« 前へ次へ »
again forbade him, in the king's name, to enter Paris, if accompanied by more than two hundred men. The duke of Burgundy, on this, quitted St. Denis, in company with his brother the count de Nevers, his brother-in-law the count de Cleves, and the duke of Lorrain, with a very large body of men well armed, and entered Paris, with the intent of justifying his act and his quarrel with the late duke of Orleans, as well before the king as before all who might think proper to demand it of him. The Parisians showed great joy on his entering the town; and even little children sung carols in all the squares, which much displeased the king, the queen, and the princes then in Paris. He dismounted at his hôtel d'Artois, and was, in truth, greatly beloved by the common people; for they believed he was much attached to the good of the kingdom, and to the general weal. This made him more popular than the other princes of the blood, and the people freshly remembered the heavy taxes that had been laid on them since the death of the late duke Philip of Burgundy, and principally, as they thought, by means of the duke of Orleans, who was exceedingly unpopular with them; and they considered his death, and the being delivered from his government, as a peculiar mark of God's grace, not foreseeing what was afterward to befal them and the whole kingdom of France. When the duke of Burgundy had been some days in Paris, and had learnt from his friends and partisans how he was to conduct himself, he found means to obtain an audience of the king, when the princes, clergy and people should be present, to hear his justification of the murder of the late duke of Orleans. He went to the appointed place of audience well armed, and escorted by the princes and lords whom he had brought with him, and great crowds of Parisians. During his stay at Paris he was always armed, to the surprise of the other princes and members of the royal council, who were afraid to say anything disagreeable to him, from his popularity with the citizens, and because he was ever surrounded by men at arms, and had his hôtel full of them; for he had quartered there the whole, or the greater part, of those whom he had brought with him. He had also a strong tower constructed of masonry," in which he slept at nights, and his chamber was strongly guarded. The justification of the duke now follows, and shall be literally given, as delivered by doctor John Petit.
CHAPTER xxxix. —THE DUKE of BURGUNDY OFFERS HIS JUSTIFICATION, FoR HAVING CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE DUKE of or LEANs, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE KING AND HIS GREAT COUNCIL.
ON the 8th day of March, in the year 1407, duke John of Burgundy offered his justification for having caused the death of the late duke of Orleans, at the hôtel de St. Pol at Paris, by the mouth of master John Petit, doctor of theology. There were present, in royal state, the duke of Guienne,t dauphin of the Viennois, eldest son and heir to the king of France, the king of Sicily, the cardinal de Bart, the dukes of Berry, Brittany, and Lorrain, and many counts, barons, knights and esquires, from divers countries, the rector of the university, accompanied by a great many doctors and other clerks, and a numerous body of the citizens of Paris and people of all ranks.
John Petit S opened his speech in the manner following. “In the first place,” said he, “the duke of Burgundy, count of Flanders, of Artois and of Burgundy, doubly a peer of France, and dean of the French peerage, comes hither, with all humility, to pay his reverence to his royal majesty, like an obedient subject, to which he is bounden by four obligations, according to the decisions of the doctors of civil and canon law. The first of these obligations is, “Proximi ad proximum qua quisque tenetur proximum non offendere. Secunda, est cognatorum ad illos quorum de genere geniti vel procreati sunt qua tenetur parentes suos non solum non offendere, sed etiam defendere verbo et facto. Tertia, est vassalorum ad dominum qua tenentur non solum non offendere dominum suum, sed defendere verbo et facto. Quarta est, non solum non offendere dominum suum, sed etiam principis injurias vindicare.’ that I had very small benefices, he gave me annually a considerable pension that I might continue my studies at the schools, which pension has furnished the greater part of my expenses, and will continue, under his good favour, so to do. When, however, I consider the very high importance of the matter I have to discuss, and the great rank of the persons to whom I am to address myself, and, on the other hand, when I feel how weak I am in understanding, memory and language, I am seized with apprehension and fear, so that what abilities and remembrance I may have had are fled. I have no other remedy, therefore, but to recommend myself to God my Creator and Redeemer, to his glorious mother, and to my lord St. John the evangelist, the prince of theologians, that they would have the goodness to guard me from saying or doing any thing wrong, in following the advice of my lord St. Austin, who says, (libro quarto de doctrina Christiana, circa finem :) ‘Sive apud populum vel apud quoslibet jamjamque dicturus, sive quod apud populum dicendum vel ab eis qui voluerint aut potuerint legendum est dictaturus, oret ut Deus sermonem bonum det in os ejus. Sienim regina Hester oravit pro suae gentis salute temporali locutura apud regem ut in os ejus Deus congruum sermonem daret, quanto-magis orare debet, ut tale munus accipiat qui pro aeterna hominum salute in verbo et doctrina laborat,’ &c. “And because the matters I am to treat of are of such very great moment, it does not behove so insignificant a person as myself to speak of them, nor indeed to open my lips before so august and solemn an assembly. I therefore very humbly entreat you, my noble lords, and the whole company, that should I utter anything improper, it may be attributed to my simplicity and ignorance, and not to malice ; for the apostle says, “Ignorans feci: ideoque misericordiam consecutus sum.' “I should be afraid to speak of such things as my subject will lead me to, and which I am charged to say, were it not for the commands of my lord of Burgundy. After this, I now protest that I intend no injury whatever to any person, whether he be alive or dead; and should it happen that some parts of my speech seem to bear hard for or in the name of my lord of Burgundy, I pray that I may be held excused, as it will proceed from his commands, and in his justification, and not otherwise. But some one may put a question to me, saying, Does it belong to a theologian to offer such justification, in preference to a lawyer 2 I reply, that it certainly does not belong to me, who am neither a theologian nor a lawyer; but to satisfy those who may think such a question proper, I shall say, that were I a theologian, it might become a duty under one consideration, namely, that every doctor in theology is bounden to labour in excusing and justifying his lord, and to guard and defend, his honour and good name, according to the truth, particularly when his aforesaid lord is good and loyal, and innocent of all crimes. I prove this consideration to be true, from the duty attached to doctors in theology, to preach and say the truth at all times and in all places. They are likewise styled “Legis divinae professores, quia inter omnes alios doctores ipsi magistenentur profiteri veritatem.’ Should they die for having uttered the truth, they become true martyrs. “It is not therefore to be wondered at, if I offer my poor abilities in the justification of my before-mentioned lord, since he has afforded me the means of pursuing my studies, and, if God please, will continue so to do. If ever there were a proper time and place to bring forward the justification of my lord of Burgundy, it is at this moment, and before this assembly; and such as may find fault with me for so doing are, I think, to be blamed, for every man of honour and good sense will hold me excused. In the hope, therefore, that no one will bear me ill will for this justification, I shall produce an authority for it from
* This shows how general wooden buildings were still in the 15th century. t The titles of Guienne and Aquitaine were always used indiscriminately. 1. Louis, cardinal de Bar, afterwards cardinal of the Twelve Apostles, youngest son of Robert, and brother of Edward, dukes of Bar, and heir to the duchy after the deaths of all his brothers. § John Petit, professor of theology in the university of Paris, “ame venale,” says Bayle, “et vendue à l'iniquité.” He was reputed a great orator, and had been employed
twice before to plead on occasions of the first importance. The first was in favour of the university against some accusations of the cardinal-legate, in 1406; the second, at Rome before pope Gregory, on the 20th July, 1407, on the subject of the king's proposal for a termination of the schism. The very curious performance with which we are here presented was publicly condemned by the bishop of Paris and the university as soon as they were out of fear from the immediate presence of the duke of Burgundy, and burnt by the common hangman. See, in Bayle, further particulars of the work and its author.
“Now, my lord of Burgundy is a good Catholic, a prudent man, a lord of a godly life in the Christian faith, and likewise nearly connected to the king, by which he is bound to
love him as himself, and to be careful to avoid giving him any offence. He is his relation
“ox covetous NEss.
“‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas, quam quidem appetentes erraverunt a fide, 1 Tim. vi., which may be thus translated, Covetousness is the root of all evil; for the moment any one is in her net, he follows her doctrine :—she has even made apostates of some who have been too much seduced by her. This proposition contains three dogmas: first, that covetousness is the motive of all evil to such as she has entangled by her wiles; secondly, that she has caused many apostates, who, having denied the catholic faith, have turned to idolatry; thirdly, that she has made others traitors, and disloyal to their kings, princes, and lords paramount. These three propositions I shall bring forward as my major, and then add a minor, for the complete justification of my said lord of Burgundy. I may indeed divide these into two parts; the first consisting of my major, and the second of my minor. The first will comprehend four others, and discuss the first subject of my theme, the second the second,-and the third the third. In the fourth article, I propose to bring forward some facts as the groundwork of my lord's justification. “In regard to the first article, that covetousness is the root of all evil, I may bring forward an instance to the contrary from the holy Scriptures, which declares, “Initium omnis peccati superbia.' Eccles. x. Ergo, non est cupiditas radix omnium malorum. Since the holy church says that pride is the foundation of sin, covetousness is not the root of all evil, —and thus the words of St. Paul do not seem true. In answer to this I say, from St. John the evangelist, “Nolite diligere mundum nec ea quae in eo sunt. Siquis diligit mundum, non est charitas Patris in eo: quoniam omne quod est in mundo aut est concupiscentia carnis, autoculorum, aut superbia vitae, quae non est ex Patre sed mundo : et mundus transibit, et concupiscentia carnis; sed qui facit voluntatem Dei vivet in asternum.' That is to say, Do not love the world, nor place your sole happiness in worldly things; for the pleasures of this world consist in covetousness and in a love of the flesh,_in the pursuit of worldly riches and vain honours, which are not the passions given us by God. All worldly things are transitory, —and the world dies and its desires with it; but he who does the will of God, will enjoy everlasting glory with him. “It appears clearly from this quotation from St. John, that there are three sorts of covetousness, which include within them every sin, namely, covetousness of vain honours, covetousness of worldly riches, covetousness of carnal delights; and it was thus understood by the apostle when he said, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas.” Covetousness being understood to appear in the three forms aforesaid, and mentioned by St. John, the first of which is that of vain honours, which is nothing more than a wicked desire, and a disordered inclination to deprive another of his honours or lordships, this passion is called by St. John superbia rita, and contains within it every vice, namely, pride, vain-glory, anger, hatred, and envy ; for when he who is possessed by this passion cannot accomplish his will, he becomes enraged against God, and against those that stand in his way, and thus commits the sin of anger, which increases soon against the person in possession of the aforementioned superiority, to so great a degree that he practises to put him to death. “The second covetousness is called ‘the covetousness of worldly riches, which is the passion to take away from another his wealth and moveables, and is called by the evangelist concupiscentia oculorum. It includes within it usury, avarice, and rapine. The third covetousness is the concupiscentia carnis, which is merely disorderly desires for carnal delights, or perhaps indolence; as, for example, when a monk or other religieux cannot endure to go to matins, because he is more comfortable in his bed. Sometimes it consists in gluttony, as when any one devours too much meat or wine, because they are pleasing to his tongue and savoury to his palate. At other times, it may show itself in luxury, and in other shapes and manners which it is unnecessary to explain. “My first article is therefore clear, when I said, that “covetousness was the root of all evil,' if we understand it as the apostle did, when he said, ‘Radix omnium malorum cupiditas: et hoc de primo articulo hujus primae partis. “To enter on the subject of the second article of my major, I shall take it for granted that the greatest possible crime on earth is the crime of high treason, for the highest honour under heaven consists in the royal majesty. Can there then be a greater crime than any injury offered to the royal majesty ? As this crime, therefore, is the deepest, the punishment of it should be the most severe. There are two sorts of kingly dignity, the one divine and perpetual, the other human and