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

<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. He probably never imagined how long the trial would go, as his frustration grew with every unexpected response and retort from Joan to the best theological traps the University of Paris' finest minds could throw at her. One of the priests there who testified at the Trial of Rehabilitation recalled that her responses were inspired:<ref>Testimony of Bromley 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>

The questioning turned to the details, which Joan dangled before them,<ref>Historian Regine Pernoud believes that Joan deliberately misled the court in testifying to "the sign as a concrete object, a crown brought by an angel." (By Herself, p. 272, Kindle Edition)</ref> <blockquote>"It is well to know it was of fine gold; it was so rich that I do not know how to count its riches or to appreciate its beauty. The crown signified that my King should possess the Kingdom of France."  </blockquote><blockquote>"Were there stones in it?</blockquote>

So we hear that it was schizophrenia or moldy bread, which at least recognize that Joan heard voices.<ref>The one I like best is from a CIA psychologist who wanted the to learn about Saint Joan's paranormal powers. See [https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000701070001-2.pdf JOAN OF ARC'S PROPHECIES (JEAN BARRY)] The article assumes Joan's prophesies were real. </ref> Others who question the reality of the Voices must fall back on pseudo-psychological conjecture and sociological babble. For example, historian Ann Lelwyn Barstow argues that subjects of Joan's visions were those Saints with which she most closely identified and was most familiar:<ref>[https://archive.org/details/joanofarcheretic0000bars/page/28/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22That+she+was+visited%22 Joan of Arc : heretic, mystic, shaman : Barstow, Anne Llewelly (Archive.org)], p. 28.</ref>   <blockquote>One gets the picture of a lively Christianity informing the mind of the young Joan through legends. well-known across Europe ... That she was visited instead [of the Virgin Mary] by Michael, Catherine and Margaret attest to the potency of their legends in Lorraine, to their particular usefulness to a young patriot in time of national distress, and their appropriateness for an independent-minded woman. </blockquote>Not there weren't any churches in France called "Notre Dame," but, sure, the Church in Domrémy held (and apparently still holds<ref>Barstow says so, also affirmed by this site: [https://stmargaretmarina.omeka.net/items/show/186 Saint Margaret Statue · The Legend of Saint Margaret and Saint Marina]</ref>) a statue of Saint Margaret; Saint Catherine was the patron of nearby church; Saint Michael was venerated in Lorraine and was considered the defender of France; so there you have it.   

If Joan's visions were real, then we have perfectly explainable historical causation, including crucial moments of uncertainty or disobedience to her Voices, such as her flustered recantation, called her "abjuration," when threatened in public humiliation before the stake. Skeptical historians point to this moment as evidence that Joan had just made it all up, ignoring that only two weeks before this demeaning public ceremony, when threated with torture she had told the trial judges,<ref>Murray, p. 118</ref> <blockquote>Truly if you were to tear me limb from limb, and separate soul and body, I will tell you nothing more; and, if I were to say anything else, I should always afterwards declare that you made me say it by force. </blockquote>But so goes the theory that, fatigued and confused, Joan gave the hostile and abusive English-backed court what it wanted and made up stories of the Saints, whom, it (incorrectly) holds, she had not before mentioned.<ref>See [https://access.historyhit.com/videos/who-was-joan-of-arc Who was Joan of Arc?] Gone Medieval podcast (from Dan Snow's History Hit), a podcast interview with Oxford historian Hannah Skoda (min 44:30, accessed 1/15/2025).  </ref> This ignores the fact that several days later, following the instructions of her Voices, Joan recanted her abjuration, stating,<ref>Murray 137 (Note this [https://archive.org/details/jeannedarcmaido00fragoog/page/n177/mode/2up?view=theater scan of the book here] is missing pages 138-139; [https://archive.org/details/jeannedarcmaido01fragoog/page/n176/mode/2up this one] and [https://archive.org/details/jeannedarcmaidof00joan/page/138/mode/2up?q=Baudricourt&view=theater this one] have it)) </ref><blockquote>They said to me: "God had sent me word by St. Catherine and St. Margaret of the great pity it is, this treason to which I have consented, to abjure and recant in order to save my life! I have damned myself to save my life!" </blockquote>Had she really made it up just to please the court, the recanted her recantation knowing she would burn for it? Or do not even cynics have limits?

The notary scribbled in the margin of the court register his agreement with the Saints, <ref>"Mortal response," as in inescapable, self-condemning. (Murray, p. 137)</ref><blockquote>''Responsio mortifera''</blockquote>People do not die for a lie. Instead, she was lucid, calm, and firm,<ref>Muray, p 137</ref>

<blockquote>"Do you believe that your Voices are Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret?"</blockquote><blockquote>"Yes, I believe it, and that they come from God."</blockquote>If, as, such theories hold, supporters and detractors of Joan were just using her for their convenience, and that the historical record itself reflects that self-interest and not the truth about Joan, why would Joan have said this? They didn't need anything else to to put her to death, so this report actually serves against the interest of the Rouen court, which would now fully act as instruments of a martyrdom, duly recorded in Latin and preserved for us in history. Indeed, as we shall see, her chief persecutor had to resort to off-the-record and, I will argue, fictional interviews with her the morning of her execution in which she is said to have admitted it was all a lie.

