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

Anatole France holds that Joan related here, as elsewhere in the Trial, her account of angels delivering the "crown" to Charles to what she would have known about the angelic crown Saint Catherine bestowed upon the Roman Emperor Maxentius' wife, who was herself martyred for converting to Christianity. Anatole France writes,<ref>France, Vol II, p. 234</ref>

The biographer elsewhere reviews legends about Joan, cataloging what contemporaries and later writers said she did that he wants us to recognize as evidence of the myth-making of Saint Joan. One concerns the "crown" that the Joan stated at Rouen that Charles had "deferred." The legend goes that,<ref>France, Vol I, p. 476</ref>

<blockquote>My people never did such a thing: it is your side who have invented it.</blockquote>

The story, which the biographer France leaves ambiguously apocryphal, does not satisfy Joan's testimony. The allegorical explanation fails since Joan is speaking literally here, if prophetically, an explanation which I do not find in any of the commentaries. If so, I wonder that Joan worries that the King had hurried to his coronation for some other reason than an angelic or symbolic crown from heaven or Saint Denis.             

The Rouen court obsessed over this story, and made it a significant element of the "Subsequent Examinations," the post-hoc testimony of certain clerics' supposed conversations with Joan on the day of her execution. These testimonies are highly dubious, conducted mostly by the most vociferous of her interrogators at the direction of the "Promoter" himself, Bishop Cauchon. The document commenced with the statement,<blockquote>Thursday, 7th day of June, 1431, We, the Judges, did ex-officio take information upon certain things which the late Jeanne had said before persons worthy of credit when she was still in prison and before being brought to judgment.</blockquote>The depositions were, then, eight days old. If, as was well attested, there was much remorse in Rouen at Joan's execution, the delay to issue this document makes sense: Cauchon's cover up needed tightening, as doubt had crept in even as Joan was burned. More importantly, Cauchon needed to deliver more than just Joan's ashes to the English: he needed a sound bite from Joan herself for the King of England to announce that she had admitted she was not from God. The need for such affirmation belies the precariousness of the premise. The problem, of course, was that all of France, well, outside the King's inner circle, and half of northern France, much of Paris included, believed Joan was truly sent from God. The "Bourgeois of Paris, a Burgundian chronicler at the University of Paris, recognized, upon Joan's death, admitted the divergent views of the Maid even in Paris:<ref>[https://archive.org/details/journaldunbourg00tuetgoog/page/n323/mode/2up?view=theater The Journal d'un Bourgeois de Paris (Archive.org)]  p. 269. From the original French, which includes the parenthetical phrase added by the 1881 editors: "Assez avoit là et ailleurs qui disoient [qu'elle estoit martire et pour son droit signeur, autres disoient] que non et que mal avoit fait qui l'avoit tant gardée. Ainsi disoit le peuple mais quelle mauvestie oa bonté qu'elle eust ikicte, elle (ut ane celui jour."  For another translation see Pernoud, Her Story, p. 141: "Many people said here and there that she was a martyr and that she had been sacrificed for her true prince. Others said that she was not and that he who had protected her for so long had done ill. So said the people, but, whether she did well or ill, she was burned on that day!" Note that Pernoud's and/or her translator use "prince" for "droit signeur", which may well be. However, we see in the ''Journal d'un Bourgeois'', "droit signeur" used in direct reference to "the" Lord: "bons catholiques envers Dieu et leur droit signeur, et fut la Sainct Laurens au vendredy." ([https://archive.org/details/journaldunbourg00tuetgoog/page/n109/mode/2up?view=theater&q=signeur Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris, 1405-1449 (Archive.org)], p. 55.) </ref><blockquote>There were people here and there who said that she was a martyr for her right Lord; others said that she was not and that those who had protected her had done wrong. So said the people, but whether for bad or good she had done, she was burned that day.</blockquote>In addition to the week's delay to issue the "Examinations" document, more damning is that the next day, June 8, the English released a statement from the child King, now ten, that directly referenced Cauchon's "Examinations", stating that Joan,<ref>from Pernoud, Her story, p. 141</ref><blockquote>confessed without any ambiguity that the spirits who she affirmed had many times appeared to her were evidently wicked and deceptive... She confessed herself to have been tricked and deceived by them.</blockquote>Way too convenient. Worse, though, is that four days later Cauchon and several of his Rouen court conspirators received "letters of guarantee" that protected them from liability for their actions in the Trial. There's no proof therein of a ''quid pro quo'', but that was a ''quid pro quo'', and one that was negotiated in advance of the "Examinations." With the well-documented paper trail of reimbursements and remunerations that tied the Judges to the English is without debate. The "letters of guarantee", then, guaranteed they could keep the money. More interesting is that it was even of concern.   

