« ZurückWeiter »
should seem that this was an imposture. Nevertheless some of the matters related are well fitted to raise a doubt, they having received no kind of explanation. M. Barante passes the whole over in silence; M. Sismondi (xiii. 194) only mentions that Dom Calmet, in his Hist. de Lorraine, gives the extract from the contemporary chronicle of St. Thiebault. But the facts are worthy of attention.
M. Turpin (Sup. de l'Encyclop., i. 531) states the grounds upon which many contended that the woman was not an impostor who appeared the year after Bedford's death and declared she was Joan. First. Seven weeks were suffered by the Bishop of Beauvais to elapse between the last sentence and the execution, which it is suggested one so anxious for her death never would have done, except that there was delay in finding the capital convict to be substituted for her. But no delay whatever took place; and even if there had, it was easily explained by the efforts made to obtain a second confession from her. Secondly. Charles making no effort in her behalf is urged; but plainly no reliance is to be placed on this argument. Thirdly. A grant is produced from the Duc d'Orléans in 1443 to Pierre, brother of the Maid, proceeding upon his petition (supplication), in which he represents his loyalty, and especially his services to the Crown in accompanying his sister when she left her country, and he adds that he had constantly been with her ever since. Fourthly. The woman married in 1436 the Sieur des Armoises (some accounts have it Hermoises), a gentleman of good property. The contract of marriage between Jeanne du Lis (the name her family had been allowed by Charles to take) and Robert des Armoises is stated by P. Viguier, dean of St. Thiebault of Metz, to have been seen by him. The MS. of the Dean is cited by Dom Calmet, as is the contract : and it must be observed that Metz was the place where she said she had resided after her escape, and before she returned to her home. M. Turpin naturally remarks upon the impossibility of believing that an impostor could have deceived the Maid's own brothers, Peter and John. He does not show that John was deceived, but the MS. mentions John's belief as well as Peters. It is to be observed that the impostor was perfectly successful, not only in persuading the Chev. des Armoises, but many others, including the Dean himself. She resided some time at Metz with her husband, and she had also so far deceived the Comte de Vunembourg that he had armour made which he presented her with. The marriage was at Erlon : “ Là (says the Metz MS.) fût fait le mariage de M. des Hermoises, chevalier, et de Gehanne la Pucelle, et puis après s'en vint le dit Sieur avec sa femme la Pucelle demeurer à Metz, et se tint là jusqu'à tant qu'il leur plaisit aller."
M. Turpin observes that it would be better at once to deny the whole story than to suppose, as some have done, that she persuaded the brothers. But it is possible they may have been in league with her to deceive M. Armoises and the Duc d'Orléans. Lord Mahon, however, adds (from Petitot) a very important fact, which cannot be got rid of by any such hypothesis. The Receiver-General's accounts at Orleans contain, it seems, three entries for money paid in 1436 to entertain the Maid and her brothers ; in 1439, to entertain la dame Jehanne des Armoises ; and in August, 1439, for a gift to the same lady on account of her great services at the siege. This appears in Petitot's Coll. de Mém., tome viii. 311. His Lordship justly remarks on the difficulty of supposing that the people of Orleans could have been deceived respecting her person (Hist. Ess., pt. i. 54); and it must be recollected that the first of these entries relates to a period when there must have been many still living who well remembered the siege only seven years before. M. Petitot escapes from the difficulty, and does not meet it.
There seems but one means of escaping from the conclusion to which these circumstances lead. It is not easily to be supposed that the fact of her having escaped from her enemies should have been concealed both by Charles and his partisans, and by the friends of Bedford ; and in the proceeding, in 1456, for her vindication at the instance of her brothers, it seems incredible that the fact of her having survived should not have been brought forward, had not the imposture at that time been thoroughly exposed and forgotten.
The ease with which all kinds of marvels seem to have obtained believers after the first appearance of the Maid is also to be considered. Several persons came forward pretending to heavenly gifts. One of them, called the Pastouret, bad even been made use of by the Freuch captains; but being taken in a skirmish a short time before Henry's coronation he was led to Paris and treated as a madman. He was drowned in the Seine.
Voltaire (Mel. Hist., iii. 265), in very dogmatically treating the story of Madame des Armoises as a manifest imposture, says, without his wonted acuteness, that she succeeded in “deceiving the Maid's brothers.” He adds, that there were two other women who had also some success in passing for Joan. As usual, he gives no authority; and among the endless number of books on the subject of the Maid it is useless to conjecture whence he took the statement.
