THE DUKE OF BURGUNDY OFFERS HIS JUSTIFICATION, FOR HAVING CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE DUKE OF ORLEANS, 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^[117], dauphin of the Viennois, eldest son and heir to the king of France, the king of Sicily, the cardinal de Bar^[118], the dukes of Berry, Brittany and Lorraine, 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^[119] 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 deffendere verbo et facto. Tertia, est vassalorum ad dominum qua tenentur non solum non offendere dominum suum, sed deffendere verbo et facto. Quarta est, non solum non offendere dominum suum, sed etiam principis injurias vindicare.’

‘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 by blood, so near as to be his cousin german, which not only obliges him to be attentive not to give him offence, but on the slightest ground to defend him by speech against all who might intend to injure him. Thirdly, he is his vassal, and is therefore bound to defend him not only by words, but by deeds, with all the united strength of his power. Fourthly, he is his subject, by which he is obliged not only to defend him by word and deed against his enemies, but is bound to avenge him on such as commit, or do intend to commit, and contrive any evil attempts against his person, should such come to his knowledge.

‘Beside these obligations, he is also bounden to his royal majesty, from the daily honours and presents he is in the habit of receiving from him,—and not only as his relation, vassal and subject, as has been stated, but as his very humble knight, duke, count and peer of France; not only a peer of France from two claims, but also the dean of the peerage, which, next to the crown, is the highest rank and prerogative in the kingdom of France.

‘The king has likewise had such an affection for him, and shewn him such great honour as to make him father-in-law to the most noble and potent lord the duke of Guienne and dauphin of the Viennois, his eldest son and heir, by his marriage with the eldest daughter of my lord the duke, and has added to this honour by the marriage of the princess Michelle of France with the eldest son of my aforesaid lord of Burgundy; and as St Gregory says, ‘Cum crescunt dona et rationes donorum,’ he is obliged to defend him from every injury within his power. This he has acknowledged, does acknowledge, and will acknowledge (if it please God), and will ever retain in his heart the remembrance of these obligations, which are twelve in number,—namely, those of neighbour, relation, vassal, subject, baron, count, duke and peer, count and peer, duke, and dean of the peerage, and these two marriages.

‘These twelve obligations bind him to love, serve and obey the king, and to do him every personal reverence and honour, and not only to defend him against his enemies, but to exercise vengeance against them. In addition, that prince of noble memory, my late lord of Burgundy his father, when on his death-bed, commanded him, above all things, to behave most loyally, honourably, justly and courageously toward the person of the king of France, his children and his crown; for he greatly feared his enemies would practise to deprive him of his crown, and that after his decease they would be too strong for him. It was for this reason, that when on his death-bed, he insisted on his sons resisting every attempt of the sort.

‘The wise and determined conduct of my lord duke of Berry, in conjunction with my above-mentioned deceased lord, must not be forgotten, in their government of the kingdom, so that not even the slightest suspicion was ever formed against them.

‘For these reasons, my lord of Burgundy could not feel greater grief of heart, or more displeasure, than in doing any thing respecting the late duke of Orleans that might anger the king. The deed that has been done was perpetrated for the safety of the king’s person, and that of his children, and for the general good of the realm, as shall be so fully hereafter explained that all those who shall hear me will be perfectly satisfied thereof.

‘My lord of Burgundy, therefore, supplicates the king to withdraw from him any hatred he may have conceived against him, and that he would show him that benignity and grace due to his loyal vassal and subject, and to one nearly related to him as he is by blood, while I shall explain the causes of justification of my lord of Burgundy, in consequence of his commands, which I cannot refuse, for the two following reasons:

‘In the first place, I am bound by my oath, given to him three years ago, to serve him. Secondly, on his perceiving 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 jamiamque 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. Si enim regina Hester oravit pro suÆ gentis salute temporali locutura apud regem ut in os ejus Deus congruum sermonem daret, quanto-magis orare debet, ut tale munus accipiat qui pro Æterna 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 any thing 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? 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 divinÆ professores quia inter omnes alios doctores ipsi magis tenentur 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 St Paul.

‘ON COVETOUSNESS.

‘‘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 ground-work 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 quÆ in eo sunt. Si quis diligit mundum, non est charitas Patris in eo: quoniam omne quod est in mundo aut est concupiscentia carnis, aut oculorum, aut superbia vitÆ, quÆ non est ex Patre sed mundo: et mundus transibit, et concupiscentia carnis; sed qui facit voluntatem Dei vivet in Æternum.’

‘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 vitÆ, 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 religious 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 shew 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 primÆ 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 vere dicit in evangelio suo, Nisi quis renunciaverit omnibus que possidet, non potest meus esse discipulus.’ Saying, ‘You who wish to be Christians cannot possess any thing.’

‘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 anyone 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 damned 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 eat. 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 threatened destruction, and imagined it would be best to offer the emperor all their jewels and treasure to appease his anger. They likewise proposed going in procession to a church of our Lady, situated on a mountain near the city, and to remain there for three days to pray to God to save them and their city from ruin.

‘On the third night, St Basil had a vision, in which he saw a great company of angels and saints assembled before a lady, who thus spoke to one of the saints, called the chevalier Mercure: ‘Thou hast always been a faithful servant to my son and to me; and on this account I command thee to go and kill the emperor Julian, that false apostate, who so bitterly persecutes the Christians, and says such infamous things of my son and me.’ She instantly restored Mercury to flesh and blood, who, like a good knight, took his lance and shield from the roof of the church where it had been affixed after his interment there, and went as he was commanded. When he overtook Julian, he thrust his lance through his body in the presence of his servants: having withdrawn his lance, he threw it across his neck, and none of the emperor’s attendants knew who he was.

‘St Basil, after this vision was ended, hastened to the church wherein was the tomb of the knight, and found neither body nor lance, nor shield. He called to him the keepers of the church, and asked them what was become of the lance and shield? They replied, that in the preceding night they had been carried away, but knew not how or by whom.

‘St Basil returned instantly to the mountain, and related his vision to the clergy and people, adding that he had just visited the church where the knight had been buried, but that neither his shield nor lance was to be found, which was a strong confirmation of the truth of the vision.

‘The whole town, shortly after this, visited the church; and the shield and lance were seen hanging to the roof, as formerly, over the tomb of the knight,—but the point of the lance was covered with blood.

‘It was imagined that this action had required but one day and two nights, and that on the second night the body had been replaced in the tomb, and the arms under the roof. The point of the lance was covered with the blood of Julian the apostate, as has been mentioned; and the chronicle adds, that when slain, he received the blood in his hand, saying, Vicisti me GalilÆe! that is to say, ‘Thou hast conquered me, Galilean!’ alluding to Jesus Christ, and throwing his blood in the air.

‘The same chronicle says, that one of the counsellors and sophists of this Julian had a similar vision respecting his miraculous death, and that he came to St Basil to be baptised, like a good Christian. He told him he had been present when the emperor was killed, and saw him throw his blood from his hand up into the air. Thus ended miserably the life of Julian the apostate.

‘We have another example in the monk Sergius, who was a Christian of the church, but through covetousness got admitted into the company of Mohammed, and became his apostle. This monk, considering that Mohammed was a great captain in the armies of Syria and other countries beyond sea, and that the principal lords of the country were almost all destroyed by the plague, leaving only children behind them, said to Mohammed, ‘If you will follow my advice, I will shortly make you the greatest and most respected lord in the universe.’

‘Mohammed consented to his proposals; and it was agreed that Mohammed should conquer the whole country by force of arms, and make himself lord of it. The monk was to renounce the Christian religion, and compose a new religious code, in the name of Mohammed. This was done; and all the countries of Arabia, Syria, Africa, Fez, Morocco, Granada, Persia, Egypt, with several others that had been Christians, were converted, or the greater part of them, to the religion of Mohammed, six hundred years after the incarnation of our Lord.

‘Mohammed gave to this monk great abundance of worldly riches, which his covetousness received to the eternal damnation of his soul.

