Chapter II: Introduction (1)

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.

[Footnote 14: Jean Chartier, _Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France_, ed. Vallet de Viriville, Paris, 1858, 3 vols., 18mo. (_Bibliotheque Elzevirienne_).]

[Footnote 15: _Lequel Luxembourg la vendit aux Angloix, qui la menerent a Rouen, ou elle fut durement traictee; et tellement que, apres grant dillacion de temps, sans procez, maiz de leur voulente indeue, la firent ardoir en icelle ville de Rouen publiquement ... qui fut bien inhumainement fait, veu la vie et gouvernement dont elle vivoit, car elle se confessoit et recepvoit par chacune sepmaine le corps de Nostre Seigneur, comme bonne catholique._--Jean Chartier, _Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France_, vol. i, p. 122.]

[Footnote 16: Jean Chartier, _Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France_, vol. i, p. 122.]

[Footnote 17: _Par l'admonestement de ladite Pucelle_, Jean Chartier, vol. i, p. 87.]

[Footnote 18: _Fut cause_, _ibid._, vol. i, p. 97.]

[Footnote 19: This revolt of the French nobles was so named because various risings of a similar nature had taken place in the city of Prague.--W.S.]

"Le Journal du Siege"[20] was doubtless kept in 1428 and 1429; but the edition that has come down to us dates from 1467.[21] What relates to Jeanne before her coming to Orleans is interpolated; and the interpolator was so unskilful as to date Jeanne's arrival at Chinon in the month of February, while it took place on March 6, and to assign Thursday, March 10, as the date of the departure from Blois, which did not occur until the end of April. The diary from April 28 to May 7 is less inaccurate in its chronology, and the errors in dates which do occur may be attributed to the copyist. But the facts to which these dates are assigned, occasionally in disagreement with financial records and often tinged with the miraculous, testify to an advanced stage of Jeanne's legend. For example, one cannot possibly attribute to a witness of the siege the error made by the scribe concerning the fall of the Bridge of Les Tourelles.[22] What is said on page 97 of P. Charpentier's and C. Cuissart's edition concerning the relations of the inhabitants and the men-at-arms seems out of place, and may very likely have been inserted there to efface the memory of the grave dissensions which had occurred during the last week. From the 8th of May the diary ceases to be a diary; it becomes a series of extracts borrowed from Chartier, from Berry, and from the rehabilitation trial. The episode of the big fat Englishman slain by Messire Jean de Montesclere at the Siege of Jargeau is obviously taken from the evidence of Jean d'Aulon in 1446; and even this plagiarism is inaccurate, since Jean d'Aulon expressly says he was slain at the Battle of Les Augustins.[23]

[Footnote 20: _Journal du siege d'Orleans_ (1428-1429), ed. P. Charpentier and C. Cuissart, Orleans, 1896, 8vo.]

[Footnote 21: The oldest copy extant is dated 1472 (MS. fr. 14665).]

[Footnote 22: _Journal du siege d'Orleans_ (1428-1429), p. 87. _Trial_, vol. iv, p. 162, note.]

[Footnote 23: _Journal du siege_, p. 97. _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 215.]

The chronicle entitled _La Chronique de la Pucelle_,[24] as if it were the chief chronicle of the heroine, is taken from a history entitled _Geste des nobles Francois_, going back as far as Priam of Troy. But the extract was not made until the original had been changed and added to. This was done after 1467. Even if it were proved that _La Chronique de la Pucelle_ is the work of Cousinot, shut up in Orleans during the siege, or even of two Cousinots, uncle and nephew according to some, father and son according to others, it would remain none the less true that this chronicle is largely copied from Jean Chartier, the _Journal du Siege_ and the rehabilitation trial. Whoever the author may have been, this work reflects no great credit upon him: no very high praise can be given to a fabricator of tales, who, without appearing in the slightest degree aware of the fact, tells the same stories twice over, introducing each time different and contradictory circumstances. _La Chronique de la Pucelle_ ends abruptly with the King's return to Berry after his defeat before Paris.

[Footnote 24: _Chronique de la Pucelle_, or _Chronique de Cousinot_, ed. Vallet de Viriville, Paris, 1859, 16mo. (_Bibliotheque Gauloise_).]

_Le Mystere du siege_[25] must be classed with the chronicles. It is in fact a rhymed chronicle in dialogue, and it would be extremely interesting for its antiquity alone were it possible to do what some have attempted and to assign to it the date 1435. The editors, and following them several scholars, have believed it possible to identify this poem of 20,529 lines with a _certain mistaire_[26] played on the sixth anniversary of the delivery of the city. They have drawn their conclusions from the following circumstances: the Marechal de Rais, who delighted to organise magnificent farces and mysteries, was in Duke Charles's city expending vast sums[27] there from September, 1434, till August, 1435; in 1439 the city purchased out of its municipal funds "a standard and a banner, which had belonged to Monseigneur de Reys and had been used by him to represent the manner of the storming of Les Tourelles and their capture from the English."[28] From such a statement it is impossible to prove that in 1435 or in 1439, on May 8, there was acted a play having the Siege for its subject and the Maid for its heroine. If, however, we take "the manner of the storming of Les Tourelles" to mean a mystery rather than a pageant or some other form of entertainment, and if we consider the _certain mistaire_ of 1435 as indicating a representation of that siege which had been laid and raised by the English, we shall thus arrive at a mystery of the siege. But even then we must examine whether it be that mystery the text of which has come down to us.

