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 bishopries 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,

[ocr errors]

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. Othou 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 Hermional si quis mala pabula terrae :
Et magicas artes posse juvare putat.'

“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 o' 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 never resided in Milan, nor had any connexion with the lord Bernabo, uncle to the present lord. Sir Philip had left Milan very long before any mention was made of the marriage of the duke of Orleans with the present duchess, which clearly proves how ill-founded have been the imputations of our adversary. “Another infamous falsehood has been boldly advanced, namely, that my lord of Orleans, seeing he could not compass the king's death by sorceries, practised other means to accomplish it, that he might succeed to the crown of France, by promising to one man four thousand francs, to another five thousand, to make up and administer different poisons,—and that some accepted his offers, and others refused them. Most assuredly, if there had been such loyal persons as to refuse these great sums of money, they would not have hesitated to reveal the matter, that it might be inquired into and punished; but as they have not done so, we may safely conclude the assertion is false. Our adversary has alleged, that at a dinner at the queen's palace, the duke of Orleans threw some powder over the king's dish. This may be proved to be false, for no mention was made during the dinner of any such act, for it is clear, that if the queen had observed anything of the sort at her dinner, she would have denounced it to the servants and family of the king, otherwise she would not have been loyal. As to the story of the queen's almoner, which our adversary has brought forward, namely, his falling down dead and losing his hair and nails, it is notoriously false, for he lived five or six years after the time when he was supposed thus suddenly to die. I may therefore apply to our opponent the words of the prophet Jeremiah, in his seventh chapter, ‘Ecce vos confiditis in sermonibus mendacii, sed non proderunt vobis.' “Our adversary next advances, that my lord of Orleans, finding he could not destroy the king by poisons or sorceries, attempted to do it by fire and other means; that my lord of Orleans, in consequence, proposed a masquerade dance of persons dressed as savages, in cloth covered with pitch and tow, and other inflammable materials, among the number of whom was the king, and that the duke of Orleans caused his dress to be made too tight, that he might be excused from being of the party. Our adversary adds, that when one of the king's servants was warning him of the danger that might ensue from such dresses, the duke of Orleans was greatly enraged and gave him much abusive language: in short, that my lord of Orleans set fire to the king's dress, who was in the utmost peril of death, had not God, and certain ladies by their exertions, prevented it.”—Now, in answer to this heavy charge, I shall reply, that my lord of Orleans did not provide the dresses, nor could he then have known where to have sought for them. The dukes of Berry and Burgundy, lately deceased, well knew who were the proposers of this dance, and that it was not the duke of Orleans. Had he been the author of it, he would not have escaped death, or very great blame, considering the commotion it caused, for he had then scarcely any power. As to what our adversary says, that the dress of the duke of Orleans was purposely made too tight, there is not the smallest appearance of truth in it, for at that time the duke was the thinnest of the company. “It is true, that my lord of Orleans and the lord Philip de Bar had gone before the commencement of this ball to visit the lady of Clermont, who had not come to the wedding held at the hôtel de St. Pol, for which this entertainment was given, and on their return they found all the dresses had been made use of. This was the sole cause why the duke of Orleans was not dressed to make one of the party. It is an infamous lie to say, as our opponent has done, that the duke of Orleans wished to burn the king our lord; for the duke and the lord Philip de Bar intended dressing themselves in these clothes, and, without thinking or intending any ill, they both told Peter de Navarre to set fire to the dresses of the savages, that when on fire they might run among the ladies to frighten them. Peter de Navarre is living, and he can prove the truth of this to the king. Let us suppose, that in this youthful frolic, my lord of Orleans should have set fire to one of the dresses, as he had ordered the same to be done to all, it is not credible that it could have been done through malice or evil intentions. It is then apparent, that what our adversary has asserted is a lie; and I comfort myself with the words of the prophet,-- Perdes