« ZurückWeiter »
sir. Robinet de Braquemont, a knight from Normandy, embarked on board twenty-four galleys, well provided with men at arms and stores, to combat the Saracens, who were at sea
with twenty-two galleys. These last were defeated, and all on board put to death.
At this period also the king of Hungary wrote to the university of Paris a letter, the contents of which were as follows. It was addressed, “To the learned, sage, and prudent men, the rector and university of Paris, our love and affection.” Then follows the letter. “Noble personages, and very renowned in science throughout the world, we have with pleasure received your epistle, full of sense and eloquence, which no doubt will be very agreeable to our Lord and the Holy Spirit, and most profitable to all true Christians; for such is the abomination at present existing in the church of God, that every sincere and pious Christian should offer up his prayers to God that out of his grace he would provide a remedy, by which this abomination, namely, the schism and division that has existed in the church for thirty years, may be destroyed, and put to a final end by the re-union of the whole church. Should not this union be speedily effected, it is to be feared, that from this double division three others may spring up; and it is on this account, and some others, we have sent our orator to that most Christian prince the king of France our lord, in order that the object of our legation to him may not be frustrated by unbelievers and others. We have requested of him by our ambassadors to send us some one of his noble race to aid and counsel usin our affairs, which we hope he will comply with, knowing that, if he grants us this favour, we shall be always ready, as heretofore, to serve him.–Given at Rome, the 11th day of June, in the 22d year of our reign.”
CHAPTER XLIII.-HOW ALL THE PRELATES AND CLERGY OF FRANCE WERE SUMMONED TO PARIS.—THE ARRIVAL OF THE QUEEN AND OF THE DUCHESS OF ORLEANS.
In these days, the prelates and clergy, or their procurators, were summoned from the
greater part of France and Dauphiny to attend the king and his council, to give their opinions respecting a union of the church, and other matters touching the person of the king and his realm. They attended in great numbers, and on the vigil of the feast of St. Laurence
assembled at eight o'clock in the morning in the great hall of the Palace. The chancellor of France presided for the king, who was indisposed. When the mass of the Holy Ghost had been solemnly celebrated by the archbishop of Toulouse, a very renowned doctor in theology, of the order of Friars Preachers, harangued notably in the presence of the dukes of Orleans, of Berry, and many great lords, the rector, the university, and a large body of clergy.
He chose for his text, “Quae pacis sunt sectemur, et quae aedificationis sunt invicem custodiamus, Rom. iv. c. That is to say, St. Paul tells the Romans, in the 4th chapter of his epistle to them, to follow the things of peace, and be careful of what may bring edification. The doctor harangued much respecting the union of the church, and uttered many invectives against Pietro della Luna, who, he said, from first to last, had opposed this so-much-to-bedesired union, and that he was a schismatic-heretic, obstinate in his wickedness. He proved this by six arguments; and after declaring that the king of France had formerly been neuter, but had since withdrawn himself from his obedience, on account of the letter and bull lately issued, which was full of falsehoods and deceit, and highly offensive to the royal majesty, he said that it was on this account the assembly was held, that it might be notified to the members of it, for them to consider the business, and on the means of obtaining a solid peace and re-union of the church.
While these things were passing, master Sausien and the messenger from Pietro della Luna, who had brought the letter and bull of excommunication to the king, both of them Arragonians, with mitres on their heads, and having surcoats emblazoned with the arms of Pietro della Luna reversed, were carried most disgracefully in a dung-cart from the Louvre to the court of the Palace; and shortly after, near the marble table, at the end of the steps, were set on a pillory. They were thus exhibited, for a very long time, to all who wished to see them, having labels on the mitres, on which was written, “Disloyal traitors to the church and king.”
harangued the assembly in the name of the university of Paris, and took his text from the hundredth Psalm, “Fiat pax in virtute tua.” He addressed himself to the throne, and to the princes of the blood and other nobles there present, exhorting them to attempt every possible means to restore peace and union to the church, by putting an end to the dangerous schism, proving to them the wickedness of Pietro della Luna, that he was an incorrigible heretic, and ought not to be styled pope Benedict, nor enjoy the dignity of cardinal or any other, and that they were not bound to obey him, and indeed could not without incurring the penalties due to favourers of heresy and schismatics. He brought forward many examples of former popes, which were favourable to his arguments, and the determination of the last council, when it had been resolved, that if Pietro della Luna and his adversary did not establish peace within the church before Ascension-day, as they had promised, the kingdom of France in general, and the inhabitants of Dauphiny, would withdraw themselves from his obedience; for such had been the conclusion of the prelates who had attended this council, as was apparent from their letters to the university of Paris, in consequence of which the aforesaid obedience had been withdrawn by order of the king of France, until one properlyelected head of the church should be chosen. The doctor then proposed the means for granting dispensations and collations to benefices in the interim, as well for Dauphiny as for France, and also other measures proper to be taken during this neutrality. It was at length concluded, that no one should obey either of the popes after a certain day, under pain of suffering the before-mentioned penalties, and without incurring the indignation of the king. The doctor insisted, that the bull of excommunication, and some letters which had been brought from Toulouse, should be publicly destroyed, which was done.
