Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions
| (12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
|} | |} | ||
==Preface == | ==Preface == | ||
These pages present a Catholic view of Saint Joan of Arc that is consistent with the vetted historical record. It reviews the facts of the life and accomplishments of Saint Joan, as well as their historical context. It offers commentary and criticism of historical and academic views of her, | These pages present a Catholic view of Saint Joan of Arc that is consistent with the vetted historical record. It reviews the facts of the life and accomplishments of Saint Joan, as well as their historical context. It offers commentary and criticism of historical and academic views of her, including as regards the secularization and ideological contortions of her life and legacy. | ||
The analysis here starts with faith not doubt, thus Joan's experiences and visions (which I will call her "Voices") are assumed by default as real.<ref name=":12">As opposed to skeptical treatments of Joan that merely assume that her visions were not divine; similarly, these pages will not automatically assume a divine nature for everything she did nor what she was said to have done: the approach here is faithful yet cautious.</ref> As opposed to skeptical treatments of Joan that begin from doubt, these pages accept their divine nature, which, applied prudently, enables important historical, typological, and scriptural connections to Joan's life and acts that otherwise go unconsidered. The approach here is faithful yet cautious. | The analysis here starts with faith not doubt, thus Joan's experiences and visions (which I will call her "Voices") are assumed by default as real.<ref name=":12">As opposed to skeptical treatments of Joan that merely assume that her visions were not divine; similarly, these pages will not automatically assume a divine nature for everything she did nor what she was said to have done: the approach here is faithful yet cautious.</ref> As opposed to skeptical treatments of Joan that begin from doubt, these pages accept their divine nature, which, applied prudently, enables important historical, typological, and scriptural connections to Joan's life and acts that otherwise go unconsidered. The approach here is faithful yet cautious. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
This discussion of Saint Joan is analysis not narrative. Although the narrative is presented, the approach here is thematic not strictly chronological. To review a straight chronology of her life, please see the [[Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle)/Joan of Arc Timeline|Joan of Arc Timeline]] or find a good narrative treatment of her from the [[Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle)/Joan of Arc bibliography|Joan of Arc bibliography]]. | This discussion of Saint Joan is analysis not narrative. Although the narrative is presented, the approach here is thematic not strictly chronological. To review a straight chronology of her life, please see the [[Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle)/Joan of Arc Timeline|Joan of Arc Timeline]] or find a good narrative treatment of her from the [[Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle)/Joan of Arc bibliography|Joan of Arc bibliography]]. | ||
As with any valid historical analysis, this one weighs the evidence, adopts a perspective, and tests it against the historical and historiographic record. The extensive record of Saint Joan allows for cherry-picking and | As with any valid historical analysis, this one weighs the evidence, adopts a perspective, and tests it against the historical and historiographic record. The extensive record of Saint Joan allows for cherry-picking and varied interpretation of witness motives, so, unlike many histories of Joan of Arc, mine will strive to avoid "proof-texts" to support a claim that may be countered elsewhere in the record, and will instead seek to evaluate the history across broader connections. While some conclusions may be speculative, they will always be grounded in the record and drawing from it, especially as regards some of Joan's prophetic visions that are ever open for interpretation. Just because an interpretation is arguable does not make it erroneous. The rule does not apply to Joan of Arc alone: historians engage in this type of interpretation all the time. It is the essence of the craft. | ||
Finally, as my arguments are contingent upon larger historical context before and after the life of Saint Joan, I encourage the reader to explore the history more largely in the sources listed in the footnotes and bibliography. | Finally, as my arguments are contingent upon larger historical context before and after the life of Saint Joan, I encourage the reader to explore the history more largely in the sources listed in the footnotes and bibliography. | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
* I have deleted spaces between punctuation marks from Murray's text. | * I have deleted spaces between punctuation marks from Murray's text. | ||
* I have not otherwise modernized spelling or usage in quotations. | * I have not otherwise modernized spelling or usage in quotations. | ||
Notes on names and spelling: | Notes on usage, names and spelling: | ||
* In presenting the flow of dialogue, I may travel back and forth between the historical past and literary present tenses; | |||
* I am using the French spelling for proper nouns, except as found in sources, such as Murray's which uses the English "Rheims" over the French Reims. | * I am using the French spelling for proper nouns, except as found in sources, such as Murray's which uses the English "Rheims" over the French Reims. | ||
| Line 716: | Line 718: | ||
== Joan and the Saints == | == Joan and the Saints == | ||
The standard modern histories | The standard modern histories either accept Joan's testimony and experiences about her Voices without affirming them or outright deny their reality. Joan resoundingly affirmed them:<ref>Murray, p. 357</ref> | ||
<blockquote>As firmly as I believe Our Saviour Jesus Christ suffered death to redeem us from the pains of hell, so firmly do I believe that it was Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel, Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret whom Our Saviour sent to comfort and to counsel me.</blockquote> | <blockquote>As firmly as I believe Our Saviour Jesus Christ suffered death to redeem us from the pains of hell, so firmly do I believe that it was Saint Michael and Saint Gabriel, Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret whom Our Saviour sent to comfort and to counsel me.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 725: | Line 727: | ||
For a believer, what an an opportunity to learn about a Saint! If we listen to her, Joan gives us a unique view into the experiences of an actual mystic. | For a believer, what an an opportunity to learn about a Saint! If we listen to her, Joan gives us a unique view into the experiences of an actual mystic. | ||
=== Spiritual or material? === | |||
The entire case rose or fell upon the validity of Joan's Voices. Consequently we get to hear a lot about them: <ref>Murray, pp. 39-40</ref> | |||
<blockquote>Was Saint Gabriel with Saint Michael when he came to you?</blockquote> | <blockquote>Was Saint Gabriel with Saint Michael when he came to you?</blockquote> | ||
| Line 841: | Line 844: | ||
<blockquote>Article XLII. Jeanne hath said and published that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret and Saint Michael have bodies — that is to say, head, eyes, face, hair, etc.; that she hath touched them with her hands; that she hath kissed them and embraced them. </blockquote> | <blockquote>Article XLII. Jeanne hath said and published that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret and Saint Michael have bodies — that is to say, head, eyes, face, hair, etc.; that she hath touched them with her hands; that she hath kissed them and embraced them. </blockquote> | ||
Historians make much of Joan's testimony on the physicality of her Saints and the Archangel Michael, some saying that it was a theological trap that the ignorant girl fell into, as if she should have sculpted her testimony to match learned Church doctrine. Article XLII conforms to Joan's testimony, but any condemnation derived from it is theologically incorrect, and they knew it.<ref>>> to add here Vatican debate on these points in canonization process</ref> | Historians make much of Joan's testimony on the physicality of her Saints and the Archangel Michael, some saying that it was a theological trap that the ignorant girl fell into, as if she should have sculpted her testimony to match learned Church doctrine. Article XLII conforms to Joan's testimony, but any condemnation derived from it is theologically incorrect, and they knew it.<ref>>> to add here Vatican debate on these points in canonization process</ref> Near its start, a legal expert, the cleric Jean Lohier, was asked to review the Trial with expectations of his blessings. He found the whole thing repugnant and out of order, and left Rouen rather than having anything to do with it. Among his observations, which will be discussed later, Lohier told the notary, Manchon, that he could not participate in it in good conscience:<ref>Murray, p. 167</ref> | ||
