THE INFLUENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS UPON ECCLESIASTICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE EARLY FIFTEENTH CENTURY

A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts

by Patricia Ann Wegner, B.A. The Ohio State University 1971

Approved by TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1 Chapter I. THE GREAT SCHISM ...... 4 II. THE THEORY OF TYRANNICIDE • . . 26 III. THE REIGN OF CHARLES VI • • • . . 34 IV. THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC. • . . . 42 CONCLUSION ...... 59

BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4 • • 61

ii INTRODUCTION

"As the weakness of the papacy gave the University (of Paris) the opportunity to assert its authority in the Church, so the weakness of the crown gave it the oppor­ tunity to assert its authority in the state. 111 The prominence of the University of Paris in the Great Schism spanned the period of time from 1379, when the University recognized the pontificate of Clement VII, until the resolution of the Schism through the Council of Constance in 1414-1417. The discord in the Church, ef­ fected by the circumstance of two rival pontiffs, infected all the nations of Western Europe. Ecclesiastical, as well as national and international politics, were part of the struggle between the two popes. The University, as a highly respected organ of the Church felt the responsi­ bility to make efforts to bring the Schism to an end. The prominence of the University in the Schism, as it dealt in the realm of ecclesiastical politics, gave it the impulse to become an active force in the purely sec- ular affairs of the state as well. "Efforts in behalf of peace and reform in the Church would naturally prepare the

1 charles Gross, "The Political Influence of the University of Paris in the Middle Ages," American Histor­ ical Review, Vol. 6 (London: The Macmillan Company, 1900), p. 44 .5. 1 2 way for the exercise of its influence in behalf of peace and reform in the kingdom of France during the dark days of Charles VI: the semi-secular activity of the rector and masters in church politics would predispose them to participate in the purely secular politics of France.•2 Several conditions favored the University's exer­ cise of political power. Accustomed to the priYileges of self-government and free discussion the masters of the University had developed a consciousness of political technique. Located in the great capital city of Paris, the University was in the very midst of activity which dictated the political life of France. Perhaps most importantly of all the University was well organized to disseminate her political ideas and opinions, her members occupied most of the pulpits in Paris and held many bene­ fices throughout the kingdom. Thus the University was well-equipped to exert its influence in behalf of peace and good government. The reign of Charles VI was tormented by the king's insanity and the uncompromising ~eud ~etween the Burgundians and the Armagnacs. At times the very existence of the Univer­ sity was threatened by the struggle between the royal princes. It is understandable that the University refused to remain passive when she was jeopardized with ruin in consequence of the turmoil which paralyzed the political life of France. Although the sympathies of the Univer­ sity were usually with the Burgundians she tried to med­ iate between them and the Armagnacs in order to establish peace. She decried the theory of tyrannicide with which Burgundy sought to justify his murder of Orleans in 1407. Moreover, she made repeated efforts to influence reform measures within the royal government. However, in 1420, her diploma.tic efforts to mediate the conflict for control of the throne were marked by her voice in, and approval of, the Treaty of Troyes; from that point on the Univer­ sity was entirely Burgundian in her position. Therefore, when Charles VII was ultimately successful in withstanding both the English and the Burgundians the University of Paris, understandably, lost much of her voice in the political life of France. CHAPTER I

THE GREAT SCHISM

The University of Paris, as a body and as reflected in the thought of several of its faculty, played a signi­ ficant rile in the attempts to heal the Schism of the Christian Church in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. •1t was evident already before the event that the death of Gregory XI .as likely to produce a difficult sit­ uation. Gregory, himself, fully aware of the perils facing the church, took steps to prepare the way by auth­ orizing the majority of the cardinals actually present at his court at the time of his death--that is, actually in Italy--to proceed immediately to the choice or a successor, and in this way to avoid the dangers of a long vacancy while those members of the college absent in France and elsewhere gathered to~ther.• 1 The "dangers of a long vacancy• which Gregory fore­ saw were the pressures which the French king on one hand and the Homans on the other might exert on the choice of a papal successor. An immediate election was his solution for avoiding these demands. Gregory died on March 27,

1Geoffrey Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy (Norwich, England: Jarrold & Sons, 1968), p. 164. 4 5

1378, and his successor, Urban VI, was elected pope on April 8. 2 However, although the speed with which the new Pope was chosen apparently eliminated any pressures from the French court, the Roman populace did make their wishes known. "The populace was naturally excited, as there had been no conclave in Rome for well over half a century. Crowds gathered round the Vatican shouting 'Romano lo volemo, o, almeno, italiano' ('We want a Roman, or, at least, an Italian 1 )."3 The influence of the French court became apparent when French support made it possible for the cardinals to resist Urban after they began to exper­ ience his stubborn attempts to reform the Curia. 4 In May, 1378, complaining of the heat in Rome, some of the cardinals received permission to go to Anagni. By June 21, all of the cardinals were there excepting the four Italia.ns. From Anagni on August 9, they published their "Declaratio" which declared the Holy See vacant and the election of Urban VI as null.5 Leaving Anagni on August 29, they elected a new pope, Clement VII (Robert of Geneva) at Fondi on September 20. Clement and his cardinals reached

2Ibid. 3G. J. Jordan, The Inner History of the Great Schism of the West (London: Williams and Norgalt, 1930), p. 13. 4 Barraclough, p. 165. 5walter Ullmann, The Origins of the Great Schism (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1948), p. 52. 6

Avignon on June 20, 1379.6 Both papal claimants evidenced their desire to have the University of Paris in their camp. As Urban began to realize that the cardinals might prove troublesome to him he sent the University his description of the events sur­ rounding his election (July 3, 1378). The cardinals, while they were staying at Fondi, sought to bring the University to their point of view. "They addressed a letter to the Chancellor of the University of Paris on 7th September and another letter to the members of the University on 12th September, in which they described Urban as an intruding archbishop possessed by the spirit of anger (truculenta rabies) and malice against them."7 An earlier letter to the University dated August 21, 1378, states: "We have let you know ••• of the awful fury, cruel tyranny, the unbridled action and sacrilege of the people of Home against our goods and persons when we were occupied with the Elec­ tion of the Pope, who was chosen by force according to their fancy. It is because of the bold malice that the See of St. Peter is occupied by an Apostate who spreads erroneous dogmas which destroy all truth."8 The University had accepted Urban as the new pope

6Jordan, p. 13. 7 Ullmann, p. 55. 8 Jordan, p. 23. 7 immediately following his election. Beginning in July of 1378, however, the renigade cardinals had sent emissaries to the University, as well as the King and Parliament, with some positive results.9 On May 22, 1379, the Univer­ sity of Paris, following lengthy deliberations, decided to n • • • recognize the Pontificate of the Most Holy Father in Christ Our Lord Clement by divine Providence the Seventh. 1110 The University's decision was not a unanimous one and it was certainly induced to some degree by the French king but the effect was none the less one of support for Clement over Urban by "the eldest daughter of kings and popes, the University of Paris, the mother and mistress of all schools of Christendom. It is the University that takes care to give this assurance in a letter addressed to the King, not without a touch of self-satisfaction and vain-glory. 'The obedience of Home is the wider, 1 they say, 'altera amplior; but ours is the more intelligent and hale, altera sanior. 11111 The Schism having been effected, no national forces appeared with sufficient strength to attempt any reconcil­ iations. "For fifteen years the onus of healing the wounds of the Schism rested entirely upon the Universities and private individuals • • • the early efforts for peace

9L. Salembier, The Great Schism of the West (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1907), p. 63. 10Jordan, p. 20. 11salembier, p. 74. 8

(were) local and private, the outcome of the meditations of University doctors •...•• "12 In 1379 Henry of La.ngenstein, a member of the faculty of theology at the University of Paris, wrote the "Epistola Pacis." He used an allegorical setting, a conversation between a supporter of Urban and one of Clement,13 to make an argument in favor "of the Univer­ sity suspending judgement until a General Council should decide between the rival Popes. 1114 In May of 1380, a trea­ tise from another theologian from the University of Paris appeared. In "Epistola Concordia" Conrad of Gelnhausen dis­ tinguished between the Church universal and the pope and cardinals by stating that the church could not err whereas popes and cardinals might. "In spite of the Schism Christ still reigns over Christianity . . . ' in short, the con- gregation of all Christians is superior to the pope. And every dispute fust be submitted to a "superior" for juris­ diction. Consequently, the whole of Christianity is the only rightful judge who can terminate the present dispute. 111 5 Conrad clearly favored a General Council. He admitted the papal authorization for a General Council was required by law. However, he argued that a purely legalistic approach