The prelates and clergy were then ordered to proclaim their neutrality throughout their dioceses and parishes, and different documents were given them by the university to teach them how they were to govern themselves respecting the several points of this neutrality. When this had been done, every one retired to his home. On the morrow, the two Arragonians were again carried through Paris, and pilloried, in the same manner as before.
The queen, who had remained some time at Melun, returned to Paris with her son the dauphin. He was mounted on a white horse led by four footmen, and followed the car of the queen. The dukes of Berry, of Brittany and Bourbon, the counts de Mortaign, de Clermont, de Vendôme, and a numerous train of nobles, as well churchmen as seculars, and esquires, followed the dauphin. Great rejoicings were made on their return by the Parisians, and carols were sung in many of the streets. The queen, the dauphin, and the lord Louis of Bavaria, her brother, took up their lodgings in the castle of the Louvre. On the morrow, the duchess-dowager of Orleans came likewise to Paris with her daughter-in-law Isabella, eldest daughter to the king of France, accompanied by many noble persons, knights and others, dressed in mourning. All the before-mentioned princes went out of Paris to meet them, and conducted them to the queen and the duke of Aquitaine, to request of them justice and reparation for the melancholy death of the late duke of Orleans, and also permission to make a reply to charges which John duke of Burgundy had publicly brought against her late lord and husband the deceased duke of Orleans,—which last request she at length obtained.
CHAPTER xliv.–THE DUCHESS-DOWAGER OF ORLEANS AND HER SON CAUSE A PUBLIC ANswer to BE MADE, AT PARIs, To THE CHARGES of THE DUKE of BURGUNDY AGAINST THE LATE DUKE of or LEANs, AND CHALLENGE THE DUKE of BURGUNDY FOR HIS MURDER.
EIGHT days after, the duke of Orleans, attended by about three hundred men-at-arms, came to Paris. He was met by the duke of Berry and other great lords, his relations, without the gate of St. Antoine, and went to wait on the queen and the duke of Aquitaine, his cousin-german, at the castle of the Louvre. Having strongly recommended his cause to them, he took leave and hastened to visit the duchess his mother, and his wife. They were incessant in their petitions to the king and council to do them justice on John duke of Burgundy and his accomplices for the murder of the duke of Orleans, and obtained leave to make any reply they might please against the duke of Burgundy. In consequence, the duke of Aquitaine, as representative of his father, and the queen, both dressed in royal robes, went, by command of the king, to the great hall of the Louvre, where were present the dukes of Berry, of Brittany, of Bourbon, the counts d'Alençon, de Clermont, de Mortaign, de Vendôme, and many more lords of the council, with numbers of knights, the rector of the university of Paris, and great crowds of common people. The duchess-dowager, attended by her son the duke of Orleans, master Pierre l'Orfevre, his chancellor, master Pierre Cousinet, advocate in parliament, and by a large train of friends and familiars, entered the hall. She then caused to be read aloud by the abbot of St. Fiacre, of the order of St. Benedict, the contents of a book, written in French, which she gave to him publicly, and which were confirmed by quotations from the writings of the prophets in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as from those of philosophers and historians. The contents of the book were as follows: “Most Christian king, most noble and sovereign prince, and fountain of justice, to thee do I address my speech ; for thou art competent to display justice to all thy subjects of the realm of France, inasmuch as not only the neighbouring, but even the most distant nations may take example from the conscientiousness of thy judgments, which flow from thee and thy council, as from the fountains of justice and truth. I address myself to thee in the names of my highly honoured and most noble lady the duchess of Orleans and of my lords her children, who in their deplorable state present to thee their complaints with lamentations and tears, seeing that after God there can be no relief but in thy pity and compassion. That what I have to say may not have the smallest appearance of fallacy, but may be perfectly clear, I shall divide my discourse into three parts, or principal divisions. In the first, I shall show, to the utmost of my ability, that kings, as sovereigns, are bounden to do justice to all their subjects, and to maintain peace within their realms.-Secondly, That our adversary, John duke of Burgundy, and his abettors, have by counsel and otherwise, been instrumental in unjustly and disgracefully murdering the late duke of Orleans, whose soul may God receive!—Thirdly, That my aforesaid lord the late duke of Orleans, has been wickedly and unjustly accused of several crimes of high treason of which he has been no way guilty, as shall appear hereafter.—It is, beside, my intention to divide these three points into six other divisions: thus, therefore, my discourse will consist of eighteen divisions. “In regard to the first point, it appears very clear to me, that the king is singularly obliged to do justice in this case, and especially for six reasons. The first of which constrains him to do justice from the consideration of his power and dignity, which not only binds him to do it of his own will, but as matter of right from his title of office; for kings are so called on account of doing justice, and not for anything else.—The second reason is founded on his paternal love, for, as the common proverb says, “Nature cannot belie herself: the king, therefore, as sovereign and brother, is bound from reason and justice to support his right.— Thirdly, From the melancholy state of my lady of Orleans, now reduced to widowhood and despair, who with her disconsolate young children, and many knights, are overwhelmed with grief by the cruel death of her lord and husband.