Jump to content

Saint Joan of Arc (Jeanne la Pucelle)

From Rejoice in Saint Joan of Arc

Saint Joan of Arc (1412-1431)

REJOICE IN SAINT JOAN OF ARC

Item opusculum super facto Puelle et credulitate ei praestauda
("Concerning the fact of the Maid and the faith due to her")[1]

a book by Michael L. Bromley

Panthéon - La vie de Jeanne d'Arc (hlw16 0310)- crop folk
Portion of the frieze "The Life of Joan of Arc" at the Panthéon, Paris.

Saint Joan of Arc called herself "Joan the Maid,"[2] or, as did her followers, simply, "the Maid," in French, "La Pucelle."[3] She signed her name, Jehanne, which renders as Jeanne in modern French and Joan in English.[4] In official documents she was called "Joan, commonly called the Maid."[5] Her antagonists called her "whom they call the maid"[6] and, from the King of England, "the woman who called herself the Maid."[7]

[8]

God, she tells us, called her, "Joan the Maid, daughter of God."[9]

Related pages

Preface

SAMPLE CONTENT
Contact the author for full access to the book. Registered users may read the full draft here: Rejoice in Saint Joan
Saint Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc entrance to Orléans through the Burgundy Gate, April 29, 1429
Honorifics: Jeanne la Pucelle (Joan the Maid, Joan the Virgin)
la Pucelle d'Orléans (Maid of Orleans, Virgin of Orleans)
la Pucelle de Lorraine (Maid of Lorraine, Virgin of Lorraine)
Born: January 6,[10] 1412, Domrémy, Duchy of Bar, Kingdom of France
Died: May 30, 1431, Rouen, English-held Normandy
Beatified: April 18, 1909, by Pope Pius X
Canonized: May 16, 1920, by Pope Benedict XV
Feast Day: May 30
Patronage: France, soldiers, especially women soldiers, prisoners, virgins, those in need of courage, those ridiculed for their piety, faith or youth, victims of sexual assault, peasants, the unjustly accused.[11]
Signature:

This book presents a Catholic view of Saint Joan of Arc that is consistent with the vetted historical record. It reviews the facts of the life and accomplishments of Saint Joan, as well as their historical context. It offers commentary and criticism of historical and academic views of her, including as regards the secularization and ideological contortions of her life and legacy.

The analysis here starts with faith not doubt, thus Joan's experiences and visions (which I will call her "Voices") are assumed real and of divine origin. As opposed to skeptical treatments of Joan that begin from doubt, these pages take her at her word. This method, when applied prudently, enables important historical, typological, and scriptural connections to Joan's life and acts that otherwise go unconsidered or inexplicable. The approach is faithful yet cautious. And though Catholic in perspective, I sincerely invite the non-Catholic, faithful or not, to consider this point of view.

This discussion of Saint Joan is analysis not narrative. The narrative is presented, but the approach is thematic not chronological. To review a straight chronology of her life, please see the Joan of Arc Timeline or find a good narrative treatment of her from the Joan of Arc bibliography. I aim to present here a logic, not merely a narrative or chronology.

As with any valid historical analysis, this one weighs the evidence, adopts a perspective, and tests it against the historical and historiographic record. The extensive record of Saint Joan allows for cherry-picking and varied interpretation of witness and chronicler motives, so this work seeks to evaluate the historical record across broader connections and to use textual evidence with consistency. While some conclusions may be speculative, they will always be grounded in the record and drawing from it, especially as regards some of Joan's prophetic visions that are open for interpretation. Just because an interpretation is arguable does not make it erroneous. The rule does not apply to Joan of Arc alone: historians engage in this type of interpretation all the time. It is the essence of the craft.

As my arguments are contingent upon larger historical context before and after the life of Saint Joan, I encourage the reader to explore the history more largely in the sources. This work employs extensive footnotes that are not just for citation, but are to explain, contextualize, and embrace our mutual curiosity, especially for tracking original sources and their transmissions into English, as there can be significant interpretation, or error, exercised in translation.

Finally, my argument is two-fold: first, that Saint Joan of Arc was divinely inspired; and second, that her divine mission was not merely to save France, but to preserve a Catholic France.

Saint Joan of Arc was canonized by the Catholic Church on May 16, 1920.


Copyright © Michael L. Bromley, 2024-2026. All rights reserved. All content provided on this website, including but not limited to text, graphics, images, and other material is for informational purposes only. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited.


For my wife Terry, in praise of God.

