The Life of Joan of Arc, Vol. 1 and 2

My first duty should be to make known the authorities for this history. But L'Averdy, Buchon, J. Quicherat, Vallet de Viriville, Simeon Luce, Boucher de Molandon, MM. Robillard de Beaurepaire, Lanery d'Arc, Henri Jadart, Alexandre Sorel, Germain Lefevre-Pontalis, L. Jarry, and many other scholars have published and expounded various documents for the life of Joan of Arc. I refer my readers to their works which in themselves constitute a voluminous literature,[2] and without entering on any new examination of these documents, I will merely indicate rapidly and generally the reasons for the use I have chosen to make of them. They are: first, the trial which resulted in her condemnation; second, the chronicles; third, the trial for her rehabilitation; fourth, letters, deeds, and other papers.

[Footnote 2: Le P. Lelong, Bibliotheque historique de la France, Paris, 1768 (5 vols. folio), II, n. 17172-17242. Potthast, Bibliotheca medii aevi, Berlin, 1895, 8vo, vol. i, pp. 643 seq. U. Chevalier, Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age, Paris, 8vo, 1877, pp. 1247-1255; Jeanne d'Arc, bibliographie, Montbeliard, 1878 [selections]; Supplement au Repertoire, Paris, 1883, pp. 2684-2686, 8vo. Lanery d'Arc, Le livre d'or de Jeanne d'Arc, bibliographie raisonnee et analytique des ouvrages relatifs a Jeanne d'Arc, Paris, 1894, large 8vo, and supplement. A. Molinier, Les sources de l'histoire de France des origines aux guerres d'Italie, IV: Les Valois, 1328-1461, Paris, 1904, pp. 310-348.]

First, in the trial[3] which resulted in her condemnation the historian has a mine of rich treasure. Her cross-examination cannot be too minutely studied. It is based on information, not preserved elsewhere, gathered from Domremy and the various parts of France through which she passed. It is hardly necessary to say that all the judges of 1431 sought to discover in Jeanne was idolatry, heresy, sorcery and other crimes against the Church. Inclined as they were, however, to discern evil in every one of the acts and in each of the words of one whom they desired to ruin, so that they might dishonour her king, they examined all available information concerning her life. The high value to be set upon the Maid's replies is well known; they are heroically sincere, and for the most part perfectly lucid. Nevertheless they must not all be interpreted literally. Jeanne, who never regarded either the bishop or the promoter as her judge, was not so simple as to tell them the whole truth. It was very frank of her to warn them that they would not know all.[4] That her memory was curiously defective must also be admitted. I am aware that the clerk of the court was astonished that after a fortnight she should remember exactly the answers she had given in her cross-examination.[5] That may be possible, although she did not always say the same thing. It is none the less certain that after the lapse of a year she retained but an indistinct recollection of some of the important acts of her life. Finally, her constant hallucinations generally rendered her incapable of distinguishing between the true and the false.

[Footnote 3: Jules Quicherat, Proces de condamnation et de rehabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, Paris, 8vo, 1841, vol. i. (Called hereafter Trial.--W.S.)]

[Footnote 4: Trial, vol. i, p. 93, passim.]

[Footnote 5: Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 89, 142, 161, 176, 178, 201.]

The record of the trial is followed by an examination of Jeanne's sayings in articulo mortis.[6] This examination is not signed by the clerks of the court. Hence from a legal point of view the record is out of order; nevertheless, regarded as a historical document, its authenticity cannot be doubted. In my opinion the actual occurrences cannot have widely differed from what is related in this unofficial report. It tells of Jeanne's second recantation, and of this recantation there can be no question, for Jeanne received the communion before her death. The veracity of this document was never assailed,[7] even by those who during the rehabilitation trial pointed out its irregularity.[8]

[Footnote 6: Trial, vol. i, pp. 478 _et seq._]

[Footnote 7: Cf. J. Quicherat, Apercus nouveaux sur l'histoire de Jeanne d'Arc, Paris, 1880, pp. 138-144.]

[Footnote 8: Evidence of G. Manchon, Trial, vol. ii, p. 14.]

