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

Line 753:

She replied that it was herself who was the Angel. Having questioned her afterwards on the subject of the crown which she had promised to her King, of the multitude of Angels who at that time accompanied her, she replied that it was true that Angels appeared to her under the form of very minute things. Finally, I asked her if this apparition were real" Yes," she replied, "the spirits did really appear to me — be they good or be they evil spirits — they did appear to me."</blockquote>That first testimony was from Ladvenu, who was assigned Joan's confessor during her last days at Rouen, and about whom little is known, although he testified four times in the Rehabilitation Trial The second, Maurice, was a star student at the University of Paris who was made a Canon at Rouen by the English, and who had tied his career entirely to the English cause. What gives pause here, as I have discussed, is the consistency in the testimonies and the choice of witnesses, all of whom were trusted to say the right thing. That is, they were engineered.

Another of the testimonies, from another Dominican, from Jean Toutmouille noted,<ref>Murray, p. 150</ref> <blockquote>I first heard Maître Pierre Maurice, who had gone earlier to her, declare she had confessed that all which concerned the crown was fiction : that it was she who was the Angel. </blockquote>We know that Nicolas Loyseleur, who was the fourth in the Subsequent Examinations to mention the crown,~~<ref>See Murray, p. 153</ref>~~ had deceptively administered confessions to Joan while pretending to be a sympathetic compatriot from Lorraine~~. Worse, he allowed witnesses to secretly watch and record her words~~.<ref>See Manchon's testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation, Murray, p. 165 and 183.</ref> He confessions, then, were intelligence that was shared with the inquisitors, in absolute violation of ''sigillum confessionis, or'' "~~the~~ seal of confession", If Maurice announced what Joan confessed, as Toutmouille stated, that, too, was in violation of the seal. It was all highly irregular, as various testified to by those present at Rouen who were around for the Trial of Rehabilitation starting 1450. Ladvenu testified four times between 1450 and1456, focusing mostly on the corruption of the Judges (they "wished to have letters of guarantee from the King of England, and received them"<ref>Fourth Examination, Murray, p. 194</ref>), her illegal imprisonment in a military and not ecclesiastical prison, and how the execution itself was illegal, as the ecclesiastical court condemned her to the hands of the secular authorities who burned her immediately without any official judgement.

Another of the testimonies, from another Dominican, from Jean Toutmouille noted,<ref>Murray, p. 150</ref> <blockquote>I first heard Maître Pierre Maurice, who had gone earlier to her, declare she had confessed that all which concerned the crown was fiction : that it was she who was the Angel. </blockquote>We know that Nicolas Loyseleur, who was the fourth in the Subsequent Examinations to mention the crown, had deceptively administered confessions to Joan while pretending to be a sympathetic compatriot from Lorraine.<ref>See Manchon's testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation, Murray, p. 165 and 183.</ref> Worse, he allowed witnesses to secretly watch and record her words. He confessions, then, were intelligence that was shared with the inquisitors, in absolute violation of ''sigillum confessionis, or'' "seal of confession". If Maurice announced what Joan confessed, as Toutmouille stated, that, too, was in violation of the seal.

~~Ladvenu~~ was ~~either pliable or acting on self-preservation and justification, or, if we believe instead his final deposition, he admitted to having lied in the Subsequent Examinations testimony.<ref>To his credit~~, at Rouen~~, unlike~~ the ~~other testimonials,~~ Ladvenu ~~was quizzed directly by the Bishop Cauchon~~, ~~who had orchestrated it all. Cauchon got what he wanted from Ladvenu at~~ the ~~time.</ref> He concluded his statements to~~ the ~~Rehabilitation inquiry with,<ref>Fourth Testimony, December 19, 1455 and May 13, 1456~~ (~~Murray, p. 195)</ref> <blockquote>Up~~ to the ~~end~~ of ~~her life she maintained and asserted that her Voices came from God~~, and ~~that what she had done had been by God's command. She did not believe that her Voices had deceived her: [but that] the revelations which she had~~ received had come from God. </blockquote>From the historian's point of view I am very comfortable to take Ladvenu's final testimony, which was consistent over the span of six years in which he submitted his recollections, over that he gave under duress from the Bishop Cauchon at Rouen shortly after Joan's death. Along with Ysambard de la Pierre, Ladvenu was "with her until her last breath"<ref>Murray, p. 194</ref> ~~on the pyre~~, ~~and that memory was~~ in ~~him strong twenty years later. At Joan's death, there was~~ a ~~great sense of regret,~~ and not ~~just in the executioner~~, ~~as both de la Pierre~~ and ~~Ladvenu and others reported~~, ~~but among public witnesses~~ as ~~well as clerics~~ who ~~were not so bound by hatred of Joan knotted up in their own satisfaction~~.