The historical problem of Joan of Arc

SAMPLE CONTENT
Contact the author for full access to the book. Registered users may read the full draft here: Rejoice in Saint Joan

Saint Joan's most prominent modern biographer, medieval scholar Régine Pernoud (1909-1998), counsels that in the story of Joan of Arc,[12]

Among the events which [the historian] expounds are some for which no rational explanation is forthcoming, and the conscientious historian stops short at that point.

It's a large concession, that, that certain events from the life of Saint Joan have "no rational explanation." But, apparently, this "conscientious historian" -- who is a sincere and important historian -- must contain herself to "the facts" and stick to sorting them out for description, while avoiding explanation, much less inference from those facts. Sadly, it's historiographically unenlightening and theologically timid[13] -- which is the point: to deny God's role in the story of [holy title removed] Joan of Arc.

Joan of Arc leaving Vaucouleurs for Chinon to see the King (by Adrien Harmand, 1876, Wikicomons

What's not to believe? Around the year 1426, an illiterate peasant girl from a sidelined village in Lorraine experiences visions and voices from several of God's Angels and Saints, who over time come to tell her to "go to France" to save it. At the age of sixteen, she seeks out a regional captain to send her to France but receives only ridicule and rebuke. As her Voices raise their urgency after an English siege is raised upon the city of Orléans, now seventeen, she finally convinces that captain to equip and send her across enemy lands to meet the King. The journey takes eleven days over several hundred miles, including to pass through enemy lands at night. At her destination, the King doesn't want to see her, but she talks her way into his castle and manages to speak to him in private, convincing him of the nature of her mission. He sends her to be examined by top theologians who find her to be forthright and orthodox, and who recommend the King trust her to show a "sign" at Orléans by defeating the English. Displaying military genius and boldness, she wondrously saves the city -- the sign. After a series of subsequent and equally astonishing victories, she leads the King through enemy territory to his sacramental crowning at the traditional site of coronations, which the King had a few years before with a large army been unable to reach. Throughout, she says and does remarkable and amazing things, convincing those who follow her that she is truly sent by God -- and her enemies that she is a witch. After her capture a year later by those enemies following abandonment of her by her own country, she is subjected to a lengthy ecclesiastical show trial and then handed over to the English who burn her.

Got it.

Nobody disputes what happened. What historians cannot fathom is how and why.

The historian Pernoud concedes that because Joan's motives, actions, and outcomes are so improbable, to attribute them to anything other than divine guidance makes no sense. Yet, for Pernoud, the serious historian must shy from the supernatural, since divine inspiration[14] is, for the historian of human affairs, irrational and thus inherently ahistorical, thus merely an article of faith, and so to be ignored. Pernoud thereby dismisses Joan's inspirations altogether, falling back upon,[15]

The believer can no doubt be satisfied with Joan’s explanation; the unbeliever cannot.

Similarly, feminist literary critic turned Joan of Arc biographer Mary Gordon skirts the problem with,[16]

We must make an attempt to place her historically, geographically, sociologically. Doing so may help us understand why what happened was not impossible, but does not explain the extremely unlikely fact that it happened at all. The life of Joan is such a flagrant beating of the odds that no facts sufficiently explain the course of it.[17]

Using the sociological perspective of "historicism,"[18] Gordon buries the inexplicable within Joan's time, place, and culture, marking it with the unsupported claim that it was "not impossible."[19] Gordon spends a lot of time on Joan's Voices, arguing, as usual, that whatever they were they were real to her.[20] But the problem remains, as Gordon and Pernoud concede. If Joan's Voices were not real, how to explain their effects?

While modern historians may discard supernatural causes, they must yet grapple with the improbability of Joan, starting with the entire improbability of a seventeen year old girl leading the French army -- which, as Mark Twain points out in his marvelous historical fiction on Joan, marks her as the youngest conqueror in history. Apocryphally quoting the Hungarian liberator, Lajos Kossuth, Twain introduces her with:[21]

Consider this unique and imposing distinction. Since the writing of human history began, Joan of Arc is the only person, of either sex, who has ever held supreme command of the military forces of a nation at the age of seventeen.

Twain's point would seem easily refutable, as Joan did not hold the "supreme command" of the French army. Symbolically, though, it's not only irrefutable, it is revealing: she was only seventeen; her country and its military leadership put its faith in her; and under her martial and spiritual guidance France defeated the English at Orléans and a series of battles that led to the ceremonial crowning of the King and the remaking of France. Twain's hyperbole is not far off.

Fifteenth century Pope Pius II, put it simply,[22]

A woman became a leader in war.

Historians like Pernoud and Gordon step around the problem by taking her effects at face value while leaving them unexplained, as if the grapes had no vine.[23] Gordon writes,[24]

How is such achievement explicable? Joan reached a level both of physical prowess and of courage that was enormously against all odds. Can this kind of achievement properly be called miraculous? Or is it just an event that is very unlikely? What is the relationship between what we are able to comfortably call genius and what we are unwilling to call miraculous?