Secondly, the chroniclers of the period, both French and Burgundian, were paid chroniclers, one of whom was attached to every great baron. Tringant says that his master did not expend any money in order to obtain mention in the chronicles,[9] and that therefore he is omitted from them. The earliest chronicle in which the Maid occurs is that of Perceval de Cagny, who was in the service of the house of Alencon and Duke John's master of the house.[10] It was drawn up in the year 1436, that is, only six years after Jeanne's death. But it was not written by him. According to his own confession he had "not half the sense, memory, or ability necessary for putting this, or even a matter of less than half its importance, down in writing."[11] This chronicle is the work of a painstaking clerk. One is not surprised to find a chronicler in the pay of the house of Alencon representing the differences concerning the Maid, which arose between the Sire de la Tremouille and the Duke of Alencon, in a light most unfavourable to the King. But from a scribe, supposed to be writing at the dictation of a retainer of Duke John, one would have expected a less inaccurate and a less vague account of the feats of arms accomplished by the Maid in company with him whom she called her fair duke. Although this chronicle was written at a time when no one dreamed that the sentence of 1431 would ever be revoked, the Maid is regarded as employing supernatural means, and her acts are stripped of all verisimilitude by being recorded in the manner of a hagiography. Further, that portion of the chronicle attributed to Perceval de Cagny, which deals with the Maid, is brief, consisting of twenty-seven chapters of a few lines each. Quicherat is of opinion that it is the best chronicle of Jeanne d'Arc[12] existing, and the others may indeed be even more worthless.

[Footnote 9: _Ne donnoit point d'argent pour soy faire mettre es croniques._--Jean de Bueil, Le Jouvencel, ed. C. Fabre and L. Lecestre, Paris, 1887, 8vo, vol. ii, p. 283.]

[Footnote 10: Perceval de Cagny, Chroniques, published by H. Moranville, Paris, 1902, 8vo.]

[Footnote 11: Le sens, memoire, ne l'abillite de savoir faire metre par escript ce, ne autre chose mendre de plus de la moitie, Perceval de Cagny, p. 31.]

[Footnote 12: Trial, vol. iv, p. 1.]

Gilles le Bouvier,[13] king at arms of the province of Berry, who was forty-three in 1429, is somewhat more judicious than Perceval de Cagny; and, in spite of some confusion of dates, he is better informed of military proceedings. But his story is of too summary a nature to tell us much.

[Footnote 13: Ibid., pp. 40-50. D. Godefroy, Histoire de Charles VII, Paris, 1661, fol. pp. 369-474.]

Jean Chartier,[14] precentor of Saint-Denys, held the office of chronicler of France in 1449. Two hundred years later he would have been described as historiographer royal. His office may be divined from the manner in which he relates Jeanne's death. After having said that she had been long imprisoned by the order of John of Luxembourg, he adds: "The said Luxembourg sold her to the English, who took her to Rouen, where she was harshly treated; in so much that after long delay, they had her publicly burnt in that town of Rouen, without a trial, of their own tyrannical will, which was cruelly done, seeing the life and the rule she lived, for every week she confessed and received the body of Our Lord, as beseemeth a good catholic."[15] When Jean Chartier says that the English burned her without trial, he means apparently that the Bailie of Rouen did not pronounce sentence. Concerning the ecclesiastical trial and the two accusations of lapse and relapse he says not a word; and it is the English whom he accuses of having burnt a good Catholic without a trial. This example proves how seriously the condemnation of 1431 embarrassed the government of King Charles. But what can be thought of a historian who suppresses Jeanne's trial because he finds it inconvenient? Jean Chartier was extremely weak-minded and trivial; he seems to believe in the magic of Catherine's sword and in Jeanne's loss of power when she broke it;[16] he records the most puerile of fables. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that the official chronicler of the Kings of France, writing about 1450, ascribes to the Maid an important share in the delivery of Orleans, in the conquest of fortresses on the Loire and in the victory of Patay, that he relates how the King formed the army at Gien "by the counsel of the said maid,"[17] and that he expressly states that Jeanne caused[18] the coronation and consecration. Such was certainly the opinion which prevailed at the Court of Charles VII. All that we have to discover is whether that opinion was sincere and reasonable or whether the King of France may not have deemed it to his advantage to owe his kingdom to the Maid. She was held a heretic by the heads of the Church Universal, but in France her memory was honoured, rather, however, by the lower orders than by the princes of the blood and the leaders of the army. The services of the latter the King was not desirous to extol after the revolt of 1440. During this Praguerie,[19] the Duke of Bourbon, the Count of Vendome, the Duke of Alencon, whom the Maid called her fair duke, and even the cautious Count Dunois had been seen joining hands with the plunderers and making war on the sovereign with an ardour they had never shown in fighting against the English.