Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
<blockquote>You will not have any more. Nevertheless, I heartily wish it might be before Saint John’s Day.<ref>The Feast of Saint John the Baptist is June 24.</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>You will not have any more. Nevertheless, I heartily wish it might be before Saint John’s Day.<ref>The Feast of Saint John the Baptist is June 24.</ref></blockquote> | ||
The prediction came on March 1, 1431. Six years later, on November 12, 1437, the French King Charles VII entered the gates of Paris, which had been delivered to him through the 1435 Treaty of Arras that | The prediction came on March 1, 1431. Six years later, on November 12, 1437, the French King Charles VII entered the gates of Paris, which had been delivered to him through the 1435 Treaty of Arras that ended the English alliance with the Burgundian faction of France through Burgundian recognition of Charles VII as King of France. The Treaty was signed in September 21, 1435, and the French army, led by the French commanders, Arthur de Richemont, whom Joan herself had acquired to the French cause, and the Bastard of Orléans, Jean de Dunois, one of Joan's most fervent believers, expelled the English from the city in April of 1436. The English would never recover.<ref>Detractors will point out the the "English-French dual monarchy" persisted on the Continent another twenty years. They might as well say it went on for another 300 years, as George III still employed the title, "King of France." It was dropped upon adoption of the Act of Union of 1801.</ref> Skeptical historians will point out the English presence in France continued for another fifteen years, which is true but meaningless, as the English cause was lost with the Burgundian defection.<ref>By that logic, the Americans did not win the American Revolution until the War of 1812, or, the 1846 Oregon Treaty. In her book, Conquest, Barker admits that the Hundred Years War was now over: "Bedford’s death and Burgundy’s defection dealt a crippling blow to the English kingdom of France from which it would never recover." (Conquest, p. 231)</ref> Paris was the endgame, the "greater loss" that Joan had predicted. | ||
For sticklers of prophecies who wish to hold Joan to | For sticklers of prophecies who wish to hold Joan to just short of seven years, we can point to the May, 1438 collapse of an English attempt to negotiate their status in Normandy, which would have secured the important English seat at Rouen. To coordinate the negotiations, the English moved their prize prisoner, Charles I, Duke of Orléans, to London and tried to arrange for his participation in the talks, which failed to materialize<ref>See Barker, Conquest, Chs. 17 & 18</ref>. Subsequent talks also failed, largely due to Joan's comrades, Artur de Richemont and Étienne de Vignolles, known as La Hire, who continued scorched earth military campaigns which de Richemont used to deliberately sabotage any agreements. Theirs aligned with Joan's position that the English must be removed from all of France. Had a settlement been reached with the English at this point, not only would the English have kept a large hold of northern France, it would have for the French, dangerously normalized English-Burgundian relations.<ref>Both parties were itching to resume the wool trade between England and Flanders.</ref> Joan's work would have been left indefinitely incomplete. | ||
Upon her arrival to | To assist in the 1440 talks, the English brought the Duke of Orleans to Calais, where he was finally released, twenty-five years after his capture at the 1415 Battle of Agincourt. Thus was fulfilled another of Joan's prophesies. Upon her arrival to the French court in 1429, Joan had pronounced the liberation of the Duke as among her divine missions, along with defense of the city of Orleans and the crowning of Charles VII. During her 1431 trial for heresy by French clerics working under the English, Joan was asked,<ref>Murray, pp. 65-66</ref> | ||
<blockquote>Did Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret tell you absolutely and without condition that you would take enough English to get the Duke d'Orléans, who is in England, or that otherwise you would cross the sea to seek him?</blockquote> | <blockquote>Did Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret tell you absolutely and without condition that you would take enough English to get the Duke d'Orléans, who is in England, or that otherwise you would cross the sea to seek him?</blockquote> | ||
Joan rather | In her response, Joan proves a rather interesting glimpse of what may have happened had she not been betrayed by her own, and abandoned to the English: | ||
<blockquote>Yes, and I said so to my King: and he allowed me to treat with the English lords who were then prisoners. If I had continued three years without hindrance, I should have delivered him. To do this, it needed less time than three years and more than one. But I do not remember about it.</blockquote> | <blockquote>Yes, and I said so to my King: and he allowed me to treat with the English lords who were then prisoners. If I had continued three years without hindrance, I should have delivered him. To do this, it needed less time than three years and more than one. But I do not remember about it.</blockquote> | ||
In 1449 the French retook Rouen, where Joan was martyred, and in 1453 the English suffered a final defeat at the Battle of Castillon, which ended three hundred years of English control of southwestern France. Those later victories were only possible with the Burgundian realignment at the 1435 Treaty of Arras and the 1436 recapture of Paris, which were only made possible by Joan's military and political victories at Orléans and Reims. | In 1449 the French retook Rouen, where Joan was martyred, and in 1453 the English suffered a final defeat at the Battle of Castillon, which ended three hundred years of English control of southwestern France. Those later victories were only possible with the Burgundian realignment at the 1435 Treaty of Arras and the 1436 recapture of Paris, which were only made possible by Joan's military and political victories at Orléans and Reims. Outside of her declarations regarding Orleans and the crowning of the Dauphin, this prophesy of "seven years" is her most significant -- and one that no one would or could have contemplated at the time, when the English were reinvigorated by her capture and had Henry VI crowned at Paris soon after her execution. | ||
Outside of her declarations regarding Orleans and the crowning of the Dauphin, this prophesy is her most significant -- and one that no one would or could have contemplated at the time, when the English were reinvigorated by her capture and had Henry VI crowned at Paris | |||