Per the Catechism of the Catholic Church,<ref>[https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/448/ CCC 1817]</ref> <blockquote>Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit.</blockquote>Accordingly, the Poitiers Doctors concluded the recommendation to send her to Orleans with,<blockquote>The king, given the investigation conducted of the said made, as far as he is able, and that no evil is found in her, and considering her reply, which is to give a divine sign at Orléans; seeing her constancy and perseverance in her purpose, and her insistent request to go to Orléans to show there the sign of divine aid, must not prevent her from going to Orléans with her men at arms, but must have her led there in good faith, placing hope in God. For doubting her or dismissing her without appearance of evil, would be to repel the Holy Spirit, and render one unworthy of the aid of God, as Gamaliel stated in a council of Jews regarding the apostles.</blockquote>No illusions about it. And not just about some cross-dressing prophet. As the most significant of these advisors, Bishop Jean Gerson, observed, allowing a girl to lead an army isn't a trial balloon. In his ''apologia'' for Joan written shortly after her victory at Orléans, he observed that to give an army to a woman isn't just crazy, it's dangerous:<blockquote>The king's council and the men-at-arms were led to believe the word of this Maid and to obey her in such a way that, under her command and with one heart, they exposed themselves with her to the dangers of war, trampling under foot all fear of dishonor. What a shame, indeed, if, fighting under the leadership of a woman, they had been defeated by enemies so audacious! What derision on the part of all those who would have heard of such an event!<ref>Translation is mine. From the original: "Le conseil du roi et les hommes d'armes ont été conduits à croire à la parole de cette Pucelle et à lui obéir de telle sorte que, sous son commandement et d'un même cœur, ils se sont exposés avec elle aux dangers de la guerre, foulant aux pieds toute crainte de déshonneur. Quielle honte, en effet, si, combattant sous la conduite d'une femmelette, ils avaient été vaincus par des ennemis si auda- cieux Qiielle dérision de la part de tous ceux qui auraient appris semblable événement!" (Traite de Jean Gerson sur la Pucelle, p. 20)</ref> </blockquote>The historians reply that this was after-the-fact rationalization, and, besides, the Dauphin was obsessed with prophesy, so he naturally fell to the latest seer.<ref>See BBC In Our Time, "The Siege of Orleans" episode, May 25, 2007. Historian Anne Curry claims that Charles VII "believed in his astrologer probably more than he believed in his military advisors" (min 15:20, accessed 1/4/2025).  </ref> Or, as does Barker, the Dauphin's military situation was not as dire as Joan's "cheerleaders"<ref>From Barker: "Whether the dauphin actually wanted that assistance was debatable. His position in the spring of 1429 was nothing like as calamitous as Jehanne d’Arc’s cheerleaders have claimed. The greater part of southern France was still in his hands; the truces with the duchy and county of Burgundy were holding and offered the prospect of a negotiated peace. Neither of Jehanne’s stated objectives was high on his agenda: the loss of Orléans to the English would be a blow, but not a catastrophe, and a coronation at Reims, though desirable, was not essential. He was, however, temperamentally drawn to those who said they could predict the future. Senior clergymen had already had cause to rebuke him for his reliance on astrology and some years earlier he had received Jehan de Gand, who had prophesied the birth of his heir and the expulsion of the English. (Barker, p. 107) </ref> have claimed, so, by implication, she wasn't the essential actor in the moment and there was no risk in sending her. But not even Barker claims that without Joan's involvement the French would have won at Orléans. The theory is ever insufficient to explain the events. Worse Barker is simply arguing against the historical record. The Dauphin's ecclesiastical advisers whom he asked to investigate her before his endorsement of her, made it very clear as to why they recommended nothing against the girl:<ref>The Poitiers Conclusion, translation by Deborah Fraioli , "Joan of Arc; the early debate," Appendix II, p. 206</ref>   <blockquote>The King, given his necessity and that of his kingdom   </blockquote>Unlike historians, the actors of Joan's day had to to decide: either Joan acted on voices of God -- or of Satan. There was no in between. Just ask the English and Burgundians who knew full well what this young woman had done and why.<ref name=":4">In 1434 the Duke of Bedford wrote “And alle thing there prospered for you, til thety me of the siege of Orleans taken in hand, God knoweth by what advis. At the whiche tyme, after the adventure fallen to the persone of my cousin of Salysbury, whom God assoille, there felle, by the hand of God, as it seemeth, a greet strook upon your peuple that was assembled there in grete nombre, caused in grete partie, as y trowe, of lakke of sadde beleve, and of unlevefulle doubte that thei hadde of a disciple and lyme of the Feende, called the Pucelle, that used fais enchauntements and sorcerie. The which strooke and discomfiture nought oonly lessed in grete partie the nombre of youre people, there, but as well withdrowe the courage of the remenant in merveillous wyse, and couraiged youre adverse partie and ennemys to assemble hem forthwith in grete nombre.” Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 128). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition. </ref> The rage of the Rouen ecclesiastical Court and its English backers that condemned her is in inverse proportion to Joan's faith in her Visions and the reality her people of France understood them to be. To read the epithet the English placed upon a placard by the stake is to understand just how real her Voices were:   <blockquote>Joan, self-styled the Maid, liar, pernicious, abuser of the people, soothsayer, superstitious, blasphemer of God; presumptuous, misbeliever in the faith of Jesus-Christ, boaster, idolater, cruel, dissolute, invoker of devils, apostate, schismatic and heretic.<ref name=":5">From the entry of an English recorder of the events on behalf of Parliament. On the "mitre" put on her head was, "heretic, relapsed, apostate, idolater" (as quoted in Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 340). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition). </ref></blockquote>It ought not take much faith to see straight through to a typology of the crucifixion of the Lord himself and the fury of his executioners, which stand for us in the Gospels as more evidence of the Lord's divinity. Uninformed by faith, the condemnation of Joan is just hyperbolic political statement. Oh no -- they meant it, and meant it hard. Listen to the priest Jean Massieu, Joan's escort to and from her prison cell at the Trial of Condemnation, including to lead her to the stake,<blockquote>I heard it said by Jean Fleury, clerk and writer to the sheriff, that the executioner had reported to him that once the body was burned by the fire and reduced to ashes, her heart remained intact and full of blood, and he told him to gather up the ashes and all that remained of her and to throw them into the Seine, which he did.</blockquote>Or Isambart de la Pierre, a Dominican priest who witnessed the Trial, <blockquote>Immediately after the execution, the executioner came to me and my companion Martin Ladvenu, struck and moved to a marvellous repentance and terrible contrition, all in despair, fearing never to obtain pardon and indulgence from God for what he had done to that saintly woman; and said and affirmed this executioner that despite the oil, the sulphur and the charcoal which he had applied against Joan’s entrails and heart, nevertheless he had not by any means been able to consume nor reduce to ashes the entrails nor the heart, at which was he as greatly astonished as by a manifest miracle.<ref name=":6">Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (pp. 332-333). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition. </ref></blockquote>All our skeptics can do is to question the motives of these testimonies, saying that de la Pierre and Ladvenu were covering up their own shameful involvement in the Condemnation Trial at Rouen. Perhaps, but even if true, the testimony affirms Joan's innocence. The details, though, are hard to ignore: "her heart remained intact", "the oil, the sulphur and the charcoal" -- memory works this way, not imagination.   

