Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions
| Line 1,303: | Line 1,303: | ||
During her imprisonment by Luxembourg, the Duke's wife befriended Joan, and used a promise of an inheritance as lever for the Duke not to ransom her to the English. When she died on September 18, Luxembourg commenced negotiations for her ransom to the English, who assumed control of her in late November of 1430. She was then taken to Rouen, where Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, who oversaw her ransom to the English, organized the show trial. He fully expected to be made Archbishop of Rouen as a reward. | During her imprisonment by Luxembourg, the Duke's wife befriended Joan, and used a promise of an inheritance as lever for the Duke not to ransom her to the English. When she died on September 18, Luxembourg commenced negotiations for her ransom to the English, who assumed control of her in late November of 1430. She was then taken to Rouen, where Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais, who oversaw her ransom to the English, organized the show trial. He fully expected to be made Archbishop of Rouen as a reward. | ||
== Catholic | == Saving France - or a Catholic France? == | ||
France doesn't become "France" until Philip II in the late 12th century, but even so it lacked national integrity until after the appearance of Joan of Arc. Instead, Charles VII is generally credited with the ultimate victory of France over England in the Hundred Years War,<ref>The remaining English toehold on the continent was Calais, which was due more to Burgundian ambitions for the city than the English hold on it. Both sides would rather it remain English than French, but the English would rather it be English than Burgundian.</ref> as well as for administrative and military reforms that centralized the French state and led to a greater uniformity of the French language and culture, which remained an ongoing process as the various duchies evolved from French suzerainty to outright ownership. Charles VII, though, had no "France" to rule without Joan. | France doesn't become "France" until Philip II in the late 12th century, but even so it lacked national integrity until after the appearance of Joan of Arc. Instead, Charles VII is generally credited with the ultimate victory of France over England in the Hundred Years War,<ref>The remaining English toehold on the continent was Calais, which was due more to Burgundian ambitions for the city than the English hold on it. Both sides would rather it remain English than French, but the English would rather it be English than Burgundian.</ref> as well as for administrative and military reforms that centralized the French state and led to a greater uniformity of the French language and culture, which remained an ongoing process as the various duchies evolved from French suzerainty to outright ownership. Charles VII, though, had no "France" to rule without Joan. | ||
The order of Joan's Voices to "go to France" is generally interpreted in the light of Domrémy's location within a French fief and not within directly owned French territory. Indeed, the Duchy of Bar was not fully absorbed into France until 1766.<ref>The Duchies of Bar and Lorraine were consolidated into a single entity when Rene of Anjou, who held Bar, married Isabelle of Lorraine. Lorraine remained split in vassalage between France and the Holy Roman empire until it was ceded to the deposted Polish King, Stanisław Leszczyński. When he died in 1766, the entire duchy was inherited, by treaty, by the French King Louis XV. </ref> That line of thought places Joan's directions to travel into "France" literally from without it. Joan certainly took it literally that she was going "to France." | The order of Joan's Voices to "go to France" is generally interpreted in the light of Domrémy's location within a French fief and not within directly owned French territory. Indeed, the Duchy of Bar was not fully absorbed into France until 1766.<ref>The Duchies of Bar and Lorraine were consolidated into a single entity when Rene of Anjou, who held Bar, married Isabelle of Lorraine. Lorraine remained split in vassalage between France and the Holy Roman empire until it was ceded to the deposted Polish King, Stanisław Leszczyński. When he died in 1766, the entire duchy was inherited, by treaty, by the French King Louis XV. </ref> That line of thought places Joan's directions to travel into "France" literally from without it. Joan certainly took it literally that she was going "to France." | ||
However, we might argue that as a French vassal state (split with the Holy Roman Empire) starting in 1301, Joan's region of the Duchy of Bar, called ''Barrois mouvant'', was essentially French, even to the extent that the French exercised authority to tax within the duchy.<ref>There were assorted excise taxes on certain goods like salt, which had its own name, "gabelle," customs taxes on goods, or direct taxes on households called the "taille," which was traditionally imposed during war but which Charles VII made permanent. The Church had its own tax, called a "dime" for the 10% tithe. Most taxes were collected by "tax farmers."</ref> In 1430s Joan's Armagnac contemporary, René of Anjou, a direct descendant of John II of France (reigned 1350-1364) and brother-in-law of Charles VII, held the title Duke of Bar, and later, that of Duke of Lorraine.<ref>René of Anjou was a sideshow figure in the story of Joan who with his mother, Yolande of Aragon, is accused of manipulating Charles VII and secretly supporting Joan financially or otherwise. René was loyal to the Armagnac cause, but with a Burgundian father-in-law and lands essential controlled by the Duke of Burgundy, René had to play both sides carefully. He attended Charles VII's crowning at Reims and fought against the Burgundians at the Battle of Bulgnéville, where he was captured. In "Henry VI", Shakespeare places René as Reignier, who is the pretender of the Dauphin that Joan recognizes as not the real Charles. The Bard then has Joan claim that she is pregnant with Reignier's child in order to avoid execution (Act 5, Scene 4). </ref> If we look at Joan's order to "go to France" from this perspective, the command takes on an ideological, not geographic or political, meaning. [[File:France_1154-en.svg|alt=Map of King Henry the second's continental holdings in 1154 covering parts of today's France|thumb|<small>Henry II of England's continental holdings in 1154 (in various shades of red), forming part of the "Angevin Empire" (Wikipedia)</small>]]Following the Invasion of England in 1066, the Normans controlled both the north of France and England. After series of power grabs, political marriages, dynastic divisions, and armed contests, by the 12th century, English King Henry II, who spoke French,<ref>Henry IV, crowned in 1399, was the first English king of the Norman period to speak English natively. Passed under the French-speaking Henry III, the 1362 Statute of Pleading made English the official language. Since the English by then had lost most of their holdings in France, Henry III needed to embrace an English national identity.