It was all highly irregular, as numerously testified by those present at Rouen who were around for the Trial of Rehabilitation starting 1450. Ladvenu testified four times between 1450 and1456, focusing mostly on the corruption of the Judges (they "wished to have letters of guarantee from the King of England, and received them"<ref>Fourth Examination, Murray, p. 194</ref>), her illegal imprisonment in a military and not ecclesiastical prison, and how the execution itself was illegal, as the ecclesiastical court condemned her to the hands of the secular authorities who burned her immediately without any official judgement.

Throughout the Rouen Trial, Joan gave hints and details about the "sign" she gave to the French King upon meeting him at Chinon. Along with the "crown a thousand times more rich"<ref>Murray, p. 44</ref>, the Rouen court was most keen to use these against her, and returned to them frequently. When we look at them in tandem, it gives us a little light, though on the "crown sent from God," as it aligns with her statements about the "sign" at Chinon:<ref>Murray, p. 69</ref><blockquote>The sign was that an Angel assured my King, in bringing him the crown, '''that he should have the whole realm of France''', by the means of God's help and my labours; that he was to start me on the work — that is to say, to give me men-at-arms ; and that otherwise he would not be so soon crowned and consecrated. [emphasis mine]</blockquote>So both "signs", or, more accurately, visions are about "France" and not Charles' coronation. Interesting.

Ladvenu was either pliable or acting on self-preservation and justification, or, if we believe instead his final deposition, he admitted to having lied in the Subsequent Examinations testimony.<ref>To his credit, at Rouen, unlike the other testimonials, Ladvenu was quizzed directly by the Bishop Cauchon, who had orchestrated it all. Cauchon got what he wanted from Ladvenu at the time.</ref> He concluded his statements to the Rehabilitation inquiry with,<ref>Fourth Testimony, December 19, 1455 and May 13, 1456 (Murray, p. 195)</ref> <blockquote>Up to the end of her life she maintained and asserted that her Voices came from God, and that what she had done had been by God's command. She did not believe that her Voices had deceived her: [but that] the revelations which she had received had come from God. </blockquote>From the historian's point of view I am very comfortable to take Ladvenu's witnesses at the Rehabilitation, which were consistent over the span of six years in which he submitted his recollections, over that he gave under duress from the Bishop Cauchon at Rouen shortly after Joan's death, especially since, along with Ysambard de la Pierre, Ladvenu was "with her until her last breath"<ref>Murray, p. 194</ref> on the pyre. That memory was in him strong twenty years later. He wasn't alone. At Joan's death, there was a great sense of regret, and not just in the executioner, as both de la Pierre and Ladvenu and others reported, but among public witnesses as well as clerics who were not so bound by hatred of Joan knotted up in their own satisfaction.

Throughout the Rouen Trial, Joan gave hints and details about the "sign" she gave to the French King upon meeting him at Chinon. Along with the "crown a thousand times more rich,"<ref>Murray, p. 44</ref> the Rouen court was most keen to use these against her, and returned to them frequently. When we look at them in tandem, it gives us a little light, though on the "crown sent from God," as it aligns with her statements about the "sign" at Chinon:<ref>Murray, p. 69</ref><blockquote>The sign was that an Angel assured my King, in bringing him the crown, '''that he should have the whole realm of France''', by the means of God's help and my labours; that he was to start me on the work — that is to say, to give me men-at-arms ; and that otherwise he would not be so soon crowned and consecrated. [emphasis mine]</blockquote>So both "signs", or, more accurately, visions are about "France" and not Charles' coronation. Interesting.

Following his coronation, Charles VII gained no further lands than what Joan had delivered to him on the way to Reims. And instead of continuing Joan's advance, he dithered and delayed, and set Joan to the side. By bringing Charles to Reims, Joan saved France, but its culmination took decades, something Joan never conceived -- except in this vision that Charles was impatient and lost as a result a larger crown.

