved saint, and my wish is to draw from this study a reflection, not
on the saint’s sufferings at the hands of her persecutors, but on the
immense sorrow and compassion of those who follow such a saint with all
their heart.»
THE TRIAL HIJACKED: 1450-1456
FIRST STAGE: THE BOUILLÉ INQUIRY.
In 1450, Charles VII entrusted one of his
counsellors, the inquisitor Guillaume Bouillé, a Dominican and academic,
with letters patent ordering the opening of a private informative
inquiry.
Bouillé began by examining the documents of 1431
and heard seven principal witnesses. Put at their ease, Cauchon’s former accomplices confessed so many staggering things that
these interrogations convinced Bouillé of the scale of the crimes and
procedural abuses committed in the course of the condemnation trial.
Manchon, Ladvenu, Toutmouillé, Beaupère, not
forgetting Massieu, spoke for example of the eavesdropping on
confessions, or again of the scene on the morning of 30 May in which
Joan uttered to Cauchon her terrible words: «Bishop, I die because of you!»
But to exculpate themselves, they largely maintained “Cauchon’s
version” of what took place in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen, painstakingly
reported by his notaries, according to which Joan had abjured on the
morning of 24 May and had appended her signature at the bottom of the
cedula presented to her. It is quite sickening to see all these
“witnesses” presenting themselves in a good light whilst all the time accusing others and feigning pity for their victim.
At the end of his inquiry, Bouillé understood that
he could not add these interrogations to the revision dossier without
gravely compromising the judges of 1431 and, through them, the University
of Paris, «the Alma Mater of the guilty parties», as Boulanger calls it.
The depositions of these witnesses were therefore set aside, and to
prevent them being brought to light, Bouillé worked them into a
more “presentable” memoir, like that written by the notary Manchon in
1431.
That was the first substitution in this revision trial which
had an uncanny resemblance to the first!
The “Bouillé memoir” had the additional advantage
of establishing the main lines of the Sorbonne syndicate’s defence, but
at the price of three gross lies:
1. «The qualifying lords [that is to say the judges
and assessors] were deceived – as is perfectly evident [sic!] – by 12
articles falsifying Joan’s answers.» Note that none of the seven
witnesses had spoken of these 12 articles, but Bouillé had found mention
of them in the writings of the notaries, and this allowed him – ah,
clever man! – to erase any trace of the first 70 articles composed by d’Estivet, which Joan had refuted point by point before the court.
As the objective was to excuse the judges of 1431, to show that they had
been deceived, it was especially important to conceal the fact that Joan
had proved to them the falsity of the accusations levelled against her!
The second substitution, analogous to that of 1431.
2. That the court should have been
misled by a
false report was too feeble an excuse. So the Dominican Bouillé
reinforced it by taking up the thesis of an alleged abjuration by Joan
in the cemetery of Saint-Ouen . «An abjuration for which Joan is said to have
justified herself by declaring that she had not understood the cedula
that had been presented to her», he added. If Joan had not known how to
answer her accusers, and if furthermore she had abjured in their
presence, then she was truly guilty of having misled her judges! She had
only herself to blame for being burned! A frightening conclusion.
3. Bouillé realised, however, that he should not
push this reconstruction of the facts too far: he needed to be careful
about Charles VII, whose reputation might be tarnished by a Maid who
had supposedly repudiated him and signed a text that was grossly insulting
towards him. What was needed, therefore, was to effect a third
substitution: the long “500 word” cedula was no longer “politically
correct”, as we would say today, so Bouillé decided to create another one,
which would be called the “short cedula” and which Joan supposedly
failed to understand.
What a convoluted muddle! It took Boulanger ten
years to unravel this tangled web. Let us continue our investigation
with him as our guide, holding firm until we reach the end of the truth.
SECOND STAGE: THE D'ESTOUTEVILLE INQUIRY.
In 1452, Charles VII ordered a second informative
inquiry, this time of an official nature, which he thought to entrust to
Cardinal d’Estouteville, the Pope’s legate. Seventeen witnesses were heard
this time, including the assessor Migiet, the only one who dared to
mention «the men’s clothes removed from her». That was his only testimony;
he would not be caught out a second time…
D’Estouteville had no difficulty in understanding the whole matter. But this great lord, sensualist,
ambitious and calculating, decided quickly to get rid of the dossier by
sending it back to Charles VII. Let Bouillé and Bréhal, the grand
inquisitor of France, sort it out as best they could! He was not keen to
compromise himself one way or the other, either by whitewashing
the Sorbonne or by denouncing it. He contented himself with advising
that it would be preferable to take up the revision as a civil matter and not
as an ecclesiastical one. His enquiry was not added to the dossier, as
it would have been too compromising for the conspirators of 1431…
THIRD STAGE: BRÉHAL IS PUT IN CHARGE OF “THE AFFAIR”.
