Thus, then, the procedure followed could well seem correct and regular; the authorities did not fail to call the foreign doctors and jurists who were at the trial into consultation, as was the custom; nor to call the assessors to deliberate in complete freedom on the accusations brought against Joan; but the text which served as the basis of these deliberations was truncated, falsified and had never been read by the accused.
Consultations and deliberations went on from April 5th. On the 12th there was a deliberation in which the masters from the University of Paris played the preponderant part. A letter was subsequently drawn up by them accusing Joan of relying upon false revelations, of erring in her faith in claiming that the articles of faith were not better founded than her own revelations (a singular manipulation, as can be seen, of Joan’s actual protestations), and finally of being guilty of idolatry, schism, heresy, blasphemy, vaingloriousness, etc. Cauchon was careful thereafter to place this letter with the twelve articles before the other assessors when they were called into consultation.
We shall not here go at length into the attitude of these other assessors. But at all events it should be noted that the majority of them had attended only the first of the interrogations during the “instruction” of the case and were judging the matter from articles of accusation which were a travesty of the truth. It is also the case that a fair number of them, chosen by Cauchon for their devotion to the English cause and the theory of the double monarchy, could without difficulty range themselves alongside the representatives of the university. Among these we may distinguish some more clearly decided in the hostility to Joan apparent in their answers: the Bishop of Lisieux, Zanon de Castiglione, for example, and Philibert de Montjeu, Bishop of Coutances; likewise Denis Gastinel, and the almoner of the abbey of La Trinité of Fécamp, Jean de Bouesgue. The same sort of response could safely be expected from the abbot of the same abbey, Gilles de Duremort, whose services, as we have seen, were generously rewarded by the King of England. The same may be said of several others, among whom we shall mention only the archdeacon of Eu, Nicolas de Venderès, whom we shall meet again.
Some, however, showed themselves less forthcoming. Between the lines of their answers we can read an uneasy feeling about the whole business. Thus the abbots of Jumièges and Cormeilles asked that the whole trial be transferred before the University of Paris. Then, in a second letter required of them by Cauchon who was not satisfied with this, they asked that Joan be better informed of the case and that the danger she was running be clearly expounded to her. They added: “As there are facts which we cannot know . . . more especially as we were not present at the examination of the said woman, we refer to and rely upon the masters of theology for an ulterior judgment.”
Furthermore, eleven advocates of the Rouen Officiality expressed reservations, and three of the assessors, Bachelors of Theology, Pierre Minier, Jean Pigache and Richard de Grouchet, were in disagreement with Cauchon: “If these revelations proceed from God or from a good spirit, which however for us is not self-evident, they could not be taken as evil.”
Richard de Grouchet, giving evidence at the Trial of Rehabilitation: “Myself and the two called Pigache and Minier, gave our opinion in writing according to our conscience. It was not agreeable to the bishop and his assessors, who said to us: ‘Is this what you have done?’ ” (R.198)
And finally there was Raoul le Sauvage, Bachelor of Theology, who, albeit far from favourable to Joan, considered that the case should be taken before the Holy See.
It is only from certain indications and from the evidence given at the Trial of Rehabilitation, when Rouen had been liberated and lips could be unsealed, that we know of the resistance which Cauchon encountered. It should be noted, to start with, that the canons of Rouen were in no hurry to give their opinion. Having called an assembly of the chapter for the first time on April 13th, they found that there were too few of them present to enable them to deliberate. There was another chapter meeting on the next day at which they agreed to ask that the twelve articles be read to Joan in French and that she be better instructed in the matter of submitting to the Church. Their letter, as if accidentally omitted, is not to be found in the definitive text of the proceedings. Cauchon had summoned them to hold a third chapter which they did on May 4th, and at this one (and we can imagine the pressure which was brought to bear on it) the canons pronounced Joan guilty.