‘The third example is that of the prince or duke of Simeon, one of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. He was a very powerful prince, and his name was Zambry, and was so smitten with concupiscence, and carnal desires, for a pagan lady, who would not submit to his will unless he consented to adore her idols, that he apostatised, and not only adored idols himself, but induced many of his people and subjects to do the same. The holy Scriptures thus speak of him: ‘At illi comederunt et adoraverunt deos earum. Initiatusque est Israel Beelphegor. Et iratus Dominus ait ad Moysem, tolle cunctos principes populi, et suspende illos contra solem in patibulis, &c. et paulopost: et ecce unus de filiis Israel intravit coram fratribus suis ad scortum madianitem, &c. Quod cum vidisset surrexit de medio multitudinis Phinees, et arrepto pugione ingressus est post virum Israelitem in lupinar, et perfodit ambos simul in locis genitalibus. Et occisi sunt viginti quatuor millia hominum. Et sic Phinees placavit Deum. Et ideo innocentius inde miseria conditionis humanÆ ait. Extrema libidinis turpitudo: quÆ non solum mentem effÆminat, sed etiam corpus aggravat. Omne namque peccatum quodcunque fecerit homo extra corpus est; qui autem fornicatur in corpus suum peccat.’

‘That is to say, This duke and a great part of his people committed fornication with pagan and saracen women of the country of Moab, who induced them to worship their idols. God was much angered thereat, and said to Moses, who was their sovereign commander, ‘Take all the princes of the people and hang them up on a gibbet in the face of the sun.’ ‘But why,’ said he, ‘hang all the princes?’ Because part of them were consenting to this crime, and the other part, though not following their example, were neglectful to avenge such heavy offences against God, their Creator.

‘Moses instantly assembled all the princes and people of Israel, and told them what God had commanded him. The people began to weep, because the offenders were so powerful the judges dared not condemn them,—and duke Zambry had full twenty-four thousand men of his tribe.

‘This duke quitted the assembly, and, in the presence of all the people, entered the house of the pagan lady, the mistress of his heart, who was the handsomest woman of the country. A valiant man, named Phineas, roused by this insult to his God, stepped forth, and said, ‘I vow to God, that I will instantly avenge this offence.’ He departed without saying more, or having any commands from Moses, and having entered the lady’s house found her in dalliance with her lover, when, with a knife or dagger, he pierced their bodies through, and instantly put them to death. The twenty-four thousand adherents of the duke wished to revenge his death in battle, but, through God’s grace, they were the weaker, and were all slain.

‘This example of the valiant man Phineas is worthy of notice,—for he was so much enamoured with the love of God, and so grieved on seeing the daring insult offered to him, that he was regardless of exposing his own life to danger; nor did he wait for the orders of Moses to perform the act,—but he did it because he saw that the judges would not do their duty, some through neglect, others from fear of duke Zambry.

‘See what praise and recompense he received for this act, as it is written in the holy Scriptures: ‘Dixit Dominus ad Moysem, Phinees filius Heleazari filii Aaron sacerdotis avertit iram meam a filiis Israel, quia zelo meo commotus est contra eos ut non ipse delerem filios Israel in zelo meo idcirco loquere ad eum. Ecce do ei pacem fÆderis mei et erit tam ipsi quam semini ejus pactum sacerdotii sempiternum: quia zelatus est pro Deo suo, et expiavit scelus filiorum Israel.’

‘That is to say, That the act he had done was so agreeable to God that he rewarded him, by ordaining that none but such as were of his blood should be anointed priests; and this is confirmed by the writings in the Old Testament: ‘Placuit et cessavit seditio, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam usque in sempiternum.’ Scribitur in Psalmo. Which means, That this action redounded to the honour, glory and praise of Phineas and his family for ever.

‘Thus it plainly appears, that concupiscence and disorderly lusts had so entangled the duke Zambry in their snares that he became an idolater, and worshiped idols.—Here concludes the third example of my second article.

‘Respecting the third article of my major, I must show from the authority of the Bible, which none dare contradict, that covetousness has made many become disloyal, and traitors to their sovereigns; but although I could produce numerous instances from the Scriptures and other writings, I shall confine my examples to three only.

‘OF LUCIFER.

‘The first instance is that of Lucifer, the most perfect of all the creatures God had made, of whom the prophet Isaiah says, ‘Quomodo cecidisti de coelo Lucifer, qui mane orieberis: qui dicebas in corde tuo, conscendam supra astra Dei, exaltabo solium meum, ascendam supra altitudinem nubium et similis ero altissimo. Veruntamen ad infernum detraheris in profundum laci.’ Scrib. Is. xiv.

‘Lucifer, as the prophet writes, considering himself as the most perfect of creatures, said, within his own mind, ‘I will exert myself so greatly that I will place myself and my throne above the angels, and rival God;’ that is to say, he would have the same obedience paid to him. For this end, he deceived numbers of angels, and brought them over to his party, so that they were to do him homage and obedience, as to their sovereign lord, and be no way subject to God; and Lucifer was to hold his government in like manner to God, and independent of all subjection to him.

‘Thus he wished to deprive God, his Sovereign and Creator, of the greater part of his power, and attribute it to himself, being induced to it by covetousness, which had taken possession of his mind.

‘St Michael, on discovering his intentions, came to him, and said, that he was acting very wrong; and that, since God had formed him the most perfect of his creatures, he was bounden in gratitude to pay him greater reverence and obedience than all the others, for the gracious favours that had been shewn him. Lucifer replied, that he would do no such thing. St Michael answered, that neither himself nor the other angels would suffer him to act so injuriously to their Sovereign Lord and Creator. In short, a battle ensued between them,—and many of the angels took part on either side, but the greater number were for St Michael.

‘St Michael slew Lucifer with a perdurable death,—and he and his legions were cast out of heaven by force, and thrown into hell. Their sentence is in the xiith chap. of the Revelations: ‘Michael et angeli ejus preliabantur cum dracone, et draco pugnabat et angeli ejus cum eo;’ et paulum post,—‘et projectus est in terram draco ille, et angeli ejus missi sunt cum eo. Et audivi vocem magnam in coelo dicentem, nunc facta est salus, et virtus, et regnum Deo nostro;’—which means, That St John saw in a vision this battle, and how Lucifer was cast with his angels from heaven into hell. When the battle was won, he heard a loud voice proclaiming through the heavens, ‘At present, peace is restored to our Lord God and to his saints.’—Thus ends the first example of the third article.

‘The second instance refers to the fair Absalon, son to David king of Jerusalem.—Absalon, considering that his father was become old and very feeble, practised a conspiracy against him, and had himself anointed king. He collected ten thousand fighting men, whom he marched toward Jerusalem, to put his father to death and take possession of the town.

‘King David received intelligence of what was intended, and in consequence fled from the city of Jerusalem, with some of his faithful friends, to a town beyond Jordan, whither he summoned his adherents. A battle was shortly proposed in the forest of Lendeue, whither Absalon came with a large force of men at arms, leading them as their prince. His constable and other knights advised him to remain within the forest, for it was strongly situated. This he did; but as he was one of the most expert knights in the world, he would himself form his army into three battalions: the first was put under the command of Joab, his constable; the second was given to Bisay, brother to Joab; and the third was commanded by Eschey, son to Jeth. When the battle took place, it was very severe and hard fought; but the party of Absalon was slain or put to flight.

‘It happened, as Absalon was flying on his mule after the defeat of his party, that he passed under an oak, whose spreading branches caught hold of his hair, and thus suspended him, while his mule galloped from under him. Absalon had that day taken off his helmet from his head, the more readily to escape,—and his hair was extremely thick and long, reaching to his girdle, and got twisted among the branches, so that he seemed to hang there miraculously, as a punishment for the disloyal treason he had formed against his father and sovereign.

‘Absalon was seen in this situation by one of the men at arms of Joab, constable to king David,—and he hastened to tell Joab of it, who replied, ‘When thou sawest him, why didst thou not kill him? and I would have given thee ten golden besants, and a handsome girdle.’ The man answered,—‘If thou wouldst have given me ten thousand besants, I should not have dared to have touched him, or done him the least evil; for I was present when the king commanded thee, and all his men at arms, saying, ‘Save me my child Absalon! Oh, save him from being slain!’’