<blockquote>You see the way the are proceeding. They will take her, if they can, in her words — as in assertions where she says, "I know for certain," as regards the apparitions; but if she said, "I think" instead of the words "I know for certain," it is my opinion that no man could condemn her.</blockquote> | |||
So you see the slippery "I believe that..." or "I recollect..." defense, so famous in modern political depositions, is nothing new. Were he her counsel, Lohier would have had Joan tone down the assertions of her visions, which she never would have done. Joan told it straight and asserted her Voices plainly, so the Trial court didn't have to worry about Lohier's advice to her. It shows that Lohier likely didn't believe her, but he plainly saw how the Trial was stacked against her. He genuinely sympathized with her. <ref>He was not interviewed in the Rehabilitation Trial, having left France for Rome to serve as Dean of the Court of Appeals at the Vatican.Murray, p. 167, fn 1</ref> Lohier's analysis demonstrates how the matter of the Visions was central to the Trial court's entire case, and who merely dismissing them as imagined would be insufficient to their job to put Joan to death. | |||
The examiners deliberately used the noun "object"<ref>as well as "stuff", another reference to earthly not spiritual matter: "Are these two Saints dressed in the same stuff? (Murray p. 24) | The examiners deliberately used the noun "object"<ref>as well as "stuff", another reference to earthly not spiritual matter: "Are these two Saints dressed in the same stuff? (Murray p. 24) | ||
| Line 863: | Line 870: | ||
<blockquote>A woman doth say and affirm that when she was of the age of thirteen years or thereabouts, she did, with her '''bodily''' eyes, see Saint Michael come to comfort her, and from time to time also Saint Gabriel ; that both the one and the other appeared to her in '''bodily''' form. Sometimes also she hath seen a great multitude of Angels; since then. Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret have shewn themselves to her in bodily form; every day she sees these two Saints and hears their voices; she hath often kissed and embraced them, and sometimes she hath '''touched them''', '''in a physical and corporeal manner'''. She hath seen the heads of these Angels and these Saints, but of the rest of their persons and of their dress she will say nothing. <ref>The Article continues with a false claim that implied the Joan's Saints were actually the product of fairies: "The said Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret have also formerly spoken to her near a spring which flows at the foot of a great tree, called in the neighbourhood 'The Fairies' Tree.' This spring and this tree nevertheless have been, it is said, frequented by fairies; persons ill of fever have repaired there in great numbers to recover their health. This spring and this tree are nevertheless in a profane place. There and elsewhere she hath often venerated these two <mark>Saints</mark>, and hath done them obeisance.</ref> | <blockquote>A woman doth say and affirm that when she was of the age of thirteen years or thereabouts, she did, with her '''bodily''' eyes, see Saint Michael come to comfort her, and from time to time also Saint Gabriel ; that both the one and the other appeared to her in '''bodily''' form. Sometimes also she hath seen a great multitude of Angels; since then. Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret have shewn themselves to her in bodily form; every day she sees these two Saints and hears their voices; she hath often kissed and embraced them, and sometimes she hath '''touched them''', '''in a physical and corporeal manner'''. She hath seen the heads of these Angels and these Saints, but of the rest of their persons and of their dress she will say nothing. <ref>The Article continues with a false claim that implied the Joan's Saints were actually the product of fairies: "The said Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret have also formerly spoken to her near a spring which flows at the foot of a great tree, called in the neighbourhood 'The Fairies' Tree.' This spring and this tree nevertheless have been, it is said, frequented by fairies; persons ill of fever have repaired there in great numbers to recover their health. This spring and this tree are nevertheless in a profane place. There and elsewhere she hath often venerated these two <mark>Saints</mark>, and hath done them obeisance.</ref> | ||
</blockquote>Her first sentencing was preceded by a lengthy, public sermon by Bishop Guillaume Érard, one of the most partisan of the French collaborators with the English <ref>He had traveled to England to swear his allegiance to the child king, Henry VI, (see Pernoud, Her Story, p. 212)</ref> that, according to the transcript,<ref>Murray, p. 128</ref><blockquote>shewed how Jeanne, by many errors and grave crimes, had separated herself from Holy Mother Church, to the great scandal of Christian people.</blockquote>The transcript walks lightly upon the scene. Biographer Pernoud states that Érard "condemned [Joan] violently,"<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 212</ref> and later testimony of Trial court examiners conforms to the Rouen transcript's own record, following this bland description, whereby Joan stated she had recanted only for "fear of the fire."<ref>Murray, p. 137</ref> The priest jean Massieu recalled Érard's impatient zeal to get on with her execution:<ref>Murray, p. 203</ref> <blockquote>Erard replied that she had had long enough delay, and that, if she did not abjure this schedule, she should be immediately burned; and he forbade me to speak further with her or to give her more counsel.</blockquote>Where the formal Accusations left it open for interpretation as to what Joan meant and whether or not she was lying, the sentence, issued after Érard's harangue, went right at a satanic origin of her Visions, stating in the introduction,<ref>Murray, p. 129</ref><blockquote>the perfidious Sower of Errors works by his machinations and deceits to infest the Flock of Christ</blockquote>The transcript states that Joan stood fast through three admonitions by Érard, after which the Bishop Cauchon read out her sentence, during which Joan gave in. The public spectacle, the frenzy, and elevated upon a platform in a cemetery and with the priests admonishing, exhorting and urging her to sign the document, if only for her own life, Joan recanted:<ref>Murray, p. 128. At the Rehabilitation Tria, Manchon described the scene: "Two sentences had been prepared, one of abjuration, the other of condemnation : both were in the hands of the Bishop, and, while he was reading the sentence of condemnation. Maître Nicolas Loyseleur continued to press Jeanne to do what he had advised, and to accept the woman's dress. There was a short interval, in which an Englishman addressed the Bishop as a traitor, to which he answered that he lied. At this instant, Jeanne declared herself ready to obey the Church ; and then the abjuration was read to her. I do not know if she repeated it, or ifj after it was read, she said that she agreed. But she certainly smiled. The executioner was there, with the cart, waiting to take her to the burning." (Murray, p. 186)</ref><blockquote>Inasmuch as the Clergy decide that the apparitions and revelations which I have had are not to be maintained or believed, I will not believe nor maintain them; in all I refer me to you and to our Holy Mother Church! </blockquote>There has been much debate over this scene, as to whether Joan signed a different document from what was read to her, as the notary, Guillaume Manchon testified later.<ref>Murray, p 186</ref> I wonder whether these words as recorded in the Trial transcript may not be what Joan said but rather were drawn from one form of whatever document she signed. It's not of her use of words. Later memory conforms to the logic of the scene: what was read to her and what she signed were of completely different lengths, so there were two documents. Nevertheless, she did recant, and she did give in to the moment -- that, after three months of harsh imprisonment, constant and rattling inquiry, and, worst of all for Joan, denial of the Sacraments. She longed for the Eucharist. | </blockquote>Her first sentencing was preceded by a lengthy, public sermon by Bishop Guillaume Érard, one of the most partisan of the French collaborators with the English <ref>He had traveled to England to swear his allegiance to the child king, Henry VI, (see Pernoud, Her Story, p. 212)</ref> that, according to the transcript,<ref>Murray, p. 128</ref> | ||