Upon Joan's capture, the Duke of Burgundy issued a public acclamation of victory, announcing, | Upon Joan's capture, the Duke of Burgundy issued a public acclamation of victory, announcing, | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote>Very dear and well-beloved, knowing that you desire to have news of us, we<ref>The "royal we" -- it's useful to recall that monarchs and aristocrats claimed authority from God, placing themselves as leader, representative, and authority of their subjects, so the "royal we" marked that authority and responsibility on behalf of all the realm. Bishops might also have used the "royal we" at this time.</ref> signify to you that this day, the 23rd May, towards six o’clock in the afternoon, the adversaries of our Lord the King<ref>The English King Henry VI, who was no yet crowned in France but had already assumed the title of King of England and France.</ref> and of us, who were assembled together in great power, and entrenched in the town of Compiègne, before which we and the men of our army were quartered, have made a sally from the said town in force on the quarters of our advanced guard nearest to them, in the which sally was she whom they call the Maid, with many of their principal captains .... and by the pleasure of our blessed Creator, it had so happened and such grace had been granted to us, that the said Maid had been taken ... The which capture, as we certainly hold, will be great news everywhere; and by it will be recognized the error and foolish belief of all those who have shewn themselves well disposed and favourable to the doings of the said woman. And this thing we write for our news, hoping that in it you will have joy, comfort, and consolation, and will render thanks and praise to our Creator, Who seeth and knoweth all things, and Who by His blessed pleasure will conduct the rest of our enterprizes to the good of our said Lord the King and his kingdom, and to the relief and comfort of his good and loyal subjects.</blockquote> | ||
We see just how important was Joan's capture to the English and Burgundians: if she is not of divine intervention, they reasoned, then her successes were not legitimate, including, by reference to the English King, the coronation Joan engineered of the French King. Royal legitimacy relied on faith in God's plan, so Joan's capture justified the English cause. | We see just how important was Joan's capture to the English and Burgundians: if she is not of divine intervention, they reasoned, then her successes were not legitimate, including, by reference to the English King, the coronation Joan had engineered of the French King. Royal legitimacy relied on faith in God's plan, so Joan's capture justified the English cause. | ||
One of clerics who saw Joan the day "she was delivered up to be burned,"<ref>Murray, p. 158</ref> Jean Toutmouille, recalled the moment:<ref>Murray, pp 157-158</ref> | One of the clerics who saw Joan the day "she was delivered up to be burned,"<ref>Murray, p. 158</ref> Jean Toutmouille, recalled the moment:<ref>Murray, pp 157-158</ref> | ||
<blockquote>For, before her death, the English proposed to lay siege to Louviers ; soon, however, they changed their purpose, saying they would not besiege the said town until the Maid had been examined. What followed was evident proof of this ; for, immediately after she was burnt, they went to besiege Louviers, considering that during her life they could have neither glory nor success in deeds of war. </blockquote> | <blockquote>For, before her death, the English proposed to lay siege to Louviers; soon, however, they changed their purpose, saying they would not besiege the said town until the Maid had been examined. What followed was evident proof of this; for, immediately after she was burnt, they went to besiege Louviers, considering that during her life they could have neither glory nor success in deeds of war. </blockquote> | ||
In the early stages of Henry V's invasion and rampage across Normandy | In the early stages of Henry V's invasion and rampage across Normandy, in a particularly violent siege and occupation, the English took the loyal French town of Louviers, killing and ransoming townspeople. Following Joan's entry to the war in 1429, La Hire retook the town, which greatly offended the English leadership, and added to their resentment and hatred for Joan. The town remained in French hands through her trial and may well have been the source of growing English impatience with the trial's progress, as the English leadership grew testy over procedures required of an ecclesiastical trial.<ref>Anatole France claims the delay to attack Louviers had nothing to do with Joan's trial, but was due to logistics: "Twenty days after Jeanne's death the English in great force marched to recapture the town of Louviers. They had delayed till then, not, as some have stated, because they despaired of succeeding in anything as long as the Maid lived, but because they needed time to collect money and engines for the siege." (France, Vol II, p. 348). One of France's sources, a history of Louviers, states the opposite: "les Anglais n'attendaient que la mort de Jeanne d'Arc , prisonnière à Rouen, pour aller mettre le siége devant une des villes , alors peu nombreuses, qui leurrésistaient encore en Normandie." ([https://books.google.com/books?id=J7FCAAAAYAAJ&q=31#v=snippet&q=31&f=false Dibon, Paul, "Essai historique sur Louviers", 1836 (GoogleBooks)] pp. 31-32). My translation: "the English waited only for the death of | ||
Joan of Arc, prisoner at Rouen, to go lay siege upon one of the cities, yet few in number, which still resisted them in Normandy." </ref> Around the time of Joan's execution, the English launched the attack, having amassed an unusually large army for the action. Louviers fell, finally, on October 25.<ref>Louviers was liberated in 1440, and for its suffering and resistance to the English occupation, Charles VII exempted residents of a direct, household tax (''taille'') and the town was given the honor of the motto, "Loviers le Franc" (Louviers the French).</ref> Clearly, it was a huge deal for them, and not just because of the town's strategic location south of Rouen and along the south bank of the Seine, and thus along a strategic route to Paris. | Joan of Arc, prisoner at Rouen, to go lay siege upon one of the cities, yet few in number, which still resisted them in Normandy." </ref> Around the time of Joan's May 30, 1431 execution, the English launched the attack, having amassed an unusually large army for the action. Louviers fell, finally, on October 25.<ref>Louviers was liberated in 1440, and for its suffering and resistance to the English occupation, Charles VII exempted residents of a direct, household tax (''taille'') and the town was given the honor of the motto, "Loviers le Franc" (Louviers the French).</ref> Clearly, it was a huge deal for them, and not just because of the town's strategic location south of Rouen and along the south bank of the Seine, and thus along a strategic route to Paris. | ||