Others deny the miraculous by minimizing Joan's role, i.e. lessening her effects.[25] Or they use both. So we hear that it was schizophrenia or moldy bread, which at least recognize that Joan heard her voices.[26] Those who question the reality of the Voices must fall back on psychological and sociological conjecture, or invent or infer explanations for which there is no evidence. For example, one historian argues that the subjects of Joan's Visions were those Saints with whom she most closely identified and was most familiar:[27]

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[28]] 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.

Not that there weren't any churches in France called "Notre Dame," but, sure, the Church in Domrémy held and still holds[29] a statue of Saint Margaret. Saint Catherine was the patron of a nearby church. Saint Michael was venerated in Lorraine and was considered the defender of France. Given that reasoning, one may suppose that some other "local" Saint, say, Saint Drogo of Flanders, and the patron Saint of shepherds -- wouldn't that make more sense? -- might have equally conveyed God's message to a thirteen year old peasant in an isolated French fief in Lorraine.[30] Of course God would send the Angels and Saints that the child already knew and trusted.

To paraphrase Saint Joan, Do you think God has not wherewithal to select Saints familiar to a young girl from Lorraine?[31]

Crazy, witch, or Saint?

SAMPLE CONTENT
Contact the author for full access to the book. Registered users may read the full draft here: Rejoice in Saint Joan

Joan's biographers like to present her with a letter she composed to the King of England, the child-king Henry VI, the day she learned she would be given an army to march on Orléans. And for good reason. It's a marvelous, crazy letter, almost arrogant at first glance. A second look, though, and the letter yields instead Joan's simplicity and directness. Indeed, she is hardly arrogant, just blunt:[32]

Jhesus † Maria

King of England; and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself Regent of the Kingdom of France; you, William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk;[33] John, Lord Talbot; and you, Thomas, Lord Scales, who call yourselves Lieutenants to the said Duke of Bedford: give satisfaction to the King of Heaven: give up to the King,[34] who is sent hither by God, the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns in France which you have taken and broken into. She is come here by the order of God to reclaim the Blood Royal. She is quite ready to make peace, if you are willing to give her satisfaction, by giving and paying back to France what you have taken.

It's a useful letter for the biographer, but left unexplained or attributed to anything but her Voices, as these historians agnostically leave it, it makes no sense.

At the conclusion of the Examinations at Poitiers in late March of 1429, the King, who had brought her there, sent messengers to Joan to announce his endorsement. After several weeks of inquiry and visits, she thought the king's agents were there to ask more questions.[35] The royal squire, Gobert Thibaut, recalled,[36]

Then Maître Pierre de Versailles told Jeanne that he had been sent to her from the King. She replied: "I well believe that you have been sent to question me," adding, "I know neither A nor B." Then she was asked by them for what she had come.

She pronounced her purpose, which she had been telling everyone since her arrival to France:

I am come from the King of Heaven to raise the siege of Orleans and to conduct the King to Rheims for his crowning and anointing.

Realizing it was a rhetorical question and that she had been given the approval,

And then she asked if they had paper and ink, saying to Maître Jean Erault: "Write what I say to you. You, Suffolk, Classidas, and La Poule, I summon you by order of the King of Heaven to go back to England."

And there we go. What a moment! And one that had stuck firmly in Thibaut's memory, especially that cadence, that challenge, that shocking boldness.[37]

Joan's Letter to the English is astonishing. And prophetic.

Prophecy fulfilled

By the time she sent the Letter, the English had likely already heard of rumors flying around about a "maiden" who had arrived to save France. But the Letter was their first direct introduction to the person. However it was received, it had to be in the back of English leaders' minds when its author approached Orléans, and indelibly upon the front of their minds after she routed them. The letter concludes with a note to the English governor, Bedford, which, if he had seen it, likewise would have bewildered him before the battle, and, which, as he wrote later, hurt badly thereafter. After threatening an English defeat at Orléans and Paris and across "the whole of France," she ends the letter with,

And answer, if you wish to make peace in the City of Orleans; if this be not done, you may be shortly reminded of it, to your very great hurt. Written this Tuesday in Holy Week.[38]

It wasn't mere psychological warfare as some historians contend: Joan was prophesizing.

Two years later, on March 1, 1431, during her trial for heresy by a French ecclesiastical court operating under English authority, the Letter was read out to her as incriminating evidence of witchcraft. It still stung:[39]

Do you know this letter?