</ref> had also taken over a large part of western France through his marriage to Eleanor of Aguitaine, creating the Angevin Empire, which rules England and most of the west of France. The Angevin rule lasted until the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, in which the French defeated an English, Flemish, and Holy Roman Empire coalition that opposed Philip II's territorial expansion. As a result of Bouvines, the English King John was severely weakened and was forced into signing the Magna Charta, while Philip II consolidated a coherent "France."<ref>His predecessors were Kings of the Franks; Philip II was the first to declare himself King of France.</ref> However, John managed to keep a foothold in lower Aquitaine and Gascony, which had a traditional and independent Basque and not French identity. History weaves complex, indeed. | However, we might argue that as a French vassal state (split with the Holy Roman Empire) starting in 1301, Joan's region of the Duchy of Bar, called ''Barrois mouvant'', was essentially French, even to the extent that the French exercised authority to tax within the duchy.<ref>There were assorted excise taxes on certain goods like salt, which had its own name, "gabelle," customs taxes on goods, or direct taxes on households called the "taille," which was traditionally imposed during war but which Charles VII made permanent. The Church had its own tax, called a "dime" for the 10% tithe. Most taxes were collected by "tax farmers."</ref> In 1430s Joan's Armagnac contemporary, René of Anjou, a direct descendant of John II of France (reigned 1350-1364) and brother-in-law of Charles VII, held the title Duke of Bar, and later, that of Duke of Lorraine.<ref>René of Anjou was a sideshow figure in the story of Joan who with his mother, Yolande of Aragon, is accused of manipulating Charles VII and secretly supporting Joan financially or otherwise. René was loyal to the Armagnac cause, but with a Burgundian father-in-law and lands essential controlled by the Duke of Burgundy, René had to play both sides carefully. He attended Charles VII's crowning at Reims and fought against the Burgundians at the Battle of Bulgnéville, where he was captured. In "Henry VI", Shakespeare places René as Reignier, who is the pretender of the Dauphin that Joan recognizes as not the real Charles. The Bard then has Joan claim that she is pregnant with Reignier's child in order to avoid execution (Act 5, Scene 4). </ref> If we look at Joan's order to "go to France" from this perspective, the command takes on an ideological, not geographic or political, meaning. [[File:France_1154-en.svg|alt=Map of King Henry the second's continental holdings in 1154 covering parts of today's France|thumb|<small>Henry II of England's continental holdings in 1154 (in various shades of red), forming part of the "Angevin Empire" (Wikipedia)</small>]] | ||
=== So what is "France"? === | |||
Following the Invasion of England in 1066, the Normans controlled both the north of France and England. After series of power grabs, political marriages, dynastic divisions, and armed contests, by the 12th century, English King Henry II, who spoke French,<ref>Henry IV, crowned in 1399, was the first English king of the Norman period to speak English natively. Passed under the French-speaking Henry III, the 1362 Statute of Pleading made English the official language. Since the English by then had lost most of their holdings in France, Henry III needed to embrace an English national identity.</ref> had also taken over a large part of western France through his marriage to Eleanor of Aguitaine, creating the Angevin Empire, which rules England and most of the west of France. The Angevin rule lasted until the Battle of Bouvines in 1214, in which the French defeated an English, Flemish, and Holy Roman Empire coalition that opposed Philip II's territorial expansion. As a result of Bouvines, the English King John was severely weakened and was forced into signing the Magna Charta, while Philip II consolidated a coherent "France."<ref>His predecessors were Kings of the Franks; Philip II was the first to declare himself King of France.</ref> However, John managed to keep a foothold in lower Aquitaine and Gascony, which had a traditional and independent Basque and not French identity. History weaves complex, indeed. | |||
In 1328, a succession crisis arose at the death of Charles IV of France, whose closest heir was his nephew Edward III of England. Edward, of course, claimed the French throne. Rejected by the French nobles, Edward cut a deal with the Flemish who endorsed him as King of France, everything to do, of course, with the economic binds between English sheep and Bruges, Ghent, and Ypres woolen factories. In the 1340s, Edward put together an invasion force and in 1346 took the northern city of Caen and then thoroughly humiliated the French at Crécy, largely because the French fought the same war as at Bouvines, with heavy armor, while the English brought in the next thing, the longbow, which could be fired in rapid succession (unlike the French crossbows) and could also pierce armor from distance. | In 1328, a succession crisis arose at the death of Charles IV of France, whose closest heir was his nephew Edward III of England. Edward, of course, claimed the French throne. Rejected by the French nobles, Edward cut a deal with the Flemish who endorsed him as King of France, everything to do, of course, with the economic binds between English sheep and Bruges, Ghent, and Ypres woolen factories. In the 1340s, Edward put together an invasion force and in 1346 took the northern city of Caen and then thoroughly humiliated the French at Crécy, largely because the French fought the same war as at Bouvines, with heavy armor, while the English brought in the next thing, the longbow, which could be fired in rapid succession (unlike the French crossbows) and could also pierce armor from distance. | ||