In France, meanwhile, Joan's role as emissary of God had been replaced by a mystic, Guillaume of Lorraine, known as "the Shepherd of Gévaudan." Unlike Joan, the Shepherd was actually a shepherd. And, unlike Joan, he demonstrated an outward sign, having the stigmata on his hands, feet and chest. The Bishop of Reims promoted the Shepherd, a most cynical move, as he | In France, meanwhile, Joan's role as emissary of God had been replaced by a mystic, Guillaume of Lorraine, known as "the Shepherd of Gévaudan." Unlike Joan, the Shepherd was actually a shepherd. And, unlike Joan, he demonstrated an outward sign, having the stigmata on his hands, feet and chest. The Bishop of Reims promoted the Shepherd, a most cynical move, as he wanted to replace memory of Joan, whose insistence upon armed and not diplomatic solutions he condescendingly resented as lacking the sophistication of proper governance, | ||
Skeptical historians point to the various prophetic figures who appeared around the time of Saint Joan, which, they either state or infer, confers by coincidence | Skeptical historians point to the various prophetic figures who appeared around the time of Saint Joan, which, they either state or infer, confers upon Joan by coincidence a similar false prophesy.<ref>France states, "They constituted, so to speak, a kind of flying squadron of béguines, which followed the men-atarms. One of these women was called Catherine de La Rochelle; two others came from Lower Brittany. They all had miraculous visions; Jeanne saw my Lord Saint Michael in arms and Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret wearing crowns; Pierronne beheld God in a long white robe and a purple cloak; Catherine de La Rochelle saw a white lady, clothed in cloth of gold; and, at the moment of the consecration of the host all manner of marvels of the high mystery of Our Lord were revealed unto her." (France, Vol III, pp 85-86)</ref> One such figure, Catherine de la Rochelle, Joan dismissed as a fraud, having asked her Voices about her,<ref>Murray, p. 53</ref> | ||
<blockquote>I spoke of it, either to Saint Catherine or to Saint Margaret, who told me that the mission of this Catherine was mere folly and nothing else.</blockquote> | <blockquote>I spoke of it, either to Saint Catherine or to Saint Margaret, who told me that the mission of this Catherine was mere folly and nothing else.</blockquote> | ||
Joan advised Charles VII not to pay any attention to her. She told the Rouen court,<ref>Joan spent two nights with her so Catherine could show Joan her divine visitor. Joan told the Rouen court, "That a white lady came to her, dressed in cloth-of-gold, who told her to go through the good cities with heralds and trumpets which the King would give to her, and proclaim that any one who had gold, silver, or any concealed treasure should bring it immediately; that those who did not do so, and who had anything hidden, she would know, and would be able to discover the treasure. With these treasures, she told me, she would pay my men-at-arms. I told Catherine that she should return to her husband, look after her home, and bring up her children." (Murray pp. 52-53)</ref> | so Joan advised Charles VII not to pay any attention to her. She told the Rouen court,<ref>Joan spent two nights with her so Catherine could show Joan her divine visitor. Joan told the Rouen court, "That a white lady came to her, dressed in cloth-of-gold, who told her to go through the good cities with heralds and trumpets which the King would give to her, and proclaim that any one who had gold, silver, or any concealed treasure should bring it immediately; that those who did not do so, and who had anything hidden, she would know, and would be able to discover the treasure. With these treasures, she told me, she would pay my men-at-arms. I told Catherine that she should return to her husband, look after her home, and bring up her children." (Murray pp. 52-53)</ref> | ||
<blockquote>I told Catherine that she should return to her husband, look after her home, and bring up her children.</blockquote> | <blockquote>I told Catherine [de la Rochelle] that she should return to her husband, look after her home, and bring up her children.</blockquote> | ||
Catherine | Catherine had joined up with a Franciscan Friar, Brother Richard, a messianic preacher who had been in Paris preaching repentance and divine retribution.<ref>In a 1419 sermon, he predicted that "strange things would happen in 1430." See Murray, p. 48, fn 2</ref> In 1429, as news of Joan raced across France, the Burgundians put two and two together and went after the Brother. He fled to Troyes, where he met Joan. The Rouen Trial, with its clerics from Paris, quizzed Joan extensively about her relationship with him. Joan recounts only that he was he was upset at her dismissal of Catherine de la Rochelle, and that when he first approached her at Troyes he made a sign of the Cross and threw holy water upon her:<ref>Murray, p. 49</ref> | ||
<blockquote>I said to him: "Approach boldly, I shall not fly away!"</blockquote> | <blockquote>I said to him: "Approach boldly, I shall not fly away!"</blockquote> | ||
Let's just say she wasn't impressed by him. The Rouen court insinuations of a diabolical connection to Brother Richard went nowhere. In France, Brother Richard wore out his welcome, and was relegated to Poitiers, the French bishops telling him to tone it down. Around this time, another mystic, Pierronne, appeared in Brittany, traveling from town to town speaking of saving France and that God, appearing to her in a white robe and a purple tunic, had sent her to | Let's just say she wasn't impressed by him. The Rouen court insinuations of a diabolical connection of Joan to Brother Richard went nowhere. In France, Brother Richard wore out his welcome, and was relegated to Poitiers, with the French bishops telling him to tone it down. Around this time, another mystic, Pierronne, appeared in Brittany, traveling from town to town speaking of saving France and that God, appearing to her in a white robe and a purple tunic, had sent her to affirm and support Joan's mission.<ref>See France, pp. 52-53</ref> She attracted followers, one of whom was arrested with her in March, 1430, prior to Joan's capture, and sent to trial by University of Paris clerics. Perrionne remained defiant about her prophesies and support for Joan, refused to recant, and was burned at the stake on September 3, 1430. Her follower recanted and was spared. | ||