<blockquote>shewed how Jeanne, by many errors and grave crimes, had separated herself from Holy Mother Church, to the great scandal of Christian people.</blockquote> | |||
The transcript walks lightly upon the scene. Biographer Pernoud states that Érard "condemned [Joan] violently,"<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 212</ref> and later testimony of Trial court examiners conforms to the Rouen transcript's own record, following this bland description, whereby Joan stated she had recanted only for "fear of the fire."<ref>Murray, p. 137</ref> The priest jean Massieu recalled Érard's impatient zeal to get on with her execution:<ref>Murray, p. 203</ref> | |||
<blockquote>Erard replied that she had had long enough delay, and that, if she did not abjure this schedule, she should be immediately burned; and he forbade me to speak further with her or to give her more counsel.</blockquote> | |||
Where the formal Accusations left it open for interpretation as to what Joan meant and whether or not she was lying, the sentence, issued after Érard's harangue, went right at a satanic origin of her Visions, stating in the introduction,<ref>Murray, p. 129</ref> | |||
<blockquote>the perfidious Sower of Errors works by his machinations and deceits to infest the Flock of Christ</blockquote> | |||
The transcript states that Joan stood fast through three admonitions by Érard, after which the Bishop Cauchon read out her sentence, during which Joan gave in. The public spectacle, the frenzy, and elevated upon a platform in a cemetery and with the priests admonishing, exhorting and urging her to sign the document, if only for her own life, Joan recanted:<ref>Murray, p. 128. At the Rehabilitation Tria, Manchon described the scene: "Two sentences had been prepared, one of abjuration, the other of condemnation : both were in the hands of the Bishop, and, while he was reading the sentence of condemnation. Maître Nicolas Loyseleur continued to press Jeanne to do what he had advised, and to accept the woman's dress. There was a short interval, in which an Englishman addressed the Bishop as a traitor, to which he answered that he lied. At this instant, Jeanne declared herself ready to obey the Church ; and then the abjuration was read to her. I do not know if she repeated it, or ifj after it was read, she said that she agreed. But she certainly smiled. The executioner was there, with the cart, waiting to take her to the burning." (Murray, p. 186)</ref> | |||
<blockquote>Inasmuch as the Clergy decide that the apparitions and revelations which I have had are not to be maintained or believed, I will not believe nor maintain them; in all I refer me to you and to our Holy Mother Church! </blockquote> | |||
There has been much debate over this scene, as to whether Joan signed a different document from what was read to her, as the notary, Guillaume Manchon testified later.<ref>Murray, p 186</ref> I wonder whether these words as recorded in the Trial transcript may not be what Joan said but rather were drawn from one form of whatever document she signed. It's not of her use of words. Later memory conforms to the logic of the scene: what was read to her and what she signed were of completely different lengths, so there were two documents. Nevertheless, she did recant, and she did give in to the moment -- that, after three months of harsh imprisonment, constant and rattling inquiry, and, worst of all for Joan, denial of the Sacraments. She longed for the Eucharist. | |||
The Bishop then read her sentence, which likely was prepared in advance, condemning her, as a repented heretic, to "perpetual imprisonment."<ref>Murray, p. 133</ref> Among the heresies the Bishop declared her guilty of, was,<ref>Murray, p. 132-133</ref> | The Bishop then read her sentence, which likely was prepared in advance, condemning her, as a repented heretic, to "perpetual imprisonment."<ref>Murray, p. 133</ref> Among the heresies the Bishop declared her guilty of, was,<ref>Murray, p. 132-133</ref> | ||
| Line 871: | Line 894: | ||
The accusation thus shifted from demonic Visions to "pretending" they were "of God", which suited the abjuration. For the English, though, imprisonment wouldn't suffice. Cauchon himself was threatened for having let her off so easily. So when she put on men's clothes that her guards had set before her after either threatening to or actually assaulting her,'''<ref>Monday, May 28, 1431, two days before her martyrdom (Murray, p. 137)</ref>''' she was brought before a delegation of judges who asked what was going on. | The accusation thus shifted from demonic Visions to "pretending" they were "of God", which suited the abjuration. For the English, though, imprisonment wouldn't suffice. Cauchon himself was threatened for having let her off so easily. So when she put on men's clothes that her guards had set before her after either threatening to or actually assaulting her,'''<ref>Monday, May 28, 1431, two days before her martyrdom (Murray, p. 137)</ref>''' she was brought before a delegation of judges who asked what was going on. | ||
Joan declared, | Joan declared, | ||
The next day, Tuesday, May 29, she was presented back to the full court before the Archbishop of Rouen and forty Trial judges. The transcript reads,<blockquote>But since that day, driven by the Devil, behold! she hath, in the presence of many persons, declared anew that her Voices and the spirits that appeared to her have returned to her, and have said many things to her; and, casting away her woman's dress she hath again taken male garments. As soon as We, the Judges, did receive information of this lapse. We were eager to return to her and to question her.</blockquote>The Abjuration document was read (obviously the long form), and now to the heart of the matter: | <blockquote>I have but now resumed the dress of a man and put off the woman's dress.</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote>Why did you take it, and who made you take it?</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>I took it of my own free will, and with no constraint: I prefer a man's dress to a woman's dress.</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>You promised and swore not to resume a man's dress.</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>I never meant to swear that I would not resume it.</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>Why have you resumed it?</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>Because it is more lawful and suitable for me to resume it and to wear man's dress, being with men, than to have a woman's dress. I have resumed it because the promise made to me has not been kept ; that is to say, that I should go to Mass and should receive my Saviour and that I should be taken out of irons.</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>Did you not abjure and promise not to resume this dress?</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>I would rather die than be in irons! but if I am allowed to go to Mass, and am taken out of irons and put into a gracious prison, and [may have a woman for companion] I will be good, and do as the Church wills.</blockquote> | |||
It's notable to me that Joan was sentenced to prison the Thursday before, her case apparently settled, yet nearly the entire set of assessors, judges and notaries were still hanging around the following on Monday. Most of them were ready and waiting.<ref>A couple of them testified in the Rehabilitation Trial that they had left before the Relapse and execution, including Beaupere (Murray, p. 177), Jean Monnet (p. 259), Jean de Lenozolles (p. 290) and Jean Monnet (p. 259). The forty who stayed around were not far from the number who regularly attended the interrogations.</ref> The next day, Tuesday, May 29, she was presented back to the full court before the Archbishop of Rouen and forty Trial judges. The transcript reads, | |||
<blockquote>But since that day, driven by the Devil, behold! she hath, in the presence of many persons, declared anew that her Voices and the spirits that appeared to her have returned to her, and have said many things to her; and, casting away her woman's dress she hath again taken male garments. As soon as We, the Judges, did receive information of this lapse. We were eager to return to her and to question her.</blockquote> | |||
The Abjuration document was read (obviously the long form), and now to the heart of the matter: | |||
<blockquote>Since last Thursday<ref>The day of her abjuration</ref> have you heard your Voices at all?</blockquote> | <blockquote>Since last Thursday<ref>The day of her abjuration</ref> have you heard your Voices at all?</blockquote> | ||
