purpofe, where there were fo many learned men qualified to investigate and decide the matter. A letter was alfo written to the King of England, to the fame purport with thofe addrefled to the Duke of Burgundy and John de Luxemburg. "It is impoffible (oblerves M. De L'Averdy,) to read thefe letters without horror, whether produced by intrigue, or the fuperftitious ignorance of the times, or the influence of both united; particularly when we fee that University, which had at other times difplayed so much zeal and firmness in the defence of our liberties and the Pragmatic Sanction, now call for and recognize the juridiction of the Inquisition to be added to that of the Bishops in mere matter of faith, and to make itfelf the moft active perfecutor of a woman who had faved the legitimate Monarch of France; but at the fame time it would be difficult not to admit the force of that blind prejudice, which could make the conduct of Joan of Arc be locked upon as a denial of faith, as the confequence of infernal infpiration, and as the effect of idolatry and witchcraft, in the mind of those who, rejecting Charles VII. could recog Henry VI. of England as the Monarch of France." The Inquifition did not fail to profit by a conduct fo favourable to its wish for eftablishing its jurifdiction in France. On the 26th of May, 1430, Brother Martin, the Vicar General of the Inquifitor of Faith in France, wrote a letter to the Duke of Burgundy, in which he does not merely content himfelt with in:reating that Joan fhould be delivered to him, without taking any notice of the Bishop of Beauvais ; but he has the boldness to demand, by virtue of his office, and the authority committed to him by the fee of Rome, that the Duke fhould, under the heaviest pe. nalties, immediately produce the prifoner before him. This conduct of the Inquifitor fufficiently proves how entirely the University of Paris had abandoned their old principles, in recognizing a joint-authority in the Inquifition with the bishop of the diftrict where the prifoner had been taken. The Inquifitor now took upon himself to be the arbiter between the King of England, the Duke of Burgundy, and John of Luxemburg. Understanding that the English King had confented to pay the ranfom for Joan, he fent in that King's name, on the 14th of July, 1430, a requisition to the Duke of Burgundy and John of Luxemburg, which was delivered to them by the apoftolical notaries in the Puke's castle, in the prefence of the no bles and knights of his Court, by which he demanded, in his own and the Bishop of Beauvais's name, that the prifoner called Joan la Pucelle fhould be forthwith fent to the King of England, to be delivered over to the Church, for the purpose of being proceeded against for her numerous crimes, which he describes to be forcery, idolatry, invocation of infernal ipirits, and many others. The Bishop of Beauvais being thus compelled to act with the Inquifitor, France must confequently have groaned under the monstrous laws of that establishment, if the country had remained in poffeffion of the English. This incident, fo extraordinary in itself, has more the appearance of magic and forcery than any other part of the affair. But the Inquifitor, not content with what he had done, determines to meddle fill more with what did not concern him; for he goes on in his requifition to add, that, "forafmuch as Joan could not be confidered according to the rules of war, yet nevertheless, for the remuneration of thofe who had taken and detained her, the King would ranfom her at the price of fix thousand francs; and as to the Baftard de Vendôme, who had first taken her, would pay and allow him an annuity of two or three hundred livres.” After having thus spoken in the cha racters of a plenipotentiary and a churchman, he finishes as a negociator, by propofing that Joan fhould be delivered up on fecurity for the amount of the ranfom being given. The negociation was much pro racted, either from the hopes of those who were interefted to draw a greater fum from Charles VII. who could not, however, have been admitted to ranfom her at any price according to the rules of war, or from fome reluctance in the captors to deliver up Joan, whom they did not think guilty, to the fury of the Inquifition; or it might proceed from the inability of the King of England to pay fo confiderable a fum at the moment, or from some tardinefs in the Privy Council of England to affent to the mode of procedure, as ap. pears from the letters-patent paffed on the occafion. It was not in fact until the 30th of January, 1430, that the patent was paffed, and the crimes of which Joan was accufed are thus ftated in them :"That a woman calling herself the Pucelle, laying afide the habit and dres of the female lex, a thing aboininable in the eyes of God, and contrary to all law