[Footnote 25: _Mystere du Siege d'Orleans_, first published by MM. F. Guessard and E. de Certain, Paris, 1862, 4to, according to the only manuscript, which is preserved in the Vatican Library.--_Cf._ _Etude sur le mystere du siege d'Orleans_, by H. Tivier, Paris, 1868, 8vo.]

[Footnote 26: _Trial_, vol. v, p. 309.]

[Footnote 27: The Abbe E. Bossard and de Maulde, _Gilles de Rais, Marechal de France, dit Barbe-Bleue_ (1404-1440), 2nd edition, Paris, 1886, 8vo, pp. 94-113.]

[Footnote 28: _Un estandart et banniere qui furent a Monseigneur de Reys pour faire la maniere de l'assault comment les Tourelles furent prinses sur les Anglois Mistere du siege_, p. viii.]

Among the one hundred and forty speaking personages in this work is the Marechal de Rais. Hence it has been concluded that the mystery was written and acted before the lawsuit ended by that sentence to which effect was given above the Nantes Bridge, on October 20, 1440. How, indeed, it has been asked, after so ignominious a death could the vampire of Machecoul have been represented to the people of Orleans as fighting for their deliverance? How could the Maid and Blue Beard be associated in a heroic action? It is hard to answer such a question, because we cannot possibly tell how much of that kind of thing could be tolerated by the barbarism of those rude old times. Perhaps our text itself, if properly examined, will be found to contain internal evidence as to whether it is of an earlier or later date than 1440.

The bastard of Orleans was created Count of Dunois on July 14, 1439.[29] The lines of the mystery, in which he is called by this title, cannot therefore be anterior to that date. They are numerous, and, by a singularity which has never been explained, are all in the first third of the book. When Dunois reappears later he is the Bastard again. From this fact the editors of 1862 concluded that five thousand lines were prefixed to the primitive text subsequently, although they in no way differ from the rest, either in language, style, or prosody. But may the rest of the poem be assigned to 1435 or 1439?

[Footnote 29: _Mistere du siege_, preface, p. x.]

That is not my opinion. In the lines 12093 and 12094 the Maid tells Talbot he will die by the hand of the King's men. This prophecy must have been made after the event: it is an obvious allusion to the noble captain's end, and these lines must have been written after 1453.

Six years after the siege no clerk of Orleans would have thought of travestying Jeanne as a lady of noble birth.

In line 10199 and the following of the "_Mistere du Siege_" the Maid replies to the first President of the Parlement of Poitiers when he questions her concerning her family:

"As for my father's mansion, it is in the Bar country; and
he is of gentle birth and rank right noble, a good Frenchman
and a loyal."[30]

[Footnote 30:

Quant est de l'ostel de mon pere,
Il est en pays de Barois;
Gentilhomme et de noble afaire
Honneste et loyal Francois.

_Mistere du siege_, pp. 397-398.]

Before a clerk would write thus, Jeanne's family must have been long ennobled and the first generation must have died out, which happened in 1469; there must have come into existence that numerous family of the Du Lys, whose ridiculous pretensions had to be humoured. Not content with deriving their descent from their aunt, the Du Lys insisted on connecting the good peasant Jacquot d'Arc with the old nobility of Bar.

Notwithstanding that Jeanne's reference to "her father's mansion" conflicts with other scenes in the same mystery, this lengthy work would appear to be all of a piece.

It was apparently compiled during the reign of Louis XI, by a citizen of Orleans who was a fair master of his subject. It would be interesting to make a more detailed study of his authorities than has been done hitherto. This poet seems to have known a _Journal du siege_ very different from the one we possess.

Was his mystery acted during the last thirty years of the century at the festival instituted to commemorate the taking of Les Tourelles? The subject, the style, and the spirit are all in harmony with such an occasion. But it is curious that a poem composed to celebrate the deliverance of Orleans on May 8 should assign that deliverance to May 9. And yet this is what the author of the mystery does when he puts the following lines into the mouth of the Maid:

"Remember how Orleans was delivered in the year one thousand
four hundred and twenty-nine, and forget not also that of
May it was the ninth day."[31]

[Footnote 31:

... Ayez en souvenance....
Comment Orleans eult delivrance....
L'an mil iiijc xxix;
Faites en memoire tous dis;
Des jours de may ce fut le neuf.

_Mistere du siege_, lines 14375-14381, p. 559.]