CS Lewis prefaces his argument about Christ's divinity by noting,<blockquote>I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. </blockquote>The logic applied to Joan goes the same way: treating her merely as an historical character debases what she was and did. So it is that Pernoud concludes that when "confronted by Joan" all we can do is to "admire" her, as the common people have since the 15th century, for "in admiring [they] have understood her":<blockquote>They canonised Joan and made her their heroine, while Church and State were taking five hundred years to reach the same conclusion.<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 391). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition.</ref></blockquote>That's as close as Pernoud will come to an historical "saint" Joan -- that she was "canonized" in the hearts of her countrymen.  

Free of having to address whether Joan's spiritual events were real or not, the secular historiography leads to sentimentalized and historically insufficient views of Joan's contemporaries and her legacy. So we get these dull statements of Joan's legacy, such as at end of one Pernoud's books,<blockquote>It remains true that, for us, Joan is above all the saint<ref>note the lower case "saint"</ref> of reconciliation—the one whom, whatever be our personal convictions, we admire and love because, over-riding all partisan points of view, each one of us can find in himself a reason to love her.<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 391). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition. </ref></blockquote>That's no better than this, from the collective wisdom of contributors to the "Joan of Arc" entry at Wikipedia, casting Saint Joan to the eye of the beholder:<ref>[[wikipedia:Joan_of_Arc#Legacy|Joan of Arc#Legacy - Wikipedia]] (accessed 12/28/2024)</ref><blockquote>Joan's image has been used by the entire spectrum of French politics, and she is an important reference in political dialogue about French identity and unity.</blockquote>But what is equally bewildering is that these historians mostly ignore the most thorough, considered, and balanced investigation into Joan, that conducted by the Vatican itself. On consideration of a person for beatification and canonization, the Church investigates the case, and thoroughly, assigning advocates for and against the candidate.<ref>The "Promoter of the Faith," an office now called, "Prelate Theologian," is what we would think of as a prosecutor, representing the Church against any possible error or heresy in the case. The Promoter was also known as "Devil's Advocate," as in Hebrew the meaning of the word "satan" was "accuser." </ref> There were serious charges against Joan, including to have waged war on a Holy Day, disobedience to her Voices, questions about her purity, and her "unsaintly" reluctance to be burned to death (i.e. martyrdom). The Church duly considered those objections, and on May 16, 1920, canonized Saint Joan of Arc.  

