Does this mean to say that henceforth everything is clear in the case of Joan of Arc? No: everything is not clear, and the historian owes it to himself to be the first to recognize the fact. Among the events which he expounds are some for which no rational explanation is forthcoming, and the conscientious historian stops short at that point. His part consists in recounting the facts, in sorting the true from the false in the material set before him, in retracing the course of events and the careers of the people concerned in so far as reliable documents enable him to do so; the rest is conjecture, and in that field the historian is no better qualified, on the whole, than his readers.
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. The desire to explain them is all the keener and everyone proceeds to do so, each putting forward his own explanation. Nothing, one might think, could be fairer than that. Joan herself had her own explanation of the events in which she was the protagonist: “All that I have done I have done at the Lord’s commandment . . . I am come from God . . . But for the grace of God I could do nothing. . . . I have told you often enough that I have done nothing but by God’s commandment . . . etc.” 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.
So that we cannot but consider the attempts at an explanation which have been offered down the centuries, concerning Joan’s history, to be perfectly in order. These explanations are of all sorts, and every reader is at liberty to add his own or to choose among those offered to him.
There are some, however, which appear a little too simple for our taste: when, for example, Mr. and Mrs. Butterfield tell us without a smile that Joan had tuberculosis of the brain from drinking cow’s milk, and that that explains everything, the only conclusion we can possibly come to is that measures should promptly be taken to prohibit pasteurisation of milk: for clearly the risk of tuberculosis of the brain, since it is capable of producing such beneficent results for the nation, would be well worth running.
Happily, there are some explanations which are at least more logical; when the American historian Francis Leary (see The Golden Longing, New York, 1959) proposes to explain Joan’s history by reference to spiritualism, his explanation must, no doubt, be perfectly convincing to those who share his belief in spiritualism, especially since the author gives first of all a perfectly fair account of the facts in Joan’s life.
For that is the important point, and the one where too many writers on the subject fall down: in their anxiety to present an explanation of the events which constitute Joan’s history, they manipulate history. This is an inadmissible proceeding. The interpretation of events and personalities is a matter of personal conscience; but the facts, the historical facts, are a matter of documents, of proofs received and checked by the historical method; individual fancies have nothing whatever to do with the matter. And that is why we consider that some of the explanations offered must be set aside to start with; they are based on ignorance of the historical facts. The Burgundian chronicler who makes Joan a serving wench at an inn, was in error: it is proved that she was nothing of the sort. When, in the sixteenth century, Girard du Haillan makes her a prostitute, he was in error. And so are they in error who imagine that Joan was able to escape from the stake and reappear in the guise of the adventuress Claude des Armoises. As for the hypothesis of bastardy, it is proved that this is without foundation; moreover, one cannot help wondering how it is supposed to “explain” her career; for, after all, the fact of being a bastard does not necessarily enable one to win battles. By and large, it has been this desire to explain that has muddled the data and complicated the story. Yet that story is one of the best-established in history. The text of the two trials, and the public and private papers which confirm the conclusions from those texts, make Joan one of the best-documented people in history, one of those about whom we are really well-informed. And to reject a conclusion established by historical method is about as sensible as casting doubt on an algebraical formula: it cannot be done without arguments, that is to say without documents duly established and unquestionable.
But, we repeat, the question becomes one of distinguishing between the fact and its explanation. To establish the progression of factual events is the historian’s work; and one can no more improvise oneself as an historian than as a nuclear scientist. But as to the interpretation of the fact, once properly established, that is a personal matter and each of us, historian or not, is at liberty to draw his own conclusion.
Once this distinction has been made, it is much easier to understand why historians of every persuasion, clerical or anti-clerical, communist or monarchist, are in complete agreement as to the actual events of Joan’s history: those events have been recounted in the same way by Michelet, anti-clerical; by Quicherat, scholar and likewise anti-clerical; by the Catholic canon, P. H. Dunand; by Charles Peguy, socialist both before and after his conversion; and in our own time by Edith Thomas, communist; and by P. Doncoeur, Jesuit. There is, in fact, one trait in common among all these writers: they are professional historians. And it would not even have occurred to any of them to deny the historical facts.
On the other hand, the very numerous works which, in our own time and in the past, have maintained the theory of bastardy, also have one trait in common: not one of their authors is an historian. And one cannot prevent oneself from finding their way of reading and understanding history somewhat suspect when one notices that all of them claim to found their case on “new” or “newly discovered” documents, and that the said documents turn out to be invariably and eternally the same old ones. The marriage contract of Robert des Armoises, for example; or, worse if anything, “documents” which turn out to be non-existent, like the one which lists the four hundred witches to be burned at the time of Joan’s execution.