Such are the chief chroniclers on the French side who have written of the Maid. Others who came later or who have only dealt with certain episodes in her life, need not be quoted here; their testimony will be best examined when we come to that of the facts in detail. Placing on one side any information to be obtained from _La Chronique de l'etablissement de la fete_,[32] from _La Relation_[33] of the Clerk of La Rochelle and other contemporary documents, we are now in a position to realise that if we depended on the French chroniclers for our knowledge of Jeanne d'Arc we should know just as much about her as we know of Sakya Muni.

[Footnote 32: _Trial_, vol. v, pp. 285 _et seq._]

[Footnote 33: _Relation inedite sur Jeanne d'Arc, extraite du livre noir de l'hotel de ville de La Rochelle_, ed. J. Quicherat, Orleans, 1879, 8vo, and _La Revue Historique_, vol. iv, 1877, pp. 329-344.]

We shall certainly not find her explained by the Burgundian chroniclers. They, however, furnish certain useful information. The earliest of these Burgundian chroniclers is a clerk of Picardy, the author of an anonymous chronicle, called _La Chronique des Cordeliers_,[34] because the only copy of it comes from a house of the Cordeliers at Paris. It is a history of the world from the creation to the year 1431. M. Pierre Champion[35] has proved that Monstrelet made use of it. This clerk of Picardy knew divers matters, and was acquainted with sundry state documents. But facts and dates he curiously confuses. His knowledge of the Maid's military career is derived from a French and a popular source. A certain credence has been attached to his story of the leap from Beaurevoir; but his account if accurate destroys the idea that Jeanne threw herself from the top of the keep in a fit of frenzy or despair.[36] And it does not agree with what Jeanne said herself.

[Footnote 34: Bibl. Nat. fr. 23018: J. Quicherat, _Supplement aux temoignages contemporains sur Jeanne d'Arc_, in _Revue Historique_, vol. xix, May-June, 1882, pp. 72-83.]

[Footnote 35: Pierre Champion, _Guillaume de Flavy_, Paris, 1906, in 8vo, pp. xi, xii.]

[Footnote 36: _Chronique d'Antonio Morosini_, introduction and commentary by Germain Lefevre-Pontalis, text established by Leon Dorez, vol. iii, 1901, p. 302, and vol. iv, supplement xxi.]

Monstrelet,[37] "more drivelling at the mouth than a mustard-pot,"[38] is a fountain of wisdom in comparison with Jean Chartier. When he makes use of _La Chronique des Cordeliers_ he rearranges it and presents its facts in order. What he knew of Jeanne amounts to very little. He believed that she was an inn servant. He has but a word to say of her indecision at Montepilloy, but that word, to be found nowhere else, is extremely significant. He saw her in the camp at Compiegne; but unfortunately he either did not realise or did not wish to say what impression she made upon him.

[Footnote 37: Enguerrand de Monstrelet, _Chronique_, ed. Doueet-d'Arcq, Paris, 1857-1861, 6 vols. in 8vo.]

[Footnote 38: Rabelais, Urquhart's Trans., ii-49, in Bohn's edition, 1849 (W.S.). _Plus baveux que ung pot de moutarde._--Rabelais, _Pantagruel_, bk. iii, chap. xxiv.]

Wavrin du Forestel,[39] who edited additions to Froissart, Monstrelet, and Mathieu d'Escouchy, was at Patay; he never saw Jeanne there. He knows her only by hearsay and that but vaguely. We do not therefore attach great importance to what he relates concerning Robert de Baudricourt, who, according to him, indoctrinated the Maid and taught her how to appear "inspired by Divine Providence."[40] On the other hand, he gives valuable information concerning the war immediately after the deliverance of Orleans.

[Footnote 39: Jehan de Wavrin, _Anchiennes croniques d'Engleterre_, ed. Mademoiselle Dupont, Paris, 1858-1863, 3 vols., 8vo.]

[Footnote 40: Wavrin's additions to Monstrelet in _Trial_, vol. iv, p. 407.]

Le Fevre de Saint-Remy, Counsellor to the Duke of Burgundy and King-at-arms of the Golden Fleece,[41] was possibly at Compiegne when Jeanne was taken; and he speaks of her as a brave girl.

[Footnote 41: _Chronique de Jean le Fevre, seigneur de Saint-Remy_, ed. Francois Morand, Paris, 1876-1881, 2 vols. in 8vo.]

Georges Chastellain copies Le Fevre de Saint Remy.[42]

[Footnote 42: _Chroniques des ducs de Bourgogne_, Paris, 1827, 2 vols. in 8vo; vols. xlii and xliii of the _Collection des Chroniques francaises_, by Buchon. _Oeuvres de Georges Chastellain_, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, Brussels, 1863, 8 vols. in 8vo.]

The author of _Le Journal_ ascribed to _un Bourgeois de Paris_,[43] whom we identify as a Cabochien clerk, had only heard Jeanne spoken of by the doctors and masters of the University of Paris. Moreover he was very ill-informed, which is regrettable. For the man stands alone in his day for energy of feeling and language, for passion of wrath and of pity, and for intense sympathy with the people.

[Footnote 43: _Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris_ (1405-1449), ed. A. Tuetey, Paris, 1881, in 8vo.]