12Jordan, p. 62. 13 Ibid, p. 64. 14E. F. Jacob, Essays in the Conciliar Epoch (Manches­ ter: University of Manchester Press, 1943), p. 1. 15 Ullmann, p. 176. 9 could not be taken in cases of an extraordinary nature. "The true interpretation of every law must proceed upon the Aristotelian basis of 'epieikeia', that is, of equity, which is the only adequate criterion for a satisfactory explanation of positive law. Although it is still true that the pope must authorize a General Council, there are cases which the legislator could not have foreseen. One of these cases is 'casus nester, qui a regula est exceptus 16 pixta mentem conditnrum. 1 " The "Consilium Pacis" appeared in 1381. This is a second treatise by Henry of La.ngenstein dealing with a solution for the Schism through the convocation of a General Council. He states that the General Council is superior to any power in the church and that in cases of necessity the church, as any other community, can summon a General Council. He, too, appeals for the use of epieikeia.17

"We know that not only what is permissible outside a time of need becomes a duty under pressure of necessity, but that even what was not permissible outside a time of need becomes both a duty and a necessity in a time of extreme urgency. For ex­ ample: taking bread by one who is in extreme need is not theft. The reason for this is that those things which are covered by the laws of men, such as the division and appropriation of

16Ibid, p. 180. 17Jordan, pp. 66-68. 10

property and similar matters, cannot repeal natural or divine law, by which lower things are ordained to serve the need of man. • • • Therefore those people abuse 1 Epieikeia 1 who in the present great and common need of the Universal Church desire that all positive laws about the assembling of a Council by the Pope alone should be kept exactly to the letter; they obstruct the way of peace and safety against the intention of those who drew up the Canons, as if in no circumstances it would be law­ ful for the people or someone to strive against the common statutes without the authority of the Prince in defence of their own or their fathers• laws or commonwealth, or to resist as enemy and as King a Prince bent on ruining the Commonwealth and the whole community of citizens for the pre­ servation of which he was not appointed. • • • There is a certain quality which Aristotle in the fifth book of the ethics calls 1 Epieikeia', and which has a directive force over the justice of the law. It is superior to justice because it is more in keeping with the mind and aim of the Legislator. It is therefore evident that since law-makers direct their attention to those things which occur in the majority of cases and rarely make provision for contingent events, therefore, some men, without legal experience and ignorant of moral philosophy and theology, desiring that common laws and decrees should be observed in all cases according to the outer and superficial meaning, oppose the intention of the Legislator and run counter to justice and the public good, overstepping thereby the dictates of sound reason for the sake of certain human traditions. They do not consider the intention of the law, and scorn to listen to its true meaning. 11 18

Unfortunately the time was not right for the con­ ciliar arguments of Gelnhausen and Langenstein to be accepted. Clement VII enjoyed the unqualified support of the French king. "On May 20, 1381, the University of Paris, most solemnly assembled in the Monastery of St.

18_,Ibid pp. 47 - 49 • 11

Bernard, Paris, unanimously agreed through the four fac­ ulties, namely, of Theology, Law, Medicine, and Arts, that the way of a General Council should be adopted. On June 15, 1381, the University discussed the question whether ••• it was heretical to deny that either of those elected was Pope."19 However, these meetings of the University had no result and the two masters were forced to leave the University, Gelnhausen for Heidelberg and Langenstein for Vienna. 20 Urban VI died in 1389 but the Homan obedience im- mediately named a successor, Boniface IX, calling into question their sincerity in ending the Schism. When Clement VII died in 1394 the French court forbid the Avignonese obedience to elect a successor, a demand which they chose to ignore as they proceeded to elect Benedict XIII. The University of Paris, alarmed at Clement's failure to search for an end to the Schism had taken up

"An Anti-Clementine policy in 1391. • • • In 1394 the masters of the University were asked to suggest a remedy, and proposed three methods: the simultaneous cession of both popes, arbitration between them, or, finally, a gen­ eral council. They were resentful of the spoliation of the French church and also genuinely convinced that, in

19 Ibid, pp. 6 3-64. 20 Barraclough, p. 173. 12 supporting Clement, France was wrong.•21 The University members were beginning to visibly desert Clement, they looked upon both Clement and Boniface as equally irrespon­ sible and were moving in the direction of forcing the resignations of both papal claimants. Obviously, when the Avignonese obedience chose to go ahead with Benedict's election they were defying not only the demands of the French court but the rising resentment and mistrust of the University. At this time two outstanding doctors of theology from the University of Paris, Pierre d 1Ailly and Jean Gerson, began to distinguish themselves as principal spokesmen for means to an end of the Schism. Pierre d'Ailly had been a proctor of the French nation at the University, rector of the College of Navarre, and chaplain to the French king before becoming Chancellor of the 22 University in 1389. As early as 1381 d 1Ailly advocated a General Council as the method for putting an end to the Schism in his treatise •Epistola diaboli leviathan.• At this same time he urged the utilization of a General Council to the French Court. 23 "Later on, it is true he felt at times that although the way of the Council might

21.l.l2i.d, pp. 174-175. 22Frances Oakley, Tbe Political Tbought of Pierr~ d 1Ailly (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 19 4), p. 10. 23 l.1;2is1, p. 158. 13 be 'more in conformity with the common law, 1 it neverthe­ less entailed greater difficulties than the other possible ways of cession or compromise. 1124 Accordingly, in 1394 when a referendum of the University revealed it to be overwhelmingly in favor of the "via cessiones" (simultan­ eous abdication of the rival pontiff) d 1Ailly committed his support to that method. 25 At that time he felt that the abdication of both popes was the most practical solu­ tion and the method most assured of a successful outcome. "The behavior of the rival pontiffs finally dis­ abused him of any belief that these alternatives were actually realizable. Most of his polemics on the Schism are devoted therefore to urging the convocation of a General Council, and to stating that such a Council, be­ cause it represents the Universal Church, is possessed of the necessary authority to restore unity, even if this entails the judgement and deposition of the several popes. Examples of this point of view are broadcast throughout d 1Ailly 1 s writings, and the most complete statement is that contained in the second part of his 1 Tractatus de materia concilii generalis, 1 a statement the bulk of which he transferred, almost verbatim, to his later 'Trac­ tatus de ecclesiatica potestate.' Perhaps the most valuable 24-·Ibid 25Ibid, p. 11. 14 and revealing expose, however, is that to be found in the several 'useful propositions' which he appended to a letter sent in 1409 to the Cardinals assembling for the Council of Pisa. 1126 According to these 'propositions' the unity of the Church does not exist in the person of the Pope and, as with any polity seeking to preserve its unity, the Church may use the means of a General Council. Not only may the Church summon a General Council to insure its unity in circumstances where the behavior of the pope portends the destruction of the church, the General Council can judge and condemn the pope. 27 "The Council of Pisa represented the triumph of the principle that a council could meet in spite of as well as at the bidding of the pope."28 John Gerson was a student of Pierre d'Ailly and when d'Ailly resigned the position as Chancellor of the Uni­ versity of Paris in 1395 Gerson was chosen to take his place. 29 As an advocate for an end to the Schism it was not until 1404 that Gerson spoke of the method of a Gen­ eral Council. "It was not really until 1409 that he advo-

26~, pp. 158-159. 27.1.1219., pp. 159-161. 28 Agnes E. Roberts, 'Pierre d 1Ailly and the Council of Constance: A Study in the 10ckhamite' Theory and Practice," Transactions of the Hoyal Historical Society, Vol. 18 (1935), 123. 29James L. Connolly, John Gerson (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1928), p. 51. 1.5

cated the Conciliar Theory as the one means to secure peace and union. ,.JO With the opening of the Council of Pisa Gerson embarked on a period of prolific writing, all of which reflected his thorough support for Concil­ iar methods in ending the Schism. In Paris on January 29, 1409, Gerson delivered an address before the English delegation on their way to Pisa. The "Propositio facta coram Anglicis" contained a preliminary statement follow­ ed by four "Considerationes." "The first consideration depicts the Church as seeking the gathering together of her sons in Council, just as matter seeks form, the im­ perfect perfection. The second • • • lays down the neces­ sity of one head fer the Church and justifies the Council in pursuing all measures necessary to achieve this end, even if tradition bas to be overruled in so doing. The third Consideratio points out that the two Universities of Oxford and Paris, ••• have both agreed on a General Council as the best cure for the ills of the Church. The fourth • • • states that the Church derives its efficacy and strength from the Divine seed, which like life-giving blood is diffused throughout the ecclesiastical body.n3l

