Proctor Prévosteau’s libellus on behalf of Joan’s mother and brothers addressed Archbishop Jouvenal, Bishop Chartier, and Inquisitor Bréhal, as commissioned by the pope to judge a suit against a certain “Guillaume Estivet” and Bishop Cauchon and vice-inquisitor Lemaistre, if still alive—and also the present Bishop Hellande of Beauvais and others who might think they were involved—for damages to Joan and her family caused by their malevolence, as set forth in the following articles. They ask for a declaration of nullity and proclamation of her innocence (thus conforming to the papal commission). He intends to blame no one except the actual judges and the promotor (so, not the assessors or consultants). There was no fama of heresy again Joan, no reason to initiate a trial of faith concerning heresy against Joan. At this point Prévosteau introduced the crucial point that Cauchon and the rest were enemies of Charles VII, which had been missing in the pope’s commission. Joan recused them as her capital enemies, which they ignored, rejected her appeals, and committed many other breaches against due process. She could not have been convicted of relapsing into heresy since she had committed no heresy in the first place.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

The Arc Family’s Case Against Joan’s Trial in 101 Articles

  • Henry Ansgar Kelly

摘要

Proctor Prévosteau’s libellus on behalf of Joan’s mother and brothers addressed Archbishop Jouvenal, Bishop Chartier, and Inquisitor Bréhal, as commissioned by the pope to judge a suit against a certain “Guillaume Estivet” and Bishop Cauchon and vice-inquisitor Lemaistre, if still alive—and also the present Bishop Hellande of Beauvais and others who might think they were involved—for damages to Joan and her family caused by their malevolence, as set forth in the following articles. They ask for a declaration of nullity and proclamation of her innocence (thus conforming to the papal commission). He intends to blame no one except the actual judges and the promotor (so, not the assessors or consultants). There was no fama of heresy again Joan, no reason to initiate a trial of faith concerning heresy against Joan. At this point Prévosteau introduced the crucial point that Cauchon and the rest were enemies of Charles VII, which had been missing in the pope’s commission. Joan recused them as her capital enemies, which they ignored, rejected her appeals, and committed many other breaches against due process. She could not have been convicted of relapsing into heresy since she had committed no heresy in the first place.