@@ Line 753: / Line 753: @@
 She replied that it was herself who was the Angel.  Having questioned her afterwards on the subject of the crown which she had promised to her King, of the multitude of Angels who at that time accompanied her, she replied that it was true that Angels appeared to her under the form of very minute things. Finally, I asked her if this apparition were real" Yes," she replied, "the spirits did really appear to me — be they good or be they evil spirits — they did appear to me."</blockquote>That first testimony was from Ladvenu, who was assigned Joan's confessor during her last days at Rouen, and about whom little is known, although he testified four times in the Rehabilitation Trial The second, Maurice, was a star student at the University of Paris who was made a Canon at Rouen by the English, and who had tied his career entirely to the English cause. What gives pause here, as I have discussed, is the consistency in the testimonies and the choice of witnesses, all of whom were trusted to say the right thing. That is, they were engineered.
-Another of the testimonies, from another Dominican, from Jean Toutmouille noted,<ref>Murray, p. 150</ref> <blockquote>I first heard Maître Pierre Maurice, who had gone earlier to her, declare she had confessed that all which concerned the crown was fiction : that it was she who was the Angel. </blockquote>We know that Nicolas Loyseleur, who was the fourth in the Subsequent Examinations to mention the crown,<ref>See Murray, p. 153</ref> had deceptively administered confessions to Joan while pretending to be a sympathetic compatriot from Lorraine. Worse, he allowed witnesses to secretly watch and record her words.<ref>See Manchon's testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation, Murray, p. 165 and 183.</ref> He confessions, then, were intelligence that was shared with the inquisitors, in absolute violation of ''sigillum confessionis, or'' "the seal of confession", If Maurice announced what Joan confessed, as Toutmouille stated, that, too, was in violation of the seal. It was all highly irregular, as various testified to by those present at Rouen who were around for the Trial of Rehabilitation starting 1450. Ladvenu testified four times between 1450 and1456, focusing mostly on the corruption of the Judges (they "wished to have letters of guarantee from the King of England, and received them"<ref>Fourth Examination, Murray, p. 194</ref>), her illegal imprisonment in a military and not ecclesiastical prison, and how the execution itself was illegal, as the ecclesiastical court condemned her to the hands of the secular authorities who burned her immediately without any official judgement.
+Another of the testimonies, from another Dominican, from Jean Toutmouille noted,<ref>Murray, p. 150</ref> <blockquote>I first heard Maître Pierre Maurice, who had gone earlier to her, declare she had confessed that all which concerned the crown was fiction : that it was she who was the Angel. </blockquote>We know that Nicolas Loyseleur, who was the fourth in the Subsequent Examinations to mention the crown, had deceptively administered confessions to Joan while pretending to be a sympathetic compatriot from Lorraine.<ref>See Manchon's testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation, Murray, p. 165 and 183.</ref> Worse, he allowed witnesses to secretly watch and record her words. He confessions, then, were intelligence that was shared with the inquisitors, in absolute violation of ''sigillum confessionis, or'' "seal of confession". If Maurice announced what Joan confessed, as Toutmouille stated, that, too, was in violation of the seal.
-Ladvenu was either pliable or acting on self-preservation and justification, or, if we believe instead his final deposition, he admitted to having lied in the Subsequent Examinations testimony.<ref>To his credit, at Rouen, unlike the other testimonials, Ladvenu was quizzed directly by the Bishop Cauchon, who had orchestrated it all. Cauchon got what he wanted from Ladvenu at the time.</ref> He concluded his statements to the Rehabilitation inquiry with,<ref>Fourth Testimony, December 19, 1455 and May 13, 1456 (Murray, p. 195)</ref> <blockquote>Up to the end of her life she maintained and asserted that her Voices came from God, and that what she had done had been by God's command. She did not believe that her Voices had deceived her: [but that] the revelations which she had received had come from God. </blockquote>From the historian's point of view I am very comfortable to take Ladvenu's final testimony, which was consistent over the span of six years in which he submitted his recollections, over that he gave under duress from the Bishop Cauchon at Rouen shortly after Joan's death. Along with Ysambard de la Pierre, Ladvenu was "with her until her last breath"<ref>Murray, p. 194</ref> on the pyre, and that memory was in him strong twenty years later. At Joan's death, there was a great sense of regret, and not just in the executioner, as both de la Pierre and Ladvenu and others reported, but among public witnesses as well as clerics who were not so bound by hatred of Joan knotted up in their own satisfaction.