| Line 1,316: | Line 1,317: | ||
In the 1380, Charles VI, "Charles the Mad," renowned today as the crazy king who thought he was made of glass, inherited the French crown.<ref>He is supposed to have had iron rods sewn into his gown to keep himself sturdy and not break. His psychoses manifested in various other ways, including to forget who he was or those around him and to run around the palace hysterically. Up until the late Biden presidency, I might have used the situation as an example of the insanity of monarchy, as why'd they keep the crazy man in power? Well, as with the incompetent Joe Biden, those in power around him depended on the King's title for their own power. We will see how this dynamic impacts Saint Joan.</ref> Weakened by bouts of insanity, various actors pushed and pulled the strings around him, leading to the 1420 disinheritance of heir, the Dauphin Charles, whom Joan, essentially, had crowned Charles VII. Meanwhile, the English King Henry V, who took advantage of the chaos in France and crippled the French army at Agincourt in 1415. After this, the English and their French allies ally, the Count of Burgundy, give or take some stumbles, ally for mutual benefit to take over France. | In the 1380, Charles VI, "Charles the Mad," renowned today as the crazy king who thought he was made of glass, inherited the French crown.<ref>He is supposed to have had iron rods sewn into his gown to keep himself sturdy and not break. His psychoses manifested in various other ways, including to forget who he was or those around him and to run around the palace hysterically. Up until the late Biden presidency, I might have used the situation as an example of the insanity of monarchy, as why'd they keep the crazy man in power? Well, as with the incompetent Joe Biden, those in power around him depended on the King's title for their own power. We will see how this dynamic impacts Saint Joan.</ref> Weakened by bouts of insanity, various actors pushed and pulled the strings around him, leading to the 1420 disinheritance of heir, the Dauphin Charles, whom Joan, essentially, had crowned Charles VII. Meanwhile, the English King Henry V, who took advantage of the chaos in France and crippled the French army at Agincourt in 1415. After this, the English and their French allies ally, the Count of Burgundy, give or take some stumbles, ally for mutual benefit to take over France. | ||
=== | === English France === | ||
Most people would look upon the Hundred Years War as, and the language of the day, a war between the English and the French. Indeed, the French called their enemy the English, and the English called their enemy the French. In more than a small way, they were all French, which is why the English king claimed the French throne. Historians correctly recognize that the Hundred Years War sparked English national identify, so had the English, whose | Most people would look upon the Hundred Years War as, and the language of the day, a war between the English and the French. Indeed, the French called their enemy the English, and the English called their enemy the French. In more than a small way, they were all French, which is why the English king claimed the French throne. Historians correctly recognize that the Hundred Years War sparked English national identify, so had the English, whose ruling house yet spoke French at home, won and reclaimed France on top of England, would France have become English, or England French? | ||
Certainly, had England conquered France, an English court in France would have taken on a larger French identity, which was the stronger of the two cultures. An English king of France would have distributed French lands amongst his loyalist both from England and France, which would have brought further assimilation. During his regency in France, for example, the Duke of Bedford adopted French culture, both for legitimization of his rule and out of genuine respect for it. Just as England became more fully English after its defeat in the Hundred Years War, it seems clear that had the English conquered France, the English court would have become more French and less English. | Certainly, had England conquered France, an English court in France would have taken on a larger French identity, which was the stronger of the two cultures. An English king of France would have distributed French lands amongst his loyalist both from England and France, which would have brought further assimilation. During his regency in France, for example, the Duke of Bedford adopted French culture, both for legitimization of his rule and out of genuine respect for it. Just as England became more fully English after its defeat in the Hundred Years War, it seems clear that had the English conquered France, the English court would have become more French and less English. | ||
Still, English politics would have been imported into France, including the coming English seizure of the Church under Henry VIII, or, if not him, likely another. An English-ruled France would have integrated more with the Low Countries and possibly spread its rule into Germany ( | Still, English politics would have been imported into France, including the coming English seizure of the Church under Henry VIII, or, if not him, likely by another. An English-ruled France would have integrated more with the Low Countries and possibly spread its rule into Germany (tagging or preempting the Burgundian' expansion) while keeping the rising Spanish power out.<ref>Flemish protestants fleed Spanish Catholic rule.</ref> Come Martin Luther and the Thirty Years War, we see how tenuous was the hold of the Holy Roman Empire upon Germany and central Europe. By the time the Spanish King taken over the Holy Roman Empire, had England ruled France, and had France fallen to Anglicanism, the Holy Roman Empire may have been even weaker leading up to the early 17th century Thirty Years War.<ref>The last Duke of Burgundy, Charles the Bold, attempted to expand past the region of Alsace, but was confronted, successfully, by the Swiss Confederation at the Battle of Nancy.</ref> | ||
