« 前へ次へ »
committed so atrocious a deed legally and justifiably. If he fuel no shame for his wickedness, he ought at least to be sensible of his thus meanly contradicting himself. Consider also, that he was desirous of concealing his crime; and God knows, that if his deed had been of that worth as has been advanced for him, he would have gloried in having so done, and not have wished to remain undiscovered as the perpetrator. And why did he own his guilt? Because it could no longer be concealed. That this was the cause is apparent; for when he perceived that it must be known, he fled most precipitately from Paris, like to one in despair. He might have said, with Judas the traitor, “Peccavi tradens sanguinem justum.” “O Philip, duke of Burgundy! wert thou now alive, thou wouldst not have approved the conduct of our adversary, but wouldst have said thy son had degenerated. Thou wert surnamed The Bold, - but he was always fearful and suspicious, consequently a traitor. Thou mightst have truly applied to him what is written in the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, ‘Cur temptavit Sathanas cortuum mentiri te Spiritui Sancto ? non es mentitus hominibus sed Deo.’ “My fifth argument is grounded on the falsehood of the declarations of our opponent, that he had caused the death of the duke of Orleans with the purest intentions; for, on the contrary, he committed this crime through lust of power, and to gain greater authority over the kingdom, and also to possess himself of the royal treasury, that he might more largely gratify and increase his dependence. This is evident from the conduct of our adversary before and after the death of the duke of Orleans. It is a truth, that shortly after the death of his father the duke of Burgundy, he exerted himself to the utmost to obtain similar power in this realm, and with the same pensions and authority as his late father had enjoyed. But this was not granted to him, because his father had been uncle to the king, and was a man of great prudence and understanding, qualities not possessed by our adversary. Having been disappointed, he instantly began to practise how he could better obtain his object; and for this end, prior to the death of the duke of Orleans, he caused reports to be circulated throughout the kingdom of his affection to the public weal, and that he alone was the fittest person to govern it. When he perceived, that in spite of his fictions, the duke of Orleans still possessed the authority he was panting for, because he was the son of a king, and the only brother to the king, and more fit for the government than the duke of Burgundy, seeing, therefore, all his plans frustrated, he conspired to take away the life of the duke of Orleans, expecting that when he should be made away with, no other person would dare to dispute his having the sole government of the kingdom. This is the principal cause of so barbarous a murder, notwithstanding the arguments that have been urged in his excuse, as is well known to all. His conduct, likewise, after the death of my late lord of Orleans, confirms it; for instantly, on his return to Paris, he began to push forward those that were his dependants and supporters, by depriving many valiant and deserving men of places which they held under the king, without any other cause but that they had been appointed to them by my lord of Orleans, as others had been, and giving their offices to such as he pleased, in order to gain more authority and power. He also endeavoured to make all placemen, particularly those who had the management of the royal treasury, subservient to him, that they might not refuse him anything. “Our adversary was most anxious to have the government of the treasury, and obtained from it the sum of two hundred thousand livres, by warrants thereon, or otherwise, great part of which he distributed among his people, as is well known to the clerks of the treasury; and this was his principal object in putting to death his rival in power, my late lord of Orleans, namely, covetousness of the king's money, and to give it away and enrich his followers. It appears, therefore, that covetousness and pride have been the springs of his actions; but, please God, he shall not in this instance profit from them,-and the words of Job, in his seventh chapter, shall be verified, “Cum habuerit quod cupierit, possidere non poterit.' “My sixth and last argument is founded on the conduct of our adversary, who, not satisfied with having murdered the late duke of Orleans, attempts, in conjunction with his followers, to deprive him of his good fame and renown, by defamatory libels, wherein he groundlessly and falsely charges him with the crimes of divine and human high treason, of which he was perfectly innocent, as has been, and shall be again demonstrated. It may be said, that this justification is even more scandalous than the fact itself; for to fall into sin is the lot of humanity, but obstinately to persevere in it is diabolical. And this manner of justifying murder is the defence of his own sin, and daring to do what God hates: he follows not the example of David when he said, “Non declines cor meum in verba malicias ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis.' “I come now to my third division, in which I shall reply to the defamatory libel, and to the accusations therein, that were made by our adversary against the character of my late lord of Orleans. I may fairly quote the words of the Psalmist, on the part of my late lord, “Judicame, Domine, secundum justitiam mean, et secundum innocentiam mean super me.’ This request the Psalmist makes to God, and such a request, O king ! does the duchess of Orleans now make to thee, as she requires nothing but judgment and justice. May it please thee to listen to the answers of my lady of Orleans to the six charges brought against her late lord, and thou wilt then judge whether he has not been unjustly accused. “The first charge brought against the late duke of Orleans by the advocate of the duke of Burgundy is, That during his lifetime he committed the crime of high treason in the highest degree, by his idolatrous conduct in witchcrafts and sorceries, contrary to the Christian faith and the honour of God. It is true, that in regard to this accusation, the advocate did not pursue it very far, saying, that the judgment of such crimes belonged to God, the sovereign Lord, meaning, that no human judge was competent to it. When making this charge, he spoke of an apostate monk and several sorcerers, in whom my late lord of Orleans put confidence, according to his allegations. I shall scarcely offer any reply to this accusation, but, in like manner as he has done, refer the whole to the judgment of God. It will be sufficient for me to show, in the first place, That my late lord of Orleans was a good and true Christian; that he never committed any sorceries or idolatries, nor ever departed from the faith of Jesus Christ. I may likewise add, That from his youth upward, he was of a religious turn of mind,-for, notwithstanding his fondness for amusements, his reliance was in God, to whom he very often confessed himself. Nay, the very Saturday preceding his death, he had most devoutly confessed himself, with many signs of contrition, declaring he would not longer follow youthful pastimes, but solely devote himself to the service of God, and to that of the public welfare. That I may not be suspected of uttering falsehoods, many religieux as well as others are now alive to whom he had made such declarátions; and, without saying more, let his uncle the duke of Bourbon be heard, who knows what promises he made to God, for a little before his decease, he assured him, that henceforward his conduct should be such as to merit the approbation of God and mankind, and that all the inhabitants of this kingdom should be bound to pray for him. I know not if our adversary had heard of these wise declarations, or whether he was afraid of their being effected, as they were quite in opposition to his wish for the government; for he well knew that if my lord of Orleans should act as he had said he would, his authority in the kingdom would have been very small indeed. It may therefore be presumed, it was for this that he was so eager to have my lord of Orleans put to death. “O Lord God thou knowest how well he was inclined toward thee at the time of his being murdered, which gives me confidence in his salvation; for the holy Scripture says, * Justus si morte praeoccupatus fuerit in refrigerio erit.’ It is, however, evident, that our adversary did all he could to destroy his soul, and afterwards heard mass most devoutly in appearance, putting what had passed out of his thoughts, and daily saying his canonical prayers. “O duke of Burgundy! why hast thou done all this through hypocrisy and fiction? Who has revealed to thee the secrets of hearts 2 and who has made thee the judge of men's thoughts 2 Thou resemblest the Pharisees, who called CHRIST a deceiver and possest of a devil! Thou knowest, that even angels are ignorant of the secrets of our hearts, and yet thou pretendest to judge them O ! how well does the Psalmist exclaim, ‘Tu solus es scrutans renes et corda '' “It is notorious, that my late lord founded many masses and private chapels, doing much service to the church : let then his last will, so devoutly written, be considered with what I have before said, and any one may decide whether he was an idolater or sorceler. It is true, indeed, that the advocate for our adversary refers to the judgment of God all that respects divine high treason, saying that he will not make this an especial charge against the late duke of Orleans. But I now ask why he thus acts Z Because he knows the charge is groundless, and that in many places human judges may and do punish sorcerers and idolaters according to their power; and that numbers have for these crimes been condemned to death, because they were bad Christians, and that from such errors of the faith proceed heresies. It is written in the second book of Kings, that Josias killed and extirpated diviners and sorcerers; and in the tenth chapter of Zecharias, ‘Divini viderunt mendacium et somniatores locuti sunt frustra.’ It is also written in the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, ‘Ne declinetis ad magos, nec ab ariolis aliquid sciscitemini.” The reason why the advocate passed so rapidly over this charge was, that he knew nothing against my lord of Orleans that could prove him a bad Christian, or that he was not firm in his belief of religion. O, lord king ! my lady of Orleans supplicates thee, that the words of Job, in the twenty-second chapter, may be verified,—“Salvabitur innocens in munditia manuum suarum.' “The second accusation was, That my lord of Orleans favoured the schism in the church, by affording aid to Pietro della Luna, formerly called Pope Benedict, and was consequently guilty of high treason in the second degree. In reply, I say, that my lord of Orleans gave no aid nor showed any favour, but with the laudable end of making an honourable peace in the church, and particularly when he considered Benedict as the true pope. It is well known, that our obedience to the church would have been brought about more to our honour if Pietro della Luna had done his duty, by yielding up his claims, for the union of the church, than by violently supporting them. My lord of Orleans may have said, it will be better to wait a little, for the above Pietro to send in his cession, than by hurrying make affairs worse. In this there could not be any evil intentions; for it is a fact that he was anxious for the anion of the church, and believed firmly that Pietro della Luna was willing to abdicate his claims, whenever the Roman pontiff should do the same. Many are now living who have heard the duke swear, that if he knew Pietro della Luna was unwilling to yield up his pretensions, when the other pope should resign his, he would be the bitterest enemy he had in the world; and should it be thought necessary, they are ready to prove it. Now let us consider what advantage the division of the church could be of to him. He was wise enough to see all the evils that flowed from it, and not so weak as to found confidence on a man so old as Pietro della Luna. He knew, besides, that by the union of the church more spiritual and temporal advantages would fall to the share of himself and friends, without comparison, than if the schism were continued. “To show more evidently the earnest desire my lord of Orleans had for a union of the church, I will mention a proposal which he made to the university of Paris three weeks before his death. When he perceived that the Roman pontiff would neither come to Genoa nor Savoy, nor accept as hostages those who had been presented to him by the mareschal de Boucicaut, and that nothing else prevented the union of the church, for Pietro della Luna was ready to go to either of these places, he addressed the following speech to the members of the university: ‘O rector, and you all my good friends ! see I pray ye that we may shortly, through the grace of God, restore peace to the church, and may give satisfactory security, that the Roman pope may come to Genoa. I have offered him the choice of one of my sons, as his hostage, and am ready to send him, at my own expense, to Venice, or elsewhere. Write, therefore, such letters as you shall think proper to him, and I will sign them. Tell what I have said to the whole university, and bring me their opinions on it.’ The heads of the university thanked him very warmly for his offer, -adding, that he could not make a more generous proposal, and that he had demonstrated by it the affection he bore to the church. There are persons still living whom he had ordered to go to Rome and Venice to give notice of the offer he had made. Now, my lords, could he have done more than to give his own flesh and blood for an hostage 7 And our witnesses of this act are neither weak nor ignorant persons, but doctors and professors of theology. “O duke of Burgundy this will show to thee how false has been thy accusation; and on this charge thou oughtest to have been silent, knowing as thou must how anxious thou wert to acquire the friendship of Pietro della Luna. At the time when Pietro was in the greatest disgrace, thou didst write and send to him to obtain bishoprics and other preferments for thy dependants; and thy messengers were not pages nor common persons, but the guardian of thy soul, namely, thy confessor, that he might the more clearly and securely explain thy meaning. “It was also said, that my lord of Orleans consented to the malicious excommunication sent by Pietro della Luna to induce the king to continue his obedience to him. Now it is quite clear that this wicked excommunication carries no effect against Pietro della Luna, except in case the king should become disobedient, and that he had given his consent to the said excommunication, which, as has been said, was to have no effect, except in case of renunciation of allegiance or disobedience. It is certain that Pietro della Luna was of a temper obstinate enough to do such things, and that he acted thus without consulting any one, and as certain that my lord of Orleans was unfavourable to this act, for it was not put in force until after his death. Weigh, at the same time, my lords, the misconduct of our adversary, and the innocence of the duke of Orleans, who may say with the Psalmist, ‘Os peccatoris et os dolosi super me apertum est, locuti sunt adversum me lingua dolosa, et sermonibus odii circumdederunt me.’ “The third charge of our adversary is, that my late lord of Orleans practised different means to cause the death of his prince and lord, the king of France: first, as it is said, by sorceries, witchcrafts, and superstitions; – secondly, by poisons;–thirdly, by fire, water, or other violent injections, which consequently inculpates my lord of Orleans in the crime of human high treason, in the person of the king our lord. “In regard to the first part of the charge relative to poison, supposed to be administered by a monk under the forms of a sword, a buckler, a ring, or a wand,-and that, to accomplish this, my lord of Orleans had sent for this monk, a knight, an esquire, and a varlet, to whom, our adversary says, he gave large sums of money, - all this I deny as absolute falsehoods, for my said lord of Orleans never consented to sorceries or such forbidden deeds. Should this monk have done such sorceries, it was no way through the exhortation of my lord of Orleans, nor ought this to have been so lightly alleged against him, for there was a long trial held of this monk before the ministers of the king, from whom the truth may be known. It was then discovered by the confession of the monk, that my lord had forbidden him to use any magic arts that would any way prove to the prejudice of the king's person; : and God knows, if there had been any truth in the charge, it would not have been concealed until after my lord's death. By this, the falsehood of the accusation is evident; and although my foresaid lord may have at times held some conversation with this monk, let it be remembered that he was then young, not more than eighteen years old, and that princes of that age are frequently deceived by artful talkers, to gain money from them. With respect to the bone wrapped up in a small linen bag, which he wore between his shirt and skin, as our adversary says, until it was torn from him by a knight, whom he hated ever after, and continued to persecute until he had ruined him in his fortune, and procured his banishment out of the realm,_this is most assuredly false; for the knight was banished the kingdom by sentence of the courts of justice, for a very notorious cause; and this odious circumstance was never mentioned but by this knight, who published it, and who, according to our adversary, was suspected of hatred to the duke of Orleans, and consequently not a competent witness to be admitted against the defunct. “Consider, my lords, what falsehoods are contained in the accusations of our adversary, and that such as read his libel must be deceived. It behoves, therefore, the reverend professors of theology to correct it as soon as possible, for they know that such libels ought not to be written nor published ; but the most marvellous circumstance of all is, that this libel and these falsehoods have been suffered and made public by a theologian in the presence of the king's majesty. We are at present in a similar situation to that in which Saint Austin represents the companion of the physician and astrologer disputing on twin children, the one fat and the other lean. The astrologer attributing the difference to the ascendancy of the stars, the physician declaring, that the fat one received the soul first, and, being the strongest, sucked nearly the whole of the food, which ought to be believed : The physician.