| Line 883: | Line 928: | ||
<blockquote>They said to me: "God had sent me word by St. Catherine and St. Margaret of the great pity it is, this treason to which I have consented, to abjure and recant in order to save my life! I have damned myself to save my life!"</blockquote> | <blockquote>They said to me: "God had sent me word by St. Catherine and St. Margaret of the great pity it is, this treason to which I have consented, to abjure and recant in order to save my life! I have damned myself to save my life!"</blockquote> | ||
After pressing her on the Voices and the angelic "crown" she said they had shown Charles, the court fell back upon the Voices themselves:<blockquote>On the scaffold, at the moment of your abjuration, you did admit before us, your Judges, and before many others, in presence of all the people, that you had untruthfully boasted your Voices to be Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret.</blockquote><blockquote>I did not intend so to do or say. I did not intend to deny my apparitions — that is to say, that they were Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret; what I said was from fear of the fire: I revoked nothing that was not against the truth. I would rather do penance once for all — that is die — than endure any longer the suffering of a prison. I have done nothing against God or the Faith, in spite of all they have made me revoke. What was in the schedule of abjuration I did not understand. I did not intend to revoke anything except according to God's good pleasure. If the Judges wish, I will resume a woman's dress; for the rest, I can do no more.</blockquote>The standard view holds that Joan was burned for violating the terms of her abjurement by breaking her vow to wear only women's clothes, but the more serious "Relapse" came from invoking her Saints. The next day, Wednesday, May 30, the Bishop officially excommunicated her as a relapsed heretic, and after more admonishments, including to quote from scripture,<ref>Murray, p. 144</ref> | After pressing her on the Voices and the angelic "crown" she said they had shown Charles, the court fell back upon the Voices themselves: | ||
<blockquote>On the scaffold, at the moment of your abjuration, you did admit before us, your Judges, and before many others, in presence of all the people, that you had untruthfully boasted your Voices to be Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret.</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>I did not intend so to do or say. I did not intend to deny my apparitions — that is to say, that they were Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret; what I said was from fear of the fire: I revoked nothing that was not against the truth. I would rather do penance once for all — that is die — than endure any longer the suffering of a prison. I have done nothing against God or the Faith, in spite of all they have made me revoke. What was in the schedule of abjuration I did not understand. I did not intend to revoke anything except according to God's good pleasure. If the Judges wish, I will resume a woman's dress; for the rest, I can do no more.</blockquote> | |||
The standard view holds that Joan was burned for violating the terms of her abjurement by breaking her vow to wear only women's clothes, but the more serious "Relapse" came from invoking her Saints. The next day, Wednesday, May 30, the Bishop officially excommunicated her as a relapsed heretic, and after more admonishments, including to quote from scripture,<ref>Murray, p. 144</ref> | |||
<blockquote>O, shame! — that, as the dog returns again to his vomit, so hast thou returned to thine errors and crimes ; </blockquote> | <blockquote>O, shame! — that, as the dog returns again to his vomit, so hast thou returned to thine errors and crimes ; </blockquote> | ||
According to the traditional formula,<ref>"[Lord] act kindly with her" (from Murray, p. 140)</ref> | According to the traditional formula,<ref>"[Lord] act kindly with her" (from Murray, p. 140)</ref> | ||
<blockquote>''Rogando earn ut cum velit mite agerej'' </blockquote>she was handed over to the English who burned her that morning. | |||
Joan was put to death for lots of reasons, none of which could be justified without her Voices. The Rouen court knew it, thus her Voices were the essence of the case against her. Winning battles, crowning a king, signs and stories, even wearing men's clothing, mattered nothing but for the Voices. The court had two ways to approach the problem: either as imagined or evil. They settled on both, such as we see in the formal Accusations, Article XI:<ref>Murray, p. 370</ref> | Joan was put to death for lots of reasons, none of which could be justified without her Voices. The Rouen court knew it, thus her Voices were the essence of the case against her. Winning battles, crowning a king, signs and stories, even wearing men's clothing, mattered nothing but for the Voices. The court had two ways to approach the problem: either as imagined or evil. They settled on both, such as we see in the formal Accusations, Article XI:<ref>Murray, p. 370</ref> | ||
| Line 895: | Line 948: | ||
Over time, as the French took Paris, dissolving the University of Paris' marriage with England, and as de Richemont and Charles VII isolated the English to the edges of its southern Gascon and northern Norman holds, the Rouen Trial judges had time to reflect on the meaning of Joan, now the Maid of Orléans. either from exile in England or from their duly-repented, resumed offices in France. The improbability of it all had to consume them, or at a minimum leave them in a state of cognitive dissonance. | Over time, as the French took Paris, dissolving the University of Paris' marriage with England, and as de Richemont and Charles VII isolated the English to the edges of its southern Gascon and northern Norman holds, the Rouen Trial judges had time to reflect on the meaning of Joan, now the Maid of Orléans. either from exile in England or from their duly-repented, resumed offices in France. The improbability of it all had to consume them, or at a minimum leave them in a state of cognitive dissonance. | ||
So it was for several of the clerics at the Rouen trial who testified twenty years later at the Trial of Rehabilitation. The reassessment of Joan embraced and celebrated not just her feats but their origin in divine guidance. Not so some such as one of Joan's chief interrogators, Jean Beaupère, who commences his testimony with the subject of the Voices:<ref>Murray, p. 176</ref> | So it was for several of the clerics at the Rouen trial who testified twenty years later at the Trial of Rehabilitation. The reassessment of Joan embraced and celebrated not just her feats but their origin in divine guidance. Not so some such as one of Joan's chief interrogators, Jean Beaupère, who commences his testimony with the subject of the Voices:<ref>Murray, p. 176</ref> | ||
<blockquote>With regard to the apparitions mentioned in the Trial of the said Jeanne, I held, and still hold, the opinion that they rose more from natural causes and human intent than from anything supernatural ; but I would refer principally to the Process.</blockquote> | |||
We'll get in to more of Beaupère's bitter words later, but what's interesting is that of all the justifications it was about the Voices. Another, lesser player from the Rouen court, Bishop Jean Lefevre,<ref>or Jean Favri</ref> whom the biographer Pernoud calls, "a dubious character,"<ref>Pernoud, Retrial, p. 176, fn 4</ref> told the examiners essentially the same, that her Voices were not real:<ref>Murray, p. 210, from May 9, 1452</ref> | |||