I must mention a document which is neither French nor Burgundian, but Italian. I refer to the _Chronique d'Antonio Morosini_, published and annotated with admirable erudition by M. Germain Lefevre-Pontalis. This chronicle, or to be more precise, the letters it contains, are very valuable to the historian, but not on account of the veracity of the deeds here attributed to the Maid, which on the contrary are all imaginary and fabulous. In the _Chronique de Morosini_,[44] every single fact concerning Jeanne is presented in a wrong character and in a false light. And yet Morosini's correspondents are men of business, thoughtful, subtle Venetians. These letters reveal how there were being circulated throughout Christendom a whole multitude of fictitious stories, imitated some from the Romances of Chivalry, others from the Golden Legend, concerning that _Demoiselle_ as she is called, at once famous and unknown.

[Footnote 44: _Chronique d'Antonio Morosini_, ed. Leon Dorez and Germain Lefevre-Pontalis, Paris, 1900-1902, 4 vols. in 8vo.]

Another document, the diary of a German merchant, one Eberhard de Windecke,[45] a conscientious and clever edition of which has also been published by M. Germain Lefevre-Pontalis, presents the same phenomenon. Nothing here related of the Maid is even probable. As soon as she appears a whole cycle of popular stories grow up round her name. Eberhard obviously delights to relate them. Thus we learn from these good foreign merchants that at no period of her existence was Jeanne known otherwise than by fables, and that if she moved multitudes it was by the spreading abroad of countless legends which sprang up wherever she passed and made way before her. And indeed, there is much food for thought in that dazzling obscurity, which from the very first enwrapped the Maid, in those radiant clouds of myth, which, while concealing her, rendered her all the more imposing.

[Footnote 45: G. Lefevre-Pontalis, _Les sources allemandes de l'histoire de Jeanne d'Arc_, Eberhard Windecke, Paris, 1903, in 8vo.]

Thirdly, with its memoranda, its consultations, and its one hundred and forty depositions, furnished by one hundred and twenty-three deponents, the rehabilitation trial forms a very valuable collection of documents.[46] M. Lanery d'Arc has done well to publish in their entirety the memoranda of the doctors as well as the treatise of the Archbishop of Embrun, the propositions of Master Heinrich von Gorcum and the _Sibylla Francica_.[47] From the trial of 1431 we learn what theologians on the English side thought of the Maid. But were it not for the consultations of Theodore de Leliis and of Paul Pontanus and the opinions included in the later trial we should not know how she was regarded by the doctors of Italy and France. It is important to ascertain what were the views held by the whole Church concerning a damsel condemned during her lifetime, when the English were in power, and rehabilitated after her death when the French were victorious.

[Footnote 46: _Trial_, vols. ii to iii, 1844-1845 (vols. v and vi, 1846-1847, contain the evidence).]

[Footnote 47: Lanery d'Arc, _Memoires et consultations en faveur de Jeanne d'Arc_, 1889, in 8vo. _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 411-468.]

Doubtless many matters were elucidated by the one hundred and twenty-three witnesses heard at Domremy, at Vaucouleurs, at Toul, at Orleans, at Paris, at Rouen, at Lyon, witnesses drawn from all ranks of life--churchmen, princes, captains, burghers, peasants, artisans. But we are bound to admit that they come far short of satisfying our curiosity, and for several reasons. First, because they replied to a list of questions drawn up with the object of establishing a certain number of facts within the scope of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Holy Inquisitor who conducted the trial was curious, but his curiosity was not ours. This is the first reason for the insufficiency of the evidence from our point of view.[48]

[Footnote 48: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 378-463.]

But there are other reasons. Most of the witnesses appear excessively simple and lacking in discernment. In so large a number of men of all ages and of all ranks it is sad to find how few were equipped with lucid and judicial minds. It would seem as if the human intellect of those days was enwrapped in twilight and incapable of seeing anything distinctly. Thought as well as speech was curiously puerile. Only a slight acquaintance with this dark age is enough to make one feel as if among children. Want and ignorance and wars interminable had impoverished the mind of man and starved his moral nature. The scanty, slashed, ridiculous garments of the nobles and the wealthy betray an absurd poverty of taste and weakness of intellect.[49] One of the most striking characteristics of these small minds is their triviality; they are incapable of attention; they retain nothing. No one who reads the writings of the period can fail to be struck by this almost universal weakness.

[Footnote 49: J. Quicherat, _Histoire du costume_, Paris, 1875, large 8vo, _passim_. G. Demay, _Le costume au moyen age d'apres les sceaux_, Paris, 1880, p. 121, figs. 76 and 77.]

By no means all the evidence given in these one hundred and forty depositions can be treated seriously. The daughter of Jacques Boucher, steward to the Duke of Orleans, depones in the following terms: "At night I slept alone with Jeanne. Neither in her words or her acts did I ever observe anything wrong. She was perfectly simple, humble, and chaste."[50]

[Footnote 50: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 34.]

This young lady was nine years old when she perceived with a discernment somewhat precocious that her sleeping companion was simple, humble, and chaste.