30 Ibid, p. 173. 31John B. Morrall, Gerson and the Great Schism (Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1960), pp. 78-80. 16

"De Auctoritate Concilii," which dates from 1409 as well, argues for the summoning of a General Council without papal authorization.32 With "De Auferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesia" Gerson foreshadowed the deposition, by the Council of Pisa, of both papal claimants and the election of a new (third) pope: "(If the rival Popes themselves refuse to submit to its judgements the Council has authority to) 'proceed to the election of a third Vicar •••• an33 "De Unitate" is an even more thorough­ going defense of the Conciliar position:

The unity of the Church in one Vicar of Christ need not now be obtained by necessarily keeping to the literal or outward terms of positive law as in evocations, accusations, delations, or sim­ ilar matters. This general Council may proceed summarily and with that valuable and important weapon Equity; this Council, I say, in which will reside-sufficient judicial authority for using 1 Epieikeia, 1 i.e. the power of interpreting all positive laws and of adapting them to the better ensuring of unity, or even of departing from them in case of necessity, for what has been ordained for the peace and health of the Church. As it was instituted from a sense of order, and not by arbitrary ill-will, it must not militate against peace lest it should lead to the destruction and not to the edification of the Church. Again, many eases may occur in which as it would be lawful to resist force by force for the obtaining of public peace or just protection, so would it be lawful to withdraw obedience from a Pope duly elected to the Papacy, or to remain neutral; or to imprison him bodily, or to forbid

32Ibid, p. 82. 33Morrall, p. 93. 1?

him all public help; or by appeal or similar remedy to oppose him, or not to be afraid of the decisions which he puts forward of whatever nature and to assert that they are not to be feared; or to tear them in pieces and to turn them back on his own head; or, again, to accuse him of schism or heresy, both by instruction in public places by theologians and men of learning as well as secretly in brotherly correction to which he is subject as a sinner be­ fore the whole Church • • • or to hold a general Council without his consent; or, lastly, to force him to abdicate, and if he resists to hurl him from all office and rank, and even to deprive him of life. All these and such-like things are permis­ sible by fixed, divine, and natural law, since no law nor order of any mere man contrary to this truth must be made without the authority of God except to be condemned as intolerable error. It is very necessary to warn judges lest 1 Epieikeia 1 be used promiscuously and without a clear reason, by an entire change of the written law; otherwise laws may lose their stability forth­ with, and doubt about the laws would destroy the discipline which rests on them and the Commonwealth in consequence would neQ~ssarily be broken up and thrown into confusion. 11 J

"At the start of the Council (of Constance) Gerson was, after Sigismund, the man of the hour •.•.•.• On March 23, 1415, (Gerson) delivered one of the most famous ser­ mons of his career, 'Ambulate dum lucem habetis'n35 In this sermon Gerson states that the Council can proceed with its work without the presence of the Pope. "De Potestate Ecclesiastica" is, however, the landmark treatise of this period in Gerson's conciliar thought. It is "not only the embodiment of his own mature theories, but also one of the

34Jordan, pp. 53-55. 35Morrall, p. 95. 18 most balanced and comprehensive expressions of the 'Con­ ciliar' theory of Church government. 11 36 The General Council, Gerson believes, must be the locus of final Church authority. Mention has already been made of the University's ballot, taken in 1394, wherein a majority voted in favor of the "Via Cessionis." Methods of ending the Schism through compromise or a General Council, although suggested, had not proved as popular a solution at that time. In line with the •via Cessionis" the University addressed Benedict following his election with his often self-declared interest in reuniting the Church: "Who knows how long you will possess the authority God has entrusted to you? The place of the Church is in your hands, for your rival will no doubt have to imitate yuu. Should he refuse to do so, everyone will be convinced of your good right. • • • The safety and unity of the Church depend then upon you."37 Pierre d 1Ailly was sent to Benedict's to stress the 'Via Cessionis' in person. It became increasingly apparent, however, that Benedict was not inclined to work toward reunion any more diligently than his rival, through what­ ever means might be proposed. In December, 1395, the University wrote to the

36Ibid, p. 100. 37salembier, p. 144. 19

Avignonese Cardinals employing that Benedict must adopt the "via cessionis" or face a withdrawal of obedience by his own cardinals, through the vehicle of a General Council of his obedience.38 On May 22, 1398, her patience all but exhausted, the University met with members of the clergy and the Dukes of Berri, Burgundy, Orleans, and Bourbon to dispute the next course of action in dealing with Benedict. Simon de Cramaud, in addressing the assemblage, cited Benedict's failure to work for an end to the Schism through the proposed "via cessionis• and stated that "we must find out whether the Church of France is going to throw off all obedience so far as he is concerned, or whether a partial withdrawal of allegiance would suffice to make the Avignon

Pope reflect. 1 39 Twelve men were then chosen to debate the proposition of withdrawal of obedience. "The University of Paris, by the mouth of Professor Peter Plaoul, declared against the Pope and demanded an entire withdrawal of obedience."40 After the debate the vote was taken and 247 votes out of the 300 favored a complete with- drawal of obedience.41 The formal edict was pub- lished on July 28, 1398 with great hope that Benedict

38Morrall, pp. 40-41. 39Jordan, p. 84. 40Salembier, p. 158. 41 Jordan, p. 85. 20 would be awakened to his duty to work toward the Schism's end. But five years later, with the Bishops in token con­ trol of the Church, the only achievement was a stronger hand of the French Court in affairs of the church. The University, with fewer of its members gaining preferment had made protest in 1400 by suspending her lectures and when, in 1403, Benedict escaped his quarters at Avignon and wrote to both the King and the University from Chateau-Renard promising to work for unity, restitu­ tion of obedience was quickly achieved (May 30, 1403).42 Obedience was restored, but on a conditional basis that Benedict convoke a council of his obedience to deal with the restoration of union and reform in general. So Bene­ dict was recognized as Pope once again. Coincidentally, it was not long after this that Boniface died in Rome (October 1, 1404) and was succeeded by Innocent VII. Through one subterfuge after another Benedict pretended sincerity in ending the Schism but suspicions of his bad faith were confirmed at the beginning of 1406 when he sent a delegate to the French Court where he spoke of the University of Paris as gossips unworthy of Benedict's confidence.43 On May 17, 1406, Jean Petit proposed a new subtraction of obedience from Benedict. On June 7, Peter

42salembier, pp. 187-190. 43Ibid, p. 202. 21

Plaoul attacked a letter from the University of Toulouse defending Benedict and Petit followed with 11 a long speech full of warmth and violence. 'Obedience was restored to the Pope,' he said, 'on certain conditions, and these conditions have not been fulfilled. Benedict has shame­ lessly broken his oaths and promises. 11144 On November 18, 1406 sixty-three prelates and doctors met at the palace to determine a future course of action with regard to Benedict. Disputants were chosen to debate the issue which Salembier describes as "a struggle between the Un­ iversity and the Pope.n45 The debate clearly showed that the University was strongly in favor of a General Council and a withdrawal of obedience as prerequisite to that end.46 Unconditional withdrawal on the one hand and re­ newed petitions to Benedict on the other gave way to the idea of maintaining spiritual obedience while negating the Pope's temporal power over benefices, prelacies, etc. This position was adopted on January 4, 1407. 47 Meanwhile, in Rome, Innocent VII had died in 1406 and the Roman cardinals had elected Gregory XII. The new Roman Pope, although making the usual promises to end the Schism, proved as stubborn as all the other papal claimants.