Even if remaining Catholic through the | Even if remaining Catholic through the Lutheranian and other revolts, English control of France would have had deep implications upon French Catholicism, which we can see in the English occupation of northern France in the 1420-30s. Firstly, any English conquest of France would be accompanied by Burgundian expansion, which would have integrated the Burgundian Flanders more deeply across northern France -- and England, and with all the implications of Dutch Protestantism. Next, the University of Paris would likely have more successfully pursued its "conciliar" project to supersede papal authority through Church rule by "councils," or, barring success it would have had an irresistible incentive to break from Rome, either under Anglicanism of some form or in another Catholic schism. While Charles VII pushed the conciliar movement in the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges of 1438, it was as much reconciliation with the University of Paris as anything else. Charles aggressively pursued French interests over Papal authority, including to declare it subservient to the French councils, but the movement failed largely due to papal pushback and the persistence of traditional Catholic identity of the people and clergy of the kind Saint Joan had expressed. By contradistinction, an English controlled France may well have more effectively implemented the conciliar movement, which was consistent with its tradition of strong parliamentary rule. | ||
Who knows, except that | Who knows, except that things would have been vastly different. But given the events of the 16th century, one can readily see Roman Catholicism as a victim of an English ruled France and northern Europe. Certainly the French Wars of Religion of the late 1500s would have played out differently. Obviously, had England conquered France, Henry VIII may never have married Catherine of Aragon, or have demanded papal nullification of the marriage to her. Or, maybe he would have and the Pope more vehemently would have denied the annulment Henry demanded. Lots of contingencies here, but to assume that Henry VIII's establishment of the Church of England was over the papal denial of that annulment is naive, at best. Even if given the annulment from Catherine, Henry would have dissolved the Catholic Church, which, if the English had conquered France, would have included its dominion over France. | ||
Alternative histories are pure conjecture, as any number of contingencies may have changed the trajectory of an English-ruled France, including the War of Roses which brought Henry VIII's House of Tudor to power in England. The variables here are infinite, and counter-factual history can never prove anything. | Alternative histories are pure conjecture, as any number of contingencies may have changed the trajectory of an English-ruled France, including the War of Roses which brought Henry VIII's House of Tudor to power in England. The variables here are infinite, and counter-factual history can never prove anything. However, it can inform the actual history, which is the point here. We have as plain fact that England separated itself from Rome, and France did not, and by saving France from English rule, it was Joan of Arc who guided that possibility. With an eye to larger events that we do know, we can understand much of Saint Joan's instructions to "go to France." A France ruled by Henry VIII would no longer be a Catholic France. Certainly, events may have prevented that, but we can imagine a straight line from the Church of England to the Church of France. | ||
== Vive La France == | |||
During and since Joan's time, French patriots have looked to Joan for glory of France. Until the French Revolution, she was a mark of glory for both the French monarchy and the Catholic Church. During the Revolution, the Jacobins suppressed any Catholic or monarchical associations, including her annual festival in Orléans that had centered around the Cathedral of Sainte-Croix, where Joan celebrated a Vespers Mass during the siege. Joan nevertheless remained useful for the Revolution as a symbol of the common people and "independence."<ref>There is much irony in the Revolution's relationship to Saint Joan. It's like Christmas: a great holiday, but all that religious stuff keeps getting in the way. | During and since Joan's time, French patriots have looked to Joan for glory of France. Until the French Revolution, she was a mark of glory for both the French monarchy and the Catholic Church. During the Revolution, the Jacobins suppressed any Catholic or monarchical associations, including her annual festival in Orléans that had centered around the Cathedral of Sainte-Croix, where Joan celebrated a Vespers Mass during the siege. Joan nevertheless remained useful for the Revolution as a symbol of the common people and "independence."<ref>There is much irony in the Revolution's relationship to Saint Joan. It's like Christmas: a great holiday, but all that religious stuff keeps getting in the way. | ||
| Line 1,342: | Line 1,343: | ||
On it goes through the progression of modernity, exemplified by the 1844 work of Jules Michelet, a 19th century anti-clerical French historian. Michelet is the originator of the term "Renaissance," meant to describe the end of an abysmal and backward Medieval period marked by superstition, oppression, and the Catholic Church (especially Jesuits), replaced by a "rebirth" of enlightened antiquity. Sadly, this socialist historian has deeply influenced the modern study of history. | On it goes through the progression of modernity, exemplified by the 1844 work of Jules Michelet, a 19th century anti-clerical French historian. Michelet is the originator of the term "Renaissance," meant to describe the end of an abysmal and backward Medieval period marked by superstition, oppression, and the Catholic Church (especially Jesuits), replaced by a "rebirth" of enlightened antiquity. Sadly, this socialist historian has deeply influenced the modern study of history. | ||
The term "Dark Ages" was first used in the 1300s by Petrarch, the Catholic scholar and often deemed founder of humanism. Petrarch, who lived a century before St. Joan, described the conditions in Europe following the fall of the Roman empire up to his own day as "dark." Michelet applied Petrarch's "light" of antiquity to its supposed rebirth in the "light" of the Renaissance: | The term "Dark Ages" was first used in the 1300s by Petrarch, the Catholic scholar and often deemed founder of humanism. Petrarch, who lived a century before St. Joan, described the conditions in Europe following the fall of the Roman empire up to his own day as "dark." Michelet applied Petrarch's "light" of antiquity to its supposed rebirth in the "light" of the Renaissance:<ref>[https://archive.org/details/historyoffrance02michuoft/page/18/mode/1up?q=Renaissance&view=theater History of France : Michelet, Jules, 1798-1874 (archive.org)], p. 17</ref> <blockquote>Nature, and natural science, kept in check by the spirit of Christianity, were about to have their revival, (renaissance.) </blockquote>All the while consigning to the dark Petrach, and thus, Dante and other early "Reniassance" figures for Michelet, there was one "dark ages" ambassador to hold on to: Joan of Arc, whom he called "The Maid of Orleans."<ref>A major section of Michelet's "History of France" was dedicated to "The Maid of Orléans" </ref> For Michelet, Joan was a "simple Christian," that is a good Christian as opposed to the clerics around her, bad Christians all. While considering her visions mundane and common,<ref>"Who but had visions in the middle age?" (Michelet, p. 131) | ||