human and divine, cloathed, dressed, and armed in the habit and manner of a man, had committed the cruel act of homicide; and, and, as it had been faid, in order to feduce and miflead a fimple people, had given out that he was fent by God, and had knowledge of his divine intentions, toge ther with many other dogmas, moft dan gerous, prejudicial, and fcandalous, to the Holy Catholic Faith; in the practice of which deceptions, and in acts of hoftility against us and our people, the has been taken in arms near Compiegne by fome of our loyal fubjects, and fince brought prifoner before us." The English Council, after this introduction, think it neceffary to ftate, that it was not of his own inclination that the King of England delivered up his prisoner for trial, but in confequence of the demands to that effect which had been made in France. They therefore proceed to ftate in the letters-patent, " And whereas the faid Joan hath been long fufpected and charged by many perfons of the aforefaid fuperftitious and falle dogmas, and of other crimes against the Divine Majefty; and whereas, we have been required by the Reverend Father in God, our dear and trusty counsellor, the Bishop of Beauvais, judge ecclefiaftical and ordinary of the aforefaid Joan, that inasmuch as the had been taken and apprehended within the boundaries and limits of his diocefe; and whereas we have also been exhorted by our dear and most holy daughter the University of Paris, that we fhould furrender and deliver up the faid Joan to the faid Reverend Father in God, for the pur pofe of being interrogated and examined touching the aforefaid charges." It is proper to rémark here, that the King of England carefully abitains from noticing the demands of the Inquifition, or that the Univerfity and the Bishop of Beauvais had written in favour of this monkish tribunal; for at this period the Council durft not have inferted the name in any act of legislative power; but in a fubfequent part of the patent a claufe is inferted, by which a power is left to the prelate appointed judge to confult with the Inquifition, and "to proceed against her according to the ordinances and regulations of the divine and canonical law, fummoning those who ought to be fummoned;" which, from its generality, may fignify the Inquifition, as well as the doctors in divinity and civil or canon-law. The patent accordingly proceeds to or der that Joan fhould be placed in the cu ody of the Bishop of Beauvais, that he might intitute proceedings against her, according to God and justice, and all are ordered to give him aid, defence, protec tion, and affistance, but with this expref referve, that Joan fhould be re-delivered to the King of England in cafe he was not convicted of the crimes with which the was accused. This ftipulation was pro. bably the caufe why Joan was not confined in the ecclefiaftical prifon, but remained under a guard of foldiers in the Caftle of Rouen; the King of England thus only lending her, as it were, to the ecclefiaftical tribunal, to examine whether the ought to fuffer the punishment of death. The letters-patent which have been quoted are imperative; they are not directed to any tribunal for the purpose of inrollment ; nor were they in fact regiftered by any court of justice, not even by thole who fate in judgment upon Joan; for they maintained that they were her natural judges, and wanted no additional autho rity from the fovereign. The patent, therefore, is fimply a memorial annexed to the first act of the procefs, with the letters of the University, and the requifitions of the Bishop of Beauvais, and the Vicarial Inquifitor in France. To thefe fucceed the letters by which the Chapter of Rouen (the fee being then vacant,) grant to the Bishop of Beauvais territory and jurifdietion to inftitute the process within the limits of the Archbishoprick of Rouen. The first act of the process is strictly no thing more than a confultation upon the bufinefs. It is dated on the 9th of January, 1430, and fubfcribed by the Bishop of Beauvais and John Le Maître, the latter of whom ftyles himself Grand Inquifitor of France, deputed by authority of the Pope. It is by no means improbable, that inquifitors had exifted in France fince the time of the Albigeois, but they ventured to interfere only in times of commotion; and it would not be furprizing that they fhould exift to this very day without daring to difplay the title of their office.