That is unimportant. But to show how one may sometimes be deceived by the witnesses whom one would expect to be the most reliable, I will quote Brother Pasquerel.[51] Brother Pasquerel is Jeanne's chaplain. He may be expected to speak as one who has seen and as one who knows. Brother Pasquerel places the examination at Poitiers before the audience granted by the King to the Maid in the chateau of Chinon.[52]

[Footnote 51: _Ibid._, p. 100.]

[Footnote 52: We must notice, however, that Brother Pasquerel, who was not present either at Chinon or at Poitiers, is careful to say that he knows nothing of Jeanne's sojourn in these two towns save what she herself has told him. Now we are surprised to find that she herself placed the examination at Poitiers before the audience at Chinon, since she says in her trial that at Chinon, when she gave her King a sign, the clerks ceased to contend with her.--_Trial_, vol. i, p. 145.]

Forgetting that the whole relieving army had been in Orleans since May 4, he supposes that, on the evening of Friday the 6th, it was still expected.[53] From such blunders we may judge of the muddled condition of this poor priest's brain. His most serious shortcoming, however, is the invention of miracles. He tries to make out that when the convoy of victuals reached Orleans, there occurred, by the Maid's special intervention, and in order to carry the barges up the river, a sudden flood of the Loire which no one but himself saw.[54]

[Footnote 53: _Expectando succursum regis_, _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 109.]

[Footnote 54: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 105.]

The evidence of Dunois[55] is also somewhat deceptive. We know that Dunois was one of the most intelligent and prudent men of his day, and that he was considered a good speaker. In the defence of Orleans and in the coronation campaign he had displayed considerable ability. Either his evidence must have seriously suffered at the hands of the translator and the scribes, or he must have caused it to be given by his chaplain. He speaks of the "great number of the enemy" in terms more appropriate to a canon of a cathedral or a woollen draper than to a captain entrusted with the defence of a city and expected to know the actual force of the besiegers. All his evidence dealing with the transport of victuals on April 28 is well-nigh unintelligible. And Dunois is unable to state that Troyes was the first stage in the army's march from Gien.[56] Relating a conversation he held with the Maid after the coronation, he makes her speak as if her brothers were awaiting her at Domremy, whereas they were with her in France.[57] Curiously blundering, he attempts to prove that Jeanne had visions by relating a story much more calculated to give the impression that the young peasant girl was an apt feigner and that at the request of the nobles she reproduced one of her ecstasies, like the Esther of the lamented Doctor Luys.[58]

[Footnote 55: _Ibid._, pp. 2 _et seq._]

[Footnote 56: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 13.]

[Footnote 57: _Ibid._, p. 15.]

[Footnote 58: _Ibid._, p. 12.]

In that portion of this work which deals with the rehabilitation trial I have given my opinion of the evidence of the clerks of the court, of the usher Massieu, of the Brothers Isambard de la Pierre and Martin Ladvenu.[59] All these burners of witches and avengers of God worked as heartily at Jeanne's rehabilitation as they had at her condemnation.

[Footnote 59: _Ibid._, vol. ii, pp. 15, 161, 329; vol. iii, pp. 41 and _passim_.]

In many cases and often on events of importance, the evidence of witnesses is in direct conflict with the truth. A woollen draper of Orleans, one Jean Luillier, comes before the commissioners and as bold as brass maintains that the garrison could not hold out against so great a besieging force.[60] Now this statement is proved to be false by the most authentic documents, which show that the English round Orleans were very weak and that their resources were greatly reduced.[61]

[Footnote 60: _Ibid._, vol. iii, p. 23.]

[Footnote 61: L. Jarry, _Le compte de l'armee anglaise au siege d'Orleans_ (1428-1429), Orleans, 1892, in 8vo.]

When the evidence given at the second trial has obviously been dressed up to suit the occasion, or even when it is absolutely contrary to the truth, we must blame not only those who gave it, but those who received it. In its elicitation the latter were too artful. This evidence has about as much value as the evidence in a trial by the Inquisition. In certain matters it may represent the ideas of the judges as much as those of the witnesses.

What the judges in this instance were most desirous to establish was that Jeanne had not understood when she was spoken to of the Church and the Pope, that she had refused to obey the Church Militant because she believed the Church Militant to be Messire Cauchon and his assessors. In short, it was necessary to represent her as almost an imbecile. In ecclesiastical procedure this expedient was frequently adopted. And there was yet another reason, a very strong one, for passing her off as an innocent, a damsel devoid of intelligence. This second trial, like the first, had been instituted with a political motive; its object was to make known that Jeanne had come to the aid of the King of France not by devilish incitement, but by celestial inspiration. Consequently in order that divine wisdom might be made manifest in her she must be shown to have had no wisdom of her own. On this string the examiners were constantly harping. On every occasion they drew from the witnesses the statement that she was simple, very simple. _Una simplex bergereta_,[62] says one. _Erat multum simplex et ignorans_,[63] says another.

[Footnote 62: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 20.]