Rejecting the French response, which was essentially, "here, take another princess,"<ref>In 1396, Charles' second and surviving daughter, six years old, was married to Richard II of England, the goal of which was to maintain peace between the countries. The marriage was never consummated, as age 12 was considered the age of consent. Richard, apparently, loved her like an adopted child or niece. </ref> in 1415 Henry invaded Normandy, reviving the ongoing but episodic French succession conflict we now call the "Hundred Years War". At the famed Battle of Agincourt, Henry destroyed French forces that consisted mostly of loyalists to the House of Orléans, while its French rival, the House of Burgundy, sat out, possibly by agreement with the English.<ref>Per See [https://archive.org/details/agincourtkingcam0000bark/page/68/mode/2up?q=67 Agincourt : the king, the campaign, the battle, by Barker, Juliet R. V (Archive.org)]; p. 67</ref> Animosity continued between the French factions, further weakening Charles VI, who had long suffered attacks of severe mental illness which periodically left his rule up for grabs.   

Born in 1368, Charles VI assumed the throne as a minor at age eleven, so France was ruled by a regency council made up of his father's brothers, but dominated by the youngest, and most ambitious of them, Philip "the Bold", Duke of Burgundy.<ref>He was actually Philip II, Duke of Burgundy, as successor Duke of Burgundy to Philip of Rouvres, Philip I, who died at 15 childless. The French King assumed the Duchy and gave it to his son, Philip, making him "II". Through marriage and negotiation, Philip re-created the Duchy of Burgundy. He earned the nickname "the Bold" at the age of fourteen for fighting alongside his father at the 1356 Battle of Poitiers. They were both captured and ransomed four years later. Later, Philip adopted artillery into his military tactics and used it to conquer Flanders.  </ref> At twenty years old, In 1389 Charles VI assumed full control from his uncles, whom he forced out by reinstalling his father's old and loyal advisors. While his mental illness must have been already evident, in 1392 Charles lost control of himself and deliriously attacked his own guard, killing a knight and several others.<ref>He was subdued and lapsed into a coma.</ref> The Duke of Burgundy stepped in again and took command of the King. However, a new regency council was established under the authority of Charles's Queen, Isabella of Bavaria. Between mental bouts Charles exercised rule in competency, but he largely let his wife represent him to the council while the court tiptoed around him, keeping him amused and distracted. Henceforth, she and the the King's younger brother, Louis II, Duke of Orléans,<ref>Charles VI appointed his brother Louis Duke of Orleans in 1392. The title was a royal grant that was later used as the title for the French prince.  </ref> angled for power over Charles' uncles, especially the Duke of Burgundy.   [[File:Madness_of_Charles_VI.jpg|left|thumb|<small>The "Madness of Charles VI" (wikipedia). While on a military expedition near Le Mans in 1392, Charles VI was startled by the ringing of a lance accidentally dropped against a helmet and exclaimed, "Forward against the traitors!" and attacked his own escort.</small>]]As regents, the dukes of Orléans and Burgundy largely managed state affairs in conciliation, although when one was traveling the other would pull some stunt back at the court. However, when Philip, the Duke of Burgundy, died in 1404 the Duke of Orleans removed Philip's son, John the Fearless, from both the council and the Royal treasury, a huge powerplay. In 1407, John got back by having Louis assassinated, an act that John not only admitted but acclaimed, justified by removal of excessive taxes Louis had imposed upon Paris and as a general appeal to Parisian autonomy. Additionally, the all-powerful University of Paris was upset that the Duke of Orléans had returned French alliance from the Avignon antipope back to the Roman Pope. Louis had supported the antipope in exchange for an annulment of a prior betrothal of the Princess of Hungry, whom he was angling to marry in order to take the title King of Hungry.<ref>They were married by proxy, but before Louis could travel to Hungry to claim his throne, the Duke of Luxembourg invaded and with the support of Hungarian nobility married the princess to whom he had already been betrothed prior to Louis' intervention. It would have presented an interesting scenario by which were he King of Hungry, Louis would have supported an (anti) Pope that the Hungarian nobility did not recognize. Louis's claim on Hungary started when he was two and betrothed to the older sister of the Hungarian princess. By that time, the younger sister was already betrothed to the Princess that the Duke of Luxembourg, who became King of Hungry and later on Holy Roman Emperor. </ref> After that deal fell through, Louis returned French official allegiance to the Roman Pope, Benedict XIII.   