44Ibid, pp. 202-203. 45Ibid, p. 207. 46 Jordan, p. 108. 47Salembier, p. 215. 22

The Roman cardinals were out of patience with Gregory and the Avignon cardinals, almost as sensitive as Benedict to the loss of revenue inherent in the 1407 decision in Paris, were similarly disgusted with Benedict. Subsequently, on their own authority, the cardinals of both obediences sum­ moned a General Council at Pisa in 1409.48 "The Universities of Paris, Oxford, and Bologna, that is to say, the three most authoritative voices of Christian learning, had given advice in accordance with the desires of the cardinals, and highly approved their conduct. • • • d 1Ailly openly declared in favor of the Council • • • he asserted the absolute right of the cardin­ als, as well as the duty of the two rival popes, to send representatives to the future meeting and to obey its de­ cisions. • • • Gerson added his voice to that of his illustrious friend and gave the Council of Pisa the benefit of his popularity.•49 The Council of Pisa was convened on March 25, 1409. Evidence was solemnly taken against the two claimants and on May 23 debates began on the sentence to be pronounced. "Numerous masters of the University took part in the debates, and were not among the least ardent in their condemnation of the Pope of Rome and even of Avignon. 11 5° On June 5, 1409 The Council of Pisa deposed

48 :sarraclough, pp. 176-177. 4 9salembier, pp. 236-237. 50 Ibid, p. 252. 23 both Benedict and Gregory and on June 26, 1409, elected Alexander V as pope. A little more than ten months later Alexander died and was succeeded by John XXIII. John dutifully convened a new Council at Rome in 1412 as dictated by the Pisan decrees. In preparation for the Council at Rome John nominated fourteen new cardinals, among whom were principal doctors of the University of Paris. "John made a point of conciliating this powerful and illustrious corporation • • • but his intentions were soon doomed to cruel disappointment."5l The men meeting in Council at Rome were doomed to disappointment as well. It became apparent that John did not take the Council or its discussions seriously. The representatives left Rome in disgust. What seemed a hopeless situation, three papal claimants and no means at hand to narrow the field to one, was altered at this point by Germany's recently elected King, Sigismund. He forced John XXIII to summon another Council at Constance, to commence in November, 1414.52 "To the Council of Constance the eyes of Christendom were turned. Not for nothing was the greatest University in the world, which was far more influential than any such

51 l.Q!g,, p. 271. 52Barraclough, p. 178. 24 seminary now, the main factory of its principles.n53

D1Ailly and Gerson, it will be recalled, contribu­ ted substantially to the thought which became action and edict at Constance. As we have noted one authority cites Gerson as "man of the hour" after Sigismund.54 D1Ailly, likewise, is noted as •one of the foremost leaders of the movement against the Popes.n55 "From his opening sermon on December 2, 1414, until the election of the new pope, Martin V, in 1417, d 1Ailly was involved in many, though not all, of the great events of the Council."56 On Dec­ ember 14, 1414, d 1A1lly made a final plea for voluntary cession although he recognized more severe measures were undoubtedly the only recourse to ending the Schism. It was through d 1Ailly 1 s and Gerson's influence that doctors of theology, canon and civil law were granted voting rights and through d 1Ailly 1 s suggestion that the voting was done by nations.57 As John found his position increasingly threatened

53John Neville Figgis, Studies of Political Thought from G son to Groti s 4 4- 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931 , p. 48. 54Morrall, p. 95. 55Jordan , p. 138. 6 5 oakley, p. 13. 57salembier, pp. 286-289. 25 by the deliberations of the Council he fled Constance (March 20, 1415). The Council deposed him some two months later on May 29. Gregory abdicated on July 4 and subse­ quently the Council deposed Benedict.58 Finally, in November of 1417 Martin V, elected by the Council of Con­ stance, became the sole pontiff and the symbol of an end to the Schism.59 The Council of Constance effected, with the dissolution of three papal claimants and the election of one pope, an end to the Great Schism. The University of Paris had dictated the structure of that Council and, even more significantly, the content of its thought.

58 Ullmann, p. 190. 59Barraclough, p. 180. CHAPTER II

THE THEORY OF TYRANNICIDE

The internal French political situation sharply deteriorated during the years of the struggle to end the Schism. The Dukes of Burgundy and Orleans, in the absence of any strong leadership from Charles VI, engaged in a struggle for the reins of government. Although Burgundy had control of large quantities of rich land and commerce the Duke of Orleans was close to the King and especially influential with the queen.1 Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, died in 1404. The abrasive personalit7 of his successor, John the Fear­ less, heightened the existing tension between the Burgun­ dian and Orleanist parties.2 John was increasingly trou­ bled by the growing strength of Orleans who had pocketed the government tax in 1404 and also made territorial alliances with Luxembourg and Gelderland, thereby threat­ ening Burgundy from the north and east. In consequence of these aggravations the impetuous John ordered his men to

1James L. Connolly, John Gerson (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1928), p. 164. 2John Morrall, Gerson and the Great Schism (Man­ chester: University of Manchester, 1960), p. 13.

26 !7

waylay and assassinate the Duke of Orleans. The order was carried out on November 23, 1407.3 The ambush took place in the rue Vieille-du-Temple. Two days later at the royal council Burgundy confessed to the Duke of Berry and Louis II of Anjou that he was responsible for ordering Orleans' murder. He told them the devil had forced his action. Barred the next day from the council, Burgundy fled to Lille.4 The king and the princes hastened to comfort the widow, Valentine Visconti, and made promises of vengence but the Duke of Burgundy was too formidable for them to have seriously considered a confrontation.5 Aware of this, John the Fearless invited his uncle, the Duke of Berry, and his cousin, Louis II of Anjou to his retreat in Flanders. Ironically it was to these two men, to whom he had first confessed the murder, that now he dictated the terms of his pardon. 6 By February, 1408 he had boldly reappeared in Paris. Displaying even greater insolence John sought to justify his actions by posing as a def ender of the internal peace of the kingdom. He commissioned

3connolly, p. 164. 4Edouard Perroy, The Hundred Years War (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1959), pp. 226-227. 5A. Coville, Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932 , p. 382. 6 Perroy, p. 228. 28

Jean Petit, the Norman theologian from the University of Paris, to explain the justice of Louis' assassination. Already famous for his outspoken activity in the Schism, Petit drafted a "Justification" which he delivered before the king and his council in March of 1408. "It complacently detailed all the peculations, the frauds, the exactions of which Louis of Orleans had been guilty at the expense of the Treasury and the State. It welcomed all the gossip about him. Louis' brazen debauchery and his inquisitive but disorderly and inconsistent turn of mind aad given rise to slanderous rumors. His adultery, his shameful morals, his practice of magic--everything was there, and today there is no telling the true from the false. But the conclusion was clearly defined: Louis had behaved as a 'regular tyrant.' Christian morality and the teaching of history and the learned allowed tyrannicide, and indeed made it an imperious duty, 'lawful and meritorious.' In Jean Petit's eyes the crime of 1407 thus became an out­ standing act of justice and devotion to the crown."7 In Petit's own words "Any subject or vassal who makes any attempt on the King's health, through cupidity, fraud, or witchcraft, may be killed as a tyrant by any other subject, without any command or order. It is proved

?Ibid, p. 229. 29 by laws natural, moral, and divine. 118 Petit's elaboration of his subject was based upon twelve reasons, the number was intended to represent the twelve apostles. The first three reasons were drawn from the holy doctors, the next three were from Aristotle, Cicero, and Boccaccio, the third set of three was taken from civil law, and the last group of three came from the Holy Scripture.9 Six months after Jean Petit first pronounced his theory of tyrannicide the princes and the king assembled again, this time to hear the Abbot of Cerisy reply to Petit's "Justification." They were, in this instance, sympathetic to Valentine Visconti, but their vengence and resolve once again proved to be short-lived.10 Jean Petit, as has already been noted, was already known to some degree for his activity with regard to the Schism. He was "a Norman in origin, a poet when in the mood, an eloquent speaker, passionate, sarcastic, and, above all, a perverse politician.11 In retaining Petit to draft a rationale for Orleans' murder the Duke of Burgundy made a clever choice. Certainly John the Fearless

8L. Salembier, The Qreat Schism of the West (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1907), p. 332. 9 Ibid, p. 332. 10 Coville, p. 382. 11salembier, p. 202. 30 realized that he was obtaining the services of a man who was already a Burgundian sympathizer. More importantly he was engaging a man gifted with not only eloquent rhetoric but also with an aggressive spirit. Jean Petit was a forceful exponent of Burgundy's "Judicious murder" of Orleans. Most important of all, however, was Petit's status as a member of the faculty of theology at the University of Paris. When the Duke of Burgundy engaged Jean Petit he also acquired the reputation of the Univer­ sity, an institution which spoke with authority about secular, as well as, religious questions. The astonishing immorality of Petit's theory even­ tually prompted Gerson to reply to the "Justification." But he waited nearly five years before he led the Univer­ sity of Paris to condemn the doctrine of one of her own faculty. The reasons for John Gerson's hesitancy in taking issue with Petit 1 s position were two-fold. At the very threshold of the meeting of the Council of Pisa and the Council's attempts to unify the Church, civil war in France would have unquestionably impeded the council. Attacks on Petit, as Gerson well knew, would only fan the flames in the existing quarrel between Burgundy and Or­ leans. Secondly, Gerson was beholden to Burgundy for his Bruges benefice. In spite of his personal indebtedness to Burgundy, however, Gerson spoke with guarded criticism about Petit's 31 tyrannicide theory from the beginning. His sermon on justice preached before the court in 1408 can be inter­ preted as a condemnation of Petit's doctrines and his 11 De