[Footnote 63: _Ibid._, p. 87.]

But since, despite her ignorance, this innocent damsel had been sent of God to deliver or to capture towns and to lead men at arms, there must needs be innate in her a knowledge of the art of war, and in battle she must needs manifest the strength and the counsel she had received from above. Wherefore it was necessary to obtain evidence to establish that she was more skilled in warfare than any man.

Damoiselle Marguerite la Touroulde makes this affirmation.[64] The Duke of Alencon declares that the Maid was apt alike at wielding the lance, ranging an army, ordering a battle, preparing artillery, and that old captains marvelled at her skill in placing cannon.[65] The Duke quite understands that all these gifts were miraculous and that to God alone was the glory. For if the merit of the victories had been Jeanne's he would not have said so much about them.

[Footnote 64: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 85.]

[Footnote 65: _Ibid._, p. 100. On the other hand see the evidence of Dunois (vol. iii, p. 16), "licet dicta Johanna aliquotiens _jocose_ loqueretur de facto armorum, pro animando armatos ... tamen quando loquebatur seriose de guerra ... nunquam affirmative asserebat nisi quod erat missa ad levandum obsidionem Aurelianensem."]

And if God had chosen the Maid to perform so great a task, it must have been because in her he beheld the virtue which he preferred above all others in his virgins. Henceforth it sufficed not for her to have been chaste; her chastity must become miraculous, her chastity and her moderation in eating and drinking must be exalted into sanctity. Wherefore the witnesses are never tired of stating: _Erat casta, erat castissima. Ille loquens non credit aliquam mulierem plus esse castam quam ista Puella erat. Erat sobria in potu et cibo. Erat sobria in cibo et potu._[66]

[Footnote 66: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 438, 457; vol. iii, pp. 100, 219.]

The heavenly source of such purity must needs have been made manifest by Jeanne's possessing singular immunities. And on this point there is a mass of evidence. Rough men at arms, Jean de Novelompont, Bertrand de Poulengy, Jean d'Aulon; great nobles, the Count of Dunois and the Duke of Alencon, come forward and affirm on oath that in them Jeanne never provoked any carnal desires. Such a circumstance fills these old captains with astonishment; they boast of their past vigour and wonder that for once their youthful ardour should have been damped by a maid. It seems to them most unnatural and humanly impossible. Their description of the effect Jeanne produced upon them recalls Saint Martha's binding of the Tarascon beast. Dunois in his evidence is very much occupied with miracles. He points to this one as, to human reason, the most incomprehensible of all. If he neither desired nor solicited this damsel, of this unique fact he can find but one explanation, it is that Jeanne was holy, _res divina_. When Jean de Novelompont and Bertrand de Poulengy describe their sudden continence, they employ identical forms of speech, affected and involved. And then there comes a king's equerry, Gobert Thibaut, who declares that in the army there was much talk of this divine grace, vouchsafed to the Armagnacs[67] and denied to English and Burgundians, at least, so the behaviour of a certain knight of Picardy, and of one Jeannotin, a tailor of Rouen, would lead us to believe.[68]

[Footnote 67: _Trial_, vol. ii, p. 438; vol. iii, pp. 15, 76, 100, 219, and 457.]

[Footnote 68: _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 89 and 121.]

Such evidence obviously answers to the ideas of the judges, and turns, so to speak, on theological rather than on natural facts.

In inquisitorial inquiries there abound such depositions as those of Jean de Novelompont and of Bertrand de Poulengy, containing passages drawn up in identical terms. But I must admit that in the rehabilitation trial they are rare, partly because the witnesses were heard at long intervals of time and in different countries, and partly because in the Maid's case no elaborate proceedings were necessary owing to her adversaries not being represented.

It is to be regretted that all the evidence given at this trial, with the exception of that of Jean d'Aulon, should have been translated into Latin. This process has obscured fine shades of thought and deprived the evidence of its original flavour.

Sometimes the clerk contents himself with saying that the depositions of a witness were like those of his predecessor. Thus on the raising of the siege of Orleans all the burgesses depone like the woollen draper, who himself was not thoroughly conversant with the circumstances in which his town had been delivered. Thus the Sire de Gaucourt, after a brief declaration, gives the same evidence as Dunois, although the Count had related matters so strikingly individual that it seems strange they should have been common to two witnesses.[69]

[Footnote 69: _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 2 and 35.]

Certain evidence would appear to have been cut short. Brother Pasquerel's abruptly comes to an end at Paris. This circumstance, if we did not possess his signature at the conclusion of the Latin letter to the Hussites, would lead us to believe that the good Brother left the Maid immediately after the attack on La Porte Saint-Honore. It surely cannot have chanced that in so long a series of questions and answers not one word was said of the departure from Sully or of the campaign which began at Lagny and ended at Compiegne.[70]

[Footnote 70: _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 100 _et seq._]

We conclude, therefore, that in the study of this voluminous evidence we must exercise great judgment and that we must not expect it to enlighten us on all the circumstances of Jeanne's life.