The Letter had been shown or read to her at some point in the prison at Rouen,[40] and on the second day of the Trial, February 22, unprompted, she herself mentioned it, and stated three corrections to the text.[41] A week later, March 1, she replied to the question if she knew of the Letter[42] in precisely the same terms:[43]

Yes, excepting three words. In place of "give up to the Maid," it should be "give up to the King."[44] The words "Chieftain of war" and "body for body"’ were not in the letter I sent. None of the Lords ever dictated these letters to me; it was I myself alone who dictated them before sending them. Nevertheless, I always shewed them to some of my party.

Whatever the discrepancies from the text and Joan's memory of it,[45] the English remembered it well. How could they not remember this confounding and, to us marvelous, letter?

Then it got worse. Without further prompting or context, Joan turned her testimony to the future. As recorded in the verbatim Trial transcript, she abruptly switched from her discussion of the Letter to:[46]

Next, she says that before seven years, the English will give up[47] a greater stake[48] than they laid before the people of Orléans,[49] and they will lose everything in France. She also says the English will suffer a greater loss than they have ever had in France, and this will come through a great victory God will grant to the French.

The Bishop, who was questioning her that day, asked, perhaps in sarcasm, perhaps in curiosity, possibly in concern, as he had heard of another of Joan's predictions from one of her English captors:

How do you know this?

I know it well by revelation, which has been made to me, and that this will happen within seven years; and I am sore vexed that it is deferred so long. I know it by revelation, as clearly as I know that you are before me at this moment.

When will this happen?

I know neither the day nor the hour.

In what year will it happen?

You will not have any more. Nevertheless, I heartily wish it might be before Saint John’s Day.[50]

The English squire and captain of Joan's guards, John Gray, had told Cauchon about a prediction she had made about the relief of Compiègne the season before, in late October or early November of 1430. With that in mind, the Bishop replied,

Did you not say that this would happen before Martinmas, in winter?[51]

Joan corrected it,

I said that before Martinmas many things would be seen, and that the English might perhaps be overthrown.

What did you say to John Gris, your keeper, on the subject of the Feast of Saint Martin?

I have told you.

A year earlier, March 22 of 1429, in the "Letter to the English," Joan had warned Bedford,

for King Charles will gain [the realm of France], the true heir: for God, the King of Heaven, so wills it, and it is revealed to him by the Maid, and he will enter Paris with a good company.

Joan's prediction of "before seven years" came on March 1, 1431. She repeated it on March 28 in response to Seventy Articles accusation number XXI, which was also about the Letter to the English:[52]

If the English had believed my letters, they would only have been wise ; and before seven years are gone they will perceive it well enough[53]

Six and a half years later, November 12, 1437, the French King Charles VII entered the gates of Paris. It's beyond improbable that, having failed to take Paris herself, imprisoned and helpless at Rouen, she was not speaking of Paris, especially given that she likened the shock of the coming event to that of Orléans.

Retaking of Paris, April 13, 1436 by Berthélemy (Louvre, wikicommons)


[text continues]

Full list of Chapters

The full book consists of the following Chapters and sub-chapters

  • Preface
  • Introductory Notes
    • Saint Joan of Arc
    • Related pages
    • Page use & readability
    • Notes on sources and quotations
    • Notes on usage, names and spelling
    • Notes on archaic word use
    • Important terminology
    • Important Events & Dates of the life of St. Joan of Arc
  • The historical problem of Joan of Arc
    • Trees that bear fruit
    • Sufficiency of Joan
    • Christian Hope
    • Madman, Saint, or Liar
    • Physician, cure yourself
    • Paris for a pair of pants
  • Jeanne, Daughter of God
    • The Church Militant
    • May God keep me there
    • A good Catholic
  • Crazy, witch, or Saint?
    • Prophecy fulfilled
    • La Pucelle v.2
    • Not your average witch
    • A soul in peril
  • Saving France
    • So what is "France"?
    • A mess only a Saint could fix
    • A family affair: Armagnacs v Burgundians
    • Paris, England
  • Jeanne
    • Little Jeanne
    • Portrait of Jeanne
    • Jeanne La Pucelle, the Virgin
    • Jeanne La Pucelle, the Handmaid
    • Jeanne, Catholic
  • Did she make it all up?
    • Spiritual or material?
    • What's in a Voice?
    • Naming the Saints
  • Jeanne and the Saints
    • Saint Catherine
    • Saint Margaret
    • Saint Michael the Archangel
    • Saint Gabriel the Archangel
    • Saints Charlemagne & Louis
  • Into France
    • Joan the peasant girl
    • Domrémy
    • Neufchâteau
    • Vaucouleurs
    • Loaves and Fishes
  • In "France"
    • Chinon
    • Le Puy
    • Poitiers
  • Joan's Moment
    • An Invitation to the English
    • Courage in War
    • La Pucelle®
    • Saint Joan's moment
  • Victory at Orléans
    • The Battle Flag
    • Wearing the Pants
    • Knight in Shining Armor
    • A Valiant Champion
  • Road to Reims
  • Crown delayed
  • Road to Rouen
  • Trial and Martyrdom
    • Betrayed
    • Misfiring
    • Joan's Treason
    • Relapsed
  • Setting the record wrong
    • Post hoc ad hoc
    • Testimony too tight
    • Sacramentally Incomplete
    • The point of it all
  • La France
    • English France
    • Vive la France!
  • Saving Catholicism
    • The Babylonian Captivity
    • Return from exile: Gregory XI & Saint Catherine of Sienna
    • Saint Joan settles it
  • The "fairest deed" in Christendom
    • Two Beasts
    • Pragmatically speaking
    • The "Letter to the Hussites"
    • Saving Catholicism
    • The "fairest deed" in Christendom
  • A Catholic France
    • Becoming France
  • Postscript