-This obfervation need not be carried further, but it is not wholly without foundation. In the procès-verbal Joan is charged with having been taken in arms by foldiers within the limits of the Bishop of Beauvais. She is reproached with having laid afide the habits of her sex, mirâ et monftruofâ difformitate, in order to affume male attire, and that he had acted and fpcken contrary to the faith. It is then declared that the Judges, viz. the Bishop of Beauvais and the Vicarial Inquifitor, had refolved to proceed without delay, with the affiftance of the learned and able men with whom, thanks to God, the city of Rouen abounded. It then adds that the the Doctors and Mafters had been convoked on that day to the number of eight, all of whom in the procefs affume the Doctor's degree, although many of them were only Licentiates, or Mallers of Arts. After this preamble the Bishop pro. ceeded to state to the Court part of the information which he had already receiv. ed, and which did not appear in the first procefs; and the refult was, that further inquiries fhould be made, in order that the Court might fee with more clearness what courfe of proceeding to adopt: but it was agreed at once to name the Judges and the proper officers to conduct the cause. Jofeph de Eftivet, Canon of Beauvais and Bayeux, was appointed Promoter; John de Fonte, or la Fontaine, Counsellor and Commiffarial Examiner; William Coles and William Manchon, two Royal and Apoftolical Notaries, were named Secretaries, and John Maffieu had the charge of preparing and executing the mandates of the Judges. All these appointments are ordered in the name of the Bishop of Beauvais alone, without the leaft notice being taken of the Inquifitor, for reafons which will afterwards appear. In these acts of nomination or appointment, the crimes with which the accufed was charged are diftinctly stated. They are, "Of being fufpected of withcraft, enchantment, the invocation of demons and infernal fpirits, converfation with them, and of other acts materially affecting the faith;" charges which, although in terms ftrictly confined to forcery and magic, were afterwards perverted to include herefy also. On the 13th of January the Bishop of Beauvais affembled another meeting of Abbés, Doctors, and Licentiates, to whom he gave an account of what paffed on the 9th of the fame month, and communicated to them the refult of the inquiries made in Joan's native place, and the accounts which had been published concerning her. All were of opinion, that the articles fhould be reduced into order previous to deliberating, whether fufficient matter appeared to accufe her of having acted contrary to the faith; and the Bishop accordingly directed perfons killed in the canon and common-law to proceed without delay for that purpose. On the 23d of January this committee had arranged the charges in form, and were of opinion that Joan fhould confequently be examined, and that the Bishop hould proceed to a preparatory information; but as his other engagements did not afford him time for the purpose, John de Fonte was directed to forward the proceeding. The officers of the Court took an oath at this meeting before the Bishop and his affeffors; but the Inquifitor is not named in these two firft acts of the proceeding. This circumstance, in the refult, became extremely embarraffing to the Bishop, who had declared that he would confult with the Inquifitor, who was anxious to establish the pretended privis leges of the Inquifition, but was not, perhaps, fufficiently inftructed to doubt the validity of a procedure to which he was neither fummoned nor present. On the 19th of February the Bishop affembled his Court, and, after giving an account of what had been done up to that day, he propofed to call in the Vicar of the Inquifitor of Faith, as a thing fit and ufeful to the proceeding, and out of reverence to the Holy See, which had specially nominated an inquifitor of herefy in France. This being affented to, the Bihop fummoned the Inquifitor to attend in the afternoon. He attended accordingly, and prefented his letters of appointment for the diocele of Rouen; but he obferved, that he doubted whether he had fufficient power to act in a proceeding in the diocefe of Beauvais, and which was carried on in the city of Rouen solely by fpeciai permiffion granted to the Bishop of Beauvais : upon which the Bifhop took until the next day to confider of the subject. The Vicarial Commiffion of the Inqui fitor, which was granted in the name of Brother James Graverand, of the order of Preaching-friars, Profeffor in Divinity, and Inquifitor in the Kingdom of France by Apoftolical Authority, ftates that Whereas the difeafe of herefy creeps likes a ferpent, and fecretly deftroys the unwary, unless it be eradicated by the diligent operation of the Inquifitorial knife;" he therefore appoints John Le Maître for his Vicar in the diocese of Rouen; and then follows a grant of pow ers as extenfive as dreadful. He grants to him, "Against all heretics, or perfons fufpected of herefy, and against those who believe in them, their favourers, defenders, and receivers, full and entire power, in the first place, of informing against, citing, fummoning, excommunicating, arrefting, and