Let us see now how the revision trial was hijacked
by the very people who were most compromised or whose friends were themselves
implicated in the judgement condemning Joan. From 22 May 1452, the grand
inquisitor Bréhal, a doctor at the Sorbonne, was officially responsible
for “the Affair”. On the advice of Montigny, one of his colleagues from
the University, he made some important modifications to the “Bouillé plan”.
To expunge the political character of the
trial at Rouen, it was necessary to find canonical material for the revision,
in order to lend it an ecclesiastical character; and for this reason the Holy
See, the supreme judge in Church cases, had to be involved, but only from
a distance! in order that the University of Paris might remain free to
conduct the Affair as it intended... On the other hand, in order to
manipulate the “petitioners” of the revision more easily, it was vital
to persuade King Charles VII to take a back seat and to allow others, like
the d’Arc family for example, to take a more prominent role, since they
would not be so presumptuous as to contest the judgement of the
University doctors.
The plan worked perfectly. During the year 1455,
Charles VII agreed to step back (!) and Joan’s mother, Isabelle Romée, as
well as her brothers, Pierre and Jean d’Arc, became the “petitioners”
for a revision. A petition, largely inspired by Bréhal, was drawn up in
their name and addressed to Pope Calixtus III.
THE PONTIFICAL RESCRIPT
In response, a papal rescript dated 11
June 1455 ordered the revision of the 1431 trial. Rightly concerned
to exonerate the Church of Rome, Charles Boulanger insists that the pontifical rescript is
inadequate to invest the
trial’s conclusions with the Pope’s authority. Canon no 40 of the Code of
Canon Law stipulates that, if a petition addressed to Rome contains
erroneous or fraudulent reasons, the corresponding rescript is null
and void.
Now, such was the case here. The “plaintiffs’
petition” of 1455 effectively contains two lies:
PRIMO. The Bishop of Beauvais, «of happy memory»
(sic!), was deceived about Joan by the “d’Estivet report” of 26 March.
False! Cauchon was perfectly well acquainted with the facts concerning
Joan thanks to the two informative inquiries that took place in her
native land in January. To accredit their thesis, the revision judges would go
as far as to solicit from the notary Manchon a
declaration denying the existence of these two inquiries. It should be
mentioned that, ever since the admission of the sacrilegious eavesdropping
on Joan’s confessions, Manchon had been «held by the ears» [exposed to blackmail],
writes Boulanger (p. 125).
SECUNDO. It was on the basis of this “d’Estivet
report” that Cauchon began proceedings in matters of faith against Joan
on 19 February. Also false. D’Estivet’s report was dated 26 March, that
is one month after the opening of the trial. Therefore he was not the
one who opened it; by that date, Cauchon had himself already
interrogated his prisoner around fifteen times.
Those two blatant lies entirely nullified the pontifical rescript. Yet it
would still need a competent authority to
denounce these lies…
TERTIO. Furthermore, as the “petition”
was to be
signed by Isabelle Romée and her sons, Bréhal dared not mention Joan’s
abjuration in it, contenting himself with dignifying her judge, the
Lord Pierre Cauchon, with the epithet “of happy memory”. In short, it was
the “happy memory” of this scoundrel that the grand inquisitor of France
set out to rehabilitate! In other words, the case had been judged in
advance, and a favourable judgement was going to be
pronounced in favour, not of Joan, but of her judges.
Moreover, the saint’s abjuration was for the
first time officially insinuated in the text of the proclamation
posted on the doors of the Cathedral of Paris and other churches of the
Kingdom, announcing the opening of a revision trial on 7 November 1455.
There the people of Paris could read the words «confessions extorted
from Joan by violence and fear». So Joan apparently confessed then…
Confessed what? Subsequent events would tell.