—The fourth reason is, The enormity of the crime, which can scarcely have its parallel found; for all who have heard of this scandalous deed have thought it abominable, and have dechared, that if the king did not provide a remedy for it, he could not be considered as sovereign of his kingdom when he is thus forced to humiliate himself before his subjects.—Fifthly, If this crime be not punished, innumerable evils will ensue, such as the destruction of cities and towns, murders, and rebellion of subjects.-Sixthly, The wickedness of our enemy, who by force of arms seeks to maintain his crime, and who pleads his cause with a drawn sword in his hand. And in these six reasons consist the grounds of our proceedings. “With respect to my second point, I will demonstrate by six reasons, that our adverse party has so greatly sinned that it is impossible for any reparation to make amends. “My first reason is, That our opponent had no authority whatever for murdering so great and so noble a person as the late duke of Orleans.—Secondly, That he followed no forms of law or justice in putting my late lord to such a death; and even supposing that he had any authority over him, which was not the case, it was illegal to put him to death without hearing what he might have to say in his own defence; and seeing that he had not any authority, his crime will appear so much the deeper.—Thirdly, From the alliances formed between these two dukes, I do not mean those of blood, but the engagements mutually entered into, to avoid the inconveniences that might arise from their quarrels, by which they were bounden not to annoy or attack each other without having sent a previous challenge. In confirmation of this, they had several times sworn to the same on the holy Scriptures, and on the cross of our Lord, giving to each other letters signed with their seals. —Fourthly, The death of my said lord of Orleans was so sudden that no true Christian can say it was not damnable to those who committed the crime, as well as to those who had commanded it.—Fifthly, I shall demonstrate clearly, that our opponent did not cause the late duke of Orleans to be murdered for any good purpose, nor for the public welfare, but solely through ambition and covetousness, from a lust of power, and in order to make his dependants rich, and from the great hatred that had been long fostered at his heart.— Sixthly, That the death of the late duke of Orleans was not sufficient for our adversary, but that he has exerted himself to the utmost to blast and scandalize his memory by defamatory libels, and by supporting traitors and murderers. This regards the second part of my discourse. “In respect to my third point, I shall produce six arguments, in opposition to the six false accusations brought by our adversary against the late duke of Orleans, and which shall clearly prove the innocence of the defunct. Such will be my third division. “I have thus shown you my three divisions. The first regards justice, the second declares the malice of our adversaries, and the third exonerates the late duke of Orleans from the false charges brought against him. Before I proceed further, I must here solemnly declare, that I intend not to say anything but the exact truth, or to advance more than has been enjoined me by my foresaid lady of Orleans, and my lords her children. “It is true, indeed, that the defender of our adversary has very unadvisedly called my late lord of Orleans criminal, although he has no way proved it; nevertheless I shall not use this expression in speaking of our adversary, though I repute all murderers criminal, and him in particular, not from any suspicion, but from the confession made by himself; and as wisdom conquers malice, according to the holy Scriptures, it will be sufficient for me to name the adverse party, the party of Burgundy; for it will be better that I first demonstrate the crimes, and then show the duke of Burgundy guilty of them, than to follow his example, and call him criminal without any proof or verification. I shall now, having divided my subject into three divisions, enter on my first point, which treats of the justice of the king, and quote the words of the prophet; which say, “Justitia et judicium praeparatio sedis tuæ.’ These words are in the lxxviiith Psalm, and declare to the king that his throne is founded on justice and judgment. I shall quote in regard to my second division; which relates to the malice of our adversary, the very words his defender made use of, namely, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas, quam quidem appetentes erraverunt a fide.” These words are taken from the first epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, in the last chapter, and which mean, That covetousness is the root of all evil, and causes a defalcation from the faith. “In regard to my third division, respecting the innocence of the late duke of Orleans, I shall use the words of the Psalmist in the seventh Psalm, “Judicame secundum justitiam tuam et secundum innocentiam meam super me; that is to say, Dome right according to thy justice, and judge me according to my innocence. “I shall now return to my first point, and repeat the words of the Psalmist, “Justitia et judicium praeparatio sedis tuæ.’ This expression I may address personally to the king our lord, in saying, Justice and judgment are the foundations of thy royal throne; for royalty without justice is undeserving of the name, and should be called a robbery, according to St. Austin, in the 10th chapter of his 9th book, De Civitate Dei : “Regna, inquit, remota a justitia, quid sint nisi magna latrocinia.’ It appears, therefore, that the king is bound to do justice to all his subjects, and to preserve to every one his right, and that for the six reasons touched upon at the beginning of my speech; my first reason being founded on the regard due to the royal dignity, which dignity has been instituted principally in order to do justice, the king being truly, in respect to his subjects, what a shepherd is to his flock, as Aristotle