Also missing from the final text of the proceedings is a letter written by the Bishop of Avranches, Jean de Saint-Avit, and we only know of its existence from the evidence given by Isambart de la Pierre during the Rehabilitation proceedings:
“Myself, in person, I was called before the Bishop of Avranches, a very old and good cleric, who like the others had been summoned and requested to give his opinion on this case. For that, the bishop questioned me, asking what my lord Saint Thomas said and determined touching the submission which was owed to the Church. I gave the bishop, in writing, the determination of Saint Thomas, who says: ‘In things doubtful regarding the faith, recourse should be had to the pope or the general council (synod).’ The good bishop was of that opinion and seemed to be very ill-pleased with the deliberation (decision) which had been taken already. This deliberation (the bishop’s) was not put into the writing, it was left out by malice.” (R.269)
His conduct in this matter earned the Bishop of Avranches the rancour of the English and of Cauchon. In the following year, 1432, accused of having taken part in a plot designed to liberate Rouen, he was to be imprisoned despite his great age. And this is the place to mention two other people who, despite the danger they ran, had the courage to oppose Cauchon. “Threats were uttered against master Jean Lohier and master Nicolas de Houppeville, under pain of being drowned because they would not attend the trial,” declared Guillaume de La Chambre, one of the Rehabilitation witnesses. And Guillaume Manchon himself was to give details of Jean Lohier’s conduct on this occasion:
“When the trial was started,” he says, “master Jean Lohier, a learned Norman clerk, came to the town of Rouen and there was communicated to him by the Bishop of Beauvais, what was in writing. Lohier asked for a delay of two or three days to see (consider) it. He was told that he must give his opinion at once and to that he was constrained. And Master Jean Lohier, when he had seen (read) the proceedings, said that it was worthless for several reasons: for as much as it had not the form of an ordinary trial. It was carried on in a place closed and locked where those present were not at liberty to say their full and pure will; they were dealing in this matter with the honour of the King of France whose cause Joan supported, without calling himself or anyone from him; neither libels nor articles had been delivered (to the prisoner) and this woman, who was a simple girl, had no counsel to answer so many doctors and masters and on great matters, especially those touching her revelations, as she said. And for all that, it seemed to him that the proceedings were not valid.
“My lord de Beauvais,” he went on, “was very indignant against Lohier, and although he had told him to remain and see the said trial carried on, Lohier replied that he would not stay, and at once my lord de Beauvais . . . sought out the Masters (of the university) to whom he said: ‘Here is Lohier who wants to wreck our trial with his interlocutory judgments.* He would calumniate the whole thing and says it is worthless. If he is to be believed, everything is to be done over again, and what we have done is good for nought.’ And, reporting the reasons why Lohier wanted it annulled, he said, ‘It is easy to see which side he is lame. By St. John we shall do nothing of the sort and will continue our trial as it began.’ It was then the Saturday afternoon in Lent. On the following morning I spoke to Lohier in the church of Our Lady of Rouen, and asked him what he thought of Joan’s trial. He answered: ‘You see the manner of their proceeding. They will catch her if they can by her own words, that is to say in the assertions where she says, “I know for a certainty” touching her apparitions, whereas if she said, “it seems to me”, instead of “I know for a certainty�
��, there is not a man living who could condemn her. It seems that they are proceeding more from hatred than otherwise, and for that cause I shall stay here no longer, for I want nothing to do with it.’ And, in fact, he always thereafter remained in the Court of Rome and he died dean of the Rota.”† (R.259–61)
At the time of the Trial of Rehabilitation there still survived one of those righteous souls for whom the word justice really meant something, Nicolas de Houppeville. He himself was thus able to give an account of the sanctions which were applied to him: “I was sent for one day at the beginning of the trial and I did not go because I was prevented by another case. When I went, on the second day, I was not received; I was, indeed, ordered out (of court) by the lord Bishop of Beauvais, and that was because I had said earlier, when I was discussing it with Master Colles, that there was a danger in bringing this case for several (many) reasons. This remark was reported to the bishop. That was why the bishop had me put into the royal prisons at Rouen from which I was delivered at the prayer of the then lord abbot of Fécamp. I heard it said that, on the advice of certain people whom the bishop had called together for that (purpose), it was decided to send me into exile in England or elsewhere, out of the city of Rouen, which would have been done but for the intervention of the abbot and some of my friends.” (R.262)
It is well known, of course, that after Joan’s burning, a Dominican, Pierre Bosquier, was cast into prison for having given his opinion of her condemnation.
