Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions

Line 56:

== The historical problem of (Saint) Joan of Arc ==

The most prominent modern biographer of Saint Joan of Arc, Régine Pernoud (1909-1998), a medieval scholar, counsels, <blockquote>Among the events which [the historian] expounds are some for which no rational explanation is forthcoming, and the conscientious historian stops short at that point.<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 387). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref> </blockquote>It's a large concession, that some events from the life of Saint Joan of Arc have "no rational explanation," but, apparently, the "conscientious historian" must contain ~~himself~~ to "the facts" and stick to sorting them out for description while avoiding explanation, much less inference from those facts. It's not only impossible, it's historiographically useless. For Joan, it seems, so it is.

The most prominent modern biographer of Saint Joan of Arc, Régine Pernoud (1909-1998), a medieval scholar, counsels, <blockquote>Among the events which [the historian] expounds are some for which no rational explanation is forthcoming, and the conscientious historian stops short at that point.<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 387). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref> </blockquote>It's a large concession, that some events from the life of Saint Joan of Arc have "no rational explanation," but, apparently, the "conscientious historian" must contain herself to "the facts" and stick to sorting them out for description while avoiding explanation, much less inference from those facts. It's not only impossible, it's historiographically useless. For Joan, it seems, so it is.

Because her motives, actions, and outcomes are so improbable, to attribute them to anything other than divine guidance makes no sense. But since divine guidance is "ahistorical," or merely an article of faith, Joan's motives don't matter historically. Pernoud thereby dismisses them altogether, falling back upon,<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 388). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref> <blockquote>The believer can no doubt be satisfied with Joan’s explanation; the unbeliever cannot.</blockquote>What, then, does the "unbeliever" do with the evidence? That the "unbeliever cannot" accept Joan's own explanations is an easy out from what is plain to see. But the problem is larger. Joan did experience voices and visions. If they were not real, then how to explain their effects?

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 == The historical problem of (Saint) Joan of Arc ==
-The most prominent modern biographer of Saint Joan of Arc, Régine Pernoud (1909-1998), a medieval scholar, counsels,    <blockquote>Among the events which [the historian] expounds are some for which no rational explanation is forthcoming, and the conscientious historian stops short at that point.<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 387). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref>   </blockquote>It's a large concession, that some events from the life of Saint Joan of Arc have "no rational explanation," but, apparently, the "conscientious historian" must contain himself to "the facts" and stick to sorting them out for description while avoiding explanation, much less inference from those facts. It's not only impossible, it's historiographically useless. For Joan, it seems, so it is.
+The most prominent modern biographer of Saint Joan of Arc, Régine Pernoud (1909-1998), a medieval scholar, counsels,    <blockquote>Among the events which [the historian] expounds are some for which no rational explanation is forthcoming, and the conscientious historian stops short at that point.<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 387). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref>   </blockquote>It's a large concession, that some events from the life of Saint Joan of Arc have "no rational explanation," but, apparently, the "conscientious historian" must contain herself to "the facts" and stick to sorting them out for description while avoiding explanation, much less inference from those facts. It's not only impossible, it's historiographically useless. For Joan, it seems, so it is.
 Because her motives, actions, and outcomes are so improbable, to attribute them to anything other than divine guidance makes no sense. But since divine guidance is "ahistorical," or merely an article of faith, Joan's motives don't matter historically. Pernoud thereby dismisses them altogether, falling back upon,<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 388). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref>   <blockquote>The believer can no doubt be satisfied with Joan’s explanation; the unbeliever cannot.</blockquote>What, then, does the "unbeliever" do with the evidence? That the "unbeliever cannot" accept Joan's own explanations is an easy out from what is plain to see. But the problem is larger. Joan did experience voices and visions. If they were not real, then how to explain their effects?