fn3Procès, Vol IV, p. 154: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn4Procès, Vol III, p. 7: Deposition of Dunois. See also Procès, Vol. III, p. 126: Deposition of Pierre Millet.
fn5Procès, Vol. IV, p. 221: Chronique de la Pucelle, and Procès, Vol. III, pp. 26–7: Deposition of Jacques Lesbahi. The Chronique adds erroneously that Ambleville brought Guicnne back with him.
fn6Procès, Vol. IV, p. 141: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn7Procès, Vol. IV, p. 42: Deposition of Jacques le Bouvier (le hérault Berri).
fn8Procès, Vol. IV, p. 155: Journal du siège: Quant vint sur le soir, elle s’en ala au boulevert de la Belle Croix, sur le pont, et de là parla à Glacidas et autres Anglois estans ès Tourelles, et leur dist qu’ils se rendissent de par Dieu, leurs vies sauves seullement. Mais Glacidas et ceulx de sa rote respondirent villainement, l’injuriant et appelant vachère, comme devant, crians moult haut qu’ilz la feroient ardoir, d’ilz la povoient tenir. De quoy elle fut aucunement yrée, et leur respondit qu’ilz mentoyent; et ce dit, s’en retira dedans la cyté.
fn9Procès, Vol. III, p. 211: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn10Procès, Vol. IV, p. 155: Journal du siège: Chevaucha par la cité Jehanne la Pucelle, accompaignée de plusieurs chevaliers et escuyers, parce que ceulx d’Oréans avoient si grant voulenté de la veoir, qu’ilz rompoient presque l’uys de l’ostel où elle estoit logée; pour laquelle veoir avail tant grant gent de la cité par les rues où elle passoit, que à grant peine y povoit on passer, car le peuple ne se povoit saouller de la veoir. Et moult sembloit à tous estre grant merveille comment elle se povoit tenir si gentement à cheval, comme elle faisoit. Et à la vérité aussi elle se maintenoit aussi haultement en toutes manières, comme eust sceu faire ung homme d’armes, suivant la guerre dès sa jonnesse.
fn11Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 155–6: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn12Jean Paquerel, however, says that the French were allowed to introduce the supplies into the town sous les yeux des Anglais. This, as the army entered by the northern gate, would indicate that they were escorting the supplies by the same route.
fn13Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans, p. 78, note.
fn14Procès, Vol. IV, p. 156: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn15Procès, Vol. III, p. 106: Deposition of Jean Paquerel.
fn16Procès, Vol. III, p. 212: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn17That Jeanne’s room was upstairs is apparent from the account given by Louis de Contes.
fn18Procès, Vol. III, p. 212: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn19Procès, Vol. III, p. 212: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn20Procès, Vol. III, p. 68: Deposition of Louis de Contes. Here, again, there is a slight confusion, for Louis de Contes says she came down to him before she had put on her armour, but was armed by the time he returned with her horse. Simon Beaucroix, Aignan Viole, a lawyer of Orleans, and Colette Millet, the wife of a clerk, all endorse the story of Jeanne’s sudden uprising. Their versions differ very little from those of d’Aulon and Louis de Contes. According to Viole (Procès, Vol. III, p. 127), she exclaimed: ‘En nom Dé, nos gens ont bien à besoigner. Bring my arms and fetch my horse.’ Colette Millet (Procès, Vol. III, p. 124) says that she called her page and said to him, ‘En nom Dé, this is ill done. Why was I not awakened earlier? Our people have much to do.’
It must further be noted that Louis de Contes makes a mistake as to the date, placing these events on April 30th. It is quite obvious, however, that he is making a mere slip, and that he is really referring to May 4th. After a lapse of twenty-six years, such errors are understandable.
fn21Procès, Vol. III, pp. 212–13: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn22Procès, Vol. III, p. 124: Deposition of Colette Millet.
fn23Procès, Vol. III, p. 213: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon. Paquerel likewise testifies to the horror she experienced.
fn24On the other hand, Paquerel says that they went out at Jeanne’s insistence to assail the English in the Bastille de Saint Loup. One wishes that these witnesses could agree better. It makes it terribly confusing for anybody who wants to discover what actually happened.
fn25Procès, Vol. III, p. 107: Deposition of Jean Paquerel.
fn26Procès, Vol. III, pp. 124–6: Depositions of Colette and Pierre Millet.
fn27Procès, Vol. IV, p. 224: Chronique de la Pucelie.
fn28Procès, Vol. IV, p. 224: Chronique de la Pucelle.