omnes quiloquuntur mendacium,'— and in the 20th chapter of Proverbs, “Qui profert mendacia peribit.' “As to the alliances which our opponent says the duke of Orleans entered into with Henry of Lancaster, at present calling himself king of England, to the prejudice of the king and realm, and colouring his assertion by adding, that Richard, late king of England, had assured the king of France, that his infirmities were solely owing to the machinations of the dukes of Milan and Orleans,— I answer, that they are wicked falsehoods; for when Henry of Lancaster came to France, he was most honourably received by the princes of the royal family as their relation, and frequented the company of the duke of Orleans and others of the blood royal as of their kindred, when, as a friend to the king, he formed an alliance with the duke of Orleans publicly, and in the presence of the king and princes of the blood, which at the time was considered as perfectly lawful, and for the good of the kingdom. This plainly shows, that my lord of Orleans had made no alliance against king Richard; but what is more, at the treaty of marriage of the king's daughter, now duchess of Orleans, with king Richard, the duke of Orleans and king Richard formed an alliance similar to that which the latter had formed with the king of France. After this, my lord of Orleans went to Calais, where he was most amicably received by king Richard as a very dear brother. In addition, when king Richard died, the duke of Orleans showed great grief for it, and made an enemy of king Henry of Lancaster, by the challenges he sent him, accusing him of being guilty of the crime of high treason against his sovereign lord king Richard, offering to fight the said king Henry, in revenge for the death of Richard, either in single combat, or with any number of persons he might choose. These and many more circumstances can be brought forward to prove that my lord of Orleans had a strong affection for king Richard, from his alliance by marriage with the king of France, and that he hated king Henry for having laid hands on his sovereign. “There is not more truth in what our adversary has advanced, that my lord of Orleans, when with Pietro della Luna, exerted himself to obtain bulls to the prejudice of the king and his family, and on this account always favoured the said Pietro; for at that time my lord of Orleans had procured with this Pietro, then called Benedict, a very advantageous alliance for the king of France, by which he engaged to support the king and his family by every means in his power, as may be seen in the bulls issued to this effect. It is therefore very extraordinary, that any man, endowed with common sense, should have asserted publicly things that are evidently false. As to what our adversary says, that my lord of Orleans supported Pietro della Luna, I have before answered it; and my lord proposed himself, that if the two rival popes did not speedily agree to send commissioners to the council, France should withdraw itself from their obedience. This was more displeasing to Pietro della Luna than anything that had been done in this kingdom relative to church-affairs, and is not a sign that my lord of Orleans was desirous of retarding a union of the church in favour of Pietro della Luna. It is therefore evident, that the duke of Orleans is innocent of the charges that have been brought against him. “O lord king! may it please thee to guard his innocence by means of thy justice, according as it is written in the thirteenth chapter of Job, “Justitia custodit innocentis viam.’ “The fourth accusation of our adversary is, That for the space of three whole years my lord of Orleans, by his artful and deceitful tales, and advice to the queen, attempted to prevail on her to quit the kingdom, with her children, and reside in the county of Luxembourg, that he might enjoy greater power in the government of the realm. So far is this charge from being true, that my lord of Orleans did everything in his power to honour and support the queen during the melancholy illness of the king, of which it does not become me to say more, for, thanks to God, she is now present, and knows full well the truth of this, and which she may more fully declare whenever it may be her good pleasure so to do. I do not, however, know that she made any complaints on this subject to our adversary, or to any other persons. I believe the contrary, to this charge of our opponent, will be found to be the truth; and that it has been purposely brought forward to defame the reputation of the deceased. “The fifth accusation is, That my lord of Orleans committed the crime of high treason in the third degree, on the person of my lord the dauphin, whose soul may God pardon by compassing his death by means of a poisoned apple given to a child, from whom one of the nurses of the children of the duke of Orleans took it by force, and gave it to one of the children of the duke of Orleans, and caused its death, as well as that of