Upon Joan's execution, the Charles VII's court turned to the Shepherd of Gévaudan. In June of 1431, amidst the campaign for Louviers, the young man was ridden to battle near Beauvais, where the English destroyed the French contingent, which included La Hire, who escaped.<ref>He was captured by the Burgundians in May of 1430 while Joan was still on trial. When she was murdered, he was in prison. Charles VII ransomed him, and he returned to the fight.</ref> The Shepherd was delivered by the English the ecclesiastical court in Paris, which without much inquiry found him guilty of heresy, including to have had the wounds of the Savior imprinted upon him by the Devil, and had him burned.<ref>France, pp. 190-191</ref> | Upon Joan's execution, the Charles VII's court turned to the Shepherd of Gévaudan. In June of 1431, amidst the campaign for Louviers, the young man was ridden to battle near Beauvais, where the English destroyed the French contingent, which included La Hire, who escaped.<ref>He was captured by the Burgundians in May of 1430 while Joan was still on trial. When she was murdered, he was in prison. Charles VII ransomed him, and he returned to the fight.</ref> The Shepherd was delivered by the English the ecclesiastical court in Paris, which without much inquiry found him guilty of heresy, including to have had the wounds of the Savior imprinted upon him by the Devil, and had him burned.<ref>France, pp. 190-191</ref> | ||
While skeptical historians use these mystics to impugn Joan's divine mission, they importantly served to rally the French people around her, before and after her death. That the Shepherd was useless militarily merely | While skeptical historians use these mystics to impugn Joan's divine mission, they importantly served to rally the French people around her, before and after her death. That the Shepherd was useless militarily merely affirmed the accomplishments of Joan. Nevertheless, they became useful examples for the English and Burgundians -- and modern historians. We should have no surprise at the appearance of various prophets and mystics upon Joan's entry to France. She inspired, inflamed, and, launched a deeply spiritual moment for France. | ||
With Louviers taken, and the path to Paris fully clear, in December of | With Louviers taken, and the path to Paris fully clear, in December of 1431, Henry VI was coronated at Paris in an elaborate ceremony as Henry II, King of France. It was not just an English assertion of the Treaty of Troyes, in which Charles VI yielded the French throne to the English upon his death, it was the English declaration of victory over the Maid. Along with the capture of La Hire in May, 1431, the demise of Joan was looking fruitful for the English. British historian Barker notes,<ref>Barker, p. 168-169</ref> | ||
<blockquote>The execution of the Pucelle seems to have changed the fortunes of the English, for Xaintrailles was not the only feared Armagnac captain to lose his liberty this summer. In the very week that Jehanne was burned, ‘the worst, cruellest, most pitiless’ of them all, La Hire, was captured and committed to the castle of Dourdon, close to La-Charité-sur-Loire. A few weeks later, on 2 July, the sire de Barbazan, whom La Hire had rescued from his long incarceration at Château Gaillard the previous year, was killed in a battle against Burgundian forces at Bulgnéville, twenty miles south-west of the Pucelle’s home village of Domrémy. René d’Anjou, Charles VII’s brother-in-law and confidant, was taken prisoner in the same battle, temporarily ending his struggle to assert himself as duke of Bar by right of his wife.</blockquote> | <blockquote>The execution of the Pucelle seems to have changed the fortunes of the English, for [Joan's fellow warrior] Xaintrailles was not the only feared Armagnac captain to lose his liberty this summer. In the very week that Jehanne was burned, ‘the worst, cruellest, most pitiless’ of them all, La Hire, was captured and committed to the castle of Dourdon, close to La-Charité-sur-Loire. A few weeks later, on 2 July, the sire de Barbazan, whom La Hire had rescued from his long incarceration at Château Gaillard the previous year, was killed in a battle against Burgundian forces at Bulgnéville, twenty miles south-west of the Pucelle’s home village of Domrémy. René d’Anjou, Charles VII’s brother-in-law and confidant, was taken prisoner in the same battle, temporarily ending his struggle to assert himself as duke of Bar by right of his wife.</blockquote> | ||
The French, too, yielded to the theory that | The French, too, yielded to the theory that Joan's capture and execution had marked a change of fortune. France leadership now relied solely upon episodic cat-and-mouse play, both militarily<ref>A primary instigator of this strategy was the Archbishop of Rheims, Regnault de Chartres, who resented Joan and, as head of largely Burgundian region sought reconciliation of the French factions. He more importantly served as Chancellor of France itself, starting 1428, thus was a principal advisor to Charles VII.</ref> and mostly diplomatically,<ref>Even before Joan's capture, in October of 1429 the Chancellor of France and Archbishop of Rheims secretly negotiated directly with the English at St. Denis.</ref> hoping to weaken the English while luring the Burgundians to their side. By the time of Joan's death, it had yielded no results, and following her death the strategy continued to yield little result, with French military actions focused on consolidation and not advance, on defense not attack. | ||
Still, Joan's prophesy unfolded. | Still, Joan's prophesy unfolded. In August of 1432, Jean Dunois won a tremendous victory at Lagny, lifting an English siege<ref>See [https://historybynicklin.wordpress.com/Jean-de-Dunois/#_Toc531541164 Jean de Dunois – History by Nicklin], accessed 1/17/25 and also [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si%C3%A8ge_de_Lagny-sur-Marne Siège de Lagny-sur-Marne — Wikipédia]</ref> A palace coup at Charles VII's court led to a change in Ministers from the hesitant and compromised Georges de La Trémoille to Joan's ally, Artur de Richemont who was committed to her military solution. France was not resurgent as it was upon Joan's entrance, but it was on the rise, and according to her plans. | ||