While not officially siding with the English as yet, the Burgundians at the least accommodated their presence in northern France. In 1418 the teenage Dauphin ("prince") Charles, was forced out of Paris by Burgundian elements and fled south to Bourges, where he set up his court. The next year, the Duke of Burgundy, in control of Paris and calling himself Protector of the King of France, approached him to sign a conciliation treaty. So it was agreed to, and to great joy, but the Dauphin's side knew that the Duke was also cutting deals with the English.<ref>John was playing both sides, negotiating with the English as well, but he needed money and figured he was most empowered by holding the middle ground.</ref> In 1419 the Dauphin demanded another meeting in person, which was arranged to take place on a bridge -- indicating just how tense the situation had become. Likely planned in advance, as the Dauphin was not present, his escorts axed and killed John the Fearless.[[File:The_Conclusion_of_the_Treaty_of_Troyes_Met_DP891505.jpg|thumb|<small>The Conclusion of the Treaty of Troyes.<ref>[[commons:File:The_Conclusion_of_the_Treaty_of_Troyes_Met_DP891505.jpg|Print, engraved by Francesco Bartolozzi (Metropolitan Museum of Art (Wikipedia)]] </ref>.From this 1788 depiction, Henry V receives Catherine of Valois, sister of the Dauphin, Charles, who was disinherited by the Treaty The artist places the Queen of France, Isabel of Bavaria, as the arbitrar of the Treaty, with her husband Charles VI "The Mad" sulking, or disinterested, to the side.</small>]]The Burgundians now openly aligned with the English and negotiated the Treaty of Troyes with King Charles VI. Most importantly, Queen Isabeau supported the deal which, through marriage of their daughter to Henry V of England, yielded succession to Henry as King of France, thus cutting off her son, the Dauphin Charles. Among those who negotiated the treaty was a Burgundian Bishop who would later persecute Saint Joan.<ref>Pierre Cauchon, the Bishop of Beauvais. He was extremely ambitious and calculating. Joan warned him that his soul was in peril. From the Trial of Condemnation, February 27, 1431, Joan was asked, "You said that my Lord of Beauvais puts himself in great danger by bringing you to trial; of what danger were you speaking ? In what peril or danger do we place ourselves, your Judges and the others ?<nowiki>''</nowiki>  She replied, "I said to my Lord of Beauvais, 'You say that you are my Judge; I do not know if you are, but take heed not to judge wrongly, because you would put yourself in great danger ; and I warn you of it, so that, if Our Lord should punish you for it, I shall have done my duty in telling you.'" ([https://archive.org/details/jeannedarcmaido00fragoog/page/n115/ Murray, p 76])</ref> With the Duke of Orleans in captivity in England, the Dauphin sidelined for the murder of the Duke of Burgundy, and ratified by the Estates-General at Paris, Henry V triumphantly arrived to Parish to sign the treaty.   

A few years before at that village, Domrémy, a thirteen year old girl named Joan began to experience divine voices and visions. The Voices instructed her to lead a good Christian life and, later on, to "go to France" to save save the country and crown its King. In late 1428, Joan's Voices became urgent, telling her "it was necessary for me to come into France" and relieve the city of Orleans from the English siege. <ref>Murray, p. 10</ref>That urgency, she told a local French commander in early 1429 was because,<ref name=":1" /><blockquote>To-day the gentle Dauphin hath had great hurt near the town of Orleans, and yet greater will he have if you do not soon send me to him.</blockquote>

[[File:Carte_du_royaume_de_France_pendant_la_mission_de_Jeanne_d'Arc_1429-1430.jpg|left|thumb|<small>France during the mission of Jeanne d'Arc 1429-1430. French Royal lands are in orange-red and English held territory in yellow-green. The un-colored areas are independent duchies that gave their allegiance to one or the other. he Holy Roman Empire is to the east.</small> ]]  

Soon after the Battle of Herrings, as things seemed to be falling apart, the Bastard received news of a mysterious "maid" who was going to rescue the city of Orléans. He was curious. He had received some reinforcements, but the situation was dire. He wrote, <blockquote>It is told that there had lately passed through the town of Gien a maid [''une pucelle''], who proclaimed that she was on her way to Chinon to the gentle Dauphin, and said that she had been sent by God to raise the siege of Orléans and take the King to his anointing at Reims.<ref>[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19488/19488-h/19488-h.htm The Life of Joan of Arc (Contents), by Anatole France (Project Gutenberg)], p. i.143.</ref> </blockquote>So he sent emissaries to the King's court to see what was going on.