‘Joab said, ‘that the commands of the king were contrary to his honour and safety; and that so long as Absalon should live, the king would be always in peril, and we shall not have peace in the kingdom. Lead me where Absalon is.’ And the man led him to where Absalon was hanging by his hair. Joab, on seeing him, thrust his lance thrice into his body, near to the place of his heart, and then had him thrown into a ditch and covered with stones; for according to the laws of God, all traitors against their fathers and sovereigns were to be put to death and covered with stones.

‘When David heard of the death of his son, he went into an upper chamber, and wept bitterly, uttering these words: ‘Fili mi Absalon, fili mi quis mihi tribuat ut ego moriar pro te Absalon fili mi^[120].’

‘It was told to Joab and the other captains, that David was inconsolable for the loss of Absalon, which made them very indignant; and Joab went to David, and said,—‘Confudisti hodie vultus omnium servorum tuorum qui salvam fecerunt animam tuam. Diligis odientes te, et odio habes diligentes te, et ostendisti hodie quia non curas de ducibus tuis, et de servis tuis, et vere cognovi modo quod si Absalon viveret, et nos omnes occubuissemus tunc placeret tibi. Nunc igitur surge et precede et alloquens satisfac servis tuis: juro enim tibi per dominum, quod si non exieris, ne unus quidem remansurus sit tecum nocte hac; et pejus erit hoc tibi, quam omnia mala, quÆ venerunt super te ab adolescentia tua usque in prÆsens.’ Scribitur, 2 Reg. xix.

‘That is to say, The good knight Joab went to the king, and said to him without disguising his sentiments, ‘Thou hatest those who love thee, and art fond of such as hate thee: thou wouldst that we, who have risked our lives in battle to save thee, had perished, so that Absalon had lived. Thy captains and people are so wroth against thee that, unless thou arise and seat thyself at thy gate to thank them cheerfully as they enter thereat, they will deprive thee of thy kingdom, and choose another king; and no greater misfortune will have befallen thee from thy youth to this day, unless thou dost as I have advised.’

‘The king, feeling the justice of what Joab had said, went and seated himself at the gate to thank his men at arms on their entrance, and made them good cheer.

‘In this example, it is to be noticed, that Joab killed Absalon contrary to the king’s express orders, because they were prejudicial to the honour of God, of the king, and of the people.

‘Notwithstanding that Joab slew Absalon, they had always been intimate friends, insomuch that Joab had made peace for him with his father David for a murder which he had committed on the eldest of the king’s sons, and for which Absalon had been a fugitive from the kingdom four years.

‘Some may, however, argue the contrary, because king David, when on his death-bed, charged his son Solomon, who was to succeed him, to punish Joab; but I am sure it was not for the above-mentioned act,—for although Joab, at the time he slew Absalon, was a good and loyal knight, he committed too great faults toward the end of his days. The first, when he killed a very good knight and man at arms, called Amasa,—and, secondly, by putting that excellent knight Abner to death treacherously, namely, by embracing him, and at the same time, thrusting a knife into his body; and as king David had not punished Joab for these two enormous crimes himself, he felt such compunctions of conscience for it on his death-bed, that he ordered king Solomon to have it done when he should be deceased, and punish him in this mortal life, that Joab might escape perpetual damnation, saying thus: ‘Tu scis quÆ fecerit mihi Joab filius SarviÆ quÆ fecerit duobus principibus exercitus Israel, Abner filio Ner, et AmasÆ filio Jether, quos occidit, et effudit sanguinem belli in pace. Facias ergo juxta sapientiam tuam, et non deduces caniciem ejus pacifice ad infernos.’ Scribitur, 2 Reg. xi.

‘Which means, ‘That the two knights, chiefs of the chivalry of Israel, had been disloyally slain, when at peace with God and man. I am hurt in mind for having been too lenient towards him; and if thou dost not punish him for these two crimes, thou wilt cause the damnation of his soul.’

‘I must here remark, that there is no knight so perfect but who may commit a fault, and one indeed so great as to do away all his former good actions. And therefore men do not at justs and at battles cry out, ‘The brave for ever!’ (Aux preux!) but men always cry out, ‘The sons of the brave!’ (Aux fils de preux!) after the deaths of their fathers. For no knight can be judged preux (valiant, or brave) till after his death^[121].

‘My third instance shall be of Athalia, queen of Jerusalem, of whom the holy Scriptures say,—‘Athalia vero mater regis OchosiÆ, videns filium suum mortuum surrexit et interfecit omne semen regium. Tollens autem Josaba filia regis Joran et soror OchosiÆ Joas filium OchosiÆ furata est eum de medio filiorum regis qui interficiebantur et nutricem ejus de triclinio et abscondit eum a facie AthaliÆ ut non interficeretur,’ &c. 4 Reg. xi.

‘Which, being translated, means, That the wicked Athalia, observing king Ochosias, her son, was dead, and had left but very young children to succeed him, through lust of governing the kingdom, slew all the king’s children excepting Joas, who, through the courage of a valiant lady, inspired thereto by the grace of God, was carried away from his cradle, and sent by her secretly to the high priest, who educated him until he was seven years old.

‘This wicked queen reigned tyrannically for seven years, when the high-priest had her put to death by those who lay in wait for the purpose. He then caused the young child to be anointed king, who, notwithstanding his youth, being only seven years of age, governed his kingdom excellently well, through the advice of the high-priest and other prudent counsellors. The holy Scriptures say, ‘Joas regnavit 40. annis in Hierusalem fecitque rectum coram Domino cunctis diebus quibus docuit eum Joiada sacerdos.’

‘Thus you have the third example, which shows how the concupiscence of vain honours is nothing more than a disorderly passion, to take by force the possessions of another. This it was that made queen Athalia a murderess, false and disloyal, and induced her to obtain, by a succession of crimes, the government of the kingdom of Jerusalem.

‘You have heard how she was privily slain by such as lay in wait for her, which is a lawful manner of slaying tyrants, and is the death which all such ought to suffer.—With this I conclude the third article of my major.

‘I come now to my fourth article; to which I propose adding eight facts, by way of conclusion, and eight others as corollaries, the stronger to lay my foundation for the justification of my aforesaid lord of Burgundy. I shall first lay it down as law, that any subject-vassal, who by an artful desire of obtaining the realm of his sovereign lord and king, shall employ any witchcraft, or other illegal means, against his corporal safety, sins most grievously, and commits the crime of high treason, in the first degree, and, consequently, is deserving a double death.

‘I secondly prove my proposition, by adding, that any subject-vassal who is an enemy to his sovereign lord sins mortally. My conclusion is therefore true,—and that he is a tyrant I shall prove by my lord St Gregory, who says:

‘It appears plain, that whoever commits the crime of high treason against the person of the prince is guilty of the highest possible offence, and is deserving of a double death. By the first death, I mean the separation of the body from the soul, which causes a perdurable damnation; for St John the evangelist says, ‘Qui vivit non morietur nec lÆdetur a morte secunda;’ that is to say, That every human creature who shall obtain a victory over Covetousness and her three daughters, need not be afraid of the second death, namely, eternal damnation.

‘The second fact is, that in cases where a subject-vassal has been guilty of this crime, he cannot be too severely or too speedily punished; but a man of rank is more deserving of punishment than a simple subject, a baron than a simple knight, a count than a baron, a duke than a count, the cousin to the king than a foreigner, the king’s brother than a cousin, the son to the king than his brother. Such is the first part of the second fact,—and I thus prove the second part; for as the obligation is greater, by many degrees, to desire to preserve the safety of the king’s person and the good of the state, so the punishment of those who act contrary increases according to their rank; and the consequence I draw from it will prove true, namely, that the son is more bounden than the brother, the brother than the cousin, a duke than a count, a count than a baron, a baron than a knight, &c. to guard and preserve the honour of the king and the welfare of the realm; for to each of these ranks and dignities is a certain corresponding duty attached,—and the higher the rank, the greater the obligation, for the larger the possessions, and the more noble the person, the more he is bounden, as St Gregory, before quoted, says, ‘Cum crescunt dona et rationes donorum.’