The best of the later works are Le Brun's Extracts from the MS. in the Bib. du Roi ; Laverdy's Biography, published in 1815 ; Quicherat's late publication, Procès de Jeanne d'Arc; and Petitot's Col. des Mémoires relatifs à l'Histoire de France, vol, viii.
M. Petitot (Coll. de Mém., viii. 325) has given a full account of Cazes' attempt to prove that the Maid was the daughter of Queen Isabelle by D'Orléans. It seems wholly unworthy of notice except that, perhaps, this opinion might explain the great puzzle of Madame des Armoises.
Note LX. p. 284. The history of these times is fruitful in similar illustrations of the weakness which the remains of the feudal system entailed upon the executive power. But I hardly know a better instance than is afforded by the intrigues which beset Charles on his wishing to appoint Richemont successor of Buchan the Constable, killed at Verneuil in 1429. Richemont, though he had been won over by Bedford's address and by his own revenge, also by Bedford's suit to the Burgundian Princess, yet retained his affection for France and his antipathy to England, where he had
been kept a prisoner, some say from he battle of Agincourt till Henry's death. The importance of winning him over to Charles was as clear; and this great national object met with endless obstacles when Charles proposed to make him Buchan's successor. The Duke of Brittany, Richemont's brother, was fattered by the proposal, and one of the motives for it was the gaining that Prince. The President Louvet was sent to the court of Brittany, but the Duke personally hated him on account of a plot against his person of which he suspected him, and which Bedford had always adroitly urged as a reason for the Duke standing aloof from Charles, whose entire confidence Louvet enjoyed. Louvet was ordered to quit the Court of Brittany, and Charles then made another attempt through the Queen of Sicily, assisted by Tanneguy du Châtel. This gave offence to Philip, and then it was arranged that Richemont should not go to Charles without that Prince's approval. This he was pleased to give, flattered with the proposition. At length Richemont went, but only to raise another difficulty: he must have the consent of Philip and of the Duke of Savoy before he accepted the Constable's staff. The Burgundian made the retirement of Tanneguy du Châtel from Charles's councils a condition of his assent on account of the murder at Montereau, and the Duke of Brittany required Louvet to be also removed because of the supposed plot against his person. Charles yielded, but retained ever after so great a spite against Richemont on account of Louvet and Tanneguy's dismissal, that he refused to allow his presence at the coronation of Rheims, and thus greatly abridged the benefits he might have derived from the whole arrangement.
There is a curious paper of M. Boivin (Ac. des Insc., tom. ii. 690) Sur la Bibliothèque du Louvre sous Charles V., VI., et VII. Charles V., who was fond of reading, and not merely on judicial astrology as has been sometimes said, always regarded a present of books as the most valuable he could receive, and partly from those left him by his father, partly by his own collection, possessed 900 volumes. They were in the tower called Tour de la Librairie. They were chiefly religious, but some also on astrology-many of history-some romances—few classics, and these only poets. He read these only in French translations. He had given away some volumes. After his death twenty were added. In 1423 there were 853 volumes, valued at 2323 livres. Bedford, 22nd of June, 1425, took an account of them, and he is said in one catalogue to have bought them for 1200 fr. There is no doubt that he carried the bulk of them over to England, though some remained in private hands, having been lent before 1441, when Count Angoulême bought one of them in London. Mr. Hallam refers to this memoir (Lit. of Mid. Ages, ch. 1) under the name of Bouvin, and corrects Warton, who had said that Cicero was among the MSS. in the library, which certainly is incorrect. But Christine de Pisan (Livre des fais et bonnes Mæurs du sage Roy Charles V., pt. iii. ch. 12) mentions Aristotle's Ethics and Politics, Valerius Maximus, and Livy, as having been translated by his direction, and L'Abbé Lebeuf (Acad. des Insc.) gives the names of the translators.
Note LXII.- p. 185. Now that the controversy between the parties Armagnacs and Bourguignons has so long ceased, there seems hardly in any quarter beyond the Duchy itself any disposition to defend the character of Jean-sans-Peur, or even to extenuate the enormities of which he was guilty on almost all the occasions that gave either liis calculating selfishness or his cruel propensities scope to act. But the writers of the Duchy are very fond of dwelling upon his capacity and his courage, and seem to take a pride in holding him up to admiration for those qualities. Indeed it may be observed that even M. Barante, though labouring less under this prejudice, expresses himself with more forbearance than is