At her "Trial of Condemnation<ref>The "Trial of Condemnation" was her ecclesiastical trial by the French Church at the English-held city of Rouen in 1431. (The young English King, Henry VI was present at Rouen throughout her trial). The "Trial of Rehabilitation" was a series of inquiries, starting 1452, into the validity of the 1431 trial. She was vindicated by the second trial.</ref> held under English authority," Joan testified as to her name, explaining,<ref>Murray, p. 64. The original Latin transcript reads: "Ad quæ respondit , quod in partibus suis vocabatur Jo- hanneta , et postquam venit in Franciam vocata est Johanna." ([https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Gfg5AAAAcAAJ&pg=GBS.PA46&hl=en_US Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, dite la Pucelle] Vol 1 (Google Play Books) p. 46; note that the version of [https://archive.org/details/procsdecondamna05frangoog/page/n9/mode/2up Vol 1 available on Archive.org] does not have pp. 46-47 ([https://archive.org/details/procsdecondamna05frangoog/page/44/mode/2up missing here]))</ref><blockquote>In my own country they call me Jeannette; since I came into France I have been called Jeanne. Of my surname I know nothing. </blockquote>

Or perhaps "Arc" really does mean "arrow," as the Hebrew word for which we translate in [https://bible.usccb.org/bible/genesis/9?12 Genesis 9:12] as "rainbow". As explained by Biblical scholars,<ref>[https://netbible.org/bible/Genesis+9 Genesis 9 | Lumina (netbible.org)]</ref> <blockquote>The Hebrew word קֶשֶׁת (qeshet) normally refers to a warrior’s bow. Some understand this to mean that God the warrior hangs up his battle bow at the end of the flood, indicating he is now at peace with humankind, but others question the legitimacy of this proposal.</blockquote>Running with that typology, with Joan's role fulfilled, after her death she earned the sobriquet, "Arc" for "arrow" or "rainbow," marking her victory for France. In Genesis, it's a logical use for "rainbow," as the atmospheric event typically follows a storm, and God marks the Noahic covenant by putting down the weapon he had used to cleanse the world of sin. I'm not claiming this is the case, but we're operating here on the principle that with God "all things are possible,"<ref>[https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19?26 Matthew 19:26]</ref> i.e. when he wants it, there are no coincidences.

The name of Joan's village, Domrémy, has a possible Roman origin, ''Domnus Remigius'', which would have placed it under the authority of Saint Rémi (''Remiguis''), Bishop of Reims, who baptized Clovis -- thus circling back to a fundamental goal of Saint Joan to coronate the King of France, Charles VII, at Reims where, along with Clovis' baptism, Philip II, the first "King of France," was coronated, setting the precedent. On a similar note, Joan testified that girls in her village did not use their paternal surname and instead used that of the mother. Hers was Romée, which makes for an interesting connection in that the name derives from "Rome," indicating a pilgrimage to Rome at some point by an ancestor.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/joanofarclegendr0000gies/page/9/mode/1up?view=theater Joan of Arc : the legend and the reality : Gies, Frances (archive.org)] p. 9</ref> Along with the possible Roman etymological origin to her village name, Domrémy,  the connection to Rome becomes interesting insofar as at her trial by the English Joan stood resoundingly for the Roman Pope over the schismatic antipope who had been supported alternately by the warring factions in France, as well as relates to her request, like Saint Paul appealing to Caesar, of an audience before, the Pope in Rome.<ref>Joan told the court, "On what I know touching the Case, I will speak the truth willingly; I will tell you as much as I would to the Pope of Rome, if I were before him" (Murray, p 33), and later replied to the question, "Does it not seem to you that you are bound to reply more fully to our Lord the Pope, the Vicar of God, on all that might be asked you touching the Faith and the matter of your conscience, than you should to us?" replying, "Very well; let me be taken before him, and I will answer before him all I ought to answer." (Murray p. 91; this exchange was recalled years later by Ysambard de la Pierre in oral testimony at the Trial of Rehabilitation; Murray, p. 189).</ref>

Pope Benedict XVI plainly affirms Joan's use of "Pucelle" for "virgin":<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20110126.html General AudieGeneral Audience of 26 January 2011: Saint Joan of Arc | BENEDICT XVI] </ref><blockquote>She was called by all and by herself “La pucelle” (“the Maid”), that is, virgin.</blockquote>To the modern, especially academic, audience, the matter of Joan's virginity is understood as a male obsession or instrument of the patriarchy, or whatever they say about these things. Some have beaten up the historical record to prove or disprove her virginity, largely acknowledging it intact. A common theory holds that Joan called herself "the virgin" in order to fend off the soldiers around her.,<ref>The webpage [https://www.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_life_summary_vaucouleurs.html Joan of Arc Biography - Vaucouleurs (joan-of-arc.org)] states, "Some historians have pointed out that the term also served a practical purpose: now that she would be associating with soldiers, it was in her interest to distance herself from the primary variety of single women who accompanied armies: prostitutes, which the eyewitnesses said she particularly loathed. The best way to do this was to bluntly declare herself a virgin. Now that her mission was beginning in earnest, she would adopt this label as her official title, and it is by this term that she is most often referred to in the 15th century chronicles and eyewitness accounts."</ref> while another claims she wanted to "emphasize her unique identity".<ref>From [[wikipedia:Joan_of_Arc#Clothing|Joan of Arc#Clothing - Wikipedia]] (accessed 12/17/2024)</ref>  