fn29Procès, Vol. III, p. 107: Deposition of Jean Paquerel.
fn30Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 57–9: Jean Chartier.
fn31Procès, Vol. IV, p. 59: Jean Chartier.
fn32Procès, Vol. III, pp. 107–8: Deposition of Jean Paquerel.
fn33Her delay appears to have arisen owing to the necessity of getting her horse across the river, whereas the troops had crossed on foot.
fn34Procès, Vol. III, pp. 213–15: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn35The fact that she had thus been wounded makes it apparent that she had dismounted at some given moment, in spite of d’Aulon’s picture of her charging on horseback, lance in hand. She probably dismounted to enter les Augustins with the victorious French, as the English were leaving it by its other gate.
fn36Procès, Vol. III, p. 109: Deposition of Jean Paquerel.
fn37I must again refer the reader to the map facing p. 145, and especially to the little separate sketch of the Tourelles.
fn38Molandon et Beaucorps: L’Armée anglaise vaincue par Jeanne d’Arc, pp. 134–43.
fn39Procès, Vol. III, p. 70: Louis de Contes; Procès, Vol. IV, p. 227: Chronique de la Pucelle.
fn40Procès, Vol. IV, p. 227: Chronique de la Pucelle; Procès, Vol. III, pp. 124–5: Deposition of Colette Millet. The two versions vary slightly, but are in substance the same. The fish in question was an alose or sea-trout, which goes up rivers in spring. A godon, usually believed to be a corruption of Goddam, which the French supposed to be the favourite oath of the English soldier.
It is just possible that the fish incident may have occurred earlier, for, on May 3rd, Raoulet de Recourt received ‘twenty sols for an alose presented to the Pucelle’ (Procès, Vol. V, p. 259: Comptes de forteresse). But Colette Millet says May 7th, and there is no reason why Jeanne should not have been offered a trout more than once.
fn41Procès, Vol. III, pp. 116–17. Deposition of Simon Charles, maître des requêtes who, although not present, claims to have the information from de Gaucourt himself.
fn42In order to avoid the irritation of constant and repetitive footnotes, it may be assumed that all details about the battle are taken either from these four accounts or from the Journal du siège d’Orléans, or from Jollois’ Histoire du siège d’Orléans.
fn43Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans: Vie de Guillaume de Gamaches.
fn44Procès, Vol. IV, p. 228: Chronique de la Pucelle.
fn45It must be remembered that this evidence was given by her confessor, Paquerel, who was naturally doing his utmost to disprove the charge of witchcraft brought against her at her trial.
fn46This is the Bastard’s own account. Jean d’Aulon says that the order had actually been published. The Bastard’s memory or his enthusiasm seems to have misled him on this point, as they did on many.
fn47Procès, Vol. III, pp. 216–17: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon. Procès, Vol. IV p. 161. The Journal du siège adds a detail omitted by d’Aulon. Turning to a knight at her side, she said, ‘Hold yourself in readiness for when the tail of my standard touches the wall.’ A few moments later he said, ‘Jeanne, it touches.’ ‘Then all is yours,’ she replied; ‘enter!’
fn48Jollois, Histoire du siège d’Orléans, p. 87.
fn49Procès, Vol. IV, p. 163: Journal du siège.
fn50Procès, Vol. III, p. 9: Deposition of Dunois.
fn51Procès, Vol. IV, p. 463: Le bourgeois de Paris.
fn52Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 161–2; and Jollois, p. 84.
11. Reims
fn1 Procès, Vol. V, pp. 136–7: Fragment of a letter from the Duke of Bedford. M Quicherat places, with a query, the date of this letter at the end of July 1429.
fn2 Procès, Vol. III, p. 9: Deposition of Dunois.
fn3 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 164: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn4 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 164: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn5 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 232: Chronique de la Pucelle; and Procès, Vol. III, p. 29: Deposition of Jean Cbampeaux.
fn6 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 164: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn7 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 497: Eberhard von Windecken.
fn8 Procès, Vol. V, p. 103.
fn9 Procès, Vol. III, p. 12: Deposition of Dunois.
fn10 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 168–9: Journal du siège d’Orléans. The Bastard, on the other hand, says that the Bishop of Castres asked her the questions straight away; and the Bastard ought to know, for he was with her when she rapped on the door of the Dauphin’s room.
fn11 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 167: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn12 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 169: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn13 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 169: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn14 Procès Vol. III, p. 94: Deposition of the Duke of Alençon.