Contact author for more

Thank you for looking over these sample passages from the larger book.

Please contact the author for full access to the book.

Publishers and reviewers are welcome.

SAMPLE CONTENT
Contact the author for full access to the book. Registered users may read the full draft here: Rejoice in Saint Joan


REFERENCES

  1. ↑ From De Mirabili Victoria Cuiusdam Puellae De Postfœtantes Receptae In Ducem Belll Exercitus Regis Francorum Contra Anglicos (On the subject of the miraculous victory of a certain Maid, received as head of the armies of the King of France against the English) from Traité de Jean Gerson sur la Pucelle from by Monnoyeur, J.S. (Archive,org); p. 1).
  2. ↑ She introduced herself to the King of France with, "Gentil Dauphin, j'ay nom Jehanne la Pucelle" [Jules Quicherat, Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, dite la Pucelle : Vol III (Gallica)], p. 103). In English, "Noble Prince, my name is Joan the Maid." (Translation mine; T. Douglas Murray translates it as "Gentle Dauphin, I am called Jeanne the Maid" per TOR, Paris, 1455-56, testimony of Jean Pasquerel, Murray, p. 282, Jeanne d'Arc, maid of Orleans, deliverer of France; being the story of her life, her achievements, and her death, as attested on oath and set forth in original documents)
  3. ↑ On March 22, 1429, Joan wrote the Letter to the English in which she announced herself as "la Pucelle," and which is repeated throughout the contemporaneous and historical record.
  4. ↑ Three signatures of Jehanne survive on letters she sent to citizens of certain cities during her military campaigns. Writing her name was the extent of her numeracy. She otherwise marked her signature on a page using a Cross, †. The Trial of Condemnation register recreates her signature as Jehanne †, even though she didn’t actually sign her name. (See Procès de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, avec les pièces du procès de condamnation, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, ms. 3172, folio 173v)
  5. ↑ For example, the Trial of Condemnation was entitled, “Incipit processus in causa fidei contra quandam mulierem, Johannam, vulgariter dictam la Pucelle, which translates to "Here begins the trial in the cause of faith against a certain woman, Joan, commonly called the Maid" [Quicherat, Vol 1, pg. 1] (here using the accusative case, Johannam as the object of a preposition; in the nominative, or subjective, case, we find Johanna, vulgariter dicta la Pucelle, per Quicherat Vol. I, p. 450).
  6. ↑ The English-aligned Duke of Burgundy celebrated the capture in 1430 of "she whom they call the Maid." (Letter from Duke of Burgundy to the people of Saint Quentin, May 23, 1430, Murray. p. 335). While the phrase was repeated by friendly witnesses at the Trial of Rehabilitation, its use here by her enemy, the Duke of Burgundy, was to avoid affirming that she "is" and instead "is called" a Maid.
  7. ↑ Letter from the King of England, June 28th, 1431" per W. P. Barrett, "The Trial Of Jeanne d'Arc (1931); p. 315.or Internet History Sourcebooks: Medieval Sourcebook (which is dated 1932, and has different pagination).
  8. ↑ Closeup of section of Abjuration document where the scribe noted that Joan had signed the document. She did not, as she instead marked a Cross on another, short document of eight lines that was later switched out for a larger and condemnatory admission of guilt (abjurement). But we see in it the use of her name in Middle French, Jehanne. (Image from Procès de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, avec les pièces du procès de condamnation, Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal, ms. 3172, folio 173v)
  9. ↑ Translation mine from Latin Jehanne la Pucelle, fille de Dieu (Quicherat, Vol I, p. 130)
  10. ↑ Joan never stated her birthdate, which was typical of the day. The traditional use of January 6 is likely apocryphal, chosen to align her birth with the Feast of the Epiphany.
  11. ↑ Patronage is not "official" Church doctrine but helps us to understand and related to a Saint. I would add to Joan's patronage "those wounded and in pain."
  12. ↑ Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (p. 387)
  13. ↑ I had a hard time finding the right word here: I wanted to use "cowardly," but I can't speak for Pernoud's motives. I was looking to "cowardly" not in the sense of "uncourageous" but more like "timorous," or fearful, so I went with "timid." Her earlier work more recognized it, but in her later works, seemingly in the face of late 20th century secular academic skepticism, Pernoud has backed away from Joan's spirituality and the historian's credulity in it.