As the English-Burgundian alliance unwound, the English King returned home, | As the English-Burgundian alliance unwound, the English King returned home, his eadership lost confidence, and the French warriors who were the most loyal to Joan started taking more and more land, especially around Paris. In 1435, with the death of the English Duke of Bedford, the Burgundians abandoned the alliance and signed the Treaty of Arras with the French. Within a year, the citizens of Paris opened the city gates to the Bastard of Orlėans and the French army who chased the remaining English forces from the city. While it took another twenty years for the end of the Hundred Years War, the outcome by then was sealed, and Charles VII was able to not just consolidate his realm, but reorganize it politically and militarily, significantly contributing to the creation of the consolidated, modern state in France.[[File:Treaty of Troyes cropped.jpg|thumb|<small>Path from Chinon to Reims (Wikipedia, cropped)</small>]]Having liberated Orlėans in 1429 and leading the French army across France to clear the way for the Dauphin's coronation at Reims, Joan was either a witch or a prophet -- possessed by fiends, or of God. However, detraction is easier to sustain than faith, so the English held to their hatred of Joan longer than did the French leadership their confidence in her. | ||
At Reims, and with Joan at the height of her power, the Chancellor, Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Reims, whose goal was ever reconciliation with the Burgundian faction, not its defeat, had already commenced work to undermine her. For him, the Maid had at best served to put the issue on the table, but most inconvenient was all this insistence on taking Paris, which he seemed either resigned or happy to leave as a Burgundian property.<ref>de Chartre's Paris residence had been confiscated by the Burgundians (Pernoud, Her Story, p. 178)</ref> As she testified at the Rouen trial when questioned about the mystic, Catherine de la Rochelle, Joan directly opposed his plans:<ref>Murray, p. 53</ref> | |||
<blockquote>She told me she wished to visit the Duke of Burgundy in order to make peace. I told her it seemed to me that peace would be found only at the end of the lance.</blockquote> | <blockquote>She told me she wished to visit the Duke of Burgundy in order to make peace. I told her it seemed to me that peace would be found only at the end of the lance.</blockquote> | ||
De Chartres | De Chartres's plans depended on keeping Joan away from Paris, which is why immediately after the coronation of Charles VII, which he himself administered as Archbishop of Reims, he went to Saint Denis to negotiate a truce with the English and work around all this trouble Joan had caused. Thus, upon her capture by the Burgundians in May of 1430, de Chartres was downright enthusiastic, announcing publicly to his diocese: | ||
<blockquote>God had suffered that Joan the Maid be taken because she had puffed herself up with pride and because of the rich garments which she had taken it upon herself to wear, and because she had not done what God had commanded her, but had done her own will.<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 99 What's remarkable about this statement is that it entirely endorses Joan's claims of divine guidance -- just says she lost it through pride. The historian Pernoud asserts that de Chartres "was finally converted to her view later, when it again became apparent that only the use of armed force would be effective" against the English, but she doesn't seem to pursue that line, noting in her summary of de Chartres that after the coronation, "from then on Regnault returned to his former grand design for peace through a rapprochement with Burgundy" (p. 178)</ref> </blockquote> | <blockquote>God had suffered that Joan the Maid be taken because she had puffed herself up with pride and because of the rich garments which she had taken it upon herself to wear, and because she had not done what God had commanded her, but had done her own will.<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 99 What's remarkable about this statement is that it entirely endorses Joan's claims of divine guidance -- just says she lost it through pride. The historian Pernoud asserts that de Chartres "was finally converted to her view later, when it again became apparent that only the use of armed force would be effective" against the English, but she doesn't seem to pursue that line, noting in her summary of de Chartres that after the coronation, "from then on Regnault returned to his former grand design for peace through a rapprochement with Burgundy" (p. 178)</ref> </blockquote> | ||
De Chartres did not speak for the people of France. The Diocese of an important Archbishop, Jacques Gélu of Embrun, issued prayers for Joan's release, which were repeated across France, prayers including,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, pp. 99-100</ref> | |||
<blockquote>that the Maid kept in the prisons of the enemies may be freed without evil, and that she may complete entirely the work that You have entrusted to her. </blockquote> | <blockquote>that the Maid kept in the prisons of the enemies may be freed without evil, and that she may complete entirely the work that You have entrusted to her. </blockquote> | ||
Yet it was de Chartres and his ally, de La Trémoïlle, who controlled French policy, and despite regular Burgundian duplicity he kept trying to negotiate a settlement. After Joan's capture, only minor battles and outright defeats followed, so Joan's legitimacy further faded -- as did de Chartre's need to put up with her. | |||
Historians have attributed Charles' treatment of Joan after his coronation to cynicism and opportunism. I'm not convinced, as he was subject to the machine as much as he was its head. He ended up playing both sides, letting Joan go forth against the English and Burgundians while withholding the resources she needed to prosecute the program. Joan's capture, which was a direct consequence of the French transition from Joan's aggression to the Chancellor's diplomacy, became the excuse to abandon her program altogether upon her capture. | Historians have attributed Charles' treatment of Joan after his coronation to cynicism and opportunism. I'm not convinced, as he was subject to the machine as much as he was its head. He ended up playing both sides, letting Joan go forth against the English and Burgundians while withholding the resources she needed to prosecute the program. Joan's capture, which was a direct consequence of the French transition from Joan's aggression to the Chancellor's diplomacy, became the excuse to abandon her program altogether upon her capture. | ||