THE SESSION OF 7 NOVEMBER 1455
On the appointed day, a huge, enthusiastic crowd
thronged into the Cathedral of Paris, convinced that they were going to
witness the glorification of the holy Maid of Orleans. The hearing
promised to be moving, for her mother was present, escorted by an
imposing group of the inhabitants of Orleans, who united their
complaints to hers. «Jacques d’Arc’s widow, writes Boulanger,
accompanied by the clamour of those supporting her, again renewed
her prayers in the midst of a large crowd, uniting her voice to theirs
to ask for justice.»
What was not the surprise and general
disappointment when they saw Isabelle Romée and her sons led
aside to the cathedral sacristy. There they found themselves alone
before three judges and a tribunal, just like Joan twenty-five years
earlier…
The transcript has preserved the petition
made by the elderly peasant woman of Domremy. It is particularly moving:
«I had a daughter, born in lawful wedlock, whom I
fortified worthily with the sacraments of baptism and confirmation and
raised in the fear of God and respect for the traditions of the Church,
insofar as her age and the simplicity of her condition would permit,
with the result that, having grown up amidst the fields and
pastures, she went frequently to church and every month, after due
confession, received the sacrament of the Eucharist, despite her young
age, and gave herself to fasting and prayer with great devotion and
fervour, on account of the necessities then so great in which the people
found themselves and with which she sympathised with all her heart;
nevertheless, even though she never thought, conceived of or did anything
that caused her to stray from the faith or contradict it, certain
enemies… arraigned her in a trial concerning the faith… and, despite her
challenges and appeals, both tacit and expressed, without any
assistance being given to her innocence, in a perfidious, violent and iniquitous
trial, without a shadow of justice… they condemned her in a damnable and
criminal fashion and had her die most cruelly by fire… for the damnation
of their souls and in notorious, infamous and irreparable injury to me,
Isabelle, and my family…»
The three judges who were listening to this petition were
Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, Archbishop and Duke of Reims, Guillaume Chartier, Bishop of Paris by the grace of the University, and Richard de
Longueuil, Bishop of Coutances. The latter would frequently be absent but was
just as generously remunerated as the first two. Now these gentlemen
claimed that the crowd’s devotion and enthusiasm would disturb the
calm of their deliberations. It would be more correct to say: of their
plot.
The trial therefore took place behind closed doors.
Nor were our judges any more confident of the good
dispositions of the mother and the brothers of the “deceased”. So, as
soon as the curtain went up, Jean Jouvenel des Ursins and Bréhal
attempted to terrorise them and make them understand that Joan,
supposed to be an innocent victim, was perhaps just as guilty… One reads
these astonishing words in the
transcript: «Warned of the uncertain
and perilous outcome of the judgement», Isabelle Romée was put on guard
against «her natural affection» and her «indiscreet zeal». Let her be
afraid therefore «of obtaining for herself and her family, not the
reparation and justification sought, but a renewal and augmentation of
injury and wrong»! For Joan «had been condemned by grave, learned and
solemn judges … Thus the presumption must be in favour of their verdict.»
(sic!)
The presumption of innocence, therefore, was exercised
solely on behalf of Joan’s judges! «At no time, writes
Boulanger, were the true culprits to be troubled by the revision
trial judges.»
Such an imposture would be scarcely credible, did we
not know today, thanks to Boulanger, the ulterior intentions of these
judges, as wily as those of the condemnation trial. They were
well-matched these judges, indeed as thick as thieves!
Joan’s mother, Isabelle, had to suffer one final
dagger thrust from Bréhal: «It is therefore probable that Joan is not
entirely excusable on this point.» The “point” in question was the
famous “abjuration” which, although it had been extorted and had not
been understood, was still inexcusable, as the judges explained to the
elderly peasant woman, for
«one must not deviate from justice under pretext of avoiding the bodily
harm of which natural instinct has a horror. It is better to undergo all
kinds of punishment than to consent to evil», pronounced these
Pharisees, whose hypocrisy now took on monstrous proportions.
The session ended with the customary oath that
witnesses are made to take, to which a special oath was added for the
occasion, accompanied by terrifying threats against those who would make
so bold as to question the tribunal’s authority. The poor mother left
thoroughly shaken. What heavy-handed blows had to be dealt, writes Boulanger,
to silence her just claims, to which the crowd massed in Notre-Dame
united their clamour!
AN INVERTED TRIAL
What a strange trial now got
underway: the victim
had become the guilty party and the criminals the victims. Who were, in
practice,
the defendants in this trial?