Fourthly. On certain points of the Maid's history the only exact information is to be obtained from account-books, letters, deeds, and other authentic documents of the period. The records published by Simeon Luce and the lease of the Chateau de l'Ile inform us of the circumstances among which Jeanne grew up.[71] Neither the two trials nor the chronicles had revealed the terrible conditions prevailing in the village of Domremy from 1412 to 1425.

[Footnote 71: Simeon Luce, _Jeanne d'Arc a Domremy, recherches critiques sur les origines de la mission de la Pucelle_, Paris, 1886, in 8vo; _La France pendant la guerre de cent ans: episodes historiques et vie privee aux xiv'e et xv'e siecles_, Paris, 1890, in 12mo.]

The fortress accounts kept at Orleans[72] and the documents of the English administration[73] enable us to estimate approximately the respective forces of defenders and besiegers of the city. On this point also they enable us to correct the statements of chroniclers and witnesses in the rehabilitation trial.

[Footnote 72: D. Lottin, _Recherches sur la ville d'Orleans_, Orleans, 7 vols. in 8vo; Boucher de Molandon, _Les comptes de ville d'Orleans des xiv'e et xv'e siecles_, 1880, in 8vo; Jules Loiseleur, _Compte des depenses faites par Charles VII pour secourir Orleans pendant le siege de 1428_, Orleans, 1868, in 8vo; Louis Jarry, _Le compte de l'armee anglaise au siege d'Orleans_, Orleans, 1892, in 8vo; Couret, _Un fragment inedit des anciens registres de la prevote d'Orleans, relatif au reglement des frais du siege de 1428-1429_, Orleans, 1697, in 8vo (extract from the _Memoires de l'Academie de Sainte Croix_).]

[Footnote 73: Rymer, _Foedera, conventiones...._, ed. tercia, Hagae Comitis, 1739-1745, 10 vols. in folio; Delpit, _Collection de documents francais qui se trouvent en Angleterre_, Paris, 1847, in 4to; J. Stevenson, _Letters and Papers illustrative of the Wars of the English in France during the reign of Henry VI_, 1861-1864, 3 parts, in 2 vols. in 8vo; Charles Gross, _The Sources and Literature of English History_, 1900, in 8vo.]

From the letters in the archives at Reims, copied by Rogier in the seventeenth century, we learn how Troyes, Chalons, and Reims surrendered to the King. From these letters also we see how very far from accurate is Jean Chartier's account of the capitulation of the city and how insufficient, especially considering the character of the witness, is the evidence of Dunois on this subject.[74]

[Footnote 74: Varin, _Archives legislatives de la ville de Reims_, 2nd part; _Statuts_, vol. i, p. 596; _Trial_, vol. iv, pp. 284 _et seq._]

Four or five records throw a faint light here and there on the obscurity which shrouds the unfortunate campaign on the Aisne and the Oise.

The registers of the chapter of Rouen, the wills of canons and sundry other documents, discovered by M. Robillard de Beaurepaire in the archives of Seine-Inferieure, serve to correct certain errors in the two trials.[75]

[Footnote 75: E. Robillard de Beaurepaire, _Recherches sur le proces de condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc_, Rouen, 1869, in 8vo [_Precis des travaux de l'Academie de Rouen, 1867-1868_, pp. 321-448]; _Notes sur les juges et les assesseurs du proces de condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc_, Rouen, 1890, in 8vo [_Precis des travaux de l'Academie de Rouen, 1888-1889_, pp. 375-504].]

How many other detached papers, all valuable to the historian, might I not enumerate! Surely this is another reason for mistrusting records false or falsified, as, for example, the patent of nobility of Guy de Cailly.[76]

[Footnote 76: _Trial_, vol. v, pp. 342 _et seq._]

Rapid as this examination of authorities has been, I think nothing essential has been omitted. To sum up, even in her lifetime the Maid was scarce known save by fables. Her oldest chroniclers were devoid of any critical sense, for the early legends concerning her they relate as facts.

The Rouen trial, certain accounts, a few letters, sundry deeds, public and private, are the most trustworthy documents. The rehabilitation trial is also useful to the historian, provided always that we remember how and why that trial was conducted.

By means of such records we may attain to a pretty accurate knowledge of Jeanne d'Arc's life and character.

The salient fact which results from a study of all these authorities is that she was a saint. She was a saint with all the attributes of fifteenth-century sanctity. She had visions, and these visions were neither feigned nor counterfeited. She really believed that she heard the voices which spoke to her and came from no human lips. These voices generally addressed her clearly and in words she could understand. She heard them best in the woods and when the bells were ringing. She saw forms, she said, like myriads of tiny shapes, like sparks on a dazzling background. There is no doubt she had visions of another nature, since she tells us how she beheld Saint Michael in the guise of a _prud'homme_, that is as a good knight, and Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret, wearing crowns. She saw them saluting her; she kissed their feet and inhaled their sweet perfume.