Reading modern notions of sexuality into the medieval record over-emphasizes Joan's virginity and the reactions to it by others around her. While the English soldiery called her a whore,<ref>The accusation of a witch implies promiscuity, as a witch seduces others into the evil. In the formal charges against her she was not called a witch but was accused of being a seducer. </ref> as did several of her captors at the Trial of Condemnation at Rouen, her contemporaries generally recognized her as pure, and many around here were chastened themselves by her example or presence, such as her male compatriots who slept by her on the campaign, or who saw her breasts as she was dressed for her a wound.<ref>At war, she had a woman sleep by her when possible. From testimony of Louis de Contes, "she had a woman to sleep by her, and when she could not find one in war, or in camp, she slept fully dressed." (Murray p. 262)  Joan herself testified, "" It is true that my command was over men ; but as to my quarters and lodging, most often I had a woman with me. And when I was engaged in the war I slept fully dressed and armed, not being able always to find a woman." (Murray p. 360)</ref> Our skeptical historians ridicule those testimonies, such as that from a knight who accompanied her on the dangerous journey from her home region to the Dauphin's court at Chinon,<ref>Testimony of Jean de Novelemport, aka Jean de Metz (Murray, p. 224)</ref><blockquote>On the way, Bertrand and I slept every night by her — Jeanne being at my side, fully dressed. She inspired me with such respect that for nothing in the world would I have dared to molest her ; also, never did I feel towards her — I say it on oath — any carnal desire.</blockquote>To Joan's ecclesiastic backers and accusers, the matter of her virginity presented a deadly serious theological question: if she was truly an ambassador from God then she had to be a virgin; if not, as the English-backed court tried to prove, she was a witch, for a virgin, it was understood, was incorrupt of Satan's reach. As the 19th century French historian Jules Michelet's explained,<blockquote>The archbishop of Embrun [Jacques Gélu], who had been consulted, pronounced similarly; supporting his opinion by showing how God had frequently revealed to virgins, for instance, to the sibyls, what he concealed from men; how the demon could not make a covenant with a virgin  and recommending it to be ascertained whether Jehanne were a virgin.<ref>[https://archive.org/details/historyoffrance02michuoft/page/137/mode/1up?q=virgin&view=theater History of France : Michelet, Jules, 1798-1874 (archive.org)];  p. 137</ref> </blockquote>

The French and, later, the English-supported Burgundians, submitted her to the physical test conducted by ladies who affirmed her purity. The French clerics examined Joan's theological purity, questions to which she answered consistently, simply, and strenuously, concluded, "The maid is of God."<ref>[https://archive.org/details/historyoffrance02michuoft/page/137/mode/1up?q=virgin&view=theater History of France : Michelet, Jules, 1798-1874 (archive.org)]; p. 137</ref> They found nothing impure in her, which was important for fulfillment of the legend that Joan herself invoked, such as she told her uncle, Durand Lexart, and which had become current as she made her way to meet the prince of France, the Dauphin<ref>On the throne but yet called "Dauphin" as he was not yet ceremonially crowned.</ref>: <blockquote>"Has it not been said that France will be lost by a woman<ref>A reference to Queen Isabeau, wife of Charles VI.</ref> and shall thereafter be restored by a virgin?<ref>Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 39). Scarborough House. Kindle Edition. </ref> </blockquote>At the Condemnation Trial under the English at Rouen, Joan was pressed several times on her virginity, which had already been affirmed by ladies of the Burgundian court. Her accusers wouldn't let it go. Having caught on to a story about a supposed marriage when she was younger, they pressed her,<blockquote>

“When you promised Our Saviour to preserve your virginity, was it to Him that you spoke?" </blockquote><blockquote>“It would quite suffice that I give my promise to those who were sent by Him—that is to say, to Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret.”</blockquote><blockquote>“Who induced you to have cited a man of the town of Toul on the question of marriage?” </blockquote><blockquote>

“I did not have him cited; it was he, on the contrary, who had me cited; and then I swore before the Judge to speak the truth. And besides, I had promised nothing to this man. From the first time I heard my Voices, I dedicated my virginity for so long as it should please God; and I was then about thirteen years of age. My Voices told me I should win my case in this town of Toul.”</blockquote>[[File:Jeanne D'Arc par Boutet de Monvel p_42.jpg|thumb|<small>From "Jeanne D'Arc" by Boutet de Monvel depicting Joan in her cell threatened by the English guards.</small><ref>From [https://archive.org/details/jeannedarc00boutuoft/page/n45/mode/2up Jeanne D'Arc : Boutet de Monvel, Louis-Maurice (Archive.org)]; p. 42</ref>]]Argued by Joan herself before the magistrate at Toul, the marriage claim was dismissed. She was neither bequeathed to nor married the man, and so there was no compromise of Joan for the court at Rouen to exploit. It's an odd part of her story, but one that importantly informs much about Joan. First, either her father, or some guy, or both, tried to marry her off to him<ref>She testified about her parents, " I obeyed them in everything, except in the case at Toul—the action for marriage."  Murray, p. 65</ref>. A young girl like Joan would normally have no say in the matter: instructed by her voices, she stood it down. Secondly, it's among or even the very first direct event upon which her voices guided her, and she believed and obeyed. Well convinced of her larger mission to "go to France," Joan wouldn't let this claim upon her get in her way. One wonders, even, why it happened, if not to disrupt her trajectory.   