Auferibilitate Papae ab Ecclesia 11 of 1409 is also an attack, in part, on the thesis of tyrannicide. 12 Resent­ ment of Gerson 1 s antipathy to the theory probably prompted John the Fearless to persuade John XXIII to declare Gerson's appointment to the benefice void in 1411. Thereafter, John Gerson was outspoken in his opposition to Petit's doctrine.13 When the Armagnac party (Orleans) had gathered sufficient strength to confront Burgundy they were able to return to power in Paris. Once they had done so an official funeral was held for the murdered Duke of Orleans at Notre Dame. John Gerson was the orator of the day. The strength of that sermon and that of a second address before the court on September 4, 1413, acknowledged a forth­ right attack on Petit 1 s doctrines.14 A council of eccles­ iastics from the University of Paris met to decide the orth­ odoxy of Petit's teachings; John Gerson was a prominent member of the council. "The doctors at first condemned

12connolly, p. 165. 13Morrall, pp. 13-14. 14connolly, p. 166. 32

seven, and afterwards nine of Jean Petit's assertions, and ordered them to be burnt (February 23, 1414)."15 The University was placed in the uncomfortable position of censuring one of her own members. Moreover, she was vicariously condemning the Duke of Burgundy whom she was inclined to favor over the party of Orleans. Nonetheless, she remained the most qualified authority to determine the morality of Petit's theories. The Duke of Burgundy, declared an enemy of the coun­

try by the King, appealed to John XXIII with regard to the University's decision to condemn the teachings of Petit. "Both sides decided to carry their appeal to the Council of Constance which was shortly to be held, and Gerson as the chief agent in the condemnation of the teaching was named the personal representative of the King of France at the Council.16 The Council of Constance appointed several cardinals, along with bishops and doctors of each nation to listen to the arguments for and against the teachings of Petit. "They decided not to condemn Jean Petit by name, and consequently, not the Duke of Burgundy, but they repudiated a proposition cast in general terms, without naming the author (July 6, 1415). 111 7

l5salembier, p. 333. 16connolly, pp. 166-167. 17salernbier, p. 333. 33

Although Gerson and Pierre d'Ailly made efforts to obtain a more open condemnation of tyrannicide and its apologist from the representatives at Constance they were destined to be disappointed. Gerson prophesied that a stronger statement repudiating Petit's theories was needed to forestall further political assassinations under the guise of tyrannicide. Four years later his vision was confirmed: John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy and the original patron of Petit 1 s doctrines as justification for Burgundy's murder of Orleans, was assassinated "on the bridge of Montereau, by the order and before the eyes of the Dauphin. 1118

18Ibid, p. 334. CHAPTER III

THE REIGN OF CHARLES VI

The case of Jean Petit's "Justification" of tyran­ nicide highlighted the political divisions in France and, in some small measure, the University of Paris' attempts to act as mediator in the internal disorders of the king­ dom, brought on by the Burgundian-Armagnac split. Gerson spoke for himself and a large segment of the University in condenming the thesis with which the Duke of Burgundy sought to justify his murder of the Duke of Orleans. However, as has been already noted, the University and the entire city of Paris were Burgundian sympathizers so that in speaking against Pettt the University was in the uncomfor­ table position of censuring Burgundy as a consequence of condemning one of her own faculty. Although the University was BurgundAan in sympathy, she still attempted on occas­ ion to restore order in the kingdom and institute reforms. "The masters of the University, given a taste for public affairs by the leading role they had just played in church politics, felt themselves called upon to reform the State in accordance with the principles of reason. They had no practical program, but their purely platonic desire for reform was stiffened by their pride as intellectuals inured 34 35 to syllogisms."1 The struggle between the princes was for control of the royal edifice; in seeking to possess it each of the factions threatened to destroy exactly what they sought. Concern over the internal disorder brought on by the quar­ rel between the Burgundians and the Armagnacs and the recurring insanity of Charles VI prompted the University and her chancellor, John Gerson, to exercise influence repeatedly from 1405 until the Treaty of Troyes in 1420. Monstrelet and other chroniclers mention the repeated presence of University representatives in meetings held by Burgundy in 1405 wherein reform measures were suggested and attempts to reconcile the princely factions were made: "They (the University representatives)were convinced of his (Burgundy's) good intentions concerning the reform and restoration of the kingdom and asked him to persevere in these endeavors, notwithstanding any obstacles that he might meet with.•2 As chancellor or the University John Gerson exer­ cised his authority to exhort the court to alleviate the conditions of civil strife which were oppressing the French

1 Eduoard Perroy, The H~d,red Years War (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1959 , p. 229. 2Bichard Vaughan, John the Fearless (New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc., 1966), p. 34. 36 people. One of his most impressive sermons was made in 1405 when he described the lot of the poor man, drained by the repeated taxation and at the mercy of the opposing armies of the warring princes. In 1413 Gerson refused to pay a special tax levied in order to raise an Armagnac army. He was forced to hide from the government tax collectors "amongst the rafters (of the Cathedral of

Notre Dame) until danger was past • • • in protest against the levy of exhorbitaim taxes from which the people were $Uffering.•3 Gerson addressed the king in several sermons using the example of great monarchs from the past and dwelt on a king's obligation to seek to positively influence his kingdom and the Church. The University chancellor des­ cribed the benefits which would accrue to the kingdom if it were governed strongly and wisely; "There would be no misuse of public funds, nor soldiers despoiling the people, nor offices sold to the highest bidder·.n4 In 1394, 1405, 1408 and 1413 Gerson made specific appeals before the court to demand that the dukes call a halt to the jeal­ ousy-inspired quarrel and allow the country peace in which to rebuild itselr.5

3James L. Connolly, Jobn Gerson (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1928), pp. 136-137. 4l.121£, p. 138. 5ll2.!.!i, p. 163. 37

The diplomatic activity of the University in attemp­ ting to reconcile the quarrelling princes was noted in 1410 when "as daughter of the king" she "claimed the right to mediate and to work for peace 'ex sua profes­ sione 1".6 Correspondingly, when the Treaty of Auxere was signed in August, 1412, re-uniting the entire royal family, delegates of the University were present.7 Unfortunately, the civil war was not over as the treaty indicated. In 1413 the University sent delegates to further peace nego­ tiations at Pontoise, and began admonishing the king about the dangers of the English, a posture which she re-asserted several times before the Treaty of Troyes in 1420.8 She also spent part of 1413 drawing up a list of men the Uni- versity considered to be traitors to the country and on August 3 of that year University representatives asked the king for permission to propose reforms relevant to the peace of the kingdom. The permission was granted.9 Moreover, "at a congregation of the University at which the Dukes of Guienne, Berri, and Burgundy, with many other magnates, were present, the chancellor of the Duke of

6Joycelyne Gledhill Dickinson, The Congress of Arras (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955), p. 16. 7Perroy, p. 231. 8nickenson, p. 16. 9A Parisian Journal. 140f-1449, trans. Janet Shirley, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968 , pp. 70,75. Guienne solemnly rendered thanks to the assembled masters for having labored zealously to establish peace."10 1413 was a significant year because the Estates General was called to assemble for the first time in thirty years. Threatened with an English invasion the monarchy realized that the heavy taxation necessary to support a strong defensive effort would have to be chan­ neled through the Estates General if it were to be accepted without large-soale protest. "From the start of the session, which opened on January 30, 1413, it became apparent that the Estates would not hear of taxes until the long-awaited reforms had been oarried into effect."11 Attacks were made on the king's ministers of finance and the already over-burdened tax structure. •on February 9, the king gave an audience to the University and the bourgeoisis. The speaker of the two groups, Benoit Gen­ tien, monk of Saint Denys and professor of theology, condemned the expenditures of the monarchy ••• a fresh attack was launched a few days later . . • part of the great increase (in taxes) was blamed for an excessive number of treasurers, the other part on the extravagance