Even as Joan led the French army and its King towards Reims for the sacramental coronation of Charles VII, the French minister Georges de La Trémoïlle commenced negotiations with the Burgundian court. The talks advanced enough so that the day after the coronation a fifteen day truce was begun.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 72</ref>     

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. If so, and if the English managed to pull off the sacred coronation at Reims, it would have meant not just dual claims on the Crown but competing claims of the anointed Crown, which could have forced the Vatican to take sides -- and which would likely have provoked another papal schism were one side or the other to reject the papal intervention.<ref>As we shall see, Joan's intervention in the Franco-Burgundian truces, by carrying on the battle and through her capture and subsequent Trial at Rouen, prevented these possibilities.</ref>

The problem with the French Court's strategy, which came down to wishful thinking, is that it left everything in the hands of the other parties. So long as the English regent of France, the Duke of Bedford, was in commanded of an experienced, formidable army -- 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 late 1432. The English offensives following Joan's execution firmed up the Burgundian alliance for a time. But when the French renewed the initiative (discussed below) Anne's absence meant one less obligation between the English and the Burgundians (to the extent that Medieval marital ties bound families, which was considerable but hardly binding). The Duke's new wife, whom he married six months after Anne's death, was from the House of Luxembourg, which made for a powerful alliance, but it was no longer a direct line to the Duke of Burgundy. </ref> -- and so long as the Duke of Burgundy had nothing to lose in the negotiations, neither lands nor, in effect, his English partners, the English-Burgundian alliance would hold, especially since the textile factories in Flanders were supplied by English wool. The French strategy to isolate the English through Burgundian neutrality failed to cover the strong hands the Dukes of Bedford and Burgundy were holding.<ref>To carry on the poker metaphor, Joan was the wild card that the French were unwilling to play, but which gave them the winning hand.</ref> Ultimately, the desired Burgundian realignment to France was achieved, but it didn't happen by itself, and far from immediately. They mistakenly thought a deal would magically follow Charles' coronation, which is why after it they came to see her presence as inexpedient.

 

The standard historical explanation that we encounter for the French abandonment of Joan and her reconquest of France is that de La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop of Reims, Regnault de Chartres, came to resent her out of jealousy, misogyny, or something, and so worked against her, whether that be to French advantage or not.<ref>The French Wikipedia entry on [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Ier_de_La_Tr%C3%A9moille Georges Ier de La Trémoille — Wikipédia], notes that the blame on de Chartres and de la Trémoille started during the 1440s, and was popularized in a 1789 history of France by Henry Martin, who included Charles VII in the plot against Joan. Just know that 1789 marks a rather anti-monarchical moment in French history. While the Revolution didn't like Joan's Catholicism, either, for the revolutionaries she represented the common people rising up against tyranny.</ref> The biographer Murray writes,<ref>Murray, Introduction, p. xix, fn 1</ref>    <blockquote>There existed a bitter feeling of jealousy towards Jeanne in consequence of her great successes in the field. This was notably shown during her attack upon Paris, where she was thwarted in every direction, and all possibility of victory was taken from her by the conduct of the King.</blockquote>

At Orléans Joan had proven herself authenitc, and the entire country was awed and amazed, including one rather complicated figure, Arthur III de Richemont of Brittany who had fought for the French at Agincourt, switched to the English side, rejoined the French Court, only to be kicked out of it two years prior to Joan's arrival. Making it even more complicated, after his father died, his mother married Henry IV of England, becoming Queen Dowager at Henry V's court, and de Richemont himself was married to the sister of Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. His homeland, Brittany, had an identity distinct from England and France, although it was geographically attached and thereby more largely tied to France. Yet even in the name "Richemont", a francophone version of the English "Richmond", do we see the crossed identities. Just as French clerics at Paris tied their ambitions to the English, and through the myopia of self-advancement loathed Joan's challenge to their English nest egg, de Richemont, inflamed by the miracle at Orléans, and with a latent patriotism for France -- and recognizing opportunity, raised an army of a thousand and marched to the Loire to fight alongside the Maid.