certainly, as St. Austin says. We, in like manner, may give greater credit to the faculty of medicine in this manner than to the faculty of theology: the professor has very foolishly argued his case. “O most merciful God! apply a remedy to this, for thou seest theologians affirm that sorcerers may succeed in their incantations; and it is erring against the holy Scriptures to say, that sorcerers are others than liars. And the wise Solomon makes this answer to those who asserted similar errors, in the 33d chapter of Ecclesiasticus, ‘Quod divinatio erroris, et arguta mendacia et somnia maleficiorum vanitas est.' Thomas Aquinas quotes this authority to prove that sorcerers cannot succeed. O thou university of Paris please to correct thyself; for such absurd sciences are not only forbidden, as being contrary to the honour of God, but as containing nothing true, which is confirmed by the workers of magic. “Ovid says, in his book, ‘De Remedia Amoris,'
‘Fallitur Hermiona si quis mala pabula terrae :
“Master John de Bar, who was very expert in this accursed art, and who was burnt, with all his books, declared, at his last confession, that the devil never appeared to him, and that his invocations and sorceries never succeeded, although many said the contrary. He added, that he had practised this art to obtain money from persons of high rank. It is therefore most strange to charge the duke of Orleans with such vain and foolish sorceries, as there never was a man who hated them more, or who persecuted such as practised them with greater rigour. “Every one knows that my late lord was the principal cause of the trial of John de Bar and of two Augustan friars, before the king's council and clergy summoned for this purpose, and were in consequence executed for their evil deeds. “With regard to what the advocate for our opponent says, that the late lord of Milan only gave his daughter to the duke of Orleans in the hope of her being queen of France; and that, on her taking leave of him, he should say, “Adieu ! my child: I never wish to see thee again but as queen of France.’ This is absolutely false; for my lord of Milan was in treaty with the duke of Gueldres, brother to the king of the Romans, to marry his daughter: ambassadors were even on their road to Milan to conclude the match, when Bertrand Gaad, at that time tutor to the count de Vertus, was sent by the king and the dukes of Berry and Burgundy, (whose soul may God receive!) to propose the alliance of the duke of Orleans. The lord of Milan, preferring the honour of a connexion with France, consented to give his daughter to the duke of Orleans, ceased to treat with the duke of Gueldres, and recalled the ambassadors he had sent to him. As to the words the lord of Milan has been supposed to address to his daughter on her taking leave of him, they are also false, – for he left Pavia without seeing or speaking to her, because he could not have done either without weeping. The advocate for our adversary utters another falsehood, when he says, that the lord of Milan expressed his astonishment to a French knight, on his telling him the king of France was in good health, replying, ‘Thou sayest, that the king of France is in good health : how can that possibly be 7' My lord of Milan is too reserved ever to have held such a conversation; and it is well known to many now alive, that my lord of Milan loved the king of France above all other princes, and was very much attached to his family. This he always testified by the honours and presents he lavished on ambassadors and nobles of France, who travelled through his country, all from his respect to the king and his royal blood. “With regard to the history of that gallant man, sir Philip de Mezieres, whom the advocate has most scandalously defamed,—it is true, that when sir Philip came from Cyprus, king Charles, whom God pardon retained him, and made him his chamberlain. After the death of the king, sir Philip put on the humble dress of a monk, in the church of the Celestins, where he devoutly remained until his death. The late duke of Burgundy had a friendship for the lord of Milan, and, perceiving sir Philip to be a man of ability and prowess. sent him to Milan to propose a crusade to the holy land: the lord of Milan received him honourably, and willingly listened to all he had to say. Before that time, sir Philip had uever resided in Milan, uor had any connexion with the lord Bernabo, uncle to the present