</ref>, he presents her divinely-directed acts as if they just, well, happened.<ref>For example, Michelet flatly reports Joan's recognition of the Dauphin upon her entrance to the Court at Chinon, as well as to call it a "very probable account" her private conversation with the Dauphin in which she repeated to him a prayer he had made in private (p. 136 and footnote ||). </ref> Here the historian's judgment is blinded by his prejudice, and like every secular take on her that dismisses the divine hand: <blockquote>The originality of the Pucelle, the secret of her success, was not her courage or her visions, but her good sense. | </ref>, he presents her divinely-directed acts as if they just, well, happened.<ref>For example, Michelet flatly reports Joan's recognition of the Dauphin upon her entrance to the Court at Chinon, as well as to call it a "very probable account" her private conversation with the Dauphin in which she repeated to him a prayer he had made in private (p. 136 and footnote ||). </ref> Here the historian's judgment is blinded by his prejudice, and like every secular take on her that dismisses the divine hand:<ref>Michelet, p. 131</ref> <blockquote>The originality of the Pucelle, the secret of her success, was not her courage or her visions, but her good sense. </blockquote>Beyond that any application of "good sense" would have bound Joan to the fields of her home village, Domrémy, the only thing Michelet can do with her religiosity is to ignore it when inconvenient, exalt it when it contrasts with the hated clerics, and otherwise treat it metaphorically as just a backdrop to her true purpose, according to Michelet, ransoming France:<ref>Michelet, p. 124</ref> <blockquote>The Imitation of Jesus Christ, his Passion reproduced in the Pucelle -- such was the redemption of France. </blockquote>I can't even begin to process the association of "redemption of France" with the "imitation" and Passion of Christ, and we're better off, as with Voltaire, just not going there. But Michelet gets even more grotesque with his impassioned, shall we say, 19th century romanticization of femininity represented by Joan:<ref>Michelet, p. 169. We might get into Michelet's obsession with female archetypes, which were part of his historical theories, but we'll just leave it at this.</ref> <blockquote>Purity, sweetness, heroic goodness — that this supreme beauty of the soul should have centred in a daughter of France, may surprise foreigners who choose to judge of our nation by the levity of its manners alone ... old France was not styled without reason, the most Christian people. They were certainly the people of love and of grace ; and whether we understand this humanly or Christianly, in either sense it will ever hold good. | ||
The saviour of France could be no other than a woman. France herself was woman; | The saviour of France could be no other than a woman. France herself was woman;</blockquote> | ||
When the religious is replaced by the secular, the secular fills the empty space. Thus the Lincoln Memorial is a "temple" and George Washington rises to the heavens in a an "apotheosis" in the dome of the U.S. Capitol. Here Michelet transposes Joan's religiosity for France's ''raison d'être'', claiming for France a soul that he otherwise denies in Joan. Michelet, as least, recognized in Joan a good Christian, but like scholars who have followed sees her faith as an anachronism and her visions as irrelevant at best. | When the religious is replaced by the secular, the secular fills the empty space. Thus the Lincoln Memorial is a "temple" and George Washington rises to the heavens in a an "apotheosis" in the dome of the U.S. Capitol. Here Michelet transposes Joan's religiosity for France's ''raison d'être'', claiming for France a soul that he otherwise denies in Joan. Michelet, as least, recognized in Joan a good Christian, but like scholars who have followed sees her faith as an anachronism and her visions as irrelevant at best. | ||
| Line 1,360: | Line 1,361: | ||
Philip's excursion to Anagni put pressure on the subsequent Papal conclave to avoid further antagonism with him. The next Pope, Benedict XI, rescinded the excommunication but not that of Philip's minister who led the attack on Boniface<ref>Benedict XI, as Cardinal Niccolò of Treviso, was present at the attack on Boniface at Agnini.</ref>, thus leaving the conflict unsettled. Benedict, though, died within a year,<ref>Benedict XI was known for his holiness, and over the years his tomb came to be associated with numerous miracles. In 1736 he was beatified, so he is "Pope Blessed Benedict XI."</ref> and after a year-long impasse between French and Italian Cardinals at the ensuing Conclave, Philip had his way with selection of the Frenchman, Raymond Bertrand de Got, as Pope Clement V. Clement basically did Philip's will, which included effective rescindment of Boniface's Bulls, a posthumous inquisition into Boniface in order to discredit him (which failed), sanction of Philip's arrest of the Knights Templar, and, most importantly, move of the entire Papal court to Avignon in the south of France. This was 1309. | Philip's excursion to Anagni put pressure on the subsequent Papal conclave to avoid further antagonism with him. The next Pope, Benedict XI, rescinded the excommunication but not that of Philip's minister who led the attack on Boniface<ref>Benedict XI, as Cardinal Niccolò of Treviso, was present at the attack on Boniface at Agnini.</ref>, thus leaving the conflict unsettled. Benedict, though, died within a year,<ref>Benedict XI was known for his holiness, and over the years his tomb came to be associated with numerous miracles. In 1736 he was beatified, so he is "Pope Blessed Benedict XI."</ref> and after a year-long impasse between French and Italian Cardinals at the ensuing Conclave, Philip had his way with selection of the Frenchman, Raymond Bertrand de Got, as Pope Clement V. Clement basically did Philip's will, which included effective rescindment of Boniface's Bulls, a posthumous inquisition into Boniface in order to discredit him (which failed), sanction of Philip's arrest of the Knights Templar, and, most importantly, move of the entire Papal court to Avignon in the south of France. This was 1309. | ||