the dauphin, who also ate of it. This is an absolute falsehood. True it is, that one of the duke of Orleans' children died about the time when this fact was supposed to have taken place, of a bowel complaint, which was then very prevalent, and carried off many others. Let the physicians, master William le Boucher and master John de Beaumont, be examined, who visited this child, and they will declare the truth, that it did not die of poison. Consider, my lords, the improbability of a nurse of the children of the duke of Orleans daring to give an apple or pear to any of them without the express orders of the duchess of Orleans; and that when the nurse went to these gardens with the child, she was accompanied by several women of character, who would not have suffered her to give it an apple, or any suchlike thing. “O most noble and well-beloved duke of Aquitaine! while young, learn to love justice, and act like Solomon. Consider the evils that may happen, unless justice be observed; and if thou neglectest it, thou wilt not love thy brothers, for they will be in danger of death if the doctrines of our adversary be not checked. The prophet says, “Justitiae Domini rectae laetificantes corda.’ “The sixth crime alleged against the duke of Orleans is, That he committed high treason in the fourth degree, by ruining the king in his finances, and by oppressing the people with intolerable taxes, and quartering large bodies of men-at-arms in various parts of the country. My lords, it is very astonishing that our adversary should have made this charge; for it is notorious to every one, that these taxes were not levied in this kingdom for its own concerns, nor were they for the profit of the duke of Orleans: thy were proposed with great deliberation of the king, the princes of his blood, and his council, for the benefit of our adversary himself, in his expedition to Hungary, and for the payment of the ransom of himself and his army. This was the cause of such heavy taxes being raised throughout the kingdom, and of immense sums of money being sent to Turkey, and other distant places, to the irreparable loss of the country. When our adversary charges the duke of Orleans with having taken four thousand francs from the tower of the palace, and one hundred thousand from the castle of Melun,-I reply, that it is false: if any sums of money were in the tower of the palace, they were distributed according to orders from the king. In regard to the hundred thousand francs in the castle of Melun, it is well known that the queen and the duke of Orleans went thither to amuse themselves,-during which time our adversary very improperly came to Paris with a large body of men-at-arms, and forced the duke of Aquitaine to return thither, instead of going, as he intended, to join his mother the queen. He had collected this force of menat-arms with the design of attacking the queen and the duke of Orleans in Melun, which, of course, made it necessary for her majesty to raise an army for her own defence, and for the security of the king and kingdom. She was therefore advised to make use of the money in the castle of Melun for the pay of the men-at-arms, but my lord of Orleans never touched one penny of it; and when it came to the knowledge of the king, he was well satisfied that it had been so applied. “It therefore appears, that this sum of money was expended to oppose the damnable act of our adversary, and for no other cause. In regard to the men-at-arms said to have been kept on foot by my lord of Orleans, certainly some bodies of them, being quartered over the country, declared they were sent thither by command of the duke of Orleans, in order that no one might dare to molest them,--but they had no letters or commissions from him. On the contrary, he was greatly displeased at the evil acts they at times committed. When their conduct was laid before the king and council, the duke of Orleans caused letters to be sent in the king's name to all bailiffs and other officers throughout the realm, ordering them to assemble the nobles and gentlemen of the country to force those who committed such disgraceful acts to quit the kingdom, having first punished them for their wicked conduct. “O duke of Burgundy! recollect the irreparable damages that have been done to many parts of this realm by the bodies of men-at-arms which thou hast introduced within it, many of whom were foreigners, who wasted the countries they passed through, and every one

* See an account of this dreadful accident in Froissart, Three of the party were burnt to death; a fourth saved himbook iv., chap. 53, vol. ii. p. 553, Smith's edition. Frois- self by rushing to the buttery, and plunging into a tub of sart cntirely acquits the duke of any evil intention, and water placed there, and the king was rescued by the duches, attributes it to his causing the torches to be held too near of Berry, who threw the skirt of her robe over him.— them, that he might recognise the persons of the maskers. Ed.

« 前へ次へ »