committing to prifon, and of proceeding against them by all proper and convenient modes, until a final fentence, inclufively; and alfo of abfolving and enjoining falutary penances, and generally of doing all other things which belong to the the faid office of the Inquifition, as well by law as fpecial cuftom and privilege, to the fame extent as he, the Inquifitor, might or could do, if perfonally prefent." This commiffion is dated on the 20th of August, 1424. On the 20th of February, 1430, the Bishop of Beauvais agreed with his affeffors, and thofe whom they had confulted, that the Vicar of the Inquifitor might take cognizance of the affair and act accordingly; but the Vicar pretended that, for the fafety of his confcience, and to enfure the greater validity of the process, he ought not to proceed without further advice; but at the fame time confented that the Bishop fhould go on without him, and the latter availed himfeif of this confent, which could be of no validity if the Vicar was not fufficient ly authorized, and the affiftance of the In quifition was neceffary. After having, however, taken further advice, the Bishop decided, that Joan fhould be cited before him, offering always to communicate to the Inquifitor all that paffed and all that was done. The Bishop had declared, in the fitting of the 20th of February, that those who agreed with him that the Vicar of the Inquifitor was authorized to join and act in the proceeding, had obferved at the fame time that the Bishop should write to the Inquifiter, inviting him to come to Rouen to affilt in the procefs, or to appoint fome one in his place. This recommendation the Bishop adopted. In his letter he tells the Inquifitor, "that the matter efpecially concerns his office, it being his duty to fearch out the real truth in all fufpicions and charges of herefy." We now draw to the conclufion of the account relating to the introduction of the Inquifition in this proceeding. Things remained for fome time in the fame ftate. The Vicar of the Inquifitor affifted at all the meetings, not indeed in that capacity, but folely as the other affeffors or doctors whom the Bishop had affociated with himfelf. Things remained in the fame ftate until the 12th of March, when the Bishop having fummoned the Vicar to a meeting on that day, he announced to the Court, that the Inquifitor General had granted his commiffion for the trial to John Le Maître, whom he had before appointed Vicar of the diocefe of Rouen. The Inquifitor, after copying in the commiffion the letter which the Bishop of Beauvais had written to him, declares to his Vicar, Le Maître, that, being prevented from attending at Rouen, he entrufts him with a special power in this bufinefs up to the definitive fentence. Upon this the Vicar did not hesitate to receive the communication of all that had been done up to that day; and, in fhort, began to give his advice, and exercife the duties of his office. On the following day, the 13th of March, the Vicarial Inquifitor formally joined with the Bifhop, and from that time proceeded in conjunction; all the minutes of the meeting purporting that the Bishop and the Vicar of the Inquifitor prefided at them. In order to put every thing in right order, the Inquifitor General, on the fame day, granted a commiffion of promoter and executor of the decrees to the fame perfons whom the Bishop had already appointed. He also named perfons to guard the prisoner, and also a Secretary for the Inquifition, in addition to those whom the Bishop had already elected; viz. Nicholas Jacquel Prieft, Royal and Apoftolical No. tary, and Notary of the Court of the Archbishoprick of Rouen. The fubfequent detail of thefe MSS. will fhew the effects produced from the introduction of the Inquisitor of Faith in this memorable trial. (To be continued.) For the Monthly Magazine. INTRODUCTION to the STUDY of ARCHEOLOGY, or the KNOWLEDGE of ANTIQUE MONUMENTS. From the FRENCH of A. L. MILLIN, CONSERVATOR of the MUSEUM of ANTIQUI TIES in PARIS, &c. &c. [Continued from page 138, No. 112.] HIS ftudy may be comprehended uns der two principal heads or divifions: First, The knowledge of the customs and ufages of the ancients; And, Secondly, that of the monuments of antiquity. The customs and ufages of the ancients are to be divided into three claffes, namely, the religious ufages, the civil ufages, and the military ufages. The ufages of the ancients are explained by the monuments; and the employment of the different monuments is, as well as the objects they reprefent, to be known by an attentive perufal, of the hif torians, orators, and poets more particu larly. The branch of archeology which treats of the explanation of the monuments is, for that reafon, entitled archeography. It may be divided into nine claffes :1. The edifices.