‘To continue my argument: the nearer the person is to the king by blood or hereditary honours, should he commit such crimes, it is by far more scandalous than if they were done by others removed at a greater distance from royalty. It is more scandalous for a duke or a potent lord, nearly related to the king, to practise his death, in order to gain his kingdom, than it would be for a poor subject no way related to the king; and being more iniquitous, the more deserving punishment.

‘I shall, in the third place, prove my proposition by saying, Where there is greater danger there should be a greater degree of punishment; for the machinations of near relations to the king are of far more importance and more perilous than those of poor people. And as they are more dangerous, they are deserving of severer punishment to obviate the perils that may happen, and to check the desires that may arise in such as are so near to the crown, to gain possession of it. For this end, they may exert every influence, by force or otherwise, to grasp it, which a poorer subject would never think of doing, as he could not have any expectations of wearing it.

‘My third truth is, That it is lawful for any subject, without any particular orders from any one, but from divine, moral and natural law, to slay, or to cause to be slain, such disloyal traitors; I say it is not only lawful for any one to act thus in such cases, but it is also meritorious and highly honourable, particularly when the person is of such high rank that justice cannot be executed by the sovereign himself. I shall prove this truth by twelve reasons, in honour of the twelve Apostles.

‘The three first reasons are drawn from the authorities of three moral philosophers: three others are from three dogmas of sacred theology of St Augustin, who says, in the last part of the second book of sentences, ‘Quando aliquis dominium sibi per violentiam surripit nolentibus subditis, vel etiam ad consensum coactis: et non est recursus ad superiorem per quem de tali judicium posset fieri. Talis enim qui ad liberationem patriÆ talem tirannum occidit, laudem et prÆmium accissit. Hic primum laudatur. Item debet laudari per quÆ facit opus dignum laude. Idem licitum prÆmium et honorabile accipit, et idem debet accipere. Ille facit opus meritorium quia nullum opus est dignum, primo nisi fieret meritorium.’ To translate this briefly, the holy doctor declares, that a subject who shall put to death such a tyrant does a work deserving praise and remuneration.

‘My second authority is as follows: ‘Salisberiensie, sacrÆ theologiÆ eximii doctoris in libro suo Policratici, li. ii. cap. 15. Sic dicit; amico adulari non licet; sed aurem tiranni mulcere licitum est, ei namque scilicet tiranno licet adulari quem licet occidere;’ that is to say, It is unlawful to flatter a friend, but not so to deceive by fair words the ears of a tyrant; for since it is lawful to put him to death, it is allowable to cheat him by flattering speeches.

‘My third authority is from several doctors, whom I class together, not to exceed the number of three, namely, ‘Ricardi de media villa, Alexandri de Hallis et Astensis, in summa qui conclusionem prÆfatam ponunt in iii. efforum;’ adding, for higher authority, the confirmation of St Peter the apostle, who says, ‘Subditi estote regi quasi prÆcellenti sive ducibus, tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum, audem vero bonorum, quia sic est voluntas Dei.’ Scribitur primÆ Pet. ii. That is to say, It is the will of God that all should obey the king, as sovereign lord over his kingdom; and the duke, as being sent by the king to punish those who have done ill, and remunerate the good.

‘Hence it follows, that dukes are obliged, to the utmost of their power, to avenge the injuries that are done, or may be intended against the king’s person, and to oppose all such attempts as may come to their knowledge.

‘I now proceed to the authorities from moral philosophers, the first of which is,—‘Ante forum principis pluribus locis cuilibet subditorum licitum est occidere tyrannum, et non solum licitum immo laudabile.’ That is to say, It is lawful for any subject to destroy a tyrant, and not only lawful, but even honourable and worthy of praise.

‘Cicero, in libro de Officiis, ‘Laudatis illos qui illum CÆsarem interfecerunt quamvis esset sibi familiarium amicus eo quod jura imperii quasi tyrannus usurpaverat.’ That is, Tully writes, in his noble book on morality, That those who killed Julius CÆsar are praiseworthy, because Julius had usurped the government of Rome as a tyrant.

‘My third authority is from Boccacio, who, in his book ‘de Casibus virorum illustrium, s. lib. ii. cap. 15. contra filios tyrannorum,’ in speaking of the tyrant, says, ‘Shall I call him king? shall I call him prince? shall I preserve my allegiance to him? Oh no: he is an enemy to the public welfare. May I employ conspiracies and open force against him? It is very proper and necessary so to do,—for there is not a more agreeable sacrifice than the blood of a tyrant, and it is insupportable to receive blame for having done good.’

‘I come now to my three authorities from the civilians. As I am no lawyer, it will suffice if I mention the judgments that have been given without producing them; for in my life I never studied the canon nor civil law more than two years, and twenty years have passed since that time, so that what little I may have learnt I have quite forgotten since the period of my studies.

‘The first authority of the civil law is, That any one may put to death deserters from the laws of chivalry; and who can be a greater deserter from chivalry than him who deserts the person of his king, the fountain of chivalry, and without whom it cannot long exist?

‘Secondly, It is lawful for every one to kill thieves and robbers, who infest forests and rob on the highways,—because they are particularly the enemies of the public weal, and consequently plotting to destroy all travellers: consequently, it is lawful to kill a tyrant, who is continually practising against his king, the sovereign lord, and against the public good.

‘Thirdly, If it be lawful for any one by the civil and imperial law to put to death a thief found by night in a house, it is much more so to slay a tyrant, who day and night devises the death of his sovereign lord. This consequence clearly follows, and will be apparent to any man of sound understanding, if he consider it, and the antecedent texts from holy writ.

‘Before I touch on the three examples from the holy Scriptures, I wish to reply to some objections that may be made to what I say, in arguing thus: All murder is forbidden by every law, divine, natural, moral and civil. Whatever may be said to the contrary, I shall prove it from Scripture: ‘Non occides,’ in Joh. xx. is one of the divine commandments, which forbids any kind of murder. That it is forbidden by the natural law, I prove by this quotation,—‘Natura enim inter homines quandam cognationem constituit qua hominem homini insidiari nefas est.’

‘I prove it forbidden by the moral law, from ‘Quia per id: hoc non facias aliis quod tibi non vis fieri: alterum non lÆdere; jus suum unicuique tribuere: hoc est morale, insuper et de naturali jure.’

‘That the civil and imperial laws forbid murder, those laws shall prove, ‘Qui hominem occidit capite puniatur, non habita differentia sexus vel conditionis. Item omne bellum omnis usus armorum vitiosus prÆcipue prohibitus est: nam qui vitio prÆcipue bellum gerit, lÆsÆ majestatis reus est. Item regis proprium furta cohibere, adulteria punire, ipsos de terra perdere: qui enim talia sibi appropriat aut usurpat, principem injuriatur et lÆdit: quoniam ut dicit lex judiciorum vigor: juris et publica tutela in medio constituta est, ne quis de aliquo quantumcunque sceleribus implicito assumere valeat ultionem.’

‘To reply to the above arguments: It should be known that theologians and jurists use diversely this word homicidium; but, notwithstanding, they agree in the same opinion respecting the thing. The theologians say, that to kill a man lawfully is not homicide, for the word homicidium carries with it ‘quod sit justum propter hoc dicunt quod Moyses, Phinees, et Mathathias non commiserunt homicidia quia juste occiderunt;’ but some jurists say, that killing of a man, just or unjust, is homicide,—while others deny it, saying there are two modes of homicide, legal and illegal; and for justifiable homicide no man ought to be punished.

‘I answer, therefore, with the theologians, that the killing of a tyrant is not homicide, inasmuch as it is just and legal. According to the general law, I confess it would be homicide; but if there be shewn justifiable cause for it, no punishment, but remuneration, should follow.

‘With regard to that part of the argument which says, ‘Quod hominem homini insidiari nefas est, et quÆ magis insidiatur homini,’ &c. it alludes to a tyrant who is continually practising the death of his king and sovereign lord. ‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas.’ As for him who slays a man, by watching a proper opportunity for it, to save the life of his king, and preserve him from mortal peril, he does no ‘nefas,’ but acquits himself of his duty toward his sovereign lord. ‘Et homo est nefas, et perditio, et iniquitas;’ and therefore he who kills such an one, by watching a proper opportunity, does it to save the life of his king.