10charles Gross, "The Political Influence of The University of Paris in the Middle Age," American Historical Review, Vol. 6 {London: The Macmillan Company, 1900), p. 441. 11 Perroy, p. 232. 39 of the king."12 On February 24 the royal government sus­ pended its financial officials and formed a commission to propose reform measures. The University was represented on the commission by Pierre Cauchon, a member of the faculty of theology. The commission, however, was slow in starting its work. The Parisian burgesses, impatient to avenge the inequities from which they had suffered so long, rose up in open revolt on April 27, in 1413. Led by Simon Caboche this mob imprisoned iaany leading government and court officials. One of those whom they "arrested" was Peter des Essarts, the recently suspended provost of Paris. Following four weeks or terror at the hands of the Paris mob the king granted the 'Ordonnance Cabochienne" which demanded a list or reforms in 259 clauses. By October, however, the political seesaw had reversed the power of both the Duke of Burgund7 and the Cabochians whom he had first incited to action and then only somewhat half­ heartedly supported. The ordinance was revoked, Burgundy fled to Flanders, and the University, who had been sympa­ thetic to the burgesses' interest in reform although disturbed by their methods in trying to obtain it, was sought after by the party of the Armagnacs for University

12steven Matthews, "The Estates-General of France, Child of Crises," seminar paper presented March 17, 1971, Department of History, The Ohio State University. 40 support of the Armagnacs control of Paris.13 As has been mentioned in the previous chapter the Duke of Burgundy introduced a violent rationale for tyran­ nicide when he defended his murder of Orleans in 1407. Unwittingly he established a model for his own death. In 1419 the young Duke of Orleans had John the Fearless killed. In view of the Burgundian sympathies which had prevailed for so long in Paris, the outcry in that city was one of revenge. The University openly protested the murder,14 in part because of her Burgundian leaning, in pa.rt because she had argued against the justification for tyrannicide since 1407. The rector of the University of Paris preached the funeral sermon for John the Fearless. 15 The year after John the Fearless was murdered his son, Philip the Good, abandoned the other royal princes completely in pledging Burgundy's support of England's claim to the throne or France. "The Treaty of Troyes, already outlined in the negotiations with Burgundy, might have been one of the aoat fateful documents in English history--had Henry V survived to complete his conquests."16

l3vaughan, p. 194. 14 Joseph Calmette, l)le Gold.en Age g' ;eurgundy (New York: w. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 19 2), p. 131. 15Shirley, p. 144. 16E. F. Jacob, Henry V and the Invasion of France (New York: Macmillan and Company, 1950), p. 147. 41

The provisions of the Treaty of Troyes in 1420 stated that upon the death of Charles VI the throne of France was to belong to Henry V of England and thereafter to his heirs. In addition, Henry was to act as regent for Charles VI until the French king's death. The dauphin was labeled illegitimate by his own mother and therefore, declared ineligible to succeed to the throne. His sister, Princess Catherine, fared somewhat better. She became the bride of Henry V, a marriage which was to signify the union of England and France. The Univ4:!rs1ty sent representatives to Troyes to take a hand in the preparation of the treaty. 17 Upon completion of the terms of the treaty the University approved it and the Estates General ratified it, the estate of the clergy consisting solely of University faculty. 18 With the acquiesence to the treaty wherein Burgundy clearly put her forces on the side of the English the University of Paris, already under Burgundian influ­ ence, became an active supporter of the Anglo-Burgundian alliance. Thereafter the Anglo-Burgundian attitudes of the University were often reflected in the official posture of the institution, most dramatically in the trial of Joan of Arc.

17D1okenson, p. 16. 18 Matthews, p. lJ. CHAPTER IV

THE TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC

The influence which the University of Paris exerted on the trial and subsequent verdict of Joan of Arc is an example of affairs in both the religious and civil realms which were colored by the attitudes of the University. In the continuing struggle between the English and the Armagnac parties in France Joan was regarded by the loyalists as a miraculous military leader who had not only effected the crowning of the Dauphin Charles at Rheims but relieved Orleans and liberated much of the occupied territory as well, all within a period of fifteen months. 1 Once Joan had been captured at Compiegne by Jean of Luxem­ bourg, the English anxiously sought to bring her to trial in order to discredit her military success, her personal magnetism, and the recent coronation of Charles. "Not only must it be shown that the Dauphin's coronation was invalid, but for the mo~ale of the English army it was essential to prove that the Armagnac successes had a diabolical source. 112

1N. s. Scott, The Trial of Joan of Arc (London: The Folio Society, 1956), p. 9. 2Ibid.

42 43

The Duke of Burgundy supported the English and since Jean of Luxembourg was likewise an English supporter and a follower of Burgundy, pressure was applied to both men to release Joan. After some initially unsuccessful attempts Joan was handed over to Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais. Cauchon was an English sympathizer and there­ fore an ideal representative of the Inquisition. For by using the Inquisition as their tool the English sought to discount Joan's military success by labeling it the work, not of a political enemy, but of a heretic. Assistance from the University of Paris was essen­ tial if the English were to accomplish their aim. "At this time the University • • • possessed supreme authority in law and theology •••• To a great extent it had sup­ planted the Inquisition as investigator of doctrine or judge of heresy, and on these questions claimed sovereign right of decision.a) English and Burgundian, the University of Paris used its influence to initiate the trial, drew from its membership for judges, determined the verdict through those judges as well as the faculties of law and theology, and publicized the verdict and execution once they had been achieved. As has already been said the English made several unsuccessful demands of the Duke of Burgundy and Jean of

JN. P. Barrett, The Trial of Joan of Arc (London: Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1931), p. 7. 44

Luxembourg that they hand over the captive Joan. Their claims unheeded, the English Council concluded they could gain possession of Joan by having Cauchon claim her for the Inquisition. The Council pointed out to Cauchon that: "The Maid has use of magic and diabolical cunning. She is a heretic. She was captured in your diocese. She is now a prisoner in your diocese. It is up to you to inquire into these matters. Summon and admonish the Duke of Burgundy and John of Luxembourg to hand over the Maid to you to bring her to trial as it is set forth in the provisions of the law of the church against heretics. Offer to pay any reasonable sum for her ransom. 114 The Bishop agreed to the Council's plan but insisted on supportive advice and con­ sent to the idea from the University. He asked the Univer­ sity for a legal opinion and was told that he not only could, but should proceed with a trial.5 The University wrote to the Duke of Burgundy and Jean of Luxembourg urging in both letters that Joan be released to Cauchon. The advice was further strengthened by warnings that failure to hand Joan over to the Bishop would cast doubts on the men's standing as good Christians.

l:J.Danie1 Hankin and Claire Quintal, The First Biogra­ phy of Joan of Ar4 (Pittsburg, University of Pittsburg Press, 1964), p. 2 • .5 ~, pp. 42-43. 45

The University's entire letter to Burgundy showed that the University of Paris, Anglo-Burgundian in orienta­ tion, was most interested in labeling Joan a heretic, just as were the English themselves:

Most Illustrious, Respected, and Mighty Seigneur, We Commend Ourselves With Great Attachment To Your High Novleness. In your wondrous wisdom you know and acknowledge that all good catholic Knights must, in the first place, devote themselves might and main to the ser­ vice ot God. The foremost solemn oath of the Order or Chivalr7 is •To safeguard and uphold the honor ot God, His Holy Church, and the Catholic Faith." Your memory of this oath served you well when the wo1&n who calls herself The Maid was captured in the presence of 10ur noble person and authority. Through her the honor ot God is foully sullied, our Faith grievously wounded, and the Church too much discredited. She has occasioned the diffu­ sion of idolatries, vain beliefs, evil doctrines, and other irreparable disorders and depravities in this kingdom. Verily, all Christians owe you a supreme debt of gratitude for JOQllrfruitful devo­ tion to our Holy Faith and to this entire realm. As for us we give thanks to God with all our hearts for your great valor and noble courage. A capture of such (importance) will become merely a little thing unless it brings about whatever is required to make amends for the offenses perpetrated by this woman against our very gentle Creator, His Faith, and His Holy Church. Her other misdeeds are innumerable. It will be the greatest evil that ever was, an atrocious offense against Divine Majesty, if this affair languishes. She could be rescued, lost to us! It is rumored that certain of our foes are designing such a scheme, applying to their intention by means the most crafty, all their wiles. And, what is worse, bf sums of money and threats of violence Crandon). 46