For their part, the English and Burgundians knew full well what this | For their part, the English and Burgundians knew full well what this girl had done, and the danger she posed, even from prison.<ref name=":4" /> Although after her capture Joan was no longer a military threat, the coronation of Charles VII was a deep wound that could be healed only by delegitimizing the event by delegitimizing its author, Joan. The Burgundian clerics centered mostly at Paris faced the same problem, and so were most happy to serve as the instrument of recovery for the English. By ingratiating themselves to the English with the needed ecclesiastic stamp of heresy upon Joan, the clerics at the University aimed to elevate themselves and the French Assembly to the level of the English Parliament.<ref>See Pernoud, Her Story, p. 107</ref> French historian Régine Pernoud correctly emphasize these political machinations as a primary motive for Joan's Trial at Rouen. | ||
One may wonder, though, that it is not possible to maintain at once personal ambition and sincere belief, especially when the two affirm one another. Thus did de Chartres justify undermining Joan; thus did the Paris clergy justify her trial; thus did the English desperately need her denunciation; thus did the English Earl of Warwick demand that when Joan fell dangerously sick in prison his doctors to do whatever they could to sustain her:<ref>Murray, p 107, footnote 87</ref> | One may wonder, though, that it is not possible to maintain at once personal ambition and sincere belief, especially when the two affirm one another. Thus did de Chartres justify undermining Joan; thus did the Paris clergy justify her trial; thus did the English desperately need her denunciation; thus did the English Earl of Warwick demand that when Joan fell dangerously sick in prison his doctors to do whatever they could to sustain her:<ref>Murray, p 107, footnote 87</ref> | ||
| Line 244: | Line 242: | ||
Therefore, if such things have appeared to you, do not believe them. The belief which you may have had in such illusions, put it away from you.</blockquote> | Therefore, if such things have appeared to you, do not believe them. The belief which you may have had in such illusions, put it away from you.</blockquote> | ||
At this point in the Trial, they just wanted to do away with her, which is why they forced her into | At this point in the Trial, they just wanted to do away with her, which is why they forced her into a promise to abandon her men's clothing, then putting them back on after being threatened or worse by her English male guards. Thereupon, the main prosecutor, or "Promotoer," the Bishop of Beauvais exclaimed to the English lord, Warwick,<ref>Warren, p. 231</ref> | ||
<blockquote>She is caught this time!</blockquote> | <blockquote>She is caught this time!</blockquote> | ||
The Bishop, Cauchon, was entirely compromised to the English by his ambitions, but he was convinced that Joan was of the Evil One. | The Bishop, Cauchon, was entirely compromised to the English by his ambitions, but he was also convinced that Joan was of the Evil One. Never imagining how long the trial would go, his frustration grew with every unexpected response and deft retort from Joan to the best theological traps the University of Paris' finest minds could throw at her. While remaining unrepentant, especially regarding their denial of Joan's voices, several of the priests who had served as judges at her Trial of Condemnation recalled that she was "inspired," a clear statement by a Catholic priest "inspired" by the Holy Spirit. One admitted,<ref>Bishop Jean Lefevre, who qualified her "inspiration" not to include "the subject of her revelations from God," i.e., he did not believe her Voices (I will discuss his testimony later). (Murray, p. 210)</ref> | ||
<blockquote>for the space of three weeks I believed her to be inspired</blockquote> | |||
Another said,<ref>From the testimony of Ysambard de la Pierre, a Dominican from the Diocese of Rouen (Murray, p. 189). De la Pierre spent time at Joan's side, including to visit her in her cell. (See Murray p. 143, fn 1 and p. 164). Another participant at Rouen testified that de la Pierre "was a friend of the Inquisitor" (Bishop of Beauvais Cauchon) (Murray, p. 194) Murray believes that de la Pierre was sympathetic to Joan and genuinely tried to help her, which infuriated the court (from the Appendix, p. 340)</ref> | |||
<blockquote>When she spoke of the kingdom and the war, I thought she was moved by the Holy Spirit</blockquote> | |||
then, qualified it with, | |||
It's an interesting testimony coming amidst a politically-charged reassessment of a trial he had participated in twenty-four years before on behalf of the enemy, so his hedge that "when she spoke of herself" is interesting. His mixed statement shows either that he was putting her in as good a light as possible -- as regarded the King of France, who was under a reassessment as much as was Joan | <blockquote>but when she spoke of herself she feigned many things: nevertheless, I think she should not have been condemned as a heretic. </blockquote> | ||
It's an interesting testimony coming amidst a politically-charged reassessment of a trial he had participated in twenty-four years before on behalf of the enemy, so his hedge that "when she spoke of herself" is interesting. His mixed statement shows either that he was putting her in as good a light as possible -- as regarded the King of France, who was then under a reassessment as much as was Joan, as justifying Joan meant justification for him. Nevertheless, de la Pierre was under oath, and we must take his testimony as such: his only explanation was that for Joan to have responded to certain questions they way she did, she had to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. | |||
The Rouen court had its way, and was unequivocal in its condemnation of Joan not just as a heretic, but as a witch, an "invoker of devils." It wasn't about her man's dress<ref>You'll find various statements by historians obsessed with Joan's sexual identity, such as, "Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the Inquisition of the Catholic church because she refused to stop dressing as a man." (Leslie Feinberg, Transgender Warriors: Making History From Joan of Arc to Rupaul, Beacon Press. pp. 36-37). Feinberg was a lesbian, transgender activist, and communist. I'm going to spare you the links. To settle the matter, she was condemned for having "relapsed" her prior agreement, which included not to where mens clothing anymore, as well as to deny her Voices. Pierre Cusquel clarified in his testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation, "The resumption of her man's dress was one of the causes of her condemnation." (Murray p. 191)</ref>, and it wasn't about apostasy. It was all about her refusal to deny her Voices. To read the epithet placed upon a placard by the stake on which she was burned is to understand just how real her voices were: | The Rouen court had its way, and was unequivocal