‘In regard to that passage which says, ‘Non facias aliis, &c. alterum non lÆdere,’ &c. I reply, that it makes against the tyrant, and in favour of him who slays him; for he (the tyrant) does against his king that which he would not have to be done against himself, ‘et ipsum regem injuriatur et lÆdit.’ For which reason, he who has put to death such a person, according to his deserts, has done nothing contrary to the laws, but has preserved the meaning of them, namely, true equity and loyalty towards his king and sovereign lord.

‘To the other quotation from the laws that says, ‘Hominem occidere, capitale esse omnis usus armorum,’ &c. I answer, that there are no laws nor usages so very general but that there may be some exceptions made from them. I say, that the case of killing a tyrant is exempted, more especially when he is guilty of the crimes before mentioned. How can any greater cause of exemption be shewn than that, when the murder is done through necessity, to save the king from being put to death?

‘Even when conspiracies against his royal person have been so far carried by witchcraft and otherwise, that he is disabled from administering justice; and the tyrant being found deserving of that punishment, the king, from weakness of intellect, cannot, or will not, punish him, the killing of him, in such cases, is not against the law, properly speaking, for all laws have two meanings: the first is the textual signification, the other is the ‘quo animo,’—the person committing a crime has done it, and the law, as intended by those who made it, is to be explained according to the intent of its framers, and not always according to the literal sense.

‘Thus the philosopher brings forward the example of citizens who made a law for the defence of their city, that no one, under pain of death, should mount the ramparts, because their city was besieged; and they were afraid, should strangers mount the walls with the inhabitants, there might arise danger to them, from these strangers, at a proper opportunity, joining their enemies, or at least making them signs to show where they might the more easily attack the town.

‘It happened, that this town was attacked at several places,—when the strangers and pilgrims who were within it, observing the enemy were much superior to the inhabitants, armed themselves and mounted the walls at the weaker parts, when they repulsed the enemy, and saved the town. The philosopher then asks, Since these pilgrims have mounted the walls contrary to the express words of the law, they have infringed it, and should they not be punished? I say no; for although they have acted contrary to the literal text of the law, they have not disobeyed the spirit of it, which was the saving of the town,—for had they not mounted the walls in its defence, it must have been taken.

‘As to the laws which declare, that none ought to administer justice but the prince, nor do any deeds of arms without his licence,—I maintain, that these laws were made for the preservation of the king’s honour and person, and for the public good.

‘Should there exist a tyrant of great power and authority, who is continually practising, by witchcraft and other means, the death of the king, and to deprive him of his kingdom,—and should that king, from weakness of intellect or want of force, be unable to punish him, and should he permit him to go on in his wickedness,—I should disregard, in this case, the law that forbids me to bear arms without the king’s licence, or to take the authority into my own hands in a general sense only. What have I to do with the literal sense of it? Am I to leave my king in such peril? By no means. I am bound to defend my king, and put to death the tyrant; for should I, by thus acting, do contrary to the text of the law, I follow the spirit of it, and the object it was directed to, namely, the preservation of the honour and life of my king; and I should think myself more deserving of praise than if I had suffered the tyrant to live on in his wickedness. I ought therefore to be rewarded, and not punished, for having done a meritorious deed, tending to a good purpose, for which end all laws were made.

‘St Paul says, ‘Littera occidit, charitas autem Ædificat;’ which means, that to follow the literal sense of the holy Scriptures is death to the soul, but that we ought to obey the true meaning in all charity,—that is to say, to mark and accomplish the end for which the divine laws were made. Spiritual edification is a goodly thing.

‘Item, the laws divine, natural and human, give me authority for so doing, and by so doing I am a minister of the divine law; and it is plain, that the objections I have started, as probably to be made against what I have said, are not of any weight.

‘I come now to my three instances from the holy Scriptures, to confirm the truth of my third fact. In the first place, Moses, without any authority whatever, slew the Egyptian who tyrannised over the Israelites.

‘At this period, Moses had no authority to judge the people of Israel, for this power was not given to him until forty years after the perpetration of this act. Moses, however, was much praised for having done it. ‘Ut patet auctoritate, Exodi ij. quia tanquam minister legis hoc facit. Ita in proposito in hoc faciendo ego ero minister legis.’

‘The second instance is that of Phineas, who, without any orders, slew the duke Zambry, as has been related. Phineas was not punished for this, but on the contrary praised, and greatly requited in affection, honour and riches. In the affection that God shewed him, greater than before. In honour, ‘Quia reputatum est ei ad justiciam,’ &c. In riches, ‘Quia per hoc acquisivit actum sacerdotii sempiternum non tantum pro se, sed pro tota tribu sua.’

‘The third instance is that of St Michael the archangel, who, without waiting for any commands from God, or others, but solely from his natural love, killed the disloyal traitor to his God and Sovereign Lord,—because Lucifer was conspiring to invade the sovereignty and honour of God. St Michael was rewarded for his action in love, honour and wealth. In love, in that God had a stronger affection for him than any other, and confirmed him in his love and grace. In honour, ‘Quia fecit eum militiÆ coelestis principum in Æternum.’ That is to say, He made him the prince of his angelic chivalry for ever. In wealth, for he gave him riches and glory to his satisfaction: ‘Tantum quantum erat capax, de quibus loquitur. O altitudo divitiarum sapientiÆ et scientiÆ Dei, quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus, et investigabiles viÆ ejus.’ Ad. Rom. xi.

‘Thus my third fact has been proven by twelve reasons. The fourth is, That it is more meritorious, honourable and legal, that a tyrant should be slain by one of the king’s relations than by a stranger no way connected with him by blood,—by a duke than by a count,—by a baron than by a simple knight, and by a knight than by a common subject.

‘I thus prove my proposition. He who is related to the king has an interest to guard his honour and life against every injurious attempt, and is bounden so to do more than any stranger, and, in like manner, descending from those of high rank to the common subject. Should he fail in this his duty, the more deserving is he of punishment, while, on the contrary, by performing it, he gains the greater honour and renown. ‘Item in hoc magis relucent amor et obedientia occisoris, vel occidere prÆcipientis ad principem et dominum suum quia est magis honorabile si fuerit prÆpotens dux vel comes. Item in hoc magis relucet potentia regis quod est honorabile et quanto occisor vel dictÆ occisionis prÆceptor non fuerit vilior et potentior tanto magis,’ &c.

‘In regard to alliances, oaths, promises and confederations, made between one knight and another, in whatever manner they be, should they be intended to the prejudice of the prince or his children, or the public welfare, no one is bound to keep them; for, in so doing, he would act contrary to the laws, moral, natural and divine. I shall now prove the truth of this: ‘Arguendo sic. Bonam Æquitatem (dictamen rectaÆ rationis) et legem divinam boni principes in persona publica servare, et utilitatem reipublicÆ debent prÆferre, et prÆsupponere in omnibus talibus promissionibus, juramentis, et confederationibus: immo excipiuntur implicite secundum dictamen rectÆ rationis: bonam Æquitatem et charitatis ordinem quia alias esset licitum non obedire principi immo rebellare contra principes, quod est expresse contra sacram Scripturam quÆ sic dicit: ‘Obedite principibus vestris, licet etiam discolis et alibi. Subjecti estote regi prÆcellenti, sive judicibus tanquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum.’ 1 Pet. iij. ut sup. allegatum est.

‘‘Ex illo arguitur sic. Quandocunque occurunt duÆ obligationes ad invicem contrariÆ major tenenda est, et minor dissolvenda quantum adhoc, sed in casu nostro concurrunt duÆ obligationes. Et cum obligatio ad principem sit major, et alia minor obligatio ad principem tenenda est, et alia non in tali casu. Item arguendo eandem quÆstionem, quandocunque aliquis facit quod est melius quamvis juravit se id non facturum, non est perjurium, sed perjurio contrarium: ut expresse ponit magister sententiarum ultima dicti tertii: sed in casu nostro melius est tyrannum in prÆfato casu occidere quamvis juravit se non occisurum quam presentem vivere ut tactum est superius: ergo occidere tyrannum in prÆfato casu quamvis juravit se non occisurum, non perjurium facit, sed perjurio contrarium. Et consequenter Isidorus in libro de summo bono sic dicit: id non est observandum sacramentum et juramentum quo malum incaute remititur, sed in casu nostro male et incaute promititur. Sed non tenent promissiones jurata vel confÆderationes contra principem, uxorem principis, liberos, vel reipublicÆ utilitatem.’