It was not at any rate to be the “judges and
deliberants” of 1431. Cauchon and Le Maître? They had been misled by
d’Estivet. And it was on him, the promoter of the faith at the trial in
Rouen, that the revision trial judges brought to bear the entire weight
of the accusation, – as he was already dead, this would of little
consequence! – as well as on the “twelve articles”, which had
the merit of being anonymous. As for the notaries, the assessors and the
bailiff, they were summoned to appear as witnesses, but in no way as
defendants.
But it was still necessary to have a few
dignitaries appear in court, even if they were subsequently to be forgotten.
So Bréhal summoned the bishop who then occupied the see of Beauvais, and his
promoter of the faith, to explain the actions… of their predecessors.
Mgr de Hellande and Master Réginald Bredouille had no difficulty denying
any responsibility in the “Affair” and refused to act as “defendants” in
the cause of their predecessors, despite the promises of «peace and security, love and charity» assured to said “defendants”.
Mgr de Hellande reminded his judges with a smile that Cauchon’s first
successor in 1431 had been… Jean Jouvenel des Ursins himself. This
Hellande was not going to take any risks, being himself a nephew of Regnault
de Chartres and the protector of the Sorbonne. One did not betray the
“syndicate”!
ZEALOUS «PROSECUTORS»
Joan had not had a lawyer in 1431. But in 1455,
at the second sitting on 17 November, the revision trial judges
commissioned sixteen lawyers for Isabelle Romée and her sons! Jacques
d’Arc’s widow apparently stood in need of this many advisers and prosecutors,
as Jouvenel des Ursins had remarked that she was «almost at the age of
decrepitude». Let us now see the effects of such great solicitude.
The transcript again refers to «the widow’s repeated
and urgent entreaties, supported by almost the whole crowd and the sound
of the voices of the multitude». Arrangements were then made to have
Isabelle and her sons removed from the court. Their presence was apparently compromising
the good running of the trial. But before dismissing them, the judges
made them sign a procuration «under mortgage of each and every item of
their personal and real estate, present and future» to the effect that they
would «hold now and in the future for perpetuity, as
ratified, agreeable, firm and stable, all these things and everything that
should be done, said and accomplished in the trial by said
prosecutors». Everything had to be accepted in advance, because, of
course, everything would be judged in accordance with truth and
justice!
The elimination of the d’Arc family in
favour of their sixteen lawyers leaves one somewhat bemused when one learns
just who these fine «prosecutors» were.
«The first of them, Maugier, was a distinguished master
of the Faculty of Decrees at the University of Paris. Thanks to the
English, he even became its rector in 1427.» He was among the those who,
in April 1431, had advised the King of England and Cauchon that Joan
must be «exhorted to abjure». Subsequently, he was to be found in the
company of Cauchon’s ex-assessors, men such as Courcelles or Morice, and
as a colleague of Bouillé, the first royal investigator.
Maugier acted as a faithful friend. One of his first
interventions was to absolve Cauchon’s forty-two assessors. On 15
December 1455, he exclaimed: «Let us keep the general peace. One should
impute nothing to either the deliberants or those who were misled, one should
rather excuse them.»
Prévosteau, another prosecutor, had taken part in
the inquest conducted by d’Estouteville. He therefore knew the whole case, all
the lies and procedural abuses committed by Cauchon, Courcelle, Manchon and
company. Now, on 18 December, he deemed them «worthy of being excused»,
and on the 20th «absolutely
free of all blemish».
Two other substitutions were perpetrated during the
second sitting of the revision trial: as intended by the “Bouillé
plan”, d’Estivet’s 70 articles were replaced by the 12 articles of accusation ,
and the “500 word” cedula read
out by Érard at the cemetery of Saint-Ouen was replaced by the “short
cedula” . This short cedula had simply been made up by Maugier, acting on Bouillé’s
instructions.
The trap was closing in on poor Joan again, this
time accused of a fourth “abjuration”. On 20 December 1455, the lawyers
drew up a text of 101 articles which were supposed to summarise the
conclusions of the “plaintiffs”. Note that the latter were no longer
present to check their veracity, and that they were forced to accept
everything in advance. Ah well, in these 101 articles, it was stated three
times that Joan had abjured by signing a «short cedula containing a few
things», which she had not understood.
On 17 February, the articles in question were
accepted by the tribunal, along with a formal prohibition laid on both
future witnesses and family of contesting them and «opposing anything in
them».