Meanwhile Joan, in her prison, had fallen ill. The Duchess of Bedford’s* physician, Jean Tiphaine, was sent to treat her. He gave an account of this occasion during the Trial of Rehabilitation:
“When Joan was ill the judges sent me to visit her and I was taken to her by the man d’Estivet. In the presence of d’Estivet, of Master Guillaume de la Chambre, Master of Medicine, and of several others, I felt her pulse to learn the cause of her sickness and I asked her what was the matter and where she felt pain. She answered me that a carp had been sent to her by the Bishop of Beauvais, that she had eaten of it, and that that was the cause of her sickness. Then d’Estivet scolded her saying that that was false and he called her wanton, saying, ‘It is thou, wanton, who hast eaten shad and other things which have done thee harm.’ She answered that she had not and many injurious (insulting) words were exchanged between Joan and d’Estivet. Later, wishing to know more of Joan’s sickness, I heard it said by people who were there that she had vomited many times.” (R.204–205)
The other physician, Guillaume de la Chambre, was also alive at the time of the Rehabilitation, and was called to give evidence: “In what concerns her sickness, the cardinal of England† and the Earl of Warwick sent for me. I presented myself before them with Master Guillaume Desjardins, Master of Medicine, and other physicians. Then the Earl of Warwick told us that Joan has been (taken) ill, as had been reported to him, and that he had sent for us that we might take care of her, for not for anything in the world would the King have her die a natural death. The King, indeed, held her dear for he had bought her dear, and would not have her die excepting at the hands of justice, and that she be burnt. And we so wrought, visiting her with care, that she was cured. I went to see her, as did Master Desjardins and the others. We palpated her on the right side and found her feverish. We therefore decided to bleed her. When we made our report to the Earl of Warwick he said: ‘Be careful when bleeding her, for she is cunning and might kill herself.’ Nevertheless, she was bled, which gave her immediate relief. As soon as she was thus better, came one Master Jean d’Estivet who exchanged insulting words with Joan and called her ‘whore, wanton’. She was by this so irritated (excited) that she became feverish again and fell ill again. That came to the earl’s knowledge who forbade d’Estivet to insult Joan thenceforth.” (R.205–206)
From the point of view of proper procedure, the next stage was that of the so-called “charitable admonitions”. This was the regular thing in the Inquisition courts: when the preliminary examination (instruction) of the case had revealed that the accused was guilty, he must be brought either to a full admission of guilt, or to repentance. That was the aim of the admonitions. In cases where there was a beginning of proof of guilt in the accused, the use of torture was permissible.
On Wednesday, April 18th, Joan being still sick and confined to her bed, the first charitable admonition was administered to her. Into her cell went Cauchon, the Vice-Inquisitor Jean Lemaitre, three Masters from the University of Paris, Jacques de Touraine, Nicolas Midy and Gérard Feuillet, an English clerk William Haiton, and three other men whose names appear only rarely in the minutes of the proceedings, Guillaume Boucher, Maurice Du Chène, Guillaume Adelie. It was Cauchon himself who undertook the admonitions. He first proposed to Joan that she should choose among the assessors composing the court who would be her counsel. He pointed out that if she would not take counsel or follow the Church’s advice, she was in great danger.
JOAN: It seems to me, in view of the sickness that I have, that I am in great danger of death; and if it be so that God would do His will upon me, I ask to have confession and the sacrament of the Eucharist and to be buried in holy ground.
CAUCHON: If you have the sacraments of the Church you must declare yourself a good Catholic and submit to the Church.