  14. ↑ "Inspiration" is from in- (into) + spirare (to breathe) meaning in the religious sense, "breath of God," or, more directly, inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
  15. ↑ More fully: "In the case of Joan of Arc, particularly, there has too often been a singular confusion between the expounding of the facts and explaining them. We are confronted by facts whose extraordinary character is self-evident .... Joan herself had her own explanation of the events in which she was the protagonist... But it must be obvious that from the point of view of historical criticism, an affirmation which emanates from a single witness and cannot be checked by reference to any other source, is not tantamount to a certainty. The believer can no doubt be satisfied with Joan’s explanation; the unbeliever cannot." (Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, by Régine Pernoud; p. 275). Pernoud correctly complains about what can only be called Joan of Arc conspiracy theories, such as the "hypothesis of royal bastardy" (pp. 25, 27, 273-274) that proposes that she was of royal blood or a theory that she contracted tuberculosis from unpasteurized milk (p. 275). Where the historian loses track is in ignoring that Joan's actions and outcomes are entirely consistent with her "explanation" (of divine guidance).
  16. ↑ Joan of Arc by Mary Gordon (Archive.org); p. 27
  17. ↑ I'm always fascinated by these prevarications. In one sentence Joan's actions are "extremely unlikely" and in the next "no facts" can explain them.
  18. ↑ The relativistic view that human affairs are understood within their own context and not by universalities.
  19. ↑ From the Latin posse for "to be able" and, ultimately, potis, for "able" or "having power to." Whether the author means it or not, the suggestion is that within the realm of "ability" Joan could do what she did, such as predicting events, riding mounted horses, taking a huge rock directly on her head and not having her spine collapse as recreations demonstrate is impossible not to happen, etc. The more direct explanation is found in Matthew 19:26: "Jesus looked at them and said, 'For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" And, for Joan, from Mark 9:23: Jesus says, "Everything is possible to one who has faith.”
  20. ↑ Gordon sees Joan as a proto-feminist who defied patriarchal control through radical autonomy built upon her virginity and men's clothes. To Gordon, Joan's (lowercase) voices were an inner scream of female resistance.
  21. ↑ Prefatory quotation supposedly by "Louise Kossuth," from an 1899 edition of Personal recollections of Joan of Arc : Mark Twain (Archive.org) It is possible the quotation is authentic, or at least current in 1880-1890s France when Twain was researching for his book. If he made it up, though, why Kossuth? First, Kossuth died in 1894, which received much attention in Europe and the U.S. (see Eminent persons. Biographies, reprinted from the Times, London (Archive.org)). Next, Americans knew Kossuth, who visited the country in the1850s, as a liberator, but probably didn't know much else about him, so invoking his name gave Twain's point about Joan of Arc some credibility. Besides, his name, "Kossuth," sounds authoritative. Note that the quotation does not appear in the 1899 publication by Harpers, Personal recollections of Joan of Arc : Twain, Mark (Archive.org)
  22. ↑ "Mémoires du temps de Pie II," per Quicherat, Vol V, p. 510. From the original Latin: Dux fœmina belii facta est. (translation mine).
  23. ↑ A typical dismissal of the reality of Joan's voices goes like this: "Some of these questions cannot be answered: they are a matter of personal religious faith or instinctive patriotism ... Whether this was true or not is irrelevant: the fact that she believed it to be so is what matters." (Barker, Juliet. Conquest: The English Kingdom of France, 1417–1450 (p. 102-103). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.) See also p. 161: "Despite all the fallibilities of the evidence at both trials, what emerges indisputably and triumphantly is the Pucelle’s absolute faith in the divine origin of her mission and her utter conviction that her voices were real."
  24. ↑ Joan of Arc by Mary Gordon (Archive.org); p. 84
  25. ↑ Such arguments include that she wasn't really a military commander, or that her military impact was minimal, as the French were going to win at Orléans, anyway; that her story is a product of French national myth-building; that she was but a useful tool for the pro-French Armagnac leadership; or that her two year contribution to the Hundred Years War was but a side event. None of these views are supported in the primary sources or in any unbiased view of the events themselves.
