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

For the French bishops at Poitiers, her male dress was an impediment to her endorsement but was accepted not just as an expedient but as Biblically consistent with the examples of the female warriors Deborah and Judith. The problem for the clerics was not her attire but whether or not she was "from God."<ref>Thus comparisons arose of Joan to the Delphic sibyls who spoke the words of divine prophesy. These were Greek myths adopted by medieval Christians as female seers, who prophesized the coming of Christ. The "Libyan Sibyl" appears in the Sistine Chapel. For Christian adoption of Sibyls, see [https://divinenarratives.org/the-sibylline-oracles-origins-influences-and-early-christian-impact/ The Sibylline Oracles: Origins, Influences, and Early Christian Impact - DivineNarratives] (accessed 1/20/25)</ref> Once it was discerned that Joan was from God, then affirmed by the events ("signs" that Joan had promised) at Orleans, the matter of her dress was dropped. In his post-Orleans ''apologia'', or defense of Joan, ''De mirabili victoria'' ("Miraculous Victory") Bishop Jean Gearson, address the matter of her dress, as it was his concern. The logic from Poitiers was that if she was from God, she'd win at Orléans. She won, and was, therefore, from God. Gerson still felt compelled to defend her attire. He argued,<ref>Translation from Fraioli, p. 211. Here in French from, [https://archive.org/details/traitdejeanger00monn/page/24/mode/2up Traité de Jean Gerson sur la Pucelle : Monnoyeur, J.S (Archive,org)], (p. 24): "Cette loi, ni en tant qu'elle est Jifdicielle, ni en tant qu'elle est morale, ne condamne le port du costume viril et guerrier en notre Pucelle, qui est guerrière et fait oeuvre virile, que des signes indubitables prouvent avoir été choisie par le Roi du ciel, comme son porte-étendard aux yeux de tous, pour écraser les ennemis de la justice et en relever les défenseurs, pour confondre par la main d'une femme, d'une jeune fille, d'une vierge, les puissantes armes de l'iniquité; en cette Pucelle, enfin entourée du secours des anges, avec lesquels la virginité forme un lien d'amitié et de parenté, comme le dit saint Jérôme et comme on le voit fréquemment dans les histoires des saints — dans celle de Cécile, par exemple, — où ils apparaissent avec des couronnes de lis et des roses. Par là, encore, la Pucelle est justifiée de s'être fait couper les cheveux, malgré la prohibition que l'Apôtre semble en avoir faite aux femmes." And In the original in Latin: Lex  hujusmodi  nec  ut  judicialis  est,  nec  ut  moraiis, damnât  usum  vestis  virilis  et  militaris  in  Puella  nostra virili  et  militari,  quam  ex  certis  signis  elegit  Rex  cœlestis omnium,  tanquam  vexilliferam,  ad  conterendos  hostes  jus- titiae,  et  amicos  sublevandos,  ut  in  manu  feminae  puellaris et  virginis,  confundat  fortia  iniquitatis  arma,  auxiliantibus angelis,  quibus  virginitas  amica  est  et  cognata,  secundum Hieronymum,  et  in  sacris  historiis  fréquenter  apparuit  : sicut  in  Cecilia  visibiliter,  cum  coronis  ex  rosis  et  liliis. Rursus per hoc salvatur attonsio crinium, quam Apostolus prohibere videtur in femina." (p. 40)</ref>  <blockquote>This law, matter insofar as it is judicial, nor insofar as it is moral, condemns the wearing of manly and wearing like clothes by the maid who was a warrior and acts in a manly manner, while unquestionable signs proved that she has been chosen by the king of heaven as his standard bearer in the eyes of everyone to crush the enemies of justice and to revive its defenders; To overthrow by the hand of a woman, a young girl, a virgin the powerful weapons of iniquity; This made finally surrounded by helpful angels with whom their virginity forms a link of friendship and relationship, as Saint Jerome says and it is frequently seen in the history of Saints dash cecile's for instance dash where they appear with crowns of lillies and roses  </blockquote>As did the soldiery around her, the Bishop realized that if God sent the Maid to save France by arms then she needed to dress accordingly. Throughout the Trial of Rehabilitation, the only mention of Joan's male attire concerned witnesses to the Rouen Trial, or first encounters with her at Vaucouleurs, where she was given men's clothing and a horse to ride to Chinon, and in the early days of figuring her out by the French "Doctors" at Poitiers. For the English and their Burgundian clerics, the opposite was assumed, thus the Rouen court's infatuation with her clothes: she was sent by demons, so her dress was demonic, too.     