== Return from exile: Gregory XI & Saint Catherine of Sienna == | === Return from exile: Gregory XI & Saint Catherine of Sienna === | ||
Philip's capture of the Papacy worked well for him but no so much for the Church, which, bound to French dominance, lost its legitimacy elsewhere. At first the old enemies of Philip, England and Aragon, found it convenient not to have to deal with the Italians in Rome so did not object. However, a succession crisis among Philip IV's heirs led to the English claims on the French throne and outbreak of the Hundred Years War, over which the Avignon Papacy, while maintaining neutrality and assisting in treaty settlements, leaned towards the French side. So when Gregory XI moved the papacy back to Rome in 1376, the French were furious while the English could sit on their hands and shrug, "oh well." No objection them. And no objection, either, from the Holy Roman Emperor, whose brand was quite literally diluted by the move from Rome to Avignon. | Philip's capture of the Papacy worked well for him but no so much for the Church, which, bound to French dominance, lost its legitimacy elsewhere. At first the old enemies of Philip, England and Aragon, found it convenient not to have to deal with the Italians in Rome so did not object. However, a succession crisis among Philip IV's heirs led to the English claims on the French throne and outbreak of the Hundred Years War, over which the Avignon Papacy, while maintaining neutrality and assisting in treaty settlements, leaned towards the French side. So when Gregory XI moved the papacy back to Rome in 1376, the French were furious while the English could sit on their hands and shrug, "oh well." No objection them. And no objection, either, from the Holy Roman Emperor, whose brand was quite literally diluted by the move from Rome to Avignon. | ||
[[File:Western_schism_1378-1417.svg|thumb|<small>Map showing support for Avignon (red) and Rome (blue) during the Western Schism (Wikipedia)</small>]] | [[File:Western_schism_1378-1417.svg|thumb|<small>Map showing support for Avignon (red) and Rome (blue) during the Western Schism (Wikipedia)</small>]] | ||
| Line 1,384: | Line 1,385: | ||
In 1376, Catherine traveled to Avignon on behalf of the Republic of Florence to negotiate a peace with the Papal States.<ref>As did the 19th century French historian Michelet, it's easy to forget that this is at the cusp of what Michelet termed the "Renaissance," which means this period and the "Renaissance" were actually one, not distinct periods. A lot was going on.</ref> She failed at the immediate mission<ref>Catherine became famous across Tuscany as a holy woman (''santa donna)'' for her acts of charity, especially for the sick, as well as her calls for clerical reform general repentance through "total love for God." Florence was in rebellion from the Papal States and under a papal interdict, so it was thought that Catherine, who called for reconciliation with the Vatican, could yield advantageous returns. However, both sides succumbed to distrustful elements who did not want to see her succeed. After Gregory XI moved to Rome, he sent her back to Florence, this time on his behalf. While she was there, Gregory died and street riots broke out, likely due to longstanding frustration with the papal interdict, the larger conflict which had disrupted the economy and led to increased taxes, and the general policies of the guilds that ran Florence. That July a more general rebellion arose, the Ciompi Revolt, led by discontented wool workers in which Saint Catherine was nearly killed. The shocked calm that followed the rebellion led to reconciliation with the new Pope Urban VI.</ref> but through a divine inspiration won a far more important one: when they met, she told him that she knew of his private vow to return the papacy to Rome.<ref>[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-st-catherine-brought-the-pope-back-to-rome How St. Catherine Brought the Pope Back to Rome | Catholic Answers Magazine]</ref> He so decided, but wavered in face of strenuous French objections. When Catherine heard of the indecision, she wrote, <blockquote>I beg of you, on behalf of Christ crucified, that you be not a timorous child but manly. Open your mouth and swallow down the bitter for the sweet.</blockquote>In January of 1377, Gregory moved the papacy back to Rome. He soon after died, and his successor Urban VI refused to return to Avignon, where the French bishops held their own conclave and selected Clement VII, the first antipope of the "Western Schism" that would last almost seventy years, and that would lay the ground for the Martin Luther and the protestant schisms that followed. | In 1376, Catherine traveled to Avignon on behalf of the Republic of Florence to negotiate a peace with the Papal States.<ref>As did the 19th century French historian Michelet, it's easy to forget that this is at the cusp of what Michelet termed the "Renaissance," which means this period and the "Renaissance" were actually one, not distinct periods. A lot was going on.</ref> She failed at the immediate mission<ref>Catherine became famous across Tuscany as a holy woman (''santa donna)'' for her acts of charity, especially for the sick, as well as her calls for clerical reform general repentance through "total love for God." Florence was in rebellion from the Papal States and under a papal interdict, so it was thought that Catherine, who called for reconciliation with the Vatican, could yield advantageous returns. However, both sides succumbed to distrustful elements who did not want to see her succeed. After Gregory XI moved to Rome, he sent her back to Florence, this time on his behalf. While she was there, Gregory died and street riots broke out, likely due to longstanding frustration with the papal interdict, the larger conflict which had disrupted the economy and led to increased taxes, and the general policies of the guilds that ran Florence. That July a more general rebellion arose, the Ciompi Revolt, led by discontented wool workers in which Saint Catherine was nearly killed. The shocked calm that followed the rebellion led to reconciliation with the new Pope Urban VI.