  26. ↑ The one I like best is from a CIA psychologist who wanted to learn about Saint Joan's paranormal powers. See Joan of Arc's Prophecies (Jean Barry) The article assumes Joan's prophesies were real.
  27. ↑ Joan of Arc : heretic, mystic, shaman : Barstow, Anne Llewelly (Archive.org), p. 28.
  28. ↑ Joan's devotion to the Holy Virgin is completely misunderstood by historians, like this one and Gordon, who emphasize the absence of Mary in Joan's testimonies. First of all, in her Trial she rather frequently mentions the "Blessed Mother," "Blessed Virgin," "Holy Mother" and, especially as she was French, "Our Lady," including several times stating how she prayed directly to her. That Mary was not one of her Voices in no way diminishes either Joan's devotion to the Holy Mother or the reality of Joan's Voices. What the secular historians are up to is to try to "contextualize" Joan's Voices, which supposedly shows that since the Virgin Mary didn't come to her, the voices were merely a product of Joan's personal experience in hearing the Archangel and these particular Saints.
  29. ↑ See Saint Margaret Statue · The Legend of Saint Margaret and Saint Marina
  30. ↑ Patron Saint of ugly people, as he had a horribly scarred face. Saint Drogo was from French Flanders and preached in northeastern France.
  31. ↑ At the Rouen Trial, Joan was asked about Saint Michael: "Was he naked?” She replied, “Do you think God has not wherewithal to clothe him?” (Murray, p. 43).
  32. ↑ See the Letter here in English and in French from the manuscript by Quicherat Joan of Arc letter to the English.
  33. ↑ Who would verbally abuse Joan during her captivity by the English.
  34. ↑ The surviving texts read "give up to the Maid." Joan testified that the letter should have read "give up to the King" as I have rendered it here. (TOC, Thursday, March 1, Murray, p. 38)
  35. ↑ Her expectation of another inquiry affirms descriptions of visits to her by a variety of people that we have in the Poitiers Conclusions ("scholars, men of the Church, men of devotion, men-at-arms, women, widows, and others"), Jean Rabateau's affidavit ("many notable persons, both clerics and laymen") and the Chronique de la Pucelle ("various persons")
  36. ↑ TOR, Paris, Testimony of Gobert Thibaut, Murray, p. 265
  37. ↑ Historians complain that Joan violated norms of medieval diplomacy and warfare. I'm not sure what that observation explains historically other than it highlights that her methods had distinct motives from other medieval actors.
  38. ↑ Murray references the date, "March 22nd, 1428" (p. 12, fn 2), which is not in the original text and which is off by a year: should be 1429. (See Champion's translation in French, Vol II, p. 145)
  39. ↑ March 1, Murray pp. 38. The Letter is reproduced on pp. 36-38.
  40. ↑ One can only imagine the circumstance under which Joan was shown or read the letter before the Trial, likely to mock her, as her capture, to the English, rendered the Letter's message void.
  41. ↑ TOC, Thursday, February 22, Murray, p. 12: "I sent a letter to the English before Orleans, to make them leave, as may be seen in a copy of my letter which has been read to me in this City of Rouen; there are, nevertheless, two or three words in this copy which were not in my letter. Thus, ' Surrender to the Maid,' should be replaced by ' Surrender to the King.' The words, ' body for body ' and * chieftain in war ' were not in my letter at all."
  42. ↑ Joan's memory was remarkable and remarked upon by witnesses. The court's memory, not so much. She had already spoken about the Letter.
  43. ↑ TOC, Thursday, March 1, Murray, p. 38
  44. ↑ The distinction Joan makes is significant for both her and the Rouen court: for her defense, she clarifies her purpose to support the King, not her own reward.
  45. ↑ Quicherat makes a fuss over these discrepancies, saying that the text Joan contested was in original letters. Quicherat says it was "either because Jeanne did not remember dictating them, or because her scribe inserted them of his own accord to give more effect to the summons." (Translation mine). The full note by Quicherat is in Vol I, p. 55-56, fn 2: "Les altérations que la Pucelle signale dans cette réponse ne doivent pas être imputées à ses ennemis. Rendez à la Pucelle, corps pour corps, chef de guerre, se trouvent dans les reproductions les moins suspectes de sa lettre aux Anglais. Sans doute les copies nombreuses qui furent distribuées lors du siège d’Orléans portaient toutes ces mots, et il y a lieu de croire qu’ils existaient sur l’original, soit que Jeanne ne se souvînt pas de les avoir dictés, soit que son clerc les eût insérés de son chef, pour donner plus d’effet à la sommation. L’auteur de la Chronique dite de la Pucelle, et le conseiller Thomassin, tous