Carré, Pierre, avocat en ladite cour.
Colombel, Jean, idem.
Dubut, Laurent, id.
Duchemin, Jean, id.
Ledoux, Jean, id.
Maréchal, Pierre.
Mauger ou Maugier, Jean, chanoine de Rouen.
Morel, Aubert, avocat en ladite cour.
Pinchon, Jean.
Postel ou Poustel, Guérould, avocat en ladite cour.
Saulx, Richard de, id.
Venderés, Nicolas de, archidiacre d’Eu en la cathédrale de Rouen.
Licenciés en droit civil
A l’Epee ou Alespée, Jean, chanoine de Rouen.
Carreau ou Carrel, Pierre.
Caval, Nicolas, chanoine de Rouen.
Cave, Pierre.
Cormeilles, Bureau de, avocat en la cour ecclésiastique de Rouen, chanoine de la cathédrale.
Crotay ou Crotoy, Geoffrey du, id.
Deschamps, Gilles, chancelier et chanoine de la cathédrale de Rouen.
Livet, Guillaume de, avocat à ladite cour.
Marguerie, André.
Maulin, Nicolas.
Tavernier, Jean, avocat à ladite cour.
Docteurs en médécine
Canivet ou Quenivet, Gilles.
De la Chambre, Guillaume.
De la Mare, Simon, maître és arts et en médécine.
Desjardins, Guillaume.
L’écrivain, Roland. Rolandus Scriptoris.
Tiphaine ou Epiphanie, Jean.
Tybout, Henri, maître ès arts et en médécine à Paris.
Maltres és artsfn9 (consultés ou mentionnés)
Abessore, Richard, à Paris.
Barrey, Jean, idem.
Bereth, Martin, maître ès arts à Paris, un anglais.
Gouda, Pierre de, id., recteur de l’Université.
Hebert, Michel, id., greffier de l’Université.
Lefourbeur, Raoul, notaire de l’inquisition à Paris.
Loutrée, Boémond de. Bohemundus de Lutrea, grand bedeau de la nation de France en l’Université de Paris.
Nourrisseur, Jacques, Université de Paris.
Oscohart, Guillaume, id.
Pelé, Andrà, id.
Trophard, Jean, id.
Cardinal
Beaufort, Henri de, évêque de Winchester, cardinal du titre romain de St-Eusèbe, appelé aussi le cardinal d’Angleterre.
Evêques
Alnwick, William, évêque de Nordwich, en Angleterre.
Castiglione, Zanon de, évêque de Lisieux.
Luxembourg, Louis de, évêque de Thérouenne.
Mailly, Jean de, évêque de Noyon.
Montjeu, Philibert de, évêque de Coutances.
Abbés et prieurs
Dacier, Jean, abbé de Ste-Corneille de Compiègne.
Frique, Thomas, abbé du Bec-Hélouin.
Jolivet ou Lejolivet, Robert, abbé du Mont St-Michel-au-péril-de-la-mer.
Prêtres ou clercs, consultés ou mentionnés
Amouret, Thomas, religieux dominicain.
Bats, Frère Jean de. Frater Johannes de Bastis.
Cateleu, Eustache ou Eustache, prêtre.
Champrond, Enguerrand de, official de Coutances.
De la Pierre, Frère Isambard, dominicain.
Dudesart, Guillaume, chanoine de Rouen.
Foville, Nicholas de, id.
Guérould, Robert, notaire du chapitre de Rouen.
Hampton, John ou Jean de, prêtre anglais.
Ladvenu, Frère Martin, dominicain.
Le Cauchois, Guillaume, prêtre.
Le Due, Laurent, id.
Legrand, Guillaume, id.
Lejeune, Regnauld, id.
Lermite, Frère Guillaume.
Le Roy, Jean, chanoine de Rouen.
Loiselleur, Nicolas, maître és arts, chanoine de Rouen.
Mahommet, Jean, prêtre.
Manchon, Jean, chanoine de Mantes.
Morel ou Morelet, Robert, chanoine de Rouen.
Rosay, Jean, curé de Duclair.
Vacheret, Jean, grand bedeau de la faculté de théologie de Paris.
Valée, Frère Jean, dominicain.
Assistants ou témoins appelés
Bosquier, Pierre, religieux dominicain.
Brolbster ou Brewster, William, prêtre anglais.
Camus ou le Camus, Jacques, prêtre, chanoine de Reims.