JOAN: I am not able to say anything else to you at present.
CAUCHON: The more you fear for your life because of the sickness which you have, the more should you amend your ways. . . .
JOAN: If my body dies in prison, I expect you to put it in holy ground, and if you do not have it put there, I expect it of God. . . . (Or, “I put my trust in God”).
CAUCHON: Since you ask that the Church give you the sacrament of the Eucharist, will you submit yourself to the Church Militant and a promise to give you that sacrament would be given you?
JOAN: I shall not do otherwise about that submission.* God I love, I serve Him and am a good Christian and I would help and sustain the Church with all my power.
CAUCHON: Would you have us order a beautiful and notable procession to restore you to a proper state if you are not in such a state?
JOAN: I should indeed like the Church and Catholics to pray for me. (C.329–333)
A second admonition took place on May 2nd. With her health restored Joan had recovered her attitude of defiance. It is probable that an episode which the official account leaves out, as it leaves out the opinions given by Jean de Saint-Avit and Jean Lohier, should be placed here, just before this solemn admonition. This episode was not known until later, when it came out at the Trial of Rehabilitation.
Guillaume Manchon: “Master Jean de La Fontaine, from the beginning of the trial until the week after Easter 1431, was substitute for my lord of Beauvais in questioning her when the bishop was absent. Nevertheless he was always present with the bishop during the argument of the trial, and the Maid was hard pressed to submit herself to the Church by this La Fontaine and brother Isambart de la Pierre and Martin Ladvenu, by whom she was warned that she must believe and hold by our Holy Father the pope and those who presided over the Church Militant and that she must not doubt that she ought to submit to our Holy Father the pope and the Holy Synod, for there were both, at her side and elsewhere, many notable clerks; and that, if she did not so, she would put herself in great peril; and on the day after she had been thus warned, she said that she would readily submit herself to our Holy Father the pope and to the Holy Synod. When my lord of Beauvais heard of this remark, he demanded to know who had been to see her the day before. He sent for the Maid’s English guard and asked who had spoken to her. The guard answered him that it had been the said La Fontaine and the two religious. And for that, in the absence of La Fontaine and the religious, the bishop became furiously angry with Jean Lemaitre, vicar of the Inquisitor, loudly threatening to cause them distress (or, “do them mischief”, “bring them to grief”). And when La Fontaine had word of this and that he was menaced for that cause, he left that city of Rouen and since came not back. And
as for the two religious, had it not been that Lemaitre made their excuses and supplicated on their behalf, saying that if any grievous thing was done to them never would he appear at the trial, they would have been in danger of death. And thenceforth it was forbidden by my lord of Warwick that any go into the Maid, excepting my lord of Beauvais or on his behalf, and whenever it should please the bishop to go to her. But the vicar was not to go to her without him.” (R.218–219)
Guillaume Duval, who belonged, like the two other Dominicans and the vice-Inquisitor, to the convent of Saint-Jacques of Rouen, confirmed this evidence. And in the event neither La Fontaine nor Ladvenu were among the sixty-three assessors present at the charitable admonitions of May 2nd, which is what makes it likely that the scene described above may have occurred on May 1st.
The questioning was undertaken by Jean de Chatillon.
Question: Will you correct and amend yourself according to the decision of the doctors?
JOAN: Read your book and then I will answer you. I trust in God my creator, in all. I love Him with all my heart.
Question: Will you answer more fully to this general admonition?
JOAN: I trust in my Judge, that is King of Heaven and earth. . . .
Question: Will you submit to the Church Militant?
JOAN: I believe indeed in the Church here below, but for my deeds and sayings, as I said formerly, I trust in and abide by Our Lord. I do believe that the Church Militant cannot be at fault nor fail, but as for my sayings and deeds, I place them and refer them in all to God who has made me do all that I have done.
Question: Do you mean that you have no judge upon earth? Our Holy Father the pope, is not he your judge?
Joan of Arc Page 24