Upon its conclusion, the Grand Inquisitor of the Trial of Rehabilitation, Jean Bréhal, issued a summary of his findings which historically, logically and precisely tore into the Rouen show trial, denuding it of all its premises and manipulations. The authors of the 1893 re-publication of Bréhal's ''Summary'', provide Bréhal's conclusion as regards Joan's male attire:<ref>[https://archive.org/details/jean-brehal-grand-inquisiteur-de-france/page/n131/mode/2up Jean Bréhal, Grand Inquisiteur de France, et la Réhabilitation of Jeanne D'Arc by Belon, Marie-Joseph; Balme, François (Archive.org)], p 117. Translation here is mine. From the original French: "La question ainsi résolue au point de vue théorique, l'inquisiteur ajoute qu'en fait Jeanne avait d'excellentes raisons — souvent invoquées par elle au cours du procès — pour se justifier d'avoir adopté l'usage d'un costume masculin. Oblisée par sa mission à vivre au milieu des soldats, elle protégeait sa pudeur et celle des autres, que sa jeunesse et les vêlements de son sexe auraient exposée à des violences ou à des désirs coupables. Les lois civiles, aussi bien que les lois ecclésiastiques, proclament la suffisañce de ces motifs, et par conséquent l'honnèteté de sa conduite."</ref>    <blockquote>The question thus resolved from the theoretical point of view, the inquisitor adds that, in fact, Joan had excellent reasons -- which she often invoked during the trial -- to justify having adopted the use of male attire. Obliged by her mission to live among the soldiers, she protected her modesty and that of others, whom her youth and female clothing would have exposed to violence or shameful desires. The civil laws, as well as the ecclesiastical laws, proclaim the sufficiency of these motives, and consequently the honesty of her conduct.  </blockquote>It's an interesting point, there, about protecting the modesty of others. Modern historians denigrate -- mock, even -- the testimony of men who slept by Joan or saw her in the flesh when injured, who attested to feelings of chastity around her. Jean de Metz, who accompanied her to Chinon said,<ref>Murray, p. 225</ref>    <blockquote>On the way, Bertrand and I slept every night by her — Jeanne being at my side, fully dressed. She inspired me with such respect that for nothing in the world would I have dared to molest her ; also, never did I feel towards her — I say it on oath — any carnal desire.  </blockquote>Were she in that worn red dress, would he have felt differently? Well, no, because she would never have been in that dress, as her Voices had instructed her to put on a pair of pants. She told the Rouen court,<ref>Testimony, Feb 22, 1431. From the transcript: "'Who counselled you to take a man's dress?' To this question she several times refused to answer. In the end, she said: 'With that I charge no one.' Many times she varied in her answers to this question. Then she said: 'Robert de Baudricourt made those who went with me swear to conduct me well and safely. 'Go,' said Robert de Baudricourt to me, 'Go! and let come what may!' I know well that God loves the Duke of Orleans; I have had more revelations about the Duke of Orleans than about any man alive, except my King. It was necessary for me to change my woman's garments for a man's dress. My counsel thereon said well.'" (Murray, p. 12)</ref>  <blockquote>It was necessary for me to change my woman's garments for a man's dress. My counsel thereon said well.  </blockquote>Sadly, the modern vision of Saint Joan of Arc as a cross-dresser mirrors the Rouen court's obsession with her as demonic. It simply didn't matter to the French, who not only were not confused by it, but celebrated her as placed that way by God. As was Gerson, who recognized the absurdity of sending a girl to lead an army, any incredulity regarding her <small>dress was irrelevant to the larger problem of how, ''par'' ''mon martin,'' did this young girl do what she did? Faith dissolves such questions.</small>     