deux contemporains et écrivant pour le parti français, donnent la lettre avec les expressions contestées. Nous publierons pour la première fois, à la fin de cet ouvrage, un troisième texte absolument conforme, et dont l’authenticité est de nature à rendre le doute impossible." Even the doubter Anatole France gives Joan the benefit of the doubt here, saying the words she did not recall were likely inserted by her scribe. Quicherat is persuasive that letters in circulation at Orléans, and the one the Rouen court had obtained, were likely original. Nevertheless, we still must listen to Joan who twice asserts in the Condemnation Trial she didn't say "give up to the Maid," etc. So what was so important to her about those three discrepancies? Possibly, her corrections are consistent with what we know about her, especially that her mission was to assert and crown Charles VII, not to elevate herself, and she didn't like the violence of war. Yet, even if we take out the phrases she said were not hers, the Letter still asserts surrender or " if they will not obey, I will have them put to death," which a "Chieftain of war" would do. Perhaps she never said these things, or perhaps she walked it back in the Trial. I doubt the fault here was her memory, as she owned the rest of the letter.
  46. ↑ My translation. From the Latin: Item dicit quod, antequam sint septem anni, Anglici dimittent maius vadium quam fecerint coram Aurelianis, et quod totum perdent in Francia. Dicit etiam quod praefati Anglici habebunt maiorem perditionem quam unquam habuerunt in Francia; et hoc erit per magnam victoriam quam Deus mittet Gallicis. (Quicherat, Vol I, p. 84) Murray's discursive translation skips the transition word "and" before "they will lose everything" (he replaces it with a semicolon). Barrett uses "for," which loses the purposefulness of "and," which indicates a progression, i.e., one event, then another. (See Murray, p. 38 and Barrett, p. 77). Champion's French version is better: "Item dit qu'avant qu'il soit sept ans les Anglais perdront plus grand gage qu'ils ne firent devant Orléans, et qu'ils perdront tout en France. Dit aussi que lesdits Anglais auront plus grande perte qu'onques n'eurent en France ; et ce sera par grande victoire que Dieu enverra aux Français." (Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc, Champion, Pierre (Archive.org); p. 56)
  47. ↑ I'm using "give up" for the Latin dimittent, which has the sense not so much of losing to another but of abandonment. (We get the words "dismiss" and "manumit" from mittere, for "let go.") "Surrender" or "lose" would also work, but dimittent suggests the act of letting go due to lack of success, not just yielding to a larger force.
  48. ↑ From vadium which is translated by Murray as "wager" and by Barrett as "pledge." "Wager" works for vadium in the sense of a gamble on taking what was not theirs. "Pledge" works in the sense of feudal ownership, i.e., a claim on the lands. I'm going with "stake" because it holds both senses of a gamble and a claim.
  49. ↑ Aurelianis means "people of Orleans."
  50. ↑ June 24 Feast of Saint John the Baptist
  51. ↑ Anatole France thinks that Gray told Cauchon about the prediction of "before seven years," but the biographer inverts the chronology thus mixes Joan's prediction of the relief of Compiègne with the new one she just dropped on him, "before seven years" (i.e., Paris). See France, Vol II, p. 252-253.
  52. ↑ TOC, Tuesday, March 27, Murray, p. 350. Quicherat clarifies that her response appears in Article XXI in French from the D'Urfé (folio 28) manuscript and in the Latin manuscript to Article XXII. Both record basically the same thing, which Murray captures accurately in English. She may have repeated it twice, as both Articles concerned the Letter to the English. From the Middle French, ilz eussent fait que saiges; et que avant que soit sept ans, ilz s'en appercevront bien de ce qu'elle leur escriptvoit (Quicherat Vol I, p. 239) and the Latin in response to Article XXII, si Anglici crediidissent suis litteris, fecissent ut sapientes; et quod ante septennium, ipsi bene hoc percipient de hoc quod eis scripsit suis litteris, fecissent ut sapientes; et quod de hoc se refert ad responsionem alias per ipsam factam (Quicherat, Vol I, p. 241), rendered by Murray as, "If the English had believed my words they would have acted wisely. Before seven years are gone, they will feel the truth of what I wrote to them, and for that, I refer to the answer which I made elsewhere." (Murray, p. 350).
  53. ↑ Murray adds an exclamation point. (Barrett skips her response)
Retrieved from "https://saintjoandarc.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Joan_of_Arc_(Jeanne_la_Pucelle)&oldid=3455"