Carbonnier, Jean.
Cochon, Pierre, prêtre, notaire de la cour de Rouen.
Fécard, Jean, avocat.
Hubant ou Hubent, Nicolas de, notaire apostolique.
Le Bateur, Matthew, prêtre du diocése de Londrcs.
Lecras, Guillaume, prêtre, notaire en la cour de Rouen.
Le Danois ou Dani, Simon, prêtre, id.
Luxembourg, Jean de, comte de Ligny, seigneur de Beaurevoir, etc.
Mathieu, Jean, prêtre.
Milet, Adam, secrétaire du roi d’Angleterre.
Orient, Pierre.
Orsel, Louis, clerc du diocése de Noyon.
Toutmouillé, Jean, dominicain.
Appendix G
THE SIGN GIVEN TO THE KING
(See Chap. 7, here and Chap. 15, here)
We have already seen what Jeanne said, or, rather, refused to say, about the mysterious revelation made by her at Chinon to Charles VII (pp. 115–20), and also the curious symbolic story she invented in order to escape from the pressing questions of her judges; but it is impossible not to round off the subject without referring to the controversial document appended to the report of the trial.
This document is dated Thursday, June 7th, 143 I, and takes its place in the official record (Quædam acta posterius). It purports to be an account of Jeanne’s last admissions, made on the morning of her death. According to this account, she was visited in the early hours by Loiselleur and Maurice, Ladvenu and Toutmouillé, Le Camus and de Courcelles finally accompanying Cauchon himself. Still according to this account, they extracted certain statements from her:
(1) that her voices and visions had deceived her (Ladvenu; Maurice; Toutmouillé; Le Camus; de Courcelles; Loiselleur);
(2) that the story of the angel and the crown was nothing but an invention (Ladvenu; Maurice; Toutmouillé; Loiselleur), and that she herself was the only angel.
Is this document a forgery or not? It was dismissed as such by de l’Averdyfn10 owing to the fact that Manchon refused to sign it.fn11 Quicherat, however, while admitting that it remains ‘an insoluble problem,’ is unwilling to class the document as a forgery from beginning to end. He prefers to regard it as a collection of fragments left over from a final interrogation which, for some reason, was not included in the report of Jeanne’s last day on earth – May 30th – and observes, with much plausibility, that un habile homme comme l’évêque de Beauvais exagère ou réduit la verité: il ne forge pas de toutes pièces le mensonge.fn12 In support of his view that the document represents a partial truth, he points out (1) that the testimony of de Courcelles, the rédacteur of the procés-verbal, is included; (2) that the document was accepted as genuine by the doctors at the Rehabilitation; (3) that Taquel, himself one of the notaries, mentions having been present in the cell during an interrogation on the morning of the martyrdom. (Why then, a point not raised by Quicherat, did they not get Taquel to attest the document, Manchon having refused to do so on the plea that he had not been present?) The suspicious fact, of course, remains that the document is not signed by any of the notaries; that Manchon flatly refused to sign it; and that, unlike the rest of the procés-verbal, it is not attested by any of the notaries on every page. We can scarcely blame Quicherat for calling the problem insoluble, yet at the same time it is impossible not to agree with him that the Bishop of Beauvais was not likely to forge such a document in its entirety, especially as he was quoting several witnesses, any one of whom might have betrayed him at any moment.
It is worth calling attention to one small point which Quicherat ignores in this place, though he alludes to it elsewhere, and which does no
t sound to me like an invention of Cauchon or another. This is Jeanne’s remark, reported by Ladvenu, Maurice, and Toutmouillé, that her apparitions sometimes came to her in the guise of minute things (quantitate minima: sub specie quarumdam rerum minimarum; minimus rebus). Mr Maclaurinfn13 comments, with apologetic cynicism, that he ‘hates to suggest that these specks before the eyes may have been the result of toxæmia from the intestine induced by confinement and terror.’ M Marcel Hébertfn14 makes a more interesting contribution to the subject by drawing a comparison between Jeanne’s statement and that of Saint Rose of Lima, who saw Jesus in the size of a finger.
Appendix H
THE FAMILY OF JEANNE D’ARC
It may be asked, What happened to the family of Jeanne d’Arc after her death? We know that they were granted a patent of nobility in December 1429, under the name of du Lys. The patent, which conferred nobility on Jeanne herself, her father, mother, brothers, and all their kindred, with all their descendants both in the male and female line, makes no mention of armorial bearings, but we know from Jeanne that they were accorded the right to bear the lilies of France and a sword on a field azure.fn15 She herself never exercised the privilege of bearing these arms, but her brothers did.