-2. The paintings.-3. The fculptures-4. The engravings. 5. The Mofaics.-6. The vafes.-7. The inftruments.-8. The medals.. 9. The infcriptions. to us 1.-The Edifices make us acquainted with the architectural taste of the different nations, and with the ftyle of the different epochs of that art. Amid their ruins an attempt is made to divine, by what they fill are, what they may have primitively been. The monuments which exift in an entire ftate are carefully defcribed. The pyramids and obel fks of the Egyptians enable us to judge of the tafte of that nation for the marvellous. The comparison of the Perfian edifices with thote of other nations difplays to us the fucceffive progreffes which have been made in the art of conftructing arch-roofs. The Greeks and Romans have tranfmitted temples, tombs, theatres, hippodromes, circuses, and amphitheatres. The grandeur and induftry of the Romans are evinced by their triumphal arcs, columns with hiftorical infcriptions, aqueducts, baths, and highways provided with miliary columns. On thefe different monuments are to be difcovered, by the means of the objects sculptured on them, the traces both of military and naval architecture. Lastly, we find that the Egyptians and Perfians had a tafte for the gigantic and marvellous-that the Greeks, who in the first inftance aimed merely at folidity and fimplicity, fucceffively invented the five orders of architecturethat they determined not only the true proportions, but likewife the decorations which belong to each of the orders-and that the R mans were nothing more than their imitators. We proceed thence to the Gothic architecture, the monuments belonging to which display a particular taste. 2.-The Ancient Paintings acquaint us with the different proceffes employed by the ancients, when they painted, either in fresco, in diftemper, or in encauftic. Thofe which are still in existence may be compared with fuch as have been defcribed by the claffic authors whofe works have been tranfmitted to us. The number of the monuments of this defcription is not very confiderable, although it has been much augmented by the difcoveries made at Herculaneum. 3.-The Sculptures are far more numerous. They comprehend the ftatues, bufts, and bas-reliefs and convey to us the images of the gods and illuftrious MONTHLY MAG, No. 113. men, together with the reprefentations of the facred and profane ceremonies, and of the remarkable events and tranfactions of fable and hiftory. These monuments, fabricated in earth, stone, marble, or metal, exist either in the places they were intended to adorn, or in the cabinets of the vir tuofos. They are multipled by cafts, copies, drawings, and engravings. Finally, thefe monuments are of the greatest utility in afcertaining the different styles and different ages of fculpture-the proceffes employed by the ancient ftatuaries— and the ideas by which they were governed in the poetic part of their art. They enable us not only to form a just eltimate of the taste of the ancients, and of the opinion they entertained relative to the natu ral or ideal beautiful, but likewise to lay down precife inftructions on the naked figure, the draperies, and the costumes. 4. The Engraved Stones, whether in the form of intaglios or of cameos, are the most useful monuments, on account of the great and various information with which they fupply us. Their hardness has enabled them to refift both the fire and a collifion with other fubftances, at the fame time that their minutenefs has refcued them from the fury of the Barba rians. The traits of illuftrious men, which are frequently effaced on ftatues by the injuries of the air, and on medals by friction, are found on them in an unaltered ftate. We read on them the most ancient alphabetical characters; and they bring to our view fingular hieroglyphics and fymbols, together with animals, plants, and the inftruments which illuftrate the hiftory of the fciences among the ancients. They are the monuments the most conducive to the hiftory of the art ; because they enable us to trace the progrefs of drawing, from its origin, in the different nations; becaufe we can diftinguith in them the name and the manner of each of the different mafters, and the taste and ftyle of the different ages; and, laftly, becaufe we fee on them the imitations of the moft celebrated ftatues and groups which are ftill exifting, and the faithful repre fentations of feveral which are lot to us. To conclude, we may collect from them precife ideas relative to the lithology of the ancients, and afcertain the ftones the names of which are mentioned in their works. 5.-The Mofaics, which imitate painsing by the juxta-pofition of cubes of glass, or of portions of hard stones, are equally interesting to the antiquary, on account of the fingularity of their conftruction and of Hh |