History has nothing in common with such fancies, and Joan of Arc’s history less than nothing. How very much we prefer to these clumsy fumblings the remark made by Robert Bresson, the first French film-producer to devote a film to the history of Joan of Arc: asked whether his work would offer an “explanation” of the heroine, he replied: “One does not explain greatness, one tries to attune oneself to it.” One might easily pour out torrents of ink in trying to explain Joan, futilely, and without having understood in the least what kind of person she was. Quite otherwise has been the attitude of the people of France since the fifteenth century: the people, feeling that, confronted with Joan, the wisest plan was to admire her, in admiring have understood her. They canonised Joan and made her their heroine, while Church and State were taking five hundred years to reach the same conclusion.
It remains true that, for us, Joan is above all the saint of reconciliation—the one whom, whatever be our personal convictions, we admire and love because, over-riding all partisan points of view, each one of us can find in himself a reason to love her.
* He fulfilled the functions of Public Prosecutor (Ministère public).
* This is addressed to the French reader but may be of interest to English students of the period and of language.
INDEX
The index that appeared in the print version of this title was intentionally removed from the eBook. Please use the search function on your eReading device for terms of interest. For your reference, the terms that appear in the print index are listed below
Age of Joan, evidence on
Aimeri, Guillaume, examiner at Poitiers
Alençon, Jean, Duke of, on Joan meeting the Dauphin
on the examinations at Poitiers
on Joan’s purity and military ability
prepares the army at Blois
on the capture of Jargeau
in command on the Loire
at Montepilloy
in the assault on Paris
leaves the king’s service
Alepée, Jean
Alnwick, William
Armoises, Claude des, pretended to be Joan
Armoises, Robert des
Arras
Auxerre
Bailly, Nicolas, on evidence in the procès d’office
Barbazan, Sire de
Barbin, Jean, on the Poitiers examination
Barre, Jean, godfather
Basin, Thomas
Basle, Council of
Bastard of Orleans, see Dunois
Bastardy, the theory of Joan’s
Baudricourt, Robert de, in Joan’s revelation
interviews her
and lets her go after exorcism
Beaucroix, Simon, on Joan’s purity
Beaufort, Henry
Beaugency, battle of
Beaulieu-en-Vermandois
Beaupère, Jean, assessor
interrogates Joan
opinion of her answers
rehabilitation witness
Beaurevoir
Beauvais, Bishop of, see Cauchon
Bedford, Duchess of
Bedford, Duke of, Regent of France
his account of the loss of Orleans
temporizes with Charles VII
challenges Charles VII to produce Joan
at Senlis
fortifies Paris
leaves Paris
negotiates with Charles and prepares for war
announces Joan’s death to all Europe
death
Berri, on the army at Troyes
Berruyer, Martin
Béthune, Jeanne de
Blois
Bochard, Jean
Boisguillaume, on the character of the trial of condemnation
on Joan’s virginity
on Joan at the trial
on the twelve articles
Boissonade, Pierre
Bonnet, Simon, examiner at Poitiers
Bordeaux
Bosquier, Pierre
Boucher, Guillaume le
Boucher, Jacques, lodges Joan in Orleans
Bouillé, Guillaume, conducts the first enquiry into the trial
Boulainvilliers, Perceval de, his imaginative account of Joan
Bourdelles, Elie de
Boussac, Marshal de
Bréhal, Jean, begins the Church’s enquiry into rehabilitation
draws up the Summarium
sees the Pope
draws up the Recollectio
Brittany, Duke of, supports Charles VII after Orleans
Brixenthal, Leonard von
Bruley, Edouard
Burgundy, Duke of, see Philippe the Good
Cagny, Perceval de, on the start for Rheims
on the skirmishes at Montepilloy
on the assault on Paris
on the king’s retreat to the Loire
on the departure of Alençon
on the siege of La Charité
on the capture of Joan
on Joan’s death
Calixtus III, Pope, authorises the demand for rehabilitation
Calot, Laurent
Castiglione, Zanon de
Cauchon, Pierre, pro-English inclinations
negotiates for Joan to be handed over to the English
his background
appointed judge
during the trial (q.v.)