<blockquote>Jeanne answered with great prudence the questions put to her, '''with the exception of the subject of her revelations from God''': for the space of three weeks<ref>I.e., that she was not always divinely inspired. Lefevre's testimony, as posted in Murray, is short and rarely referenced in other works on Saint Joan. Several of the participants at the Rouen Trial of Condemnation who testified to the Trial of Rehabilitation retained a bit of their animosity or disbelief in her that they had exercised vehemently at the trial. To Lefevre's credit, Massau recollected the Lefevre was worried that Joan "was being too much troubled" by the constant questioning regarding "whether she was in a state of grace." Lefevre makes a big point about this incident in the trial, opening his statement at the Rehabilitation Trial with, "When Jeanne was asked if she were in the Grace of God, I, who was present, said it was not a suitable question for such a girl. Then the Bishop of Beauvais said to me, "It will be better for you if you keep silent." Murray states that Lefevre objected to Joan's confinement in a military not ecclesiastic prison (Murry, p. 338).</ref> I believed her to be inspired. She was asked very profound questions, as to which she showed herself quite capable; sometimes they interrupted the enquiry, going from one subject to another, that they might make her change her purpose. The Examinations were very long, lasting sometimes two or three hours, so that the Doctors present were much fatigued. </blockquote> | <blockquote>Jeanne answered with great prudence the questions put to her, '''with the exception of the subject of her revelations from God''': for the space of three weeks<ref>I.e., that she was not always divinely inspired. Lefevre's testimony, as posted in Murray, is short and rarely referenced in other works on Saint Joan. Several of the participants at the Rouen Trial of Condemnation who testified to the Trial of Rehabilitation retained a bit of their animosity or disbelief in her that they had exercised vehemently at the trial. To Lefevre's credit, Massau recollected the Lefevre was worried that Joan "was being too much troubled" by the constant questioning regarding "whether she was in a state of grace." Lefevre makes a big point about this incident in the trial, opening his statement at the Rehabilitation Trial with, "When Jeanne was asked if she were in the Grace of God, I, who was present, said it was not a suitable question for such a girl. Then the Bishop of Beauvais said to me, "It will be better for you if you keep silent." Murray states that Lefevre objected to Joan's confinement in a military not ecclesiastic prison (Murry, p. 338).</ref> I believed her to be inspired. She was asked very profound questions, as to which she showed herself quite capable; sometimes they interrupted the enquiry, going from one subject to another, that they might make her change her purpose. The Examinations were very long, lasting sometimes two or three hours, so that the Doctors present were much fatigued. </blockquote> | ||
Joan's execution was predetermined. Charles the VII abandoned her, and the English would kill her no matter what. It was, however, in fulfillment of what the Voices had told Joan all along. On Thursday, March 1, 1431, after lengthy queries and ongoing questions about the Voices, Joan was asked, | |||
<blockquote>Have your Voices said that before three months you will be delivered from prison?</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>That is not in your Case. Nevertheless I do not know when I shall be delivered. But those who wish to send me out of the world may well go before me.</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>Has not your counsel told you that you will be delivered from your actual prison?</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote>Speak to me in three months, and I will answer. Moreover, ask of those present, upon oath, if this touches on the Trial.</blockquote> | |||
March 1? That would be precisely 90 days before her actual release from prison in martyrdom on May 30, 1431. | |||
=== Did she make it all up? === | === Did she make it all up? === | ||
Historians point to the difference between Joan's testimony about the Saints and the Archangels at the Rouen Trial and the absence of mention of them in contemporaneous documents from France after the time of her appearance at Chinon or later from witnesses at the Trial of Rehabilitation. They use the anomaly to justify the view that she made up stories about the Saints and Michael the Archangel during the Trial of Condemnation. For example, the [[Poitiers Conclusions]]<ref>Murray, p. 247</ref> mention only that she had instructions "from God." Several pieces of evidence point to the contrary. | Historians point to the difference between Joan's testimony about the Saints and the Archangels at the Rouen Trial and the absence of mention of them in contemporaneous documents from France after the time of her appearance at Chinon or later from witnesses at the Trial of Rehabilitation. They use the anomaly to justify the view that she made up stories about the Saints and Michael the Archangel during the Trial of Condemnation. For example, the [[Poitiers Conclusions]]<ref>Murray, p. 247</ref> mention only that she had instructions "from God." | ||
Several pieces of evidence point to the contrary. | |||
On the first day of the Rouen Trial, February 22, 1421, Joan introduced her "Voice" in the singular,<ref>Murray, p. 10</ref> | |||
<blockquote>I was thirteen when I had a Voice from God for my help and guidance. The first time that I heard this Voice, I was very much frightened; it was mid-day, in the summer, in my father's garden. I had not fasted the day before. I heard this Voice to my right, towards the Church; rarely do I hear it without its being accompanied also by a light. This light comes from the same side as the Voice. Generally it is a great light. Since I came into France I have often heard this Voice.</blockquote> | |||
Later that day, as Joan described her journey to Chinon, she added that after a Mass taken along the way, she heard her "Voices", in the plural:<ref>Murray, ,p 12. The French transcript, [https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bd6t57809339/f150.item.r=voix <nowiki>Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc. I : Texte latin / texte [latin], trad. et notes [par] Pierre Champion | Gallica</nowiki>], reads: "Item [she] dit qu’en ce voyage elle passa par Auxerre où elle ouït la messe dans la grande église 155 ; et alors, fréquemment, elle entendait ses voix, avec celle dont il a été fait mention plus haut. | |||
Item [she] requise de dire par quel conseil elle avait pris habit d’homme, à cela elle refusa plusieurs fois de répondre. Finalement dit que de cela elle ne chargeait personne; et plusieurs fois varia." Barrett translates it as, "She said that on her journey she passed through Auxerre, and she heard Mass in the principal church there , and from that time she frequently heard her voices, including the one already mentioned. Required to say by what advice she took to man’s dress, she several times refused to answer. Finally she answered that she charged no one with that and several times she answered variously." (Barrett, p. 56). Note that Article XII of the Accusations repeated this story in slightly different verbiage (see Barrett, p. 152; Murray leaves it out)</ref> | |||
<blockquote>From Vaucouleurs I departed, dressed as a man, armed with a sword given me by Robert de Baudricourt, but without other arms. I had with me a Knight, a Squire, and four servants, with whom I reached the town of Saint Urbain, where I slept in an Abbey. On the way, I passed through Auxerre, where I heard Mass in the principal Church.<ref name=":14">In the Latin text, "magnus claritas" for "main or principle church, by which she referred to the ''Cathédrale Saint-Étienne d'Auxerre.'' (Quicherot, Vol 1, p. 52)</ref> Thenceforward I often heard my Voices.</blockquote> | |||
Her interrogators neither object to nor note the switch from singular to plural "Voices." Instead, and eager to go after the question of wearing men's clothes, the next question asks who told her to wear them, to which she says, "With that I charge no one." So the plural "Voices" goes unquestioned, and both Joan and her interrogators thereafter use "Voice" and "Voices" interchangeably. However, we have to assume Joan had a reason for using one or the other. | |||
It was on February 27, two sessions later, that Joan revealed the names of the two of her Voices, Saints Catherine and Margaret She was asked,<ref>Murray, pp. 23-25. I am drawing from Murray here, but with my own translations added to it, as he skips the rather important "d'un saint ou d'une sainte" (Champion Vol 1, p. 47). The original Latin text reads, "Interrogata an erat vox angeli quœ loquebatur ve, an erat vox Sancti aut Sanctae, aut Dei sine medio: respondit quod illa vox erat sanctœ Katharinae et sanctœ Margaretœ." (Quicherat, Vol 1, p 70)</ref> | |||
<blockquote>This Voice that speaks to you, is it that of an Angel, or of a male or female Saint, or from God direct?</blockquote> | |||
The question reveals a distinct foreknowledge as to the answer, for the use of both ''Sancti'' and ''Sanctae'', male and female, was deliberate, as the masculine ''Sancti,'' since employed along with the feminine ''Sanctae'', is operating as a collective noun (i.e. indicates either masculine or feminine forms). Were the question generic, only ''Sancti'' would be used. | |||
The court was leading her on here, which is why there was no surprise expressed from her examiner at her answer:<ref>Murray, p. 23</ref> | |||