in its condemnation of Joan not just as a heretic, but as a witch, an "invoker of devils." It wasn't about her man's dress<ref>You'll find various statements by historians obsessed with Joan's sexual identity, such as, "Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by the Inquisition of the Catholic church because she refused to stop dressing as a man." (Leslie Feinberg, Transgender Warriors: Making History From Joan of Arc to Rupaul, Beacon Press. pp. 36-37). Feinberg was a lesbian, transgender activist, and communist. I'm going to spare you the links. To settle the matter, she was condemned for having "relapsed" her prior agreement, which included not to where mens clothing anymore, as well as to deny her Voices. Pierre Cusquel clarified in his testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation, "The resumption of her man's dress was one of the causes of her condemnation." (Murray p. 191)</ref>, and it wasn't about apostasy. It was all about her refusal to deny her Voices. To read the epithet placed upon a placard by the stake on which she was burned is to understand just how real her voices were: | ||
| Line 348: | Line 354: | ||
Had Joan actually so repented it would not necessarily negate her "Relapse", although it should have. That it was not invoked prior to her death or offered in her defense at the stake, renders these statements not only irrelevant but overall false. Additionally discrediting the Examinations is that Cauchon never released the transcripts of the trials, which he kept locked up in Rouen, revisited only during the Trial of Rehabilitation. The transcripts would have rendered the Examinations suspect, so he had to keep them out of sight. They did not make him look good.<ref>Why he didn't destroy them is another question, although there were several copies made and that ended up in different places, including one as originally transcribed in French kept by notary Manchon.</ref> | Had Joan actually so repented it would not necessarily negate her "Relapse", although it should have. That it was not invoked prior to her death or offered in her defense at the stake, renders these statements not only irrelevant but overall false. Additionally discrediting the Examinations is that Cauchon never released the transcripts of the trials, which he kept locked up in Rouen, revisited only during the Trial of Rehabilitation. The transcripts would have rendered the Examinations suspect, so he had to keep them out of sight. They did not make him look good.<ref>Why he didn't destroy them is another question, although there were several copies made and that ended up in different places, including one as originally transcribed in French kept by notary Manchon.</ref> | ||
Nevertheless, Cauchon's final inquiries served their purpose, and soon after the English went on the offensive, thinking themselves cleared of the witch. | Nevertheless, Cauchon's final inquiries served their purpose, and soon after the English went on the offensive, thinking themselves cleared of the witch. Alas, for the English, the run would not last long. Joan's faithful lietenants, de Richemont, Dunois, La Hire, and others would not give up, and through a series of small but stinging bites upon the English supply lines to Paris and across Normandy, they weakened the English hold, leading to the Burgundian betrayal. | ||
Just as Joan had told the Count of Ligny back in May, 1431 at the castle at Rouen where she was held,<ref>Pernoud, By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 298</ref> | |||
<blockquote>I know that these English will put me to death, because they think, after my death, to win the Kingdom of France. But were they a hundred thousand godons<ref>The French called the English "godons" for the excessive English use of the word, "Goddam".</ref> more than they are now, they will not have the Kingdom.</blockquote> | <blockquote>I know that these English will put me to death, because they think, after my death, to win the Kingdom of France. But were they a hundred thousand godons<ref>The French called the English "godons" for the excessive English use of the word, "Goddam".</ref> more than they are now, they will not have the Kingdom.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 665: | Line 671: | ||
<blockquote>If you were married, do you think your Voices would come? </blockquote> | <blockquote>If you were married, do you think your Voices would come? </blockquote> | ||
<blockquote>I do not know; I wait on Our Lord.</blockquote> | <blockquote>I do not know; I wait on Our Lord.</blockquote> | ||
| Line 821: | Line 826: | ||
<blockquote>What have you done with your mandrake?</blockquote> | <blockquote>What have you done with your mandrake?</blockquote> | ||
Joan had no counsel, so no one was there to point out that the question assumed she owned one. But no matter for Joan, who shot it down:<blockquote>I never have had one. But I have heard that there is one near our home, though I have never seen it. I have heard it is a dangerous and evil thing to keep. I do not know for what it is [used].<ref>The exchange continued: “Where is this mandrake of which you have heard?” “I have heard that it is in the earth, near the tree of which I spoke before; but I do not know the place. Above this mandrake, there was, it is said, a hazel tree.” “What have you heard said was the use of this mandrake?” “To make money come; but I do not believe it. My Voice never spoke to me of that.”</ref></blockquote> | Joan had no counsel, so no one was there to point out that the question assumed she owned one. But no matter for Joan, who shot it down: | ||
<blockquote>I never have had one. But I have heard that there is one near our home, though I have never seen it. I have heard it is a dangerous and evil thing to keep. I do not know for what it is [used].<ref>The exchange continued: “Where is this mandrake of which you have heard?” “I have heard that it is in the earth, near the tree of which I spoke before; but I do not know the place. Above this mandrake, there was, it is said, a hazel tree.” “What have you heard said was the use of this mandrake?” “To make money come; but I do not believe it. My Voice never spoke to me of that.”</ref></blockquote> | |||
Getting nowhere with the mandrake, the questioning returned to the Saints: | Getting nowhere with the mandrake, the questioning returned to the Saints: | ||
| Line 1,049: | Line 1,056: | ||