<blockquote>If you were married, do you think your Voices would come?” </blockquote>

<blockquote>I do not know; I wait on Our Lord."</blockquote>This line of questioning becomes rather sinister when Joan is later on tricked, compelled, rather, into wearing women's clothes in prison, which turned her into a target of rape by her English guards.<ref>The Wikipedia entry on her use of men's clothes cites "academics" who claim that her use of men's clothes would have been but "a minor deterrent to rape."  Yah... ([[wikipedia:Joan_of_Arc#Clothing|Joan of Arc - Wikipedia]])</ref> She knew that men's clothing that she insisted on wearing kept her safe from the possibility, so the Rouen Court was playing into that situation, whereby, were she raped they could say she no longer had valid visions. But she refused to answer that question ("I wait upon Our Lord") and, thankfully, while attacked at one point by the guards, it seems she was not actually violated. It did become the very point upon which she was executed.   

Saint Paul explains it in [https://bible.usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/7?34 1 Corinthians 7:34]:<blockquote>''An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit.''</blockquote>

For Pope Benedict, it was Joan's consecration to virginity that matters, not her virginity ''per se'':<blockquote>We know from Joan’s own words that her religious life developed as a mystical experience from the time when she was 13. Through the “voice” of St Michael the Archangel, Joan felt called by the Lord to intensify her Christian life and also to commit herself in the first person to the liberation of her people. Her immediate response, her “yes”, was her vow of virginity, with a new commitment to sacramental life and to prayer: daily participation in Mass, frequent Confession and Communion and long periods of silent prayer before the Crucified One or the image of Our Lady.</blockquote>  

It's her "yes" that matters, not her virginity ''per se'', despite modern obsessions with it. Indeed, Joan, like anyone in her day, would have made that connection of the word ''pucelle'' to the words of Mary herself:<blockquote>Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”<ref>[https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/1:38 Lk 1:38]</ref></blockquote>They would have known the passage from the Latin ''Vulgate''<ref>From [https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/luke_1.htm Latin Vulgate New Testament Bible - Luke 1].  Vulgate is from ''vulgata'' for "common" or "popular" as in "used generally" or "in general use."</ref> with the term, ''ancilla,'' which is a female servant or slave and not necessarily a virgin:<ref>The male would be a ''servus''</ref><blockquote>''dixit autem Maria ecce ancilla Domini''</blockquote>The ''Vulgate'' New Testament was translated from Greek, so we can go to the original Greek word in [https://netbible.org/bible/Luke+1 Luke 1:38], δούλη (doulē), which means "slave woman" or "female servant," both of which become in English, the traditional "handmaiden", the meaning of which is directly "female servant."<ref>There may have been some French manuscript (handwritten) translations of the Bible at the time, but Joan would not have known them (she was illiterate). The formal French translation by Louis Segond, a Swiss theologian was from Greek. In it, Luke 1:38 reads, "Marie dit: 'Je suis la servante du Seigneur; qu'il me soit fait selon ta parole!'" (from [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luc%201&version=LSG BibleGateway])</ref> 

In her home parish, Joan would have heard the Gospel in Latin, but if her priest ever preached the passage in a homily -- a certainty -- Joan would have heard not just the direct translation into French,  <blockquote>Marie dit: Je suis la servante du Seigneur </blockquote>but also the reference to Mary as,    <blockquote>''la Pucelle Maria''    </blockquote>as "Virgin Mary" as was used commonly at the time.<ref>For example, In 1397, the Bishop of Puy, Jean de Gerson, gave a homily at the Feast of the Annunciation in a Mass for the Queen of France, Isabeau of Bavaria, in which he referred to Mary as "la Pucelle."  This event marks an interesting connection to Joan's story, as we will discuss, in that the Queen was understood to have betrayed the French cause by supporting the Treaty of Troyes that delivered the French crown to the English king Henry V. Worse, though, Isabeau was commonly accused to have had an affair with her brother-in-law, Louis of Orléans, which gave credence to the illegitimacy of her son as heir, and thus her support of the Treaty of Troyes. </ref> So "pucelle" and "servant" are distinct but both accurate references to Mary. Yet, if we think of ''Pucelle'' solely as a virgin, we are missing the larger significance in the context of [https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/1?38 Luke 1:38], of Mary's fiat,  <blockquote>May it be done to me according to your word.</blockquote>''La Pucelle'' is a virgin -- and Joan was -- but more importantly she was God's loyal servant who followed the instructions of the Archangel. For Mary it was the Archangel Gabriel; for Joan it was the Archangel Michael. For both, it was the Word of God.