‘Seventhly, If any of the above confederations and alliances should turn out to the prejudice of the person so engaging, of his wife or his children, he is not obliged to abide by them. ‘Patet hic veritas per rationes tactas prius et cum hoc probatur sic, quia observare in illo casu confÆderationes contra legem charitatis qua quis magis sibiipsi, uxori propriÆ vel liberis quam posset obligari cuicunque alteri virtute talis promissionis et omnia prÆcepta et consimilia in ordine ad charitatem patent per apostolum sic dicentem. Finis prÆcepti est charitas, quia in omnibus casibus et promissionibus intelligitur hoc, si in fide observaverit juxta illud frangenti fidem, &c. Item, subintelligitur si domino placuerit sed certum est quod non placeret Deo cum foret contra legem charitatis, ideo,’ &c.

‘In regard to the seventh proposition, namely, that it is lawful and meritorious for any subject to put to death a traitor that is disloyal to his king, by waylaying him, and whether it be lawful for him to dissemble his purposes,—I shall prove it first by the authority of that moral philosopher Boccacio, already quoted, in his second book ‘De Casibus Virorum illustrium,’ who, in speaking of a tyrant, says, ‘Shall I honour him as prince? shall I preserve my faith to him as my lord? By no means: he is an enemy, and I may employ arms and spies against him.’ This act of courage is holy and necessary; for there cannot be a more agreeable sacrifice to God than the blood of a tyrant.

‘I prove this from holy writ, in the instance of Jehu: ‘Occident te sacerdotes et cultores Baal, ut habetur primo reg. ex. ubi sic dicitur, Jehu Acab parum coluit Baal, ego autem colam eum amplius. Et paululum post; porro Jehu licet incidiose ut disperdat cultores Baal, dicit, sanctificate diem solennem Baal, &c. et laudatur de hoc. Item de Athalia regina vidente filium suum mortuum surrexit, et interfecit omne semen regium, ut regnaret, et Joyadas summus sacerdos insidiose fecit eam occidi. Et de hoc laudatur ut superius tactum est ad longum. Item, Judith occidit Holofernem per insidias. Et etiam de hoc laudatur pater familias quod ad zizaniÆ eradicationem non voluit expectare tempus messis ne triticum simul cum zizaniis eradicaretur, &c. Quod intelligitur in occisione tyrannorum per insidias sed et bonam cautelam et debet expectari loci et temporis opportunitas et expleri ne boni eradicentur,’ &c.

‘This is the proper death for tyrants: they ought to be slain by waylaying, or other means improper to be used toward good men; and for this reason, we are bound, in many instances, to preserve our faith to our capital enemy, but not to tyrants. As the reasons for this, urged by doctors, are common, and of some length, I shall pass them over.

‘AS TO WITCHCRAFT.

‘Eighthly, Any subject and vassal who shall imagine and practise against the health of his king and sovereign lord, to put him to death by a languishing disorder, through covetousness to gain his crown and kingdom,—any one who shall cause to be consecrated, or, more properly speaking, to be directed against him swords, daggers, knives, golden rods or rings, dedicated, by means of necromancy, to the devils, or shall make invocations with characters, sorceries, charms, after having thrust sharp instruments into the bodies of dead men hung on a gibbet, and then into the mouths of such malefactors, leaving them there for the space of several days, to the horror of all who detest these abominable practices; and, beside these arts, shall wear near their bodies a piece of cloth, containing the powder of some of the bones of malefactors, sewed up, or tied, with the hair from the secret parts: I say, such as shall commit any crimes similar to the above, are not only guilty of human high treason, in the first degree, but are disloyal traitors to God their Creator, and to their king.

‘As idolaters, and false to the catholic faith, they are worthy of the double death, here and in the world to come, even when such sorceries and witchcraft shall fail of their intended effect on the king’s person. ‘Quia dicit dominus Bonaventura, lib. ii. d. 6. Diabolus nunquam satisfacit voluntati talium, nisi antequam infidelitas idolatriÆ immisceatur, sicut enim ad divina miracula plurimum facit fides, &c. Et ideo experiencia de effectu prÆdictarum superstitionum secuta in personam prÆfati regis probat clare ibi fuisse idolatriam et fidem perversam. Item diabolus nihil faceret ad voluntatem talium in tali casu nisi exhiberetur ei dominium quod multum affectat nec se exhibet ad tales invocationes ipsis invocantibus eum, nisi ipsum adorent et sacrificia et oblationes offerant, aut pacta cum ipsis dÆmonibus faciant. Item, doctor sanctus secunda secundÆ in xi. articulo secundo dicit quod tales invocationes nunquam sortiuntur effectum nisi fuerit falsa corruptio fidei idolatria et pactio cum dÆmonibus. Ejusdem opinionis videtur esse Alexander de Hallis, Ricardus de Media-villa et Astensis in summa. Et communiter omnes doctores qui de hac materia locuti sunt, et sicut falsarii monetÆ et pecuniarum regis,’ &c.

‘I thus perceive that all the doctors in theology agree in saying, that such sorceries, charms and witchcraft can only succeed by the work of the devil, or by his false means;—and that these sorceries, and suchlike superstitions, have not of themselves the power of hurting any one, but that the devils have the ability to injure any person so far only as shall be permitted them by God.

‘The devils will not do any thing for those that call on them, unless they perform three things, namely, pay them divine honour, which ought solely to be paid to God, by offering them homage and adoration, proving themselves false to the holy catholic faith,—and the doing of which makes them guilty of the crime of high treason.

‘Primum Corrolarium. Should it happen, that for the circumstances above stated, any of these invocators of the devil, idolaters, and traitors to the king, should be confined in prison, and that during the time that their process is carried to judgment, any accomplice of their crimes should deliver or cause them to be delivered from prison, he shall be punished just as these idolaters would have been, as guilty of the crime of high treason in the first and fourth degree.

‘Secundum Corrolarium. If any subject who shall give, or promise to give, a large sum of money to another for poisoning the king his sovereign lord, and the bargain be proven and the poisons laid, although they may fail to produce their effects, through the interference of the providence of God or other means,—those who have committed this crime are guilty of being traitors and disloyal to their sovereign, and shall suffer the double death for high treason in the first degree.

‘Tertium Corrolarium. Any subject who, by treachery and hypocrisy, shall during any mummeries, through malice aforethought, procure dresses for his king, and, having clothed him in such dresses, shall cause them to be set on fire, with the intent that the king his sovereign may be burnt in them, so that he may obtain his kingdom, commits high treason in the first degree, is a tyrant and disloyal to his king, and is deserving of the double death, even should his sovereign escape, for the noble and valiant persons who may have been burnt to death in exquisite pain through his means.

‘Quartum Corrolarium est: When any subject and vassal to the king shall make alliances with those who are mortal enemies to his sovereign and kingdom, he cannot exculpate himself from being guilty of treason; more especially when he shall send advice to the men at arms of the enemy not to surrender any forts they may have gained in the kingdom,—for that when he shall be employed against them he will afford them succour. And beside, when he not only shall prevent the march of any armies against such enemies, but shall encourage them by secret and underhand means, he is a traitor to his king and country, and is deserving of the double death.

‘Quintum Corrolarium est: If any subject or vassal shall, through deceit and false information, sow the seeds of dissention between the king and queen, by telling the latter that the king hates her so mortally he is determined on having her and her children put to death, and that she has no other remedy to prevent this but flying out of the kingdom with her children; advising her strongly at the same time, to put this plan into execution, and offering to conduct her out of the realm to any castle she may please, adding with much subtilty, and by way of caution, that the queen must keep this advice very secret, lest she may be prevented from following it; and if, in order to accomplish this plan, he propose to the queen that she should undertake different pilgrimages until she be in a place of safety, intending by this means to confine her and her children in some of his prisons, and to gloss it over to the king, so that he may succeed him in his crown and kingdom. Any subject guilty of such a crime commits high treason in the second, third and fourth degrees. This is such an apparent truth that should I wish to prove it, ‘esset adjuvare coelum facibus.’

