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

Line 759:

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~~.

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. 69-70</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 ... '''The crown signified that my King should possess the Kingdom of France'''. [emphasis mine]</blockquote>So both "signs", or, more accurately, visions are about "France" and not Charles' coronation.

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 759: / Line 759: @@
 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.
+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. 69-70</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 ... '''The crown signified that my King should possess the Kingdom of France'''. [emphasis mine]</blockquote>So both "signs", or, more accurately, visions are about "France" and not Charles' coronation.
 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.