« AnteriorContinuar »
Page 80. Wherefore he nominated as his lieutenant-general
John duke of Alençon. Grafton, speaking of this prince and his ransom at page 523, thus expresses himself:
“ The regent of Fraunce thus beying in England, meanes was made by the duke of Burgoyn, for the deliverie of the duke of Alanson, which was taken prisoner at the battaile of Vernoyle the last yere. So he for the somme of two hundred thousand crownes, was delivered and set at large: but neither for the release of all, or abatement of part of his ransome, he would in no wise acknowlege the king of England to be his liege and sovereigne lord ; such affection bare he to the dolphyn, and such truth shewed he to his naturall countrie.”
The duke of Alençon obtained his freedom in 1427, by leaving hostages for a portion of his ransom. Those he set at liberty by the sale of lands to the duke of Brittany, which took place in December 1428 and April 1429, as well as by the aid received from Charles VII, who, in 1427 and 1428, assisted him with twenty thousand crowns. Finally, the duke of Bedford declared him to be fully exonerated, even, de ses foi et promesse (from his faith and promise) which occurred on the 21st of May 1429. See the acts quoted in the history of the duchy of Alençon, by Bry, 1620, page 320.
That he (the duke of Alençon) should act and do entirely according to her counsel.
When we find Charles delivering an injunction like the foregoing, to such a powerful prince and captain as the duke of Alençon; it cannot be doubted for a moment, that Jeanne d'Arc had acquired great credit at court, and that, be her mission what it might, the most sanguine hopes were entertained by the monarch as to the final result of her intervention.
Page 85. Whereupon the said earl created him a knight,
and then surrendered himself up his prisoner.
This chivalric and truly noble conduct on the part of the earl of Suffolk is thus detailed by Dubreton at page 237. “ In this fight the earl of Suffolk, followed by a French gentleman named Renault, he honoured him with the order of knighthood, and then surrendered himself at discretion, having seen him act most worthily upon this occasion. For the dignity of knight, which is not acquired through favour during a cowardly and voluptuous life, but by brilliant acts of courage in the midst of the hazards of war, is calculated to ennoble the most lowly, and to elevate them to the highest dignities of the state.”
Of whom several were that same evening conteyed prisoners
by wuter, fearful lest they should be killed. Grafton, at page 536, gives the following statement :
“ After that the Englishmen were thus retired from the siege of Orleaunce, and severed themselves in dyvers townes and fortresses, holding on their parte: the duke of Alaunson, the Bastard of Orleaunce, Jone the Puzell, the lorde of Glancort and divers other Frenchmen, came before the towne of Jargeaux, where the erle of Suffolke and his two brethren sojourned, the twelve day of June, and gave to the towne a great and terrible assault, which the Englishmen (being but a handefull) manfully defended on three partes of the same. Poyton of Sentrailles, perceyving one part of the towne to be undefended, scaled the walles on that part: and without any difficultie tooke the towne, and slue Sir Alexander Pole brother to the erle, and many other, to the number of two hundred: but they not much gayned, for they lost three hundred good men and more. Of the English men were taken xl. beside his brother John. After thys gayne and good luck, the Frenchmen returning towarde Orleaunce, fell in contention and debate, for their captives and prisoners, and slue them all, saving the erle and his brother.”
And even the church, wherein was stowed a great quantity
of riches, the whole was also pillaged. At the commencement of the Diary the writer states that the death of the earl of Salisbury was supposed by the devout to be an ordinance of the Divinity on account of his breaking his word to the duke of Orleans, as well as for having pillaged churches and monasteries, “ and in particular the church of our Lady of Clery.” Our historian, however, does not think fit to comment upon a similar mode of conduct pursued by those of his own party: so true is it, according to the scriptural adage, that “ we can see the moat in our brother's eye without perceiving the beam in our own.”
Page 87. During this siege arrived Arthur, count de Richemont, fc.
Artus III., duke of Brittany, surnamed the Judge, formerly count de Richemont and constable of France, was born in 1393, being the son of John, duke of Brittany. He was small of stature, but possessed of undaunted courage, and greatly contributed in restoring Charles VII. to his throne; he signalized himself at the battle of Agincourt, where he was made prisoner, and in order to recover his liberty was compelled to serve under the king of England. Richemont afterwards overcame the English in Normandy and in Poitou, gaining the battle of Patay, in Beauce, in 1429, and that of Formigni in 1451. His nephew, Peter, called the Simple, dying in 1456 without children, he succeeded to the dukedom of Brittany ; from which period he always caused two naked swords to be carried before him; the one as duke of Brittany, and the other as constable. He enjoyed his reign but fifteen months, and died without heirs in his sixty-sixth year, A. D. 1458, regretted by his subjects, whom he governed with mildness, and by whom he was esteemed, though hated by the courtiers and troops, because he suppressed the plunderings of both with as much haughtiness as severity.
The favourites of Charles VII. were not spared by Artus, when he had charge of the affairs of that prince ; for having perceived that Giac, one of the king's minions, placed to his own account sums destined for the army, he caused him to be seized in his bed, and after some slight formalities of justice, ordered him to be thrown into the river. Camus Beaulieu, another favourite, no less rapacious than Giac, was assassinated in a street of Poitiers by marshal de Boussac, charged with the constable's orders, the deed being committed almost under the king's own eyes; and La Trimouille was also committed to prison upon another occasion, although Charles VII. regarded him less in the light of a courtier than that of a friend.
And there did the said constable entreat the Pucelle. In the Memoirs of the constable Richemont, we find, that, upon his first introducton to Jeanne d'Arc, he exclaimed: “ Viens-tu de par Dieu, ou de par le diable ? Si c'est de par Dieu, je ne te crains guère ; si c'est de par le diable, je te crains encore moins.” “If thou comest on the part of God, I little fear thee; if it is on the part of the devil, I fear thee still less.” It was, notwithstanding, this same warrior, so superior, on account of his rare qualifications, to the age in which he flourished, who took honour to himself for having, when in Brittany, caused to be burnt, all those whom he met reputed to be adepts in sorcery and witchcraft; and of such he states the having found instances at every step. As a further proof of the superstition of that period, when the physicians despaired of curing the malady of king Charles VI., a magician was sent for, in whose suite were several monks of St. Augustine's order, together with a company of sorcerers, the least skilful of whom were burnt. See Essai sur l'Histoire générale du Règne de Charles VI.
“ During this siege (of Beaugency) Artus, count de Richemont, constable of France, and brother of the duke