temporal; and in like manner, there are two kinds of high treason, the first the crime of treason against the divine, and the second against the human majesty. That of high treason against the divine majesty may be again divided into two parts; first, when an injury is offered personally to our Sovereign Lord God and Creator, such as heresy and idolatry; secondly, when they are committed against the spouse of our holy Lord God Jesus CHRIST,-namely the holy Church, and when any schism or division is introduced within it. I therefore mean to say, that heretics and idolaters commit the crime of high treason in the first degree, and schismatics in the second. “The crime of human high treason may be divided into four degrees: first, consisting of offences done personally against the prince,—of offences done to the person of the queen, his spouse,_of such as are done personally against their children,-and fourthly, of injuries done to the public state. As the crime of high treason has been ever considered as one of the most atrocious, the laws have ordained much severer punishments against it than for any others. In cases of heresy and human high treason, a man may be accused after his death, and a process may be carried on against him: should he be convicted of heresy, his body is taken up from the grave, his bones put into a bag, carried to the place of execution, and burnt. In like manner, should any one be convicted after his decease of human high treason, his body is taken up from the grave, his bones put into a sack, all his wealth in land or moveables is confiscated to the prince, and his children declared incapable of holding lands, or of succeeding to any property. Having distinguished the crimes of high treason, I shall now proceed to prove the second article of my major by authorities and examples, namely, that covetousness has made many apostates, who have denied the catholic faith, and worshipped idols. I have found many instances to prove this, but it would take up too much time to relate the whole : I shall confine myself to three only.
“ of JULIAN THE APOSTATE.
“The first example is Julian the apostate, who was a Christian and a churchman; but to arrive at the imperial dignity of emperor of Rome, he denied the catholic faith and his baptism, and adored idols, telling the Christians, by way of colouring his apostacy, ‘Christus were dicit in evangelio suo, Nisi quis renunciaverit omnibus que possidet, non potest meus esse discipulus.' Saying, ‘You who wish to be Christians cannot possess anything.’ You must know, that this Julian was a churchman, very learned, and of high descent; and it was said that he might, had he laboured for it, have been pope; but as the popedom was at that time in a state of poverty, he cared not for it.—and the imperial dignity being the highest in the world, he was very eager to obtain it by any means. Having considered that the pagans were sufficiently strong to refuse to be governed by any Christian, he denied his baptism and the catholic faith, and adopted the pagan religion in the adoration of idols. He also persecuted the Christians, and defamed the name of Jesus CHRIST, which he looked to as one means of succeeding to the empire. The reigning emperor shortly after died; and the pagans, knowing that Julian was of high birth, great learning, and the most bitter persecutor of the Christians in the world, and who said more than any one else against our holy mother the church, elected him emperor.
“I will now tell you the horrible death that put an end to his days. During his government, the Persians rebelled against Rome. He collected a large army to subdue them, and swore on the altars of his cursed gods, that should he return victorious, he would utterly destroy all Christendom. In the course of his march with the army, he passed a city called Cesarea, in the country of Cappadocia, where he met a very learned doctor in theology, who was bishop of that town, and who is now known by the name of St. Basil. He was an excellently good man, and by means of the truth of his doctrines, all the inhabitants of that country were become Christians. St. Basil waited on the apostate Julian, made his obeisance to him, and presented him with three barley-loaves. The emperor was indignant at the present, and said, “Does he send me mare's food I will return the compliment by sending him horse-meat, namely, three bushels of oats.” The good man excused himself, saying that it was such bread as he and those of that country ate. The emperor, however, swore, that on his return, he would destroy the town so completely, that a plough should pass over the ground, and make a field of the spot where the town now stood, which field should bear wheat—‘Itaque juravit quod faceret eam farriferam et non austeram"—and marched on with his army.
“St. Basil and the Christians took counsel together how they could save the city from this
WOL. I. F