reads the sentence of death
manoeuvres after the trial
obtains the English warranty of protection
at the crowning of Henry VI
death
Caval, Nicolas, rehabilitation witness
Caze, Pierre, originator of the bastardy theory
Chabannes, Jacques de
Châlons-sur-Marne
Chambre, Guillaume de la, on Joan’s illness
on the form of abjuration
Chapitault, Simon
Charles VII, first sees Joan
accepts her
his report on the siege of Orleans
theory that he engaged Joan for his own plans
with Joan at Loches
starts from Gien
enters Rheims
coronation
truce with Phillipe the Good
welcomed in the towns
at Montepilloy
during the assault on Paris
accepts further truce, disbands the army but retains Joan
ennobles Joan
admits to being duped by Philippe
apparent indifference to the handing over of Joan
successful peace negotiations
enters Paris
and Rouen
orders enquiry into the trial
recovers all Normandy
Charles, Duke of Lorraine, sees Joan before she leaves Vaucouleurs
Charles, Simon, on the meeting of Joan and the Dauphin
on the capture of the Augustins fort
on the entry into Rheims
Chartier, Alain, on the glory of Joan
Chartier, Guillaume
Chartier, Jean, on Joan meeting the Dauphin
on the army at Blois
Chartres, Regnault de, examiner at Poitiers
with Joan at Blois
influence on Charles VII
Chastellain, Georges, on the capture of Joan
on the character of Charles VII
Chatillon, Jean de, at Joan’s death
Chichery, Reginald
Chronology of Joan’s birth
of Joan at Vaucouleurs
Ciboule, Robert
Clermont, Count of
Combarel, Hugues de, examiner at Poitiers
Compiègne
siege of
Constantinople, fall of
Cormeilles, Abbot of
Courcelles, Thomas de, assessor
on the twelve articles
votes for torture
on the form of abjuration
rehabilitation witness
Coutes, Louis de, on the meeting of Joan and the Dauphin
with Joan at Tours and Blois
on Joan’s purity
and compassion
on Joan at Orleans
Cusquel, Pierre, on Joan being obliged to wear man’s clothes after the abjuration
on her death
rehabilitation witness
d’Arc, Isabelle (mother)
at the coronation
demands the rehabilitation
d’Arc, Jacques (father)
at the coronation
d’Arc, Jean (brother)
d’Arc, Jeanne, see Joan of Arc
d’Arc, Pierre (brother)
d’Armagnac, Thibaut, on Joan’s military ability
Daron, Pierre, on Joan’s answers at the trial
d’Arras, Franquet
d’Aulon, Jean, on the examination at Poitiers
intendant to Joan
on the meeting of Joan and Dunois
on Joan at Orleans
on the capture of the Augustins fort
on the capture of the bridge
and the rejoicing
captured with Joan
rehabilitation witness
Dauphin, see Charles VII
d’Epinal, Gérardin, on the Ladies’ Tree
on Joan’s departure from Domremy
at Châlons
d’Epinal, Isabelette, on Joan’s childhood
on her visit to Neufchâteau
on her going to Vaucouleurs
Desert, Guillaume du, on Joan’s signing the abjuration
rehabilitation witness
d’Estivet, Jean, promoter at the trial of condemnation
reads the act of accusation
during Joan’s illness
death
d’Estouteville, Guillaume, initiates the Church’s enquiry into rehabilitation
>
completes it
Archbishop of Rouen
Domremy
Armagnac sympathies in
Joan’s departure
exempt from taxes
the rehabilitation enquiry
Doncoeur, Fr.
d’Ourches, Albert, on Joan at Vaucouleurs
Drappier, Perrin, on Joan’s childhood
Du Bueil, Lord
Dufay, Geoffrey, on Joan at Vaucouleurs
Duguesclin, Bertrand
Du Maine, Charles
Dumay, Alison
Dunois, Count, in Orleans before Joan’s arrival
on her coming
on meeting her, and the change of wind
on Joan being of God
fetches reinforcements
activity in Orleans
on the assault on the bridge
on the retreat of the English
on the situation after Orleans
on the council at Loches
on the battle of Beaugency
on Joan before Troyes
on the new popularity of Charles VII
in Normandy
captures Bordeaux and Bayonne
Dupuy, Jean, lodges Joan at Tours
Duremort, Giles de, opinion on Joan’s relapse
Duval, Guillaume, rehabilitation witness
Erard, Guillaume, preaches to Joan
Erault, Jean, examiner at Poitiers
Estellin, Beatrice
Eugenius IV, Pope
Fabri, Jean, on Joan’s virginity
on her answers at the trial
rehabilitation witness
Fairy Tree, the
Falstaff, John
Fauquembergue, Clément de, on the assault on Paris
Fave, Jean, on the English reaction to the abjuration
rehabilitation witness
Feronne, Jeanne la, pretender to be Joan
Ferrebouc, François
Feuillet, Gérard, assessor
Flavy, Guillaume de
Front, Guillaume
Furneux, Jean le, on Joan at Vaucouleurs
Garivel, François, on the examination at Poitiers
on the coronation
Gastinel, Denis, assessor
finds Joan guilty
at her death
Gaucourt, Raoul de, at the meeting of Joan and the Dauphin
governor of Orleans
Gelu, Jacques
Joan of Arc Page 34