fn15 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 12: Perceval de Cagny.
fn16 Procès, Vol. III, p. 96: Deposition of the Duke of Alençon.
fn17 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 171–2: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn18 Procès, Vol. III, p. 97: Deposition of the Duke of Alençon.
fn19 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 45: Le Herault Berri; and Procès, Vol. IV, p. 173: Journal du siège.
fn20 Procès, Vol. V, pp. 112–13: Account-books of the Duke of Orleans.
fn21 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 13: Perceval de Cagny.
fn22 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 174: Journal dusiège d’Orléans.
fn23 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 174: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn24 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 317: Account of Guillaume Gruel. Gruel was a devoted servant of the Constable, and M Quicherat suggests that the details of Richemont’s meeting with Jeanne should be accepted with reserve. The various accounts of the Constable’s arrival differ in several particulars, Gruel himself making so capital and ludicrous a blunder as to say that his master was marching to assist in the relief of Orléans, which had taken place a week earlier.
fn25 Procès, Vol. III, pp. 98–9: Deposition of the Duke of Alençon.
fn26 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 406–24.
fn27 Procès, Vol. III, p. II: Deposition of Dunois.
fn28 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 374: Enguerran de Monstrelet.
fn29 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 375: Enguerran de Monstrelet. The Garter was later restored to him, in consideration of the protests he had made to Talbot before the battle of Patay.
fn30 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 319: Gruel: The Bastard of Orleans says 4,000; Procès, Vol. IV, p. 479: Walter Bower, 3,000; Perceval de Cagny, 2,000 dead and 400 to 500 prisoners; Jean Chartier, 2,000 to 3,000 dead and many prisoners; the Chronique de la Pucelle, over 2,200 dead; the Journal du siège d’Orléans, 2,200 dead; Guillaume Gruel, 2,200 dead; official letter to the city of Tours, 2,500 dead or prisoners; Wavrin, 2,000 dead and 200 prisoners; Monstrelet, 1,800 dead and 100 to 120 prisoners. We may decide on a wise mean between these varying estimates, but, however we may decide, it is clear that the English defeat was thorough and the losses considerable.
fn31 Procès, Vol. III, p. 99: Deposition of the Duke of Alençon.
fn32 Procès, Vol. III, pp. 71–2: Deposition of Louis de Contes.
fn33 On this point I find myself in complete agreement with Mr Andrew Lang.
fn34 Charles Cerf, Histoire de Notre Dame de Reims, Vol. II, pp. 484–5. The Sainte Ampoule was deliberately smashed by a deputy of the Convention, but some morsels of the glass, with the oil adhering to them, are said to have been preserved.
fn35 Charles Cerf, Histoire de Notre Dame de Reims, Vol. I, p. 285.
fn36 Charles Cerf, Histoire de Notre Dame de Reims, Vol. II, p. 574.
fn37 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 70–1: Jean Chartier.
fn38 Procès, Vol. III, p. 116: Deposition of Simon Charles.
fn39 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 17–18: Perceval de Cagny.
fn40 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 181: Journal du siège d’Orlèans.
fn41 Andrew Lang, The Maid of France, p. 152.
fn42 Siméon Luce, Jeanne d’Arc à Domremy, pp. ccxlvi–viii.
fn43 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 75: Jean Chartier.
fn44 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 287–8: Jean Rogier.
fn45 Procès, Vol. I, pp. 99–100.
fn46 Procès, Vol. II, p. 391: Deposition of Jean Morel.
fn47 Procès, Vol. II, p. 423: Deposition of Gérardin d’Epinal: According to Gérardin, he was with three other men from Domremy, but he does not say who they were. One of them, of course, must have been Jean Morel.
fn48 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 297–5: Jean Rogier.
fn49 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 185: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn50 Charles Cerf, Histoire de Notre Dame de Reims, Vol. II, pp. 181–3 (2 vols. 1861). These projected spires were never added.
fn51 Charles Cerf, Histoire de Notre Dame de Reims, Vol. II, pp. 181–3.
fn52 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 186: Journal du siège d’Orléans and note.
fn53 Procès, Vol. I, p. 187: Interroguée pour quoy il fut plus porté en l’église de Rains, au sacre, que ceulx des autres cappitaines, respond: ‘Il avoit esté à la paine, c’estoit bien raison que ilfut à l’onneur.’