Let us hope God will not allow a mischance so mischievous to afflict His people. May your illus­ trious good sense not tolerate it, but lead you to take steps to meet this emergency resolutely. If in any way her deliverance is brought about without condign atonement, what an irreparable disgrace for your high nobleness and for all others who may meddle in this affair. Let a stop be put at once even to the possibility of such a shocking deed. This is imperative! Therefore, because delay involves too serious a risk, one very injurious to the realm, we, with genuine humility and devoted attachment, pray your honored and puissant noble­ ness to give up this woman and have her brought to justice for the good and the grandeur of this king­ dom, for the preservation of the Faith, and in the interest of Divine Honor. Send her without delay to the Inquisitor of the Faith who has required and does require her (to be delivered to him). His purpose is to examine the merits of the grave accusation (against her), so that the will of God may be done and the people enlightened by the truth of sacred teaching, as is their due. Or if you prefer and choose, give up and deliver this woman to the Reverend Father in God, the highly honored Bishop of Beauvais, for as is well known she was made captive (in territory) under his jurisdiction. The Bishop and the Inquisitor are to be her judges in this Trial of Faith. Every Christian of what­ ever degree is bound (in conscience) to obey them, under solemn penalties of the law. By complying with this command you will gain the grace and the love of the Supreme Divinity and you will be an instrument for the exaltation of our Holy Faith. You will enhance the glory of your great and noble name and in an equal manner that of the most high and all powerful prince, the ever nedoubtable Duke of Burgundy. We then who are in your debt will :beg God to be­ stow good fortune on your noble self. May He, Our Savior, direct you with Divine Grace in all your activities in this world and grant you happiness without limit in heaven. Written in Paris, the 14th day of July 1430. 0

6.I.:QiQ., pp. 44-46. 47

The Vicar-General of the Inquisitor also wrote to the Duke of Burgundy emphasizing Joan's suspected heresy and the urgency with which she must be released to the In­ quisition in order to make "reply and proceed rightly according to the counsel, favor and aid of the good doctors and masters of the University of Paris, and other notable counsellors therefoom."7 Assured of the University's support, Cauchon forward­ ed to Burgundy and Luxembourg his own demand that they release Joan to his custody. The Bishop's letter pointed out, as had those of the University and the Inquisition, that Joan was considered an enemy of the church and must be released for trial by the Inquisition. The Bishop stated that he and "doctors of theology and doctors of the decre­ tals "8 which he would assemble would share the responsibility for the trial with the Inquisitor. The letter also clearly indicated that the King of England would pay ransom to Joan's captors.9 The letters of the University and Cauchon having been sent, the Bishop left Paris with a notary and a representa­ tive of the University. They traveled to Compiegne where Burgundy was laying seige to that city. The notary reported

7 Barrett, p. 27. 8Rankin, p. 44. 9Ibid. 48 that the Bishop, on July 16, 1430, presented this summons for release of Joan to the Duke of Burgundy who, in turn, had the summons given to Luxembourg. 10 The negotiations for the ransom money took some time. "The Estates of Normandy, under pressure from the Regent, the Duke of Bedford, on 4 August 1430 in Rouen voted to disburse the enormous sum {10,000 livres tournois) called for to pay for her release. Then Thomas Blount, treasurer in Normandy for the King, and Pierre Surreau, minister of finance there, in a document signed in Rouen on 24 October 1430 acknowledged the order from the King to disburse 2,636 nobles d'or, the said sum to be given and delivered to John Bryce, "the Custodian of the coffers of the King. 1111

On November 21 the University wrote to both the Bis­ hop of Beauvois and King Henry. The subject of both letters was the delay over Joan's deliverence to Cauchon and the Inquisition. The University pointed out that since Joan had now been delivered to Henry she could and should be speedily turned over to the Inquisition, brought to Paris, and tried by "the masters, doctors, and other notable per­ sons already present. 1112 "On 6 December 1430 John Bryce in a signed receipt

10 Ibid, pp. 46-47. 11 Rankin, p. 96. 12Barrett, p. 31. 49 acknowledged that ••• 10,000 livres tournais (had been) paid out for the purchase of Joan, the prisoner of war, who called herself the Maid. 111 3 The Bishop took Joan, only to place her again in the hands of the English who brought her to Rouen, where, "thrown into the strong prison of the castle in the city, she was well-jailed, well-shackled, and well guarded. 1114 A letter from the Chapter of the Cathedral of Rouen to Cauchon, dated December 28, 1430, gave him permission to hold Joan's trial in Rouen, stating that "For many considerations and reasons, and especially upon careful reflexion of the present circumstances, it seemed meet to institute proceedings in the city of Houen."15 Paris was not felt to be as secure a place for Joan's trial as was Rouen. Henry circulated a letter, written on January 3, 1431, explaining the release of Joan to the Bishop of Beauvais in order that she might be tried as an enemy of the church. The King's letter stated that he had •been exhorted by our very dear and well loved daughter, the University of Paris, to surrender, present and deliver this Jeanne to the said reverend father in God (Cauchon), so that he may question and examine her and proceed against her according to

13Rankin, p. 9 6 . 14Ibid, p. 48. l5Barrett, p. 34. so ordinances and dispositions of canon and divine laws, when the proper assembly shall be called together. 1116 The "proper assembly" which Cauchon called to Rouen included Jean LeMaitre, the deputy Inquisitor, Jean d'Estivet, the prosecutor, and approximately sixty assessors. "A time-server and a renegade, Cauchon was a man of whom little good can be said. Tied hand and foot to the Anglo-Burgundian party, to whose favor he was indebted not only for his pre­ sent position, but also for the hope of the Archbishopric of Rouen to which he never attained, he was an out-and-out enemy of Jeanne, 111 7 LeMaitre had been designated vicar of the Inquisition by Jean Graverent, Inquisitor for France. He was seldom present, unwilling to become at all involved in the trial, in spite of the fact that he and Cauchon were Joan's only judges. The assessors played only a con­ sultative role,"among the most assiduous of these officers of the court were the Masters delegated to Rouen by the Un­ iversity of Paris, Jean Beaupere, Nicholas Midy, Jacques de Touraine, Gerard Feuillet, Pierre Maurice, and Thomas de Courcelles."18

When Joan's trial finally began on January 9, 1431

16 ll2!.9., p. 32. 17scott, p. 10. 18Regine Pernoud, Joan of Arc (New York: Stein and Day, 1966), pp. 165-166. 51 she had already been a prisoner for eight months. The pro­ cess which led to her eventual conviction lasted five months. The first phase of the trial, the instruction of the case, was comprised of investigations and interrogations lasting until March 26. The ordinary trial followed, last­ ing until May 24, The third and final phase was Joan's trial for relapse held on May 28 and 29. 19 As was custom­ ary in trials of the Inquisition, Joan was not charged with any specific crimes, she was simply questioned during the Preparatory Interrogations, the first phase, in hopes that she might admit to some offense. The prosecutor constructed charges from what was learned in the interrogations in the form of Articles. During the Trial in Ordinary, the second phase, Joan was confronted with the Articles and it was for her to refute tlem. In accordance with the established procedure of the Inquisition &he Articles, in shortened form, were sent to the University of Paris for an opinion relative to the verdict. 20 The actual interrogations, within the first phase of the trial, began on February 21 in open court in the chapel of the Rouen Gastle. 21 However, after March 10, the inter­ rogations were held in Joan's prison cell with only a few

19Ibid, p. 165. 20scott, pp. 12-13. 21 Barrett, p. 45. 52 assessors in attendance. 22 In the course of the Prepar- atory Interrogations the charges on which Joan would pos­ sibly be convicted began to take shape. "There was the charge of witchcraft, to which we can refer those questions touching her standard and the story of it floating round the King's head; and those about her ring, with the sugges­ tion that it had magical powers. Then there are the charges which, if proved, would convict Joan of impurity, of ques­ tionable intercourse with the beings whom, she claimed, appeared to her. And there are the questions relative to her deeds and prowess in war, with the possibility of con­ victing her of expressing hate or cruelty. Finally, there are the two charges which, cleverly confounded together, were to enable the prosecution to convict her: wearing men's clothes; and the question of submission to the Church. It was on this point, and by making her male attire the symbol of her refusal to submit to the Church, that they contrived to give an appearance of justification to the final sentence. 23 On March 24 and 25, the concluding days of the Preparatory Interrogations, Joan was questioned in her cell by the usual small number of assessors, including all of the delegates from the University of Paris. The assessors demanded more detailed answers on the question of

22Pernoud, p. 169. 23ll2!.d, p. 179. 53

Joan's male attire. 24 When the Trial in Ordinary began on March 26 the prosecutor aad prepared seventy articles of accusation against Joan. These were read to her by Thomas de Cour­ celles. The substance of the accusations was purported to have been drawn from the answers Joan had given during the Preparatory Interrogations. In actual fact many of the charges had no "l:la•is in the previous examinations. 25 In the meantime a more precise set of Articles was being prepared. On March 22, the assessors had voted to "draw up a smaller number of articles in the form of state­ ments and propositions, the which articles should be given to each of the doctors and lawyers so that they might more easily give their opinions. 1126 When questioned during Joan's Trial of Rehabilitation twenty-four years later, Guillaume Manchon, who had been one of the three notaries, stated that "It was decided by the councillors and espec­ ially by those who bad come from Paris, that, as was usual, out of all these articles and responses there should be made a few short articles •••• •27 Manchon went on to explain that the twelve articles were never read to Joan and