<blockquote>It is the Voice<ref>Singular "Voice" which conforms to the French version that reads, "cette '''voix''' était celle de sainte Catherine 18s et de sainte Marguerite" (Champion, p. 47)</ref> of Saint Catherine and of Saint Margaret. Their faces are adorned with beautiful crowns, very rich and precious. To tell you this I have leave from Our Lord. If you doubt this, send to Poitiers, where I was examined before.</blockquote>The modern reader may be bewildered by Joan's sudden introduction of Saints Catherine and Margaret; the court was not. Well briefed by their spies and investigators in France,<ref>For example, on March 3, the Rouen court asked her, "What did you do in the trenches of La Charité?" Joan already knew what they were getting at, and shut down the line of inquiry before it could be asked: "I made an assault there; but I neither threw, nor caused to be thrown. Holy Water by way of aspersion." The questioner then moved on, asking, ""Why did you not enter La Charité, if you had command from God to do so?" Joan replied indignantly, "Who told you I had God's command for it?" (Murray pp. 53-54). She knew the games they were playing.</ref> they likely already knew about Joan's Saints and wanted her to affirm it for the record. The follow up question displays no incredulity: | |||
<blockquote>How do you know if these were the two Saints? How do you distinguish one from the other?</blockquote> | |||
Joan confirms "it is they" and then explains, | |||
<blockquote>By the greeting they give me. It is seven years now since they have undertaken to guide me. I know them well because they were named to me. </blockquote>T | |||
he court merely presses her as to how she tells the two Saints apart, how old they are, and how they are dressed, until Joan put a pause on the topic: | |||
<blockquote>I will tell you no more just now; I have not permission to reveal it. If you do not believe me, go to Poitiers. There are some revelations which come to the King of France, and not to you, who are questioning me.</blockquote> | |||
More questions, to which she again defers to the Poitiers Examination, | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>If I had leave, I would tell you willingly: it is written in the Register at Poitiers. I have also received comfort from Saint Michael.</blockquote> | ||
< | Joan had no reason to assume they had no access to the "Register at Poitiers," which was a transcript of her interviews by the "Doctors" at Poitiers on behalf of Charles VII in early 1429. She even begged the court to get a copy of it, saying to her interrogator, Beaupère,<ref>Murray, p. 25</ref> | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>I wish you could get a copy of this book at Poitiers, if it please God.<ref>The Poitiers Register disappeared, likely destroyed by her enemies at the Court of Charles VII, most likely by the Archbishop of Reims who turned against her after Charles' coronation.</ref></blockquote> | ||
Her statement here is declaratory, not deferral: ''just go look at the book!'' Ironically, it is entirely possible that the Rouen court had acquired a copy, seen one, or at a minimum learned of it in detail, as its custodian, Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Rouen, along with Charles VII's minister,Georges de La Trémoïlle, had negotiated extensively for two years with the Burgundians and the English, and they pushed Charles to abandon Joan, who was an ever-present friction grinding away at their designs. I have no evidence of this possibility, but the occasion points strongly to it, as they had the motive to share the Poitiers Register or its contents, and the Burgundians would have been most interested in it, perhaps even demanding a look at it. | |||
< | I am intrigued by Joan's seemingly contradictory statements about Saints Catherine and Margaret. She states that she went to Mass, and "often" or "from that time" her her (plural) Voices. Biographer Murray uses<ref>From Murray (p. 12): From Barrett (p. 56): "and from that time she frequently heard her voices." And in French per Champion, "et alors, fréquemment, elle entendait ses voix"</ref>, | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>On the way, I passed through Auxerre, where I heard Mass in the principal Church.<ref name=":14" /> Thenceforward I often heard my Voices. </blockquote> | ||
The original Latin transcript gives us, ''et tunc frequenter habebat voces suas'', which I can best translate as, "then she frequently was having<ref>I'm not sure "have" or "heard" is interchangeable here, but "habēre," does mean "to have"</ref> her voices," as in an ongoing event that followed Mass at Auxerre. It doesn't mean the Voices started there, which we know from Joan's testimony that, | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>It is seven years now since [the Saints Catherine and Margaret] have undertaken to guide me.</blockquote> | ||
Joan | But it may well indicate that the Mass at Auxerre marked a greater frequency of their accompaniment of Joan, which would explain why her earlier declarations state that she was "sent by God" as opposed to having been sent by the Saints or the Archangel. Although, for Joan, they were all one in the same, be it a Voice, Voices, or "sent from God":<ref>Murray, p 13</ref> | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>Those of my party knew well that the Voice had been sent me from God; they have seen and known this Voice, I am sure of it. My King and many others have also heard and seen the Voices which came to me;</blockquote> | ||
Taken with the strong likelihood that the Rouen court already knew about Saints Catherine and Margaret, or at least of multiple Saints, and that for Joan "Voice" and "Voices" were interchangeable, all equally coming from God, I find no inconsistency between her mention of the Saints by name at Rouen and the absence of references to them in the Trial of Rehabilitation. That is, the theory that she made them up at the Trial at Rouen is weak. | |||
Next, let's take a look at her [[Joan of Arc letter to the English|letter to the King of England]], in which Joan stated, | |||
<blockquote>I am sent here by God, the King of Heaven </blockquote> | <blockquote>I am sent here by God, the King of Heaven </blockquote> | ||
Memories of her arrival to Chinon also recall her stating that she was sent by God with no mention of the Saints -- but it is a distinction without a difference, as, and according to Church dogma, any Divine visitor is of God in whatever form. | Memories of her arrival to Chinon also recall her stating that she was sent by God with no mention of the Saints -- but it is a distinction without a difference, as, and according to Church dogma, any Divine visitor is of God in whatever form. Nevertheless, Joan told the Rouen court that she did not speak of the Voices to anyone except Baudricourt (at Vaucouleurs) and the Dauphin. Asked if she had spoken of them to a priest, she said,<ref>Murray, p. 63</ref> | ||
<blockquote>No; only to Robert de Baudricourt and to my King. It was not my Voices who compelled me to keep them secret ; but I feared to reveal them, in dread that the Burgundians might put some hindrance in the way of my journey ; and, in particular, I was afraid that my father would hinder it.</blockquote> | <blockquote>No; only to Robert de Baudricourt and to my King. It was not my Voices who compelled me to keep them secret ; but I feared to reveal them, in dread that the Burgundians might put some hindrance in the way of my journey ; and, in particular, I was afraid that my father would hinder it.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 944: | Line 1,048: | ||
<blockquote>I asked counsel of my Voices if I ought to submit to the Church, because the Clergy were pressing me hard to submit, and they said to me: "If thou willest that God should come to thy help, wait on Him for all thy doings." I know that Our Lord hath always been the Master of all my doings, and that the Devil hath never had power over them. I asked of my Voices if I should be burned, and my Voices answered me: "Wait on Our Lord, He will help thee."</blockquote> | <blockquote>I asked counsel of my Voices if I ought to submit to the Church, because the Clergy were pressing me hard to submit, and they said to me: "If thou willest that God should come to thy help, wait on Him for all thy doings." I know that Our Lord hath always been the Master of all my doings, and that the Devil hath never had power over them. I asked of my Voices if I should be burned, and my Voices answered me: "Wait on Our Lord, He will help thee."</blockquote> | ||