We know, further, that Jean and Pierre du Lys, her brothers, married and begot a numerous posterity. Jean, who succeeded Robert de Baudricourt as governor of Vaucouleurs from 1455 to 1468, was the grandfather of Claude du Lys, to whom, it is thought, we owe much of the preservation and restoration of Jeanne’s birthplace. Pierre accompanied his mother to Orleans, where she died in 1458. He did not long outlive her, and his descendants peter out by the middle of the seventeenth century, or, at any rate, disappear from history.
Jacques d’Arc is said to have died, in 1431, of the sorrow caused him by his daughter’s tragic death.
Appendix I
WAS JEANNE D’ARC OF ROYAL BIRTH?
In 1805 and 1819 a certain M. P. Caze published two works on Jeanne d’Arc, the first work an opuscule, the second a work in two volumes. The gist of these labours goes to prove that in 1407 the Queen of France, Isabeau de Bavière, gave birth to a child named Jeanne, the adulterous off spring of her liaison with the Duke of Orleans; that this child was farmed out to some labourers in Lorraine named d’Arc; and that the curé of Domremy was deputed to inform her of her pre-ordained mission, while two well-born ladies from the neighbouring villages of Commercy and Gondrecourt played the part of Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret.
In 1932, M Jean Jacoby, basing his conclusion on an apparently extensive study of the same subject, which had occupied some twenty years of his father’s life, produced a volume entitled Le secret de Jeanne d’Arc. His thesis was in main the same as that of M Caze, and, as a study in determination to prove a point, is well worth reading. His version of the story is as follows: In February 1403, Isabeau de Bavière, Queen of France, gave birth to a son, later known as Charles VII. Four years then elapsed, interrupting the stream of her fertility; but in November 1407 she again gave birth to a son, who received the name of Philippe, and who died on the same day as he was born. So far, at least, M Jacoby is in accordance with accepted historical fact. But then the fascination of the thesis begins to work. This poor little prince has behaved in the most untactful way. To begin with, he never ought to have been born at all, since he is really the son of Louis d’Orleans and not of the mad King Charles VI. But, having been born, he commits the further mistake of living, not dying. He commits the equally grave mistake of being a girl, not a boy. So here is the Queen, landed with an illegitimate child, whom she has not the heart to destroy (Isabelle est une espouse infidèle, mais non une mère dénaturée); a child, moreover, which insists on being of the Wrong sex.
What was to be done?
Prince Philippe de Valois officially died; the little living girl was taken away to Lorraine and handed over to the care of Jacques d’Arc and Isabelle Romée. She was christened Jeanne, a name which, as M Jacoby gravely remarks, was in the Valois family. At some time during her childhood the secret of her birth was revealed to her – M Jacoby is not very explicit as to the date or means – and henceforward everything becomes plain sailing. Her devotion to France is explained, since she is really a French princess; her devotion to the Dauphin likewise, since he is her brother; her devotion to the captive Duke of Orleans since he is her brother also; and to the Bastard for the same reason. It becomes quite a family party. Most satisfactory of all, the famous ‘King’s Secret’ is explained.
Unfortunately for M Jacoby, the foundations of his belief are of the slightest. Passing without comment over the fact that the accepted date of Jeanne’s birth, January 1412, has to be altered to November 1407 to fit his theory, thus adding over four years to her age, what do we find as the basis of his allegations? We find:
(l) That Jeanne, in addressing the Duke of Alençon, remarked, ‘The more of the royal blood of France are together, the better.’ This M Jacoby takes to mean that Jeanne was including herself with the Dauphin and d’Alençon.
(2) The opening of the comte d’Armagnac’s letter to Jeanne, calling her ma très chère dame.
(3) Two lines in a poem by Martin le Franc:
Et pour un fier prince conté
Non pas pour simple bergére.
(4) The title of princess by which an Italian, Lorenzo Buonin-contro, refers to her.
(5) The support accorded her by the Archbishop of Embrun.
(6) The enormous ransom paid for her, and the words employed by Cauchon to the effect that ‘all prisoners, whether the King, the Dauphin, or other princes,’ might be purchased or taken by the King of England.
(7) The fact that Jeanne wore the colours of Orleans and their heraldic nettles, and that the coat-of-arms granted to her family included the lilies of France.