+It was all highly irregular, as numerously testified by those present at Rouen who were around for the Trial of Rehabilitation starting 1450. Ladvenu testified four times between 1450 and1456, focusing mostly on the corruption of the Judges (they "wished to have letters of guarantee from the King of England, and received them"<ref>Fourth Examination, Murray, p. 194</ref>), her illegal imprisonment in a military and not ecclesiastical prison, and how the execution itself was illegal, as the ecclesiastical court condemned her to the hands of the secular authorities who burned her immediately without any official judgement.
-Throughout the Rouen Trial, Joan gave hints and details about the "sign" she gave to the French King upon meeting him at Chinon. Along with the "crown a thousand times more rich"<ref>Murray, p. 44</ref>, the Rouen court was most keen to use these against her, and returned to them frequently. When we look at them in tandem, it gives us a little light, though on the "crown sent from God," as it aligns with her statements about the "sign" at Chinon:<ref>Murray, p. 69</ref><blockquote>The sign was that an Angel assured my King, in bringing him the crown, '''that he should have the whole realm of France''', by the means of God's help and my labours; that he was to start me on the work — that is to say, to give me men-at-arms ; and that otherwise he would not be so soon crowned and consecrated. [emphasis mine]</blockquote>So both "signs", or, more accurately, visions are about "France" and not Charles' coronation. Interesting.
+Ladvenu was either pliable or acting on self-preservation and justification, or, if we believe instead his final deposition, he admitted to having lied in the Subsequent Examinations testimony.<ref>To his credit, at Rouen, unlike the other testimonials, Ladvenu was quizzed directly by the Bishop Cauchon, who had orchestrated it all. Cauchon got what he wanted from Ladvenu at the time.</ref> He concluded his statements to the Rehabilitation inquiry with,<ref>Fourth Testimony, December 19, 1455 and May 13, 1456 (Murray, p. 195)</ref> <blockquote>Up to the end of her life she maintained and asserted that her Voices came from God, and that what she had done had been by God's command. She did not believe that her Voices had deceived her: [but that] the revelations which she had received had come from God. </blockquote>From the historian's point of view I am very comfortable to take Ladvenu's witnesses at the Rehabilitation, which were consistent over the span of six years in which he submitted his recollections, over that he gave under duress from the Bishop Cauchon at Rouen shortly after Joan's death, especially since, along with Ysambard de la Pierre, Ladvenu was "with her until her last breath"<ref>Murray, p. 194</ref> on the pyre. That memory was in him strong twenty years later. He wasn't alone. At Joan's death, there was a great sense of regret, and not just in the executioner, as both de la Pierre and Ladvenu and others reported, but among public witnesses as well as clerics who were not so bound by hatred of Joan knotted up in their own satisfaction.
+Throughout the Rouen Trial, Joan gave hints and details about the "sign" she gave to the French King upon meeting him at Chinon. Along with the "crown a thousand times more rich,"<ref>Murray, p. 44</ref> the Rouen court was most keen to use these against her, and returned to them frequently. When we look at them in tandem, it gives us a little light, though on the "crown sent from God," as it aligns with her statements about the "sign" at Chinon:<ref>Murray, p. 69</ref><blockquote>The sign was that an Angel assured my King, in bringing him the crown, '''that he should have the whole realm of France''', by the means of God's help and my labours; that he was to start me on the work — that is to say, to give me men-at-arms ; and that otherwise he would not be so soon crowned and consecrated. [emphasis mine]</blockquote>So both "signs", or, more accurately, visions are about "France" and not Charles' coronation. Interesting.
 Following his coronation, Charles VII gained no further lands than what Joan had delivered to him on the way to Reims. And instead of continuing Joan's advance, he dithered and delayed, and set Joan to the side. By bringing Charles to Reims, Joan saved France, but its culmination took decades, something Joan never conceived -- except in this vision that Charles was impatient and lost as a result a larger crown.