Joan knew full well the consequences of condemnation for heresy, so the stake was on her mind, likely throughout the ordeal. The court brought it up to her directly, though, in the public assembly at the cemetery of St. Ouen, where she was read the documents of abjuration.<ref>''ab-'' (off or out of) + ''jure'' (swear) = to swear off, or deny under oath. </ref> After his public sermon in which he admonished Joan, the priest Guillaume Érard, who was as | Joan knew full well the consequences of condemnation for heresy, so the stake was on her mind, likely throughout the ordeal. The court brought it up to her directly, though, in the public assembly at the cemetery of St. Ouen, where she was read the documents of abjuration.<ref>''ab-'' (off or out of) + ''jure'' (swear) = to swear off, or deny under oath. </ref> After his public sermon in which he admonished Joan, the priest Guillaume Érard, who was as vehemently against Joan as any, including the Bishop of Beauvais, read the charges that she was to abjure, adding that were she not to admit it, she'd burn. From the testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation by the scribe, Father Jean Massieu,<ref>Murray, p. 173. Nicolas de Houppeville also testified, "Then Maître Guillaume Érard said : 'Do it now, otherwise you will end in the fire today.'" (Murray p. 206)</ref> | ||
<blockquote>To which Jeanne replied, that she did not understand what abjuring was, and that she asked advice about it. Then Érard told me to give her counsel about it. After excusing myself for doing this, I told her it meant that, if she opposed any of the said Articles, she would be burned. I advised her to refer to the Church Universal as to whether she should abjure the said Articles or not. And this she did, saying in a loud voice to Érard: “I refer me to the Church Universal, as to whether I shall abjure or not.” To this the said Érard replied: “You shall abjure at once, or you shall be burned.” And, indeed, before she left the Square, she abjured, and made a cross with a pen which I handed to her.</blockquote> | <blockquote>To which Jeanne replied, that she did not understand what abjuring was, and that she asked advice about it. Then Érard told me to give her counsel about it. After excusing myself for doing this, I told her it meant that, if she opposed any of the said Articles, she would be burned. I advised her to refer to the Church Universal as to whether she should abjure the said Articles or not. And this she did, saying in a loud voice to Érard: “I refer me to the Church Universal, as to whether I shall abjure or not.” To this the said Érard replied: “You shall abjure at once, or you shall be burned.” And, indeed, before she left the Square, she abjured, and made a cross with a pen which I handed to her.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 974: | Line 1,078: | ||
Starting with the first day of testimony, Joan swore the truth upon the Bible at every session, and sometimes repeatedly. That fist day, February 1, 1431, the notary recorded,<ref>Murray, p. 5</ref><blockquote> | Starting with the first day of testimony, Joan swore the truth upon the Bible at every session, and sometimes repeatedly. That fist day, February 1, 1431, the notary recorded,<ref>Murray, p. 5</ref><blockquote> | ||
And in the first instance we did require her, in the appointed form, her hand on the Holy Gospels, to swear to speak truth on the questions to be addressed</blockquote> | And in the first instance we did require her, in the appointed form, her hand on the Holy Gospels, to swear to speak truth on the questions to be addressed.</blockquote> | ||
While it will not affirm the reality of her Visions -- to which I attest, that Joan swore upon the Holy Scriptures affirms that she did not lie about them. It is inconceivable to think otherwise, and so any suggestion that she "made it up" to please or mislead the court ought be dismissed. As to their reality, we must turn to her testimony, and to their effects. [[File:Bergognone_007.jpg|alt=Ambrogio Bergognone. The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Catherine of Siena|thumb|375x375px|<small>"The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Catherine of Siena" by Ambrogio Bergognone. (wikipedia). Catherine of Sienna set important precedent for Saint Joan's affirmation of the papacy at Rome.</small> ]] | While it will not affirm the reality of her Visions -- to which I attest, that Joan swore upon the Holy Scriptures affirms that she did not lie about them. It is inconceivable to think otherwise, and so any suggestion that she "made it up" to please or mislead the court ought be dismissed. As to their reality, we must turn to her testimony, and to their effects. [[File:Bergognone_007.jpg|alt=Ambrogio Bergognone. The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Catherine of Siena|thumb|375x375px|<small>"The Mystic Marriage of Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Catherine of Siena" by Ambrogio Bergognone. (wikipedia). Catherine of Sienna set important precedent for Saint Joan's affirmation of the papacy at Rome.</small> ]] | ||
| Line 1,733: | Line 1,837: | ||
<blockquote>On the subject of the Angel who brought the sign I have already answered. As to what the Promoter suggests on the subject of the thousands of Angels, I do not recollect having said it — that is to say, the number; I did certainly say that I had never been wounded without receiving great comfort and help from God and from the Saints Catherine and Margaret. As to the crown, on this also I have replied. Of the conclusion which the Promoter makes against my deeds, I refer me to God, Our Lord; and where the crown was made and forged, I leave to Our Lord.</blockquote> | <blockquote>On the subject of the Angel who brought the sign I have already answered. As to what the Promoter suggests on the subject of the thousands of Angels, I do not recollect having said it — that is to say, the number; I did certainly say that I had never been wounded without receiving great comfort and help from God and from the Saints Catherine and Margaret. As to the crown, on this also I have replied. Of the conclusion which the Promoter makes against my deeds, I refer me to God, Our Lord; and where the crown was made and forged, I leave to Our Lord.</blockquote> | ||
We must always keep in mind that the Rouen court had investigated Joan extensively, and so knew what the French knew, including the gossip and stories running across all of France that proved convenient to her prosecution. The Rouen judges, for example knew about the Poitiers Conclusions | We must always keep in mind that the Rouen court had investigated Joan extensively, and so knew what the French knew, including the gossip and stories running across all of France that proved convenient to her prosecution. The Rouen judges, for example knew about the Poitiers Conclusions and that the French clerics endorsed giving Joan a chance to show a sign at Orleans. Furthermore, there could not have been a person in France who had not heard about the sign Joan was supposed to have given the Dauphin at Chinon. That and the story of her miraculous recognition of the Dauphin had great circulation and embellishment, although no one but Joan and the King knew for sure about the sign she gave him, either by vision or word. | ||
On the second day of the Trial<ref>On the 21st, there were forty-two "Assessors" present; on the 22nd there were now forty-eight. The Trial was a very big deal to the English and Burgundians.</ref>, while the court was still | On the second day of the Trial<ref>On the 21st, there were forty-two "Assessors" present; on the 22nd there were now forty-eight. The Trial was a very big deal to the English and Burgundians.</ref>, while the court was still querying Joan about background, she freely told her story, starting with her first Voices, and how they eventually told her to "Go into France!"<ref>Murray, p. 10</ref> As he described heading from Vaucouleurs to Chinon, the questioner interrupted her to ask the all-important question for the court, "Who counselled you to take a man's dress?"<ref>Murray, p. 12</ref> She "several times refused to answer," then stated that she needed them to get to Chinon safely. | ||
She next described her first meeting there with the Dauphin:<ref>These excerpts from Murray, pp 12-14</ref> | She next described her first meeting there with the Dauphin:<ref>These excerpts from Murray, pp 12-14</ref> | ||
| Line 2,084: | Line 2,188: | ||
This essay is not concerned with the particulars of the Trial at Rouen, except for Joan's clear demonstration in it of her divine mission. What I find more interesting is Joan's own confoundment at her situation. The Christological typology is clear: Joan is betrayed by a follower, ransomed by blood money, persecuted by religious leaders using the authority of a foreign occupier, abandoned by most of her followers, tortured, suffered, put to death by that foreign power, but upheld by a small core of devoted followers. The history depicts the typology explicitly. However, we can still ask, why'd she have to go through all this? | This essay is not concerned with the particulars of the Trial at Rouen, except for Joan's clear demonstration in it of her divine mission. What I find more interesting is Joan's own confoundment at her situation. The Christological typology is clear: Joan is betrayed by a follower, ransomed by blood money, persecuted by religious leaders using the authority of a foreign occupier, abandoned by most of her followers, tortured, suffered, put to death by that foreign power, but upheld by a small core of devoted followers. The history depicts the typology explicitly. However, we can still ask, why'd she have to go through all this? | ||