We must recall that the Burgundian state was in part a fief of both France and the Holy Roman Empire. And, Burgundian Flanders was technically a French fief that 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, saw themselves more and more as lords of an autonomous state. Philip the Good, the Duke of Burgundy of Joan's time, had fruitfully expanded Burgundian Flanders, which neither the English nor the French could claim. So it really didn't matter to Philip whether the King of France was English or French; what mattered was the given advantage to him. By 1429, the assassination of the Duke's father ten years before had become as much an opportunity as a rationale for the war against the Armagnacs, as it empowered him as hegemon.<ref>Certainly the Duke held on to his resentment over the assassination of his father, but it served as an effective instrument of negotiation. Burgundy's recognition of Charles VII in the 1435 Treaty of Arras came in exchange for Charles's disavowal of his participation in and prosecution of those who perpetrated the murder of John the Fearless. More importantly, Philip got significant land and vassalage concessions from Charles, and had to give up very little land himself.</ref>  

Where the Armagnac-Burgundian split was originally a fight between French factions, by Joan's time the Armagnacs were "the French" and the Burgundians were "the Burgundians." The French court, though, held to the view that the Duchy of Burgundy was French, and thus the factional split was an internal affair, whereas the English problem was external. Yet, had the English seized Orlėans and so isolated France to the south, or defeated it outright, the Duchy of Burgundy would have become effectively an English and no longer French vassalage; that is, French in name only, while its Flemish and Germanic holdings would have become more and more defining of an independent country, as opposed to a duchy of French origins. De La Trémoïlle and de Chartres, who together ran Charles VII's court, saw the Duchy of Burgundy as French, and its alliance with England thereby not sustainable. So it was, but that view ignored the deep ambitions of both parties: the English wanted France to become English, while the Burgundians wanted it Burgundian.  

Joan and her military victories tore into these cross-ambitions. Her insistence upon taking the English and Burgundians on the field was entirely at odds with court machinations that sought negotiated settlements. For Joan, as long as the Burgundians were allied with the English they were equally the enemy. She told the Rouen court,<ref>Murray, p. 19</ref><blockquote>

Having welcomed de Richemont to the fight, Joan struck at the heart of the French Court's feudal designs. De Richemont's entry meant war, not compromise. Joan knew it so. She was sent to save "France" and not "feudal France," and so rejected a diplomatic settlement with the Burgundians. At the Trial, she recalled her conversation with the reputed mystic, Catherine de la Rochelle, who wanted to meet with the Duke of Burgundy to "make peace":<ref>Murray, p. 53. As we discussed before, Joan dismissed this woman as a fraud. Interestingly, the mystic's solution to the war was the same failed strategy as that of Charles: "make peace" with the Duke of Burgundy.</ref>

Leading up to Reims, De La Trémoïlle and Charles refused to allow de Richemont's presence at the coronation, which was by custom de Richemont's due. Charles said, according to a Chronicler,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 67, quoting from the Chronicle of Guillaume Gruel.</ref>  

Joan, the chronicler reported, was angry at de Richemont's exclusion. She certainly knew of but didn't care about palace back stories and generational resentments. She just wanted to win the war. If that meant peaceful Burgundian recognition of Charles as King of France, so be it (only, in Joan's terms, coming under the threat of war), which is why she had invited the Duke of Burgundy to the Coronation. The day thereof she wrote the Duke again, saying,<ref>Letter of Joan of Arc to the Duke of Burgundy, July 17, 1431 (translation from Pernoud, Her Story, p. 68)</ref>

Back to war, then, for which de Richemont's help was most welcome to Joan. Should Charles allow it.   

Historians have recognized this aspect of Joan's influence upon events, especially in the later re-militarization of France under de Richemont who, empowered by his effective reentry to French politics, had expelled de La Trémoïlle from the Court. Arriving with his soldiers to Jargeau was his first ploy to regain power as Constable. By welcoming him, and forcing the general, d'Alençons, to accept his presence, it was Joan who put into place the dynamics that would lead to the reconciliation of Burgundy with France four years after her death. Though well before the final expulsion of the English, for which de Richemont was the crucial commander, that reconciliation was a key turning point, also coming through the presence of de Richemont. Joan made it happen.   