12. Reims to Paris
fn1 Procès, Vol. V, p. 129: Letter from three gentlemen of Anjou to the wife and mother-in-law of Charles VII.
fn2 Procès, Vol. V, p. 130, ibid.
fn3 This letter no longer exists.
fn4 Procès, Vol. V, pp. 126–7.
fn5 Procès, Vol. III, pp. 14–15: Deposition of Dunois. Anatole France (Vie de Jeanne d’Arc, Vol. II, p. 17, note) suggests that some hagiographer of a clerk has here embellished the passage in the Bastard’s recollections. As her sister is presumed to have been dead by then, and as two of her brothers were in her company at Reims, there seems to be some foundation for his scepticism.
fn6 Procès, Vol. V, p. 266: The Ane Rayé was in the rue du Parvis, and was later replaced by the Maison Rouge, ornamented by the following inaccurate inscription:
L’an 1429,
au sacre de Charles VII,
dans cette hotellerie appelée alors l’Ane Rayé
le père et la mére de Jeanne d’Arcq [sic]
ont été logés et defrayés
par le conseil de ville.
The inaccuracy consists in the mention of both her father and mother, the truth being that only Jeanne’s father travelled to Reims.
fn7 Procès, Vol. V, p. 267: Account-books of Hémon Raquier.
fn8 Procès, Vol. V, p. 138: Deed of Charles VII. This privilege was rescinded only in the eighteenth century.
fn9 Procès, Vol. V, pp. 139–40.
fn10 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 79: Jean Chartier.
fn11 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 79: Jean Chartier: Procès, Vol. IV, p. 188: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn12 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 382–5: Enguerren de Monstrelet.
fn13 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 195: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn14 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 22: Perceval de Cagny.
fn15 There were strategical reasons for this unheroic conduct on both sides, but I have thought it unnecessary to go into them here.
fn16 Procès, Vol. I, pp. 82 and 243–4.
fn17 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 24: Perceval de Cagny.
fn18 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 25: Perceval de Cagny.
fn19 Procès, Vol. V, p. 175: Mémoire sur Guillaume de Flavy.
fn20 Anatole France, Vie de Jeanne d’Arc, Vol. II, p. 53.
fn21 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 458: Clement de Fauquemberque.
fn22 Procès, Vol. I, p. 146.
fn23 Andrew Lang (The Maid
of France, p. 180) raises an interesting point. He suggests that she ‘falsely denied having received any special command from her voices, and falsely reported that the French nobles intended to make no serious attack. Her object would be to save the character of her Saints … and to minimise the check to the arms of her King.’ But, as he rightly goes on to point out, we have the corroborative testimony of Clement de Fauquemberque, and we may add that when on a later occasion at Beaurevoir her voices refused to give her the counsel she wanted, she had no hesitation in admitting that she had disobeyed them.
fn24 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 199: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn25 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 465: Le bourgeois de Paris.
fn26 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 27: Perceval de Cagny.
fn27 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 199: Journal du siège d’Orléans.
fn28 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 28: Perceval de Cagny.
fn29 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 29: Perceval de Cagny.
fn30 Procès, Vol. IV, pp. 29–30: Perceval de Cagny.
13. Paris to Compiegne
fn1 Procès, Vol. IV, p. 325: Le doyen de Saint Thibaud de Metz.
fn2 Procès, Vol. III, pp. 85–8: Deposition of Marguerite La Touroulde.
fn3 Procès, Vol. III, pp. 217–18: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn4 La Thaumassière, Histoire du Berry, p. 161.
fn5 Procès, Vol. V, pp. 269–70, 146, and 147–8. Jeanne’s letter to Riom is the one that was sealed with the imprint of a (?her) finger and a black hair. See Chapter I, p. 4.
fn6 Procès, Vol. III, pp. 217–18: Deposition of Jean d’Aulon.
fn7 Procès, Vol. I, pp. 109, 147 and 169.
fn8 Procès, Vol. I, pp. 293–4, Article LIV of the Act of Accusation.
fn9 Procès, Vol. I, pp. 106–9.
fn10 Procès, Vol. V, pp. 154–6 and 271. Extrait des comptes des deniers communs de la ville de Tours. It is amusing to find the red wine described as ‘claret.’ This is nothing more than an adjective denoting the colour, clairet, and, I should think, indicates a local vin rosé or vin gris rather than vin de Bordeaux, to which the English give the generic and inaccurate name of claret, in the same way as they call all Rhine wines ‘hock,’ a term which becomes intelligible to the German only when he realises that we are employing our own abbreviation for Hochheimer.
Saint Joan of Arc Page 45