</ref> but through a divine inspiration won a far more important one: when they met, she told him that she knew of his private vow to return the papacy to Rome.<ref>[https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-st-catherine-brought-the-pope-back-to-rome How St. Catherine Brought the Pope Back to Rome | Catholic Answers Magazine]</ref> He so decided, but wavered in face of strenuous French objections. When Catherine heard of the indecision, she wrote, <blockquote>I beg of you, on behalf of Christ crucified, that you be not a timorous child but manly. Open your mouth and swallow down the bitter for the sweet.</blockquote>In January of 1377, Gregory moved the papacy back to Rome. He soon after died, and his successor Urban VI refused to return to Avignon, where the French bishops held their own conclave and selected Clement VII, the first antipope of the "Western Schism" that would last almost seventy years, and that would lay the ground for the Martin Luther and the protestant schisms that followed. | ||
=== Saint Joan settles the question === | |||
By the time of Joan's Trial of Condemnation in 1431, the Western Schism had been settled, but not the doubts and questions about it. It was on the mind of the people, including the Count d'Armagnac, who turned to Joan for an answer. The Rouen court tried to use her views on it to discredit her or trip her up. Perhaps thinking that Joan would take the French view of things, she was asked,<blockquote>What do you say of our Lord the Pope? and whom do you believe to be the true Pope?</blockquote>To which Joan gave one or her sublime replies,<blockquote>“Are there two of them?”</blockquote>Having that one swatted down, the court continued,<blockquote>Did you not receive a letter from the Count d’Armagnac, asking you which of the three Pontiffs he ought to obey?</blockquote>Joan replied,<blockquote>The Count did in fact write to me on this subject. I replied, among other things, that when I should be at rest, in Paris or elsewhere, I would give him an answer. I was just at that moment mounting my horse when I sent this reply.</blockquote>It's a classic legal maneuver they pulled on her, to lead a witness into a statement, then throw out contrary evidence, in this case, her exchange with the Count. But there was no deceit in Joan, who's testimony was entirely consistent with the evidence. | |||
What had happened is that in July 1429, Jean IV, the Count d'Armagnac,<ref>His father, Bernard VII was the Count of Armagnac of the name for the French faction, "Armagnacs." His son, John IV, however, entered disputes with Charles VII, over which John turned to the English for support, who were interested in John's lands in Armagnac to serve as a buffer to protect their lands in Gascony to the south.</ref> sent a letter to Joan asking her to clarify the ongoing situation. They got the copies from him. Nevertheless, we have to assume the sincerity of the original letter, as well as the Count's intent: he genuinely thought Joan would provide divine guidance on the situation. As read to the Court at Tours two years later,<blockquote>My very dear Lady—I humbly commend myself to you, and pray, for God’s sake, that, considering the divisions which are at this present time in the Holy Church Universal on the question of the Popes, for there are now three contending for the Papacy—one residing at Rome, calling himself Martin V., whom all Christian Kings obey; another, living at Paniscole, in the Kingdom of Valence, who calls himself Clement VII<ref>Typo or mistake: it was Clement VIII</ref>.; the third, no one knows where he lives, unless it be the Cardinal Saint Etienne and some few people with him, but he calls himself Pope Benedict XIV. The first, who styles himself Pope Martin, was elected at Constance with the consent of all Christian nations; he who is called Clement was elected at Paniscole, after the death of Pope Benedict XIII., by three of his Cardinals; the third, who dubs himself Benedict XIV., was elected secretly at Paniscole, even by the Cardinal Saint Etienne. You will have the goodness to pray Our Saviour Jesus Christ that by His infinite Mercy He may by you declare to us which of the three named is Pope in truth, and whom it pleases Him that we should obey, now and henceforward, whether he who is called Martin, he who is called Clement, or he who is called Benedict; and in whom we are to believe, if secretly, or by any dissembling, or publicly; for we are all ready to do the will and pleasure of Our Lord Jesus Christ. | |||
Yours in all things, | |||
Count d’Armagnac.<ref>[https://gutenberg.org/cache/epub/57389/pg57389-images.html#r42 Jeanne D‘arc, by T. Douglas Murray] (Gutenberg). Murray uses a different translation from Pernoud.</ref></blockquote>That outlier third, Benedick XIV<ref>There were two Benedict XIVs, the first supported by a Cardinal from Rodiz in southern France named Jean Carrier. When the first XIV died, Carrier appointed himself Pope Benedict XIV. Carrier was later captured by the other antipope Clement VIII and imprisoned until he died.</ref> was from a city within the Count's territory, so perhaps he was looking to put him down ("who dubs himself"). Or, he really wanted to know what the Maid thought on the matter. It's all very strange, as the Count wrote the letter from Sully in northeastern France, and he was opposed to Charles VII. Joan was inundated with these types of inquiries, by letter or in person.<ref>See examples in Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 127). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref> | |||