‘Sextum Corrolarium est: If any subject or vassal, through ambition to obtain a crown and kingdom, shall visit the pope, and impose on him, by imputing falsely and wickedly crimes and vices against his king and sovereign lord, which would be blots in his royal issue, concluding thence that such a king is unworthy to reign, and his children unfit to succeed him, and requiring most urgently of the pope that he would issue a declaration to the effect of depriving the king and his children of the crown; and likewise declaring, that the kingdom had devolved to him and his race, requesting that the pope would grant absolution to all the vassals of the realm who should adhere to him, giving them a dispensation for the oaths of fidelity that all subjects are obliged to take to their king,—such as may commit the above crime are disloyal traitors to their sovereign, and guilty of high treason in the first and second degrees.

‘Septimum Corrolarium est: If any disloyal subject shall hinder (‘animo deliberato’) the union of the church, and counteract the conclusions formed by the king and clergy of this realm for the welfare and security of the holy church, and shall use, among other means, that of force, to induce the pope to incline to his iniquitous way of thinking,—such subject is a traitor to his God, to the holy church, to his king and sovereign lord, and ought to be reputed a schismatic and obstinate heretic. He is worthy of the disgraceful death, insomuch that the earth ought to open under him and swallow him up, like to Coran, Nathan and Abiran, as we read in the Bible, ‘Aperta est terra sub pedibus eorum, et aperiens os suum devoravit eos cum tabernaculis suis, descenderuntque viri eorum in infernum operti humo.’ Num. xvi. Psal. ‘Aperta est terra et deglutivit Dathan,’ &c.

‘Octavum Corrolarium est: Any subject or vassal who shall, through ambition to obtain the crown, practise the death of his sovereign and his children by secret means, such as the poisoning their food, is guilty of high treason in the first and third degrees.

‘Nonum et ultimum Corrolarium est: Every subject or vassal who shall raise a body of men at arms, who do nothing but pillage and devour the substance of the people, rob and murder whom they please, and force women, and whose captains are posted in the strong places, castles, passes, and fords and bridges of the said kingdom, and shall moreover impose heavy taxes on the people under the pretext of carrying on the war against a foreign enemy, and, when these taxes have been raised and paid into the king’s treasury, shall seize on them by force, and distribute the amount among the enemies and illwishers to the king and kingdom, in order to strengthen himself that he may obtain his damnable ends, namely, the crown and kingdom,—every subject who thus acts ought to be punished as a false and disloyal traitor to the king and realm, and as guilty of high treason in the first and fourth degrees, and deserving of the double death.

‘Thus ends the first part of my justification of my good lord of Burgundy.

‘SEQUITUR MINOR.

‘I come now to declare and prove my minor, in which I shall show, that the late Louis duke of Orleans was devoured with covetousness of vain honours and worldly riches: that to obtain for himself and his family the kingdom and crown of France, by depriving our king of them, he studied all sorts of sorcery and witchcraft, and practised various means of destroying the person of the king, our sovereign lord, and his children.

‘So greatly had ambition and covetousness, and the temptation of the hellish adversary, possessed themselves of him that, as a tyrant to his king and liege lord, he committed the crime of divine and human high treason, in every manner and degree noticed in my major; that is to say, in the first, second, third and fourth degrees.

‘In regard to the divine high treason, as that concerns the Sovereign Judge in the heavens, I shall not lay any great stress upon this article, but shall touch upon it incidentally, when I speak of human high treason. I shall therefore enumerate, article by article, how he has committed human high treason in the four degrees above stated, and shall consequently divide my minor into four heads.

‘Respecting the first charge I make, of his having committed high treason in the first degree,—that is, when the offence has been done directly against the person of the king,—it may be done two ways: the first by imagining and practising the death and destruction of the prince, his sovereign lord, which may be divided into several heads, but I shall content myself with three.

‘The first by practising the death of the prince by sorcery, charms and witchcraft; the second, by poisons, venoms and intoxication; the third, by killing or causing the prince to be killed by arms, water, fire, and other violent injections.

‘That he is guilty of the first charge, I prove thus: To cause the king our lord to die of a disorder so languishing, and so slow, that no one should divine the cause of it,—by dint of money, he bribed four persons, one of whom was an apostate monk, the others a knight, an esquire, and a varlet, to whom he gave his own sword, his dagger and a ring, for them to consecrate to, or, more properly speaking, to make use of, in the name of the devils.

‘As suchlike sorceries can only be performed in solitude, and far from the world, these persons took up their abode for many days in the tower of Mont-Jay, near Laigny-sur-Marne. The aforesaid apostate monk, who was the principal in this diabolical work, made there several invocations to the devil, and at different times, the whole of which took place between Easter and Ascension-day; and one grand invocation on a Sunday, very early and before sun-rise, on a mountain near to the tower of Mont-jay.

‘The monk performed many superstitious acts near a bush, with invocations to the devil; and while doing these, he stripped himself naked to his shirt and kneeled down: he then stuck the points of the sword and dagger into the ground, and placed the ring near them. Having uttered many invocations to the devils, two of them appeared to him, in the shape of two men, clothed in brownish green, one of whom was called Hermias, and the other Estramain. He paid them such honours and reverence as were due to God our Saviour, after which he withdrew behind the bush.

‘The devil who had come for the ring took it and vanished; but he who was come for the sword and dagger remained,—but afterward, having seized them, he also vanished. The monk, shortly after, came to where the devils had been, and found the sword and dagger lying flat on the ground, the sword having the point broken,—but he saw the point among some powder, where the devil had laid it. Having waited for half an hour, the other devil returned, and gave him the ring, which to the sight was of the colour of red, nearly scarlet, and said to him, ‘Thou wilt put it into the mouth of a dead man, in the manner thou knowest,’ and then he vanished. The monk obeyed his instructions, thinking to burn the king our lord,—but through the providence of God, and the aid of those most excellent ladies the duchesses of Berry and Burgundy, who were present, he escaped.

‘I shall next show that the duke of Orleans was guilty of the crime of high treason in the first degree, by the alliances he contracted contrary to the interest of the king and kingdom. It is a fact, that when the king our lord and king Richard of England were firmly united in friendship, by the marriage of Richard with the eldest princess of France, king Richard would, at any risk, speak to the king our lord respecting his health; and when they were together, he told him, that the infirmity he was subject to was caused by means used by the dukes of Orleans and of Milan, and entreated him, by the love of God, to be on his guard against them.

‘The king, after this conversation, conceived so great a hatred against the duke of Milan, and not without cause, that the herald who bore his arms dared not appear in his presence. When this came to the ears of the duke of Orleans, he took a mortal dislike to king Richard, and inquired who was the greatest enemy he had in this world. He soon learnt that it was Henry of Lancaster, to whom he made advances, and at length concluded an alliance with him, in order to destroy the king, and to strengthen himself as much as possible, to arrive at his damnable ends.

‘The duke of Orleans and Henry of Lancaster agreed mutually to labour and assist each other to accomplish the deaths of the two kings, that they might obtain the crowns of France and England,—that of France for Louis d’Orleans, and that of England for Henry of Lancaster.

‘Henry succeeded in his attempt, but, thank God! the duke of Orleans has failed. And to confirm the truth of this alliance, the duke of Orleans has ever been favourable to the English, and has assisted Henry with all his power, and particularly in regard to the siege of the castle of Bordes, when he sent to the garrison not to surrender it to the French, for that he would hinder the success of the siege, and afford them sufficient succour when there should be need of it. He also prevented many expeditions from taking place, which were intended against the English.