De La Trémoïlle and de Richemont's mutual history and animosities were large. Both had deep ties to the Burgundians: de La Trémoïlle was raised in the Burgundian court alongside the future John the Fearless, and de Richemont was married to one of his daughters. Both joined the Armagnac cause during the height of the armed conflicts with the Burgundians of the early 1410s. Both fought for France at Agincourt and were captured by the English. De La Trémoïlle was released right away, while de Richemont, who was injured in the battle, was held for five years, after which he joined the English cause, indicating either a conversion or, more likely, a deal: keen on joining the winning side, he convinced his brother, the Duke of Brittany, to join the Burgundians in support of the English at the 1420 Treaty of Troyes. The English rewarded de Richemont, but with a title and not a high command, so, frustrated at the sidelining, he returned to the French court, where he brought his brother back into the Armagnac fold through a treaty with Charles.         

 

Amidst the oscillating alliances and defections stood Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Burgundy knew these characters well, and so after Joan's death, he offered to de Richemont lands that belonged to de La Trémoïlle in exchange for de Richemont's loyalty.       

As we consider the betrayal of Joan, perhaps La Trémoïlle and the Archbishop Regnaud de Chartres didn't deliberately abandon Joan and were instead merely practicing standard statecraft. Negotiation was as much a part of Medieval warfare as swords and crossbows. For example, after the English victory at the "Battle of Herrings" during the siege of Orléans, the city's leadership offered itself to the Duke of Burgundy in neutrality under him in exchange for relief from the English. Understanding that the Duke of Orléans was being held in England and that Orléans was the center of Armagnac resistance to the Burgundians, this offer is stunning. The Armagnac movement was named for the the Count of Armagnac, the father-in-law of Louis I, the Duke of Orléans, whom John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, murdered in 1407. Any question as to the desperation felt in Orléans (which has been questioned by historians) should be replaced by wonder at the desperation of the city in offering to surrender to the son of the Duke of Burgundy who had murdered the father of the current Duke of Orléans. Burgundy, of course, was all for it, but the idea was vetoed by the larger Duke, the English Bedford, who smelled victory over France. He crowed,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 13</ref>   

Then the Maid got in the way of it all, which makes the French diplomatic maneuvering leading up to and after the Coronation of Charles so glaringly odd: Bedford was absolutely right: Orléans gone, France gone. Joan's logic was different: Orléans saved, the King of France saved; the King crowned at Reims, France saved; Paris taken, France liberated. While it may seem reasonable to some historians that a personal spat in the French Court got between God's plan for France as understood by Joan and what its leadership chose to do, that doesn't explain the larger outcomes, all of which depended Joan's path from Chinon to martyrdom at Rouen.     

 

 

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 Duke of Burgundy had no intention of respecting "neutrality," and instead took advantage of the French self-deception in order to reinforce his position with the English -- who themselves took advantage of unexpected reprieve to reinforce Paris with 1,000 troops.<ref>Which marks a clear admission by Bedford of the vulnerability of Paris at the time of Joan's attack upon it. (Bedford's reinforcement from Pernoud, Her Story, p. 73.)</ref>

 

long march to Saint Denis, outside of Paris, and at Joan's insistence -- indicative of the authority she yet held -- the Duke of Alençon was finally allowed to organize an attack on Paris, coming on September 8, the Feast of the Nativity of the Mother of God. Joan was at the front. After an all-day assault that induced both panic and expectant enthusiasm within the city, as sun fell Joan "reached the walls of Paris"<ref>Testimony of Louis de Contes, Murray p. 259.  Historians like to point to witnesses that Joan was in a ditch when she was shot, unable to get over a ditch or a moat. For example, see Barker writes of a description of the event, "The citizen of Paris, who was probably a priest, gave a graphic description in his journal of this ‘creature in the form of a woman, whom they called the Maid – what it was, God only knows’ standing on the edge of the moat with her standard. ‘Surrender to us quickly, in Jesus’ name!’ she shouted to the Parisians: ‘if you don’t surrender before nightfall we shall come in by force whether you like it or not and you will all be killed.’ ‘Shall we, you bloody tart?’ a crossbowman responded and shot her through the leg. Another crossbowman shot her standard-bearer through the foot and, when he lifted his visor so that he could see to take the bolt out, he was shot between the eyes and killed. (Barker, Juliet. Conquest, Kindle Edition) Barker uses this quotation without Joan's own answer to it. During the Rouen Trial, she was asked, "Did you not say before Paris, 'Surrender this town by order of Jesus'?" to which she clarified, "No, but I said, 'Surrender it to the King of France.'" (Murray, p. 73)</ref> and was struck in the thigh by a crossbow bolt.<ref>There is much to be said for Divine protection of Joan in her injuries, here at Paris and at Orléans. While missing vital organs, Joan's wounds were serious and susceptible to infection, etc. She recovered from them all. </ref>