Joan dictated a reply to the Count's messenger, which is rather clever and to which her testimony at the trial corresponded:<blockquote>''Jhesus Maria.'' Count d’Armagnac, my very good and dear friend, I, Jeanne, the Maid, acquaint you that your message has come before me, which tells me that you have sent at once to know from me which of the three Popes, mentioned in your memorial, you should believe. This thing I cannot tell you truly at present, until I am at rest in Paris or elsewhere; for I am now too much hindered by affairs of war; but when you hear that I am in Paris, send a message to me and I will inform you in truth whom you should believe, and what I shall know by the counsel of my Righteous and Sovereign Lord, the King of all the World, and of what you should do to the extent of my power. I commend you to God. May God have you in His keeping! Written at Compiègne, August 22nd.</blockquote>From the trial:<blockquote>Is this really the reply that you made?</blockquote><blockquote>I deem that I might have made this answer in part, but not all.<ref>That indicates either that the letter was not entirely of her words, or what was presented to the court was incomplete. Likely the latter.</ref></blockquote><blockquote>Did you say that you might know, by the counsel of the King of Kings, what the Count should hold on this subject?”</blockquote><blockquote>I know nothing about it.</blockquote><blockquote>Had you any doubt about whom the Count should obey?</blockquote><blockquote>I did not know how to inform him on this question, as to whom he should obey, because the Count himself asked to know whom ''God'' wished him to obey. But for myself, I hold and believe that we should obey our Lord the Pope who is in Rome. I told the messenger of the Count some things which are not in this copy; and, if the messenger had not gone off immediately, he would have been thrown into the water—not by me, however. As to the Count’s enquiry, desiring to know whom God wished him to obey, I answered that I did not know; but I sent him messages on several things which have not been put in writing. As for me, I believe in our Lord the Pope who is at Rome.”</blockquote>Must have terribly disappointed the clerics at Rouen and Paris, as a primary reason for their siding with the English and for so vigorously pursuing Joan, as Pernoud discusses, was to affirm their power over the Papacy as well as over the French King. | |||
The Western Schism was settled by granting to the a General Council of bishops the power to remove a Pope from office, which was done with the acquiescence of the Roman Pope, who after removal of the two other competing Popes, himself resigned to be replaced by a Pope selected by the General Council, Martin V.<ref>Charles VI had earlier declared himself neutral between the the Avignon and Roman Popes, which left the last Avignon Pope, Benedict XIII without sufficient support. Nevertheless, he refused to concede and was excommunicated by the General Council.</ref> The exercise of power by the Council is known as "conciliarism," which may be seen as | |||
Joan's voices didn't advise her on the issue of the papacy, so, as she said, she spoke for herself. Still, her impact on the issue was significant. A first question is if her reference to "the lord pope who is in Rome" is to Martin V or to Rome as the seat of the Papacy. It appears to be the latter, which would suggest something more than just Joan's "good sense," which the historian Michelet attributed to her authority rather than her voices. Rome had become unstable and subject to mob rule and invasion. It lay at the border of the Kingdom of Naples, which supported the Avignon papacy. Martin V's primary job was to secure and rebuild Rome itself. While subject to the General Council, by restoring the Vatican and the city around it, Martin V laid the foundation for the modern Papacy, which quickly overshadowed conciliarism, which was condemned at the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517). | |||
Joan has no say in any of these affairs, but by coronating Charles VII at Rheims, she secured the necessary monarchical authority for secure Roman Catholic hold on France, be it Gallic in nature. For both Saints Catherine of Sienna and Joan of Arc, the papacy must be seated in Rome. Saint Catherine explicitly sought Christian unity, while Joan led a fight of Christian against Christian, but it was a fight Joan helped to end and not start, and she lamented the loss of life on both sides. A united France for Joan meant a united Church. | |||
Historians correctly attribute the Western Schism to the origins of the Protestant Reformation itself. At the Council of Constance, which ended the schism, Proto-Protestant Catholic priest John Wycliff was posthumously condemned for heresy and his body ordered exhumed and burned, and his follower Jan Hus was defrocked and handed over to hostile secular authority which burned him at the stake. Both men challenged the authority of the Pope -- which brings up a larger question as to which Pope. Wycliff was active before the Western Schism, but wrote his most radical tracts after it. Wycliff would have come of age with fresh memories of previous Schism, as well as with the outbreak of the Hundred Years War. Hus, who received Holy Orders in 1400, was a clear product of the Schism, which had divided the University of Prague where he studied and became master, dean and rector in 1409. Hus' most drastic attacks on the abuses of the papacy were directed at the antipope John XIII who was using (abusing) the authority he (did not) had to collect tithes. In other words, both men were products of a fractured Church that Saints Catherine and Joan sought to repair. | |||
Joan, of course, had no say in any of these affairs, but by coronating Charles VII at Rheims, she secured the necessary monarchical authority for a secure Roman Catholic hold on France, be it Gallic in nature. For both Saints Catherine of Sienna and Joan of Arc, the papacy must be seated in Rome. Saint Catherine explicitly sought Christian unity, while Joan led a fight of Christian against Christian, but it was a fight Joan helped to end and not start, and she lamented the loss of life on both sides. A united France for Joan meant a united Church. | |||
Historians correctly attribute the Protestant Reformation itself in part to the Western Schism. At the Council of Constance, which ended the schism, Proto-Protestant Catholic priest John Wycliff was posthumously condemned for heresy and his body ordered exhumed and burned, and his follower Jan Hus was defrocked and handed over to hostile secular authority which burned him at the stake. Both men challenged the authority of the Pope -- which brings up a larger question as to which Pope. Wycliff was active before the Western Schism, but wrote his most radical tracts after it. Wycliff would have come of age with fresh memories of previous Schism, as well as with the outbreak of the Hundred Years War. Hus, who received Holy Orders in 1400, was a clear product of the Schism, which had divided the University of Prague where he studied and became master, dean and rector in 1409. Hus' most drastic attacks on the abuses of the papacy were directed at the antipope John XIII who was using (abusing) the authority he (did not) had to collect tithes. In other words, both men were products of a fractured Church that Saints Catherine and Joan sought to repair. | |||
== Saving Catholicism == | == Saving Catholicism == | ||