What does this mean if not that she was subject to hallucinations of hearing, sight, touch, and smell? But the most strongly affected of her senses was her hearing. She says that her voices appear to her; she sometimes calls them her council. She hears them very plainly unless there is a noise around her. Generally she obeys them; but sometimes she resists. We may doubt whether her visions were really so distinct as she makes out. Because she either could not, or would not, she never gave her judges at Rouen any very clear or precise description of them. The angel she described most in detail was the one which brought the crown, and which she afterwards confessed to have seen only in imagination.

At what age did she become subject to these trances? We cannot say exactly. But it was probably towards the end of her childhood, notwithstanding that according to Jean d'Aulon, childhood was a state out of which she never completely developed.[77]

[Footnote 77: _Trial_, vol. iii, p. 19.]

Although it is always hazardous to found a medical diagnosis on documents purely historical, several men of science have attempted to define the pathological conditions which rendered the young girl subject to false perceptions of sight and hearing.[78] Owing to the rapid strides made by psychiatry during recent years, I have consulted an eminent man of science, who is thoroughly conversant with the present stage attained by this branch of pathology, to which he has himself rendered important service. I asked Doctor Georges Dumas, Professor at the Sorbonne, whether sufficient material exists for science to make a retrospective diagnosis of Jeanne's case. He replied to my inquiry in a letter which appears as the first Appendix to this work.[79]

[Footnote 78: Briere de Boismont, _De l'hallucination historique, ou etude medico-psychique sur les voix et les revelations de Jeanne d'Arc_, 1861, in 8vo. Le Vicomte de Mouchy, _Jeanne d'Arc, etude historique et psychologique_, Montpellier, 1868, in 8vo, 67 pp.]

[Footnote 79: Vol. ii, Appendix i.]

With such a subject I am not qualified to deal. But it does lie within my province to make an observation concerning the hallucinations of Jeanne d'Arc, which has been suggested to me by a study of the documents. This observation is of infinite significance. I shall be careful to restrict it to the limits prescribed by the object and the nature of this work.

Those visionaries, who believe they are entrusted with a divine mission, are distinguished by certain characteristics from other inspired persons. When mystics of this class are studied and compared with one another, resemblances are found to exist which may extend to very slight details: certain of their words and acts are identical. Indeed as we come to recognise how vigorous is the determinism controlling the actions of these visionaries, we are astonished to find the human machine, when impelled by the same mysterious agent, performing its functions with inevitable uniformity. To this group of the religious Jeanne belongs. In this connection it is interesting to compare her with Saint Catherine of Sienna,[80] Saint Colette of Corbie,[81] Yves Nicolazic, the peasant of Kernanna,[82] Suzette Labrousse, the inspired woman of the Revolution Church,[83] and with many other seers and seeresses of this order, who all bear a family likeness to one another.

[Footnote 80: _Acta Sanctorum_, 1675, April, iii, 851.]

[Footnote 81: _Ibid._, March 1, 1532.]

[Footnote 82: Le Pere Hugues de Saint-Francois, _Les grandeurs de Sainte Anne_, Rennes, 1657, in 8vo; L'abbe Max Nicol, _Sainte-Anne-d'Auray_, Paris, Brussels, s.d., in 8vo, pp. 37 _et seq._ M. le Docteur G. de Closmadeuc has kindly lent me his valuable work, as yet unpublished, on Yves Nicolazic, which is characterised by the same exactness of information and of criticism as are to be found in his studies of local history.]

[Footnote 83: _Recueil des ouvrages de la celebre Mademoiselle Labrousse, du Bourg de Vauxains, en Perigord, canton de Ribeirac de la Dordogne, actuellement prisonniere au chateau Saint-Ange, a Rome_, Bordeaux, 1797, in 8vo; E. Lairtullier, _Les femmes celebres de 1789 a 1795_, Paris, 1842, in 8vo, vol. i, pp. 212 _et seq._; Abbe Chr. Moreau, _Une mystique revolutionnaire Suzette Labrousse_, Paris, 1886, in 8vo; A. France, _Susette Labrousse_, Paris, 1907, in 12mo.]

Three visionaries especially are closely related to Jeanne. The earliest in date is a vavasour of Champagne, who had a mission to speak to King John; of this holy man I have written sufficiently in the present work. The second is a farrier of Salon, who had a mission to speak to Louis XIV; the third, a peasant of Gallardon, named Martin, who had a mission to speak to Louis XVIII. Articles on the farrier and the farmer, who both saw apparitions and showed signs to their respective kings, will be found in the appendices at the end of this work.[84] In spite of difference in sex, the points of similarity between Jeanne d'Arc and these three men are very close and very significant; they are inherent in the very nature of Jeanne and her fellow visionaries; and the variations, which at a first glance might seem to separate widely the latter from Jeanne, are aesthetic, social, historical, and consequently external and contingent. Between them and her there are of course striking contrasts in appearance and in fortune. They were entirely wanting in that charm which she never failed to exercise; and it is a fact that while they failed miserably she grew in strength and flowered in legend. But it is the duty of the scientific mind to recognise common characteristics, proving identity of origin alike in the noblest individual and in the most wretched abortion of the same species.