Having been ransomed by the English from her captor, the Duke of Luxembourg, Joan was handed not to a military court but to an ecclesiastical one. For the English, it'd be an easy solution to put her death, as they did other mystics such as the Shephard of Gévaudan, who was dispatched by the English without process or ceremony. Additionally, while Joan could claim noble protection, having been knighted by Charles VII after Paris, but the English would neither accept that nor allow such niceties to complicate her execution.<ref>Medieval codes of chivalry gave a certain but not unlimited degree of protection to a captured noble. But in Joan's case, the usual solution, ransom, had already taken place. France refused to ransom her, and the British did, so she was theirs to do what they pleased. One of Joan's prominent warriors, de Xaintrailles, was captured at the disastrous "Battle of the Shepherd" in August of 1431, several months after Joan's execution, and held at Rouen at the same castle where Joan had been kept, Bouvreuil. Only, there, de Xaintrailles was treated as a nobleman, sharing meals with the Earl of Warwick, etc. (see Pernoud, Her Story, p. 206)</ref> Still, it was a tricky situation: this young woman brought upon them debilitating and humiliating defeats and roused the sentiments of the loyal French within their hold. For those common French people who did support the English, they were embracing traditional ties going back to the times of Normal rule of England, as well as hatred of their French rivals and the burdens and punishments of | Having been ransomed by the English from her captor, the Duke of Luxembourg, Joan was handed not to a military court but to an ecclesiastical one. For the English, it'd be an easy solution to put her death, as they did other mystics such as the Shephard of Gévaudan, who was dispatched by the English without process or ceremony. Additionally, while Joan could claim noble protection, having been knighted by Charles VII after Paris, but the English would neither accept that nor allow such niceties to complicate her execution.<ref>Medieval codes of chivalry gave a certain but not unlimited degree of protection to a captured noble. But in Joan's case, the usual solution, ransom, had already taken place. France refused to ransom her, and the British did, so she was theirs to do what they pleased. One of Joan's prominent warriors, de Xaintrailles, was captured at the disastrous "Battle of the Shepherd" in August of 1431, several months after Joan's execution, and held at Rouen at the same castle where Joan had been kept, Bouvreuil. Only, there, de Xaintrailles was treated as a nobleman, sharing meals with the Earl of Warwick, etc. (see Pernoud, Her Story, p. 206)</ref> Still, it was a tricky situation: this young woman brought upon them debilitating and humiliating defeats and roused the sentiments of the loyal French within their hold. For those common French people who did support the English, they were embracing traditional ties going back to the times of Normal rule of England, as well as hatred of their French rivals and the burdens and punishments of intermittent French rule. The Burgundian elites, nobility and ecclesiastic, however, were, if not enthusiastic for English rule, steadfast in its support, as it not only gave them power over their Armagnac rivals but it empowered their political and religious economies. An English-ruled France would put them right at the top. | ||
Given top-down support and the dangers of bottom-up resentment, or even potential rebellion, that Joan represented, to the English and the Burgundian elites, she simply had to die. Only it had to be justified, and no greater justification could be found in the 15th century than from the Church. To get there, it had to be carefully orchestrated with clear lines of authority. However, when Joan was captured by Burgundian forces under the Count of Luxembourg, she was ''de facto'' held by a Burgundian ally but ''de jure'' held by an independent entity. This was an important distinction because it took from English and the Duke of Burgundy direct jurisdiction over her. To overcome the problem, the location of her capture was invented to place her under the command of the Bishop of Beauvais, Pierre Cauchon. There commenced the serious irregularities of her treatment, most egregiously her ultimate confinement in a military and not ecclesiastical prison for women. | |||
The Trial itself was marred by procedural shortcuts, so much that one of the most celebrated jurists, Father Jean Lohier, left Rouen disgusted with it all. The notary Manchon detailed Lohier's complaints, which included: 1) it was an extraordinary, i.e., out of form trial; 2) it was moved to private hearings; 3) it violated the honor of the King of France; and 4) up to his departure, no formal charges had been filed for Joan to respond to, "especially those, as she said, which related to her revelations." | |||
The bishop, Beauvais, was indignant, Manchon described it:<ref>This and preceding from Murray, p. 166</ref> | |||
<blockquote>"This Lohier wants to put fine questions into our Process: he would find fault with everything, and says it is of no value. If we were to believe him, everything must be begun again, and all we have done would be worth nothing! " And, after stating the grounds on which Lohier found fault, my Lord of Beauvais added : "It is clear enough on which foot he limps. By Saint John ! we will do nothing in the matter, but will go on with our Process as it is begun!"</blockquote> | |||
Lohier told Manchon,<ref>Murray, p. 167</ref> | |||
<blockquote>It seems they act rather from hate than otherwise; and for that reason, I will not stay here, for I have no desire to be in it.</blockquote> | |||
More tricky yet was the problem of martyrdom. A clean military execution wouldn't do: she had to be removed of any taint of justification. To that end, the strategy was to deny her counsel, abuse, threaten and humiliate her physically and emotionally, trip her up in testimony and theology, and to turn her from French hero, and, even at Rouen and Paris, a sympathetic curiosity, to loathsome witch. Joan defeated those plans with inspired replies, not just countering but reversing upon her accusers their own accusations upon her. She made them look bad. Hence the trial was removed from a public to a private location, and she was only shown in public under a controlled scenes with berating sermons in the final attempts at forcing into admission of heresy, | More tricky yet was the problem of martyrdom. A clean military execution wouldn't do: she had to be removed of any taint of justification. To that end, the strategy was to deny her counsel, abuse, threaten and humiliate her physically and emotionally, trip her up in testimony and theology, and to turn her from French hero, and, even at Rouen and Paris, a sympathetic curiosity, to loathsome witch. Joan defeated those plans with inspired replies, not just countering but reversing upon her accusers their own accusations upon her. She made them look bad. Hence the trial was removed from a public to a private location, and she was only shown in public under a controlled scenes with berating sermons in the final attempts at forcing into admission of heresy, | ||
Here came an even larger problem. Having manipulated Joan into a public abjuration, the court could label her a self-admitted heretic. Except now they couldn't burn a repentant. I have no evidence that it was planned, but the evidence overwhelmingly points to prior arrangement of the attacks on upon her by the English guards after she returned to women's clothes under the terms of the abjuration (which was likely the only point of clarity in it from Joan's point of view). Cauchon's "gotchya" when she put on the men's clothes that the guards then threw upon the floor before her, was absolutely fulfillment of a plan and not glee at a favorable event. Now they could put her to death. | Here came an even larger problem. Having manipulated Joan into a public abjuration, the court could label her a self-admitted heretic. Except now they couldn't burn a repentant. I have no evidence that it was planned, but the evidence overwhelmingly points to prior arrangement of the attacks on upon her by the English guards after she returned to women's clothes under the terms of the abjuration (which was likely the only point of clarity in it from Joan's point of view). Cauchon's "gotchya" when she put on the men's clothes that the guards then threw upon the floor before her, was absolutely fulfillment of a plan and not glee at a favorable event. Now they could put her to death. | ||