At best, de La Trémoïlle's strategy would isolate the English, perhaps weakening their hold on Normandy. At worst, it would have forced the English to seize Paris, which they had otherwise left to the Burgundians to run under a small English guard. It wouldn't look good to crown Edward VI at Rouen, a city of no cultural significance. Or, just as bad, Burgundian neutrality may have opened access for that coronation to take place at Reims instead of Paris. Who knows, but so long as the English regent of France, the Duke of Bedford, was in charge -- and married to the sister of the Duke of the Burgundy<ref>John the Fearless' daughter, Anne of Burgundy. She died at the age of 28 in Paris in 1432.</ref> -- the English-Burgundian alliance would hold, especially since the textile factories in Flanders were supplied by English wool.     

We must recall that the Burgundian state was in part a fief of France and part of the Holy Roman Empire. And, Burgundian Flanders was technically a French fief but in practice was ruled outright by the Duke.<ref>We can think of Flanders as a French "fief" -- land granted to a lord, but whose "vassal," its feudal ruler, was not obligated to serve the French King. By distinction, the Duchy of Burgundy itself and its Duke were both fief and vassal. Flanders was in the 9th century originally part of West Francia (a divided portion of Charlemagne's empire), which became the Kingdom of France.</ref> As they extended their holdings, the dukes of Burgundy, though French themselves, saw themselves more and more lords of an autonomous state. Philip the Good, the Duke of Burgundy of Joan's time, had greatly expanded Burgundian Flanders, which neither the English nor the French could claim. It really didn't matter to Philip whether the King of France was English or French; what mattered was the given advantage. By 1429, the assassination of the Duke's father ten years before had become as much an opportunity as a rationale for his war against the Armagnacs for which the alliance with the English proved most useful.<ref>Certainly the Duke held on to his resentment over the assassination of his father, but it served as an effective instrument of point of negotiation. Burgundy's recognition of Charles VII in the 1435 Treaty of Arras came in exchange for Charles VII's disavowal of participation in and prosecution of those who perpetrated it. More importantly, he got significant land and vassalage concessions, and had to give up very little land himself.</ref>  

We do know that de La Trémoïlle, and, thus, with Charles' approval at some level, aimed for Burgundian neutrality, and that the Duke of Burgundy had no such intention and instead took advantage of the French self-deception in order to reinforce his position with the English -- who took advantage of the reaffirmed alliance with the Burgundians to reinforce Paris with 1,000 troops.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 73</ref>         

<blockquote><center>Jhesus † Mary</center>

The French ministers, instead, made it altogether too easy for the Duke, seducing him with "greater offers of reparation<ref>i.e., for the murder of John the Fearless</ref> than the royal majesty actually possessed,"<ref>https://archive.org/details/joanofarcherstor00pern/page/74/mode/1up?q=220&view=theaterd p. 74</ref> including to yield the town of Compèigne, which a year later continued to hold out against the Burgundians, although at the expense of Joan's capture and her ransom to the English.

The French Court ordered her to attack another town in the region, La Charité, which was also fortified, but she was denied additional artillery or funds. Joan was forced to raise her own army for the attack, which was unsuccessful, her first defeat after Paris. It gave the Court further excuse to ignore her and to adhere to the supposed truce with the Duke of Burgundy. Joan's next action was to move north to defend areas that Burgundy had attacked, despite the truce. That Joan knew it was going on means the Court knew it, but the Court deliberately ignored it under the guise of the truce. Whether or not Joan acted with the Court's authority, over which historians have argued uselessly, doesn't matter: they knew, she knew, they all knew the Duke of Burgundy was in violation of the truce. That Joan acted on her own authority or the Kings doesn't matter. What matters is that she went to defend Compiègne, which was under Burgundian and English attack, with few resources and a small force. There Joan was captured, but, as always, standing fast amidst battle, only this time there was no rallying the troops, as they had gone into the city and the gate was closed on her as the Burgundians surrounded her and pulled her from her horse.