Her statement here is declaratory, not imperative: ''just go look at the book!'' That is, it is a statement of fact: ''it's in the book!'' Ironically, it is entirely possible that the Rouen court had acquired a copy, seen one, or at a minimum learned of it in detail, as its custodian, Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Rouen, along with Charles VII's minister, Georges de La Trémoïlle, had negotiated extensively with the Burgundians and the English as they pushed Charles to abandon Joan, who was an ever-present friction grinding away at their designs. | Her statement here is declaratory, not imperative: ''just go look at the book!'' That is, it is a statement of fact: ''it's in the book!'' Ironically, it is entirely possible that the Rouen court had acquired a copy, seen one, or at a minimum learned of it in detail, as its custodian, Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Rouen, along with Charles VII's minister, Georges de La Trémoïlle, had negotiated extensively with the Burgundians and the English as they pushed Charles to abandon Joan, who was an ever-present friction grinding away at their designs. | ||
I have no evidence of this possibility of de Chartre's collusion on the Trial, but both the occasion and motive points strongly to it. Chartres and de La Trémoïlle were not just conciliatory but overly gratuitous to the Burgundians, who would have been most interested in taking, demanding even, a look at the Poitiers Register as a point of negotiation, especially after her capture.<ref>which would explain Charles' silence on Joan's capture</ref> And not only does the Trial transcript reveal access to the Register, it practically adopts de Chartre's own condemnation of Joan, which we looked at before,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 99</ref><blockquote>God had suffered that Joan the Maid be taken because she had puffed herself up with pride and because of the rich garments which she had taken it upon herself to wear...</blockquote>The Trial court was eager to show that Joan had profited from her fame, such as questions about who paid for her horses and armor, and,<ref>Murray, p. 59</ref> <blockquote>Had you any other riches from your King besides these horses? .... Had you no treasure?</blockquote>Several of the Seventy Accusations include the charge of pride, vanity and display.<ref>For example, No. XIII of the Seventy Accusations reads, "It is in virtue of these pretended orders that she hath attired herself in sumptuous and stately raiment, cloth-of-gold and furs... and it is notorious that she was taken prisoner in a loose cloak of cloth-of-gold." (The story of her capture was that an English solder had pulled her from her horse by a "cloth-of-gold," so that didn't come from de Chartres.) No. LV reads, "Jeanne hath abused the revelations and prophecies that she saith she hath had from God, to procure for herself lucre and temporal profit ; by means of these pretended revelations, she hath acquired great riches, a great show and great estate in officers, horses, and attire"; No. LVIII included, "This standard she did place at Rheims near the Altar, during the consecration of Charles, wishing, in her pride and vain glory, that it should be peculiarly honoured... All this is display and vanity, it is not religion nor piety ; to attribute such vanities to God and to the Angels, is to be wanting in respect to God and the Saints." No.s LV and LVIII track or mimic de Chartre's accusations.</ref> Again, it's smoke, not fire, but the language that de Chartres put out publicly was certainly picked up by the Burgundian Trial court, and, just as likely in private conversation between them. | I have no evidence of this possibility of de Chartre's collusion on the Trial, but both the occasion and motive points strongly to it. Chartres and de La Trémoïlle were not just conciliatory but overly gratuitous to the Burgundians, who would have been most interested in taking, demanding even, a look at the Poitiers Register as a point of negotiation, especially after her capture.<ref>which would explain Charles' silence on Joan's capture</ref> And not only does the Trial transcript reveal access to the Register, it practically adopts de Chartre's own condemnation of Joan, which we looked at before,<ref>Pernoud, Her Story, p. 99</ref> | ||
<blockquote>God had suffered that Joan the Maid be taken because she had puffed herself up with pride and because of the rich garments which she had taken it upon herself to wear...</blockquote> | |||
The Trial court was eager to show that Joan had profited from her fame, such as questions about who paid for her horses and armor, and,<ref>Murray, p. 59</ref> | |||
<blockquote>Had you any other riches from your King besides these horses? .... Had you no treasure?</blockquote> | |||
Several of the Seventy Accusations include the charge of pride, vanity and display.<ref>For example, No. XIII of the Seventy Accusations reads, "It is in virtue of these pretended orders that she hath attired herself in sumptuous and stately raiment, cloth-of-gold and furs... and it is notorious that she was taken prisoner in a loose cloak of cloth-of-gold." (The story of her capture was that an English solder had pulled her from her horse by a "cloth-of-gold," so that didn't come from de Chartres.) No. LV reads, "Jeanne hath abused the revelations and prophecies that she saith she hath had from God, to procure for herself lucre and temporal profit ; by means of these pretended revelations, she hath acquired great riches, a great show and great estate in officers, horses, and attire"; No. LVIII included, "This standard she did place at Rheims near the Altar, during the consecration of Charles, wishing, in her pride and vain glory, that it should be peculiarly honoured... All this is display and vanity, it is not religion nor piety ; to attribute such vanities to God and to the Angels, is to be wanting in respect to God and the Saints." No.s LV and LVIII track or mimic de Chartre's accusations.</ref> Again, it's smoke, not fire, but the language that de Chartres put out publicly was certainly picked up by the Burgundian Trial court, and, just as likely in private conversation between them. | |||
I am intrigued by Joan's seemingly contradictory statements about Saints Catherine and Margaret that after the Mass at Auxerre, she either "often" or "from that time" heard her Voices (plural). Biographer Murray translates to,<ref>From Murray (p. 12): From Barrett (p. 56): "and from that time she frequently heard her voices." And in French per Champion, "et alors, fréquemment, elle entendait ses voix"</ref> | I am intrigued by Joan's seemingly contradictory statements about Saints Catherine and Margaret that after the Mass at Auxerre, she either "often" or "from that time" heard her Voices (plural). Biographer Murray translates to,<ref>From Murray (p. 12): From Barrett (p. 56): "and from that time she frequently heard her voices." And in French per Champion, "et alors, fréquemment, elle entendait ses voix"</ref> | ||