FALSE WITNESSES
In April 1456, the
witnesses started to be called. For the judges, the stakes could not be higher:
whatever it cost, it was a matter of obtaining depositions concerning the “short cedula” which, while
accusing Joan, would excuse her judges of 1431. However, as Boulanger
observes, history is silent on this “short cedula” before November
1455, and «it took five months to prepare the witnesses to arrange their
memories». Among the twenty-five witnesses who testified to the episode
of the abjuration at the Saint Ouen cemetery, only five had the audacity
to assert the existence of this “short cedula”; and even then, their
evidence was self-contradictory.
Let us look at the principal testimony, that of the
ex-bailiff Massieu. In 1450, at the time of the Bouillé inquiry, he had
testified under oath to having seen Joan sign the cedula of “500 hundred
words” read out by the Dominican Érard: «she abjured them, and made a
cross with a quill given to her by the deponent». According to the other
witnesses, she drew a circle or else wrote her name, or both. It would
be good to know which.
In 1452, at the time of his second deposition,
Bréhal had the idea of suggesting to Massieu that it was in fact he,
Massieu, who had read out the abjuration cedula to Joan, and not Érard. The
ex-bailiff complied, all the more readily in that he was, to use Boulanger’s expression, «under the thumb of the delegated lords», having
been prosecuted several times for loose morals and protected by his
«friends». Are we really expected to believe this corrupt and venal witness?
As for the actual length of the cedula and its contents, the
bailiff, like all the other witnesses, had remained silent in 1452. But
in
1455, Maugier and Prévosteau had devised the “happy formula” transcribed
in their 101 articles. Massieu’s memory suddenly came back and he
recalled that the cedula, which he was meant to have read out to Joan,
contained «approximately eight lines and no more». He also clearly
remembered «that, in this cedula, it was further stipulated that Joan would no
longer bear arms, wear men’s clothes or short hair, and many other
things which he no longer recollected». Finally, Massieu «clearly saw
that Joan did not understand the cedula».
«Joan did not understand! exclaims Charles
Boulanger. When it was a question of arms, clothes and hair?» (p. 76) Who
are you trying to convince?
The whole thing is grotesque.
As for the depositions of the other four witnesses,
they were even more vague, and so manifestly contradicted their own
declarations made during the preliminary inquiries that one wonders how
the judges and Isabelle Romée’s lawyers could have listened to them
without denouncing such perjuries. Boulanger demonstrates that it was
nothing but false testimony.
How surprised we were to learn that the existence of the
«short
cedula» of abjuration which Joan is supposed to have signed at the Saint-Ouen cemetery is founded
on nothing but the credibility of these depositions! The fact that there was no trace of it
beforehand proves quite simply that it never existed… other than in the
imagination of Bouillé and Bréhal. But it has allowed, and will allow for a long while
yet, both historians and modish
film-makers to represent the Saint-Ouen episode as they please, filling
in the gaps of the bailiff Massieu’s “excellent memory” as they see fit. Until
such time as Boulanger’s thesis imposes the truth.
Our author’s conclusion is rock solid: Joan’s fourth
abjuration, invented by the judges of the revision trial, is no more
credible than the first three invented by the judges of the condemnation
trial. In both cases, the cedula in question, whether long or short,
could never have been produced as a trial exhibit.
7 July 1456:
The Cover-up in the Joan of Arc Affair,
A “Triumph” of the University of Paris.
We now have a better understanding of the title of
Charles Boulanger’s book. Let us briefly summarise the steps that led
to this trial’s conclusion.
On 30 May 1456, the court president,
Archbishop Jean Jouvenel des Ursins, resigned his office six months
into the proceedings. Unless he was being modest about his triumph, this
resignation is strange. Having conducted the Affair to its conclusion,
doubtless he did not wish to take responsibility for it, and left his
successor with the task of pronouncing the sentence. Two delegate judges
were appointed to replace him: Mgr Lefèvre, Bishop of Démétriade, and a
certain Coquerel.
Did this Lefèvre have the qualities required by
Canon Law to be appointed as a delegate judge in this trial? asks Charles
Boulanger. The answer come as a jolt: Lefèvre had taken part in the
trial at Rouen as Cauchon’s assessor; in 1452, he had stated under oath that he
had not taken part in the relapse trial, and had therefore not
deliberated on Joan’s death penalty. Now, when one consults the
transcript of 29 May 1431, there one discovers his name: «Master Lefèvre,
Doctor of Sacred Theology, deliberated that the aforesaid Joan is obstinate,
contumacious and disobedient; and, for the rest, is satisfied with the
deliberation of Lord de Fécamp», who declared «that Joan has relapsed»,
and therefore deserves to be burned at the stake without delay.