(8) Her indifference to her d’Arc family after her departure from Domremy. The fact that her two brothers were continuously at her side, and that her father met her at Reims, does not seem to trouble M Jacoby.
(9) Her adoption of the sobriquet La Pucelle, instead of the surname d’Arc or even Romce.
(10) Last, and above all, her popular name of Pucelle d’Orleans. This, according to M Jacoby, means that Jeanne called herself la Pucelle d’Orlcans just as the Bastard called himself le Batard d’Orléans, and for the same reason, i.e. that he was a child of that royal house.
One other observation of M Jacoby must be recorded: ‘Public opinion already at that time knew perfectly well how to distinguish between the legend of the shepherdess and the princely reality.’ If this is so, it seems curious that no contemporary record should even allude to this surely interesting fact.
Appendix J
THE MIRACLES OF JEANNE D’ARC
How far is it possible to claim a genuine miracle for Jeanne? Let us recapitulate very briefly the occasions which have given rise to such a claim, apart from the major problem of the visions and voices.
(1) Her recognition of Robert de Baudricourt. This, I think, can easily be disposed of when we remember (a) that her father may have seen and subsequently described him; (b) that Jeanne may have heard many other people describe him, who was, after all, a prominent personage in the region; (c) that she may herself have seen him riding through the streets of Vaucouleurs before she was actually granted an interview (See Chapter 5, here.)
(2) The recognition of the Dauphin. This may be explained in the same way. Jeanne had been for eleven days in the company of Jean de Metz, Poulengy, and Colet de Vienne, himself a royal messenger, and it is improbable that she should not have questioned them about the physical appearance of the man she so desired to meet. It must be remembered, also, that she spent two days in Chinon before being admitted to his presence, when she would have had ample opportunity of questioning her hosts or the townsfolk about him. (See Chapter 7. here.)
(3) The sword of Fierbois. This is much more difficult to explain away. The sceptical may suggest that she had heard a local legend, and indeed such legends
must have abounded in connexion with a church where grateful soldiers came to deposit their arms as votive offerings. Even so, the precision of her directions must continue to puzzle us much as they puzzled her contemporaries. (See Chapter 8, here).
(4) The change of wind at Orleans. It is impossible to take this ‘miracle’ seriously. Jeanne was a country girl, well accustomed to observe impending changes in the weather. Besides, the matter was probably greatly exaggerated by those, including the Bastard, who were determined to believe in her mission and to make others believe in it. (See Chapter 9, here.)
(5) The child resuscitated at Lagny. Here, medical ignorance and subsequent exaggeration were probably responsible for the attribution of the ‘miracle.’ The child was said to have been dead for three days and to have been black in the face. Jeanne joined the girls of the town in their prayers before the image of Our Lady, when the child gasped, drew breath, lived long enough to be baptised, and then irrevocably died. Jeanne, therefore, was not solely responsible. ‘If,’ as Mr Lang says, ‘it were a sin to pray, and were sorcery to receive a favourable answer, at least the prayer was collective, and all the maids of Lagny were greatly guilty.’ (See Chapter 13, here.)
(6) The leap from Beaurevoir. I have gone into this question at some length in the text (Chapter 14, here), so need not recapitulate the facts here. On the whole, I find it the most difficult of Jeanne’s ‘miracles’ to explain away, but am still not convinced that it will never be found susceptible of rational explanation.
(7) The question of second-sight or prophecy. Here we have at least two examples, one of them fairly well established and the other established beyond any possible doubt. To take them in order:
(a) Jeanne’s knowledge of the battle of Rouvray or of the Herrings (see Chapter 7, here) on the very day of its occurrence, and the information given by her to Baudricourt before the news could possibly have reached her by normal means. Our authorities for this are the Journal du siège d’Orléansfn16 (elle avoit sceu véritablement le jour et l’heure de la journée des Harens, ainsi qu’il fut trouvé par les lettres de Baudricourt), and the Chronique de la Pucellefn17, which is really very little more than a rehash of the Journal du siége and of Jean Chartier. There is thus no evidence given here before the event, or even on the day of the event, to convince us that the chroniclers were not improving on the story in order to enhance the credit of their heroine. Chroniclers have not always been scrupulous about such embroideries, though, on the whole, the claims made for Jeanne have been far less extravagant than those frequently made for other saints. This particular point must remain inconclusive.
Saint Joan of Arc Page 39