24Ibid, p. 192. 25 Scott, p. 13. 26 Barrett, p. 1)2. 27Pernoud, p. 195. 54 that the verdict of the trial was based only on the twelve articles, rather than the entire proceedings of the trial. Thomas de Courcelles, when questioned by the Trial of Re­ habilitation, stated that the twelve Articles had been drawn up by one of the University's representatives, Nicholas Midy. 28 On April 5, Cauchon submitted the twelve Articles to the assessors29 and on April 12 "there was a deliberation in which the masters from the University of Paris played the preponderant part.nJO This group of Assessors, assem­ bled on April 12, drew up a statement accusing Joan of "fabricated lies ••• superstitions and divinations, scandalous and irreligious acts • • • blasphemies of God and His saints • • • idolatry • • • schism • • • heresy • . . straying from the faith. 11 31 When the other assessors were called into consultation this statement was included with the twelve Articles. The majority of these men, absent from the proceedings of the trial except for the initial interrogations during the first phase of the case, based their decisions then upon nothing but this statement and the twelve Articles which were misrepresentative of the

28.Dll.!!1 , pp. 196-197. 29scott, p. 145. JOPernoud, p. 197. 31:sarrett, p. 236. 55 trial's entire proceedings.32 On April 13 Beaupere, Midy, and Touraine took the twelve Articles to Paris for delib­ eration by the University.33 On May 9 Joan was taken to the Tower of the Rouen Castle and threatened with torture. When they saw their threats did no good the assessors postponed the torture until they could deliberate on its application at greater length. Cauchon assembled fourteen of the assessors on May 12 to discuss the question, but only three of the assessors cast affirmative votes for torture, one of them being Thomas de Courcelles, a University representative.34 The University of Paris concluded their deliberations on the twelve Articles, which Beaupere, Midy, and Touraine had delivered, on May 14. The University found Joan guilty of being a "schismatic, an apostate, a liar, a soothsayer, suspect of heresy, of erring in the faith, and being a blasphemer of God and the saints.n35 When Cauchon assem- bled assessors on May 19 he read the decisions of the Uni­ versity, before asking each of the assessors present for an individual opinion.36 Of the thirty-nine assessors in attendance only eight did not expressly mention the University

32 Pernoud, p. 197. 33 Scott, p. 1 45. 34Barrett, pp. 279-281. 35Pernoud, p. 209. 36Ibid, p. 210. 56 of Paris and agreement with its deliberations when stating their own decisions.37 On May 23rd Pierre Maurice, formerly a rector of the University, explained the twelve Articles to Joan, together with the University's opinions, and urged her to submit to the church.38 When Joan was taken to the cemetery of St. Quen on the following day she was shown the fire ready to be lit and after Erard, the preacher, denounced her as a heretic and admonished her to submit, Cauchon began to read the death sentence. Joan interrupted him, declaring she would submit to the church and signed an abjuration which had already been prepared.39 That same afternoon in her cell she agreed to put on a woman's dress which was pro­ vided for her. However, when the judges visited Joan in her cell on Monday, May 28, they found her dressed in male attire and when the court was assembled on the following day Joan was declared a relapsed heretic, her resumption of male dress indicating her unwillingness to submit to the church. When her final sentence was pronounced the next morning in the Old Market of Houen, Nicholas Midy, a representative of the University, preached the sermon. 40

37Barrett, pp. 296-300. 38Ibid, p. 8. 39Ibid, pp. 8-9. 40 Ibid, p. 327. 57

After Joan's execution the University of Paris wrote to the Pope and the college of Cardinals explaining her trial and the University's part in it. Within the letter Joan was described as "superstitious, a prophetess, a caller up of demons, idolatrous, blasphemous toward God and the Saints, schismatic, and in every way erring in the faith of Jesus Christ. 1141 In like manner letters were sent by King Henry to the kings and nobility of Christendom and to the prelates of the church describing Joan and her trial. In his letters Henry emphasized that the University had judged Joan to be "superstitious, a witch, idolatrous, a caller up of demons, etc. 1142 And in Paris, when her execution had been achieved the University did not fail to make known, with great ceremony, the outcome of the trial in which that institution had played a predominant role. The Jounal d'un bourgeois de Paris, written by a university man and therefore conveying university feeling exactly, has a long account of how on St. Martins Day that summer there was a general procession to St. Martin-des-Champs, where a friar "of the Order of Saint Dominic, who was an Inquisitor and a Master of Theology, preached a sermon. In it, he included a version of Joan the Maid's whole

41 Ibid, p. 350. 42Ibid, p. 344. 58

life; she had claimed to be the daughter of very poor folk; she had adopted man's attire when she was only fourteen and her father and mother would willingly have killed her then had they been able to do it without wound­ ing their own conscience; and that was why she left them, accompanied the hellish Enemy. Thereafter her life was one of fire and blood and the murder of Christians until she was burned at the stake. 1143

43Bankin, p. 238. CONCLUSION

The trial of Joan of Arc illustrates how irrespon­ sibly the University of Paris could use her authority and influence. She was responsible for the abuses of the proceedings of Joan's trial as well as the ultimate verdict against Joan which was reversed in 1456. To a smaller degree Jean Petit represents the same irresponsibility, it was his status as a member of the University which lent so much credence to his theory on tyrannicide. The activity of the University in the Great Schism, however, represents the most positive of motivations. The members of the University sought to involve their individual voices as well as the influence of the institution in the solution for a religious conflict which was destroying the Church. The activity of the University in the political affairs of Charles VI's reign illustrates her attempts to improve the poor conditions of French life brought on by the disordered mind of the king and the political feuding of the royal court. In the struggle between the Burgundians and the Armagnacs, however, the University became more and more a supporter of Burgundy. As that attitude began to be more visible the University's influence became less positively directed. Zealous efforts

59 60

to end the Schism and to reform the civil and political life of France gave way to partisan interests, exemplified with the trial of Joan. BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Parisian Journal, 1405-1449. trans. Janet Shirley. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1968. Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Papacy. Norwich, England: Jarrold and Sons, 1968. Barrett, N. P. The Trial of Joan of Arc. London: Rout­ ledge & Sons, Ltd. 1931. Calmette, Joseph. The Golden Age of Burgundy. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. 1962. Connolly, James L. John Gerson. London: B. Herder Book Co. 1928. Coville, A. Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. ?. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press. 1932. Dickenson, Joycelyne Gledhill. The Congress of Arras. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1955. Figgis, John Neville. Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, 1414-1625. Cambridge: Cam­ bridge University Press. 1931. Gross, Charles. "The Political Influence of the University of Paris in the Middle Ages." American Historical Review. Vol. 6. London: The Macmillan Company. 1900. Jacob, E. F. Essays in the Conciliar Enoch: Manchester: University of Manchester Press. 1943. Henry V and the Invasion of France. New ------·York: Macmillan and Company. 1950. Jordan, G. J. The Inner History of the Great Schism of the West. London: Williams and Norgalt. 1930. Matthews, Steven. "The Estates General of France, Child of Crisis." Seminar paper presented March 17, 1971. Department of History, The Ohio State University.

61 62

Morrall, John B. Gerson aild the Great Schism. Manchester: University of Manchester Press. 1960. Oakley, Frances. Tbe Political Tbought of Pierre d 1Ailly. New Haven & London: Yale University Press. 1964. Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc. New York: Stein and Day. 1966. Perroy, Eduoard. The Hundred Years War. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1959. Hankin, Daniel and Quintal, Claire. The First Biography of Joan of Arc. Pittsburg: University of Pitts- burg Press. 1964. Roberts, Agnes E. "Pierre d 1 Ailly and the Council of Constance: A Study in the 'Ockhamite' Theory and Practice." Transactions of the Hoyal Historical Society. Vol. 18. 1935. Salembier, L. Tbe Great Schism of the West. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. 1907. Scott, N. s. The Trial of Joan of Arc. London: The Folio Society. 1956. Ullmann, Walter. The Origins of the Great Schism. London: Burns Oates & washbourne. 1948. Vaughan, Richard. Jobn the Fearless. New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc. 1966.