‘Thus he proved himself a tyrant and disloyal to his prince and to the welfare of the kingdom, and committed high treason of the first degree, in a second manner. In confirmation of this, a fact has just struck me which I will relate to you. At the time when king Richard was a prisoner, and it was the intention of Henry to have him put to death, some of the english lords said to him, that great danger might ensue from the indignation of the French. Henry replied, they need not have any fears on that head, for he had a powerful friend in France, to whom he had allied himself, namely, the duke of Orleans, brother to the king, who would not, for any attempt that might be made on king Richard, suffer the French to attack the English; and to convince them, he made them read the letters that had passed, and the articles of the treaty concluded between them. It appears then, that the duke of Orleans has, in various ways, committed high treason of the first degree.

‘I shall now finish this article of my minor, although there be many other very horrible crimes perpetrated by the duke of Orleans of the first degree of high treason, which my lord of Burgundy reserves to charge him with at a proper opportunity, should there be a necessity for it.

‘I proceed to the second article of my minor, wherein I shall charge the duke of Orleans with being guilty of the crime of high treason, not only in the first, but also in the second degree, which consists in offending the king in the person of the queen his wife.

‘It is a fact, that about four years after the king was attacked by his unfortunate disorder, the profligate duke of Orleans never ceased imagining how he could succeed in his wicked and damnable designs, and thought that if he could prevail on the queen to quit the kingdom with her children, he would the more readily obtain his object. With this intent, he falsely informed her, that the king was very indignant against her,—and advised her, as she regarded her own life and the lives of her children, to quit the presence of the king and to leave the country.

‘He offered to conduct her and them to the duchy of Luxembourg (thinking that when there he could do with them as he pleased), and promised the queen that he would there safely guard her and her children. He added, that should the king recover from his frenzy, and should he perceive that he was no longer angry with her, and that she might safely return, which he engaged to urge to the king with all his power, he would re-conduct her and her children to his majesty. And in case the king should not have changed his opinion concerning her, he would maintain her according to her rank in the duchy of Luxembourg, were any of the nobles, or even the king or others to visit her. The better to colour his wicked designs, he gave the queen to understand that this project must be kept secret, and executed with much caution, lest she and her family should be stopped on the road to Luxembourg. He advised her to undertake a pilgrimage with her children to St Fiacre, and thence to our Lady at Liesse, whence he would escort her to Luxembourg, and give her such an establishment as should be suitable for her and her children’s rank, until the present dispositions of the king should be changed.

‘He frequently pressed the queen on this subject, using nearly the words I have related, all tending to put the queen and her children in his power to do with them as he pleased. They certainly were in great danger,—and it would have increased, if some worthy persons, real friends to the queen, had not informed her, that all she had heard was false, which made her alter her intentions the moment she discovered the wicked and damnable designs of the duke or Orleans. She determined, in consequence, not to undertake this journey.—Thus concludes the second article of my minor, which plainly proves the late duke of Orleans guilty of high treason against the person of the queen of France.

‘I shall now show, that the duke of Orleans has been guilty of high treason in the third degree, by three different crimes: the first, by poisons and intoxications; the second, by fallacious deceptions; the third, by his false representations to the pope.

‘In regard to my first charge, I declare the late duke of Orleans guilty of intending the death of the late dauphin by means of a poisoned apple which was given to a child, with orders to offer it to my lord the late dauphin, and to none other, which was done. It chanced as he was carrying this apple, he passed through the gardens of the hÔtel de St Pol, where he met the nurse to the children of the duke of Orleans, carrying one of them in her arms. The apple seemed so beautiful that she bade the child give it to her, that she might present it to the infant she was carrying,—but he said he would not give it to any one but my lord the dauphin. Seeing the boy so obstinate, the nurse took the apple from him by force and gave it her child to eat, who soon after fell sick and died.

‘I here ask one question. This innocent died of the poisoned apple: ought the boy who brought it, or the nurse who gave it the child, be punished? I reply, No, neither of them; but the crime must be attributed to those who poisoned it, or caused it to be carried.

‘In regard to my second charge, of fallacious deceptions, I have already touched upon them, in his treacherous conduct and advice to the queen, to quit the kingdom for the duchy of Luxembourg.

‘As to my third charge, it is well known, that the duke of Orleans, persevering in his wicked designs, has personally, and by ambassadors, often practised with the pope to deprive the king of his crown and kingdom. To succeed in this damnable conspiracy, he falsely and wickedly charged the king with crimes affecting his royal progeny, which he gave the pope to understand were such as required him to declare the king and his posterity unworthy to hold or succeed to the crown of France. He also requested the pope to grant absolution to all who should act contrary to the oath of fidelity they had been constrained to take to the king, and to declare the next of his blood the successor to the crown and government of France.

‘The better to secure the pope in his interests, he has always favoured and supported him by divers ways, as is apparent from his conduct, in the cession and restitution of the monies from the hospital of Toulouse.

‘Thus the third article of my minor is made clear, notwithstanding there are very many other horrible crimes of high treason in the third degree, committed by the late duke of Orleans, unnoticed, which my lord of Burgundy has reserved to himself, to bring forward or not as he may see occasion.

‘I now come to the fourth article of my minor, which is, that the late duke of Orleans, has been guilty of high treason in the fourth degree, namely, of offending against the public welfare.

‘Although I have before noticed his alliance with the enemies of the realm, which is acting positively against the public good, I shall show how he has otherwise committed this crime. In the first place, by keeping men at arms in different parts of the realm, who did nothing but plunder the people, rob all travellers, and force women. He moreover, placed their captains in the strongest castles, and at all the passes, bridges and fords of rivers, the better to succeed in his wicked designs, namely, the usurpation of the government.

‘Secondly, He has imposed intolerable taxes on the subjects of the realm, pretending they were for the carrying on the war against the enemy, but giving from their amount large sums to the illwishers to the kingdom, to induce them to become his allies, and support him in his attempt to seize the crown.

‘Thus it appears that I have proved the duke of Orleans guilty of high treason in the fourth degree. There are beside many other facts more wicked and criminal than I have stated; but my lord of Burgundy has reserved them with others, to bring forward, if it be necessary, more strongly to convict the duke of Orleans of having had the design of compassing the king’s death, and the deaths of his royal family, that he might obtain the crown.

‘Now, if my hearers will unite my minor with my major, it will clearly follow, that my lord of Burgundy is not deserving of any blame whatever for what has happened to the criminal duke of Orleans; nor ought the king our lord to be dissatisfied with him, but, on the contrary, he should be pleased with what he had done, and requite him for it in three ways,—namely, in love, honour, and riches, after the example of the rewards given to my lord the archangel St Michael, and to the valiant man Phineas, which I have already mentioned in my major.

‘According to my plain understanding, I think our lord and king ought to declare his attachment to my aforesaid lord of Burgundy, and publish his good fame both within and without the kingdom, by his letters patent, in the manner of epistles or otherwise; and God grant it may be so done, ‘Qui est benedictus in secula seculorum. Amen.’

After master John Petit had finished his harangue, he requested of the duke of Burgundy that he would vouch for all he had said, which the duke granted, and avowed the whole of what master John Petit had laid to the charge of the late duke of Orleans, in the presence of the dauphin, who represented the person of the king, and all the other princes and lords before particularized. The orator, after this, declared that the duke of Burgundy had reserved some charges of a deeper nature to lay before the king personally, when a proper occasion should offer.

The assembly now broke up, and the princes and lords retired to their different hÔtels. The duke of Burgundy was escorted to his hÔtel d’Artois by a large body of men at arms and archers.

There were great murmurings in Paris among all ranks, for the assembly had been open to all, respecting the charges made against the late duke of Orleans, and various were the opinions concerning them. Those attached to the Orleans-party declared they were all false, whilst the Burgundians maintained the contrary.

Shortly afterward, queen Isabella of France, apprehensive of consequences to herself and children, set out from Paris with her son the duke of Acquitaine and the others, accompanied by Louis duke of Bavaria, her brother, and fixed her residence in the castle of Melun. The king, who had been very ill of his disorder for some time, now recovered: the duke of Burgundy waited on him, and was not only reconciled but obtained letters sealed with the king’s seal and signed with his own hand, by which he was pardoned for what had lately happened to the duke of Orleans, to the astonishment of many great lords and wise men, but at this moment it could not be otherwise.