Twenty-five years later, it is the very same man
whom we find «rehabilitating» the Maid, but in reality whitewashing the
most powerful University of Paris!
The revision trial’s verdict was solemnly
pronounced in Rouen on 7 July 1456. On that day, Cardinal d’Estouteville,
archbishop of that city, disappeared from his episcopal palace, where
the judgement was to be proclaimed. No doubt, in the interests of
safeguarding his career, he
did not wish to be seen to support the iniquity… In his place sat Lefèvre,
as in 1431. Things had come full circle.
The text of the sentence read out before the people
brought no sanction to bear against the judges of 1431, reserving all its
severity for… the 12 articles of accusation, which were condemned to be
torn up, and not burned, as certain people had somewhat distractedly
proposed. The condemnation trial’s verdict was quashed, but those
who had pronounced it were neither condemned nor excommunicated; on the
contrary, their memory was strangely spared. Herein lay the heart of the
revision trial’s trickery.
On the other hand, the holy Maid’ alleged
abjuration was reaffirmed, and public prayers were ordered for the salvation of her
soul: «In the Old Marketplace, where Joan was suffocated by
a cruel and horrible cremation, we order the erection of an honest cross
to perpetuate her memory and to obtain through prayer her salvation and
that of the other dead.»
It goes without saying that this judgement filled
the good people of Rouen assembled on the occasion with
amazement and consternation. The proof of this is that there was neither
popular jubilation nor royal celebrations.
In September 1456, Bréhal and Bouillé took the
verdict nullifying the trial at Rouen to Rome. Not being in a position
to
verify any of the facts and suspecting nothing, Rome
ratified the judgement. The documents only arrived in Rome nineteen
years later; as for the documents of the trial of 1431, they only
arrived at the end of the century, amidst indifference and general
oblivion.
As Boulanger says, the Joan of Arc Affair was «covered up» for a long
time. A «deafening» silence fell over her mission, leaving a secret
wound in every Catholic and French heart.
In the nineteenth century, when people began
to get to know the Maid’s history better, and when the Church decided to
raise her to the altars in 1874, the objection to the abjuration arose
more strongly than ever. Cardinal Parocchi formulated it thus in 1899 to Mgr
Touchet, Bishop of Orleans and promoter of the cause: «You will have to
find a man who can demonstrate that, until now, historians have been
misled into affirming that your French heroine really abjured on 24 May
1431; otherwise Frenchmen and Catholics must give up the hope of seeing
Joan of Arc raised to the altars.»
JOAN’S RESURRECTION
Anticipating the discovery of Charles Boulanger by
fifty years, Saint Pius X, who loved France and her heavenly heroine,
decided, from the beginning of his pontificate, to overcome the
obstacle. On 6 January 1904, on the anniversary of Joan of Arc’s birth,
he promulgated the decree of the heroicity of her virtues and, five
years later, on 18 April 1909, proclaimed her blessed: «It is our
hope, he declared, almost our certainty, that the venerable servant of
God, who will take her place among the blessed, will obtain for her
homeland, which owes her so much, the strength of her ancient faith and,
for the Catholic Church for which she always had a profound devotion,
the consolation of seeing many wayward sons coming back to her.»
To the Bishop of Orleans, who had told him of his
«dream» of France’s resurrection, the Pontiff, who considered France to
be «the tribe of Judah of the New Covenant», answered in these
prophetic words:
«When you return home, tell your compatriots that if
they love France, they must love God, love the Faith, love the Church,
who is a very tender mother for them, as she was for their fathers.
«On this account alone, France is great among the
nations; by this clause, God will protect her and make her free and
glorious; according to these terms, what is written of Israel in
the holy books may be applied to her: “That none has been found to insult
this people, except when it turned away from God”. What you said,
therefore, is not a dream, venerable brother, but a reality: I have
not only hope, I have the certainty of a full triumph.»
May Saint Joan of Arc, holy Dove of French peace
and reconciliation, heroic martyr of the Roman Catholic faith, return
to us
with her heart of fire, and France will rise again inspired by her
voice and example, «in the name of the King of Heaven», Jhesus-Maria!
At our Maison Saint-Joseph,
30 May 2002, the Feast
of Saint Joan of Arc.
|
SO
MANY GRACES!