Question: The said Joan then says that she reached him whom she calls her King without obstacle. [Thus the record of the Trial of Condemnation.]
JOAN: When I came to the town of Sainte-Catherine de Fierbois, then I sent (wrote) to my King; then I went to the town of Château-Chinon where my King is.* I reached there at about noon and took lodging at an inn (hotellerie). And after a meal I went to my King who was in the castle. When I entered my King’s room, I knew him among the others by the counsel of my voice which revealed him to me. I told my King that I wanted to go and make war against the English.
Question: When the voice showed you him you call the King, was there any light in that place?
JOAN: Pass that question.
Question: Did you see an angel over your King?
JOAN: Spare me that and pass the question. Before my King put me to work, he himself had had many apparitions and some beautiful revelations.
Question: What revelations and apparitions did your King have?
JOAN: I shall not tell you that. I shall not answer you, but send to my King and he will tell you. The voice had promised me that, as soon as I came to the King, he himself would receive me. (C.51–52)
To appreciate exactly the value of Joan’s evidence at the Trial of Condemnation concerning her revelations and in general her acts touching the King of France, it is necessary, in the first place, to glance at the court’s opening session when Bishop Cauchon tried to get her to swear to speak the truth: “Swear to speak the truth on all that will be asked of you concerning matters of the faith and that which you know.”
JOAN: Of my father, of my mother and of all that I have done since I came to France I will willingly swear, but of the revelations which have been made to me by God’s means, never have I said or revealed anything to anyone whatsoever, excepting it be to Charles only, my King, and I will not reveal them though it cost me my head. I have orders from my visions and my secret counsel to reveal them to nobody.
To this prohibition she was to return more than once.
JOAN: I will willingly tell you whatsoever I have received permission from God to reveal: but as to that touching the revelations concerning the King of France, I will not tell it without the permission of my voices. (C.70)
And again:
JOAN: There are some revelations which go to* the King of France and not to those who are questioning me. (C.72)
It is very obvious that it was precisely on this point that the Rouen judges would have liked to receive exact answers; they were conducting a trial which, over and beyond Joan herself, was aimed at belittling the King of France. We shall see below, in the detail of her examination during the trial, how Joan evaded such questions. For the time being it will be enough simply to note that in anything concerning her relations with the King and the manner of her reception by him, nothing decisive can be gathered from the evidence at the Trial of Condemnation.
Question: Was there an angel above the King’s head when you saw him for the first time?
JOAN: By Saint Mary! if there was I know nothing of it and did not see him.
Question: Was there any light there?
JOAN: There were present more than three hundred knights and some fifty torches, not to mention the spiritual light. And rarely had I revelation but there was light.
Question: How came the King to have faith in what you said?
JOAN: He himself had good countersigns,* and through the clergy.
Question: What revelations did your King have?
JOAN: You will not have that out of me this year. I was questioned for three weeks by the clergy of the towns of Chinon and of Poitiers. And the King had a sign of my matters before he would believe me, and the clerics of my party were of this opinion, that it seemed to them that in my matter was nothing but good.
Question: Have you been to Sainte-Catherine de Fierbois?
JOAN: Yes. There I heard three masses in one day and thereafter I went to the town of Chinon. I sent letters to my King in which it was contained that I sent them to know if I could enter the town where my King was, and that I had made my way one hundred and fifty leagues to come to him and bring him succour, and that I knew many things (to the) good touching him, and I believe that in the same letters it was contained that I should know the King well (from) among all others. (C.65)
Eye-witnesses of the scene at Chinon testified to what they remembered at the Trial of Rehabilitation. Raoul de Gaucourt, grand master of the King’s household, eighty-five years of age or thereabouts: “I was present in the castle and town of Chinon when the Maid arrived, and I saw her when she presented herself before the royal majesty, with much humility and great simplicity, the poor little shepherdess, and I heard the following words which she spoke to the King: ‘Very noble Lord Dauphin, I am come and am sent by God, to bring succour to you and your kingdom.’ The King, having seen and heard her, to be better informed of her matter, ordered that she be placed in the keeping of Guillaume Bellier, Master of his house (major domo), bailiff of Troyes, and his Lieutenant at Chinon, whose wife was a most devout woman and of most excellent good fame.” (R.11)
Simon Charles, President of the Chamber of Accounts: “The year when Joan went to seek the King, I had been sent by him with an embassy to Venice and I returned about the month of March. At the time I heard Jean de Metz, who had escorted Joan, say that she was with the King. I know that, when Joan arrived in Chinon, there was deliberation in counsel to decide whether the King should hear her or not. To start with they sent to ask her why she was come and what she was asking for. She was unwilling to say anything without having spoken to the King, yet was she constrained by the King to say the reasons for her mission. She said that she had two (reasons) for which she had a mandate from the King of Heaven; one, to raise the siege of Orleans, the other to lead the King to Rheims for his sacring. Which being heard, some of the King’s counsellors said that the King should on no account have faith in Joan (believe her), and the others that since she said that she was sent by God, and that she had something to say to the King, the King should at least hear her.
“However, it was the King’s will that she be first examined by clerks and churchmen, which was done. And at last, albeit with difficulties, it was decided that the King would listen to her. When she entered the castle of Chinon to come into his presence, the King, on the advice of the principal courtiers, hesitated to speak to her until the moment when it was reported that Robert de Baudricourt had written to him that he was sending him a woman and that she had been conducted through the territory of the King’s enemies; and that, in a manner quasi-miraculous, she had crossed many rivers by their fords, to reach the King. Because of this the King was pressed to hear her and Joan was granted an audience. When the King knew that she was coming, he withdrew apart from the others. Joan, however, knew him at once and made him a reverence and spoke to him for some time. After having heard her, the King appeared radiant. Thereafter, still not wishing to do anything without having the advice of churchmen, he sent Joan to Poitiers that she be examined by the clerks of the University of Poitiers. When he knew that she had been examined and it was reported to him that they had found nothing but what was good in her, the King had arms (armour) made for her and entrusted her to his men of war, and she was given command in the matter of the war.” (R.102–104)
Louis de Coutes, Joan’s page: “The year when Joan came to the King in the town of Chinon, I was fourteen or fifteen years old and served and dwelt with the lord of Gaucourt who was captain of the place of Chinon. At that time Joan arrived at the place of Chinon with two men and she was taken to the King. I often saw Joan going in to the King and returning thence.
A lodging was assigned to her in a tower of the castle of Couldray, and I lived in that tower with Joan. And all the time she was there I was continuously with her during the day. At night, she had women with her. And well do I remember that at the time she dwelt in Couldray tower, several times men of high rank came to converse with Joan. What they did or said I know not, for always, when I saw these men arrive, I went away and I do not know who they were. At that time, when I was with Joan in that tower, I often saw Joan on bended knees and engaged in prayer, as it seemed to me. However, I was never able to hear what she said, although sometimes she wept. Then, Joan was taken to the town of Poitiers, then came back (and) to Tours, in the house of a person named Lapau.”
Jean, Duke of Alençon—a prince of the blood royal, in 1429 he was twenty-five years old, and just returned from five years’ captivity, having been taken prisoner at the battle of Verneuil in 1424. He had been released upon payment of a very heavy ransom. His great-grandfather, who was killed at Crécy, was the grandson of Philippe the Bold, King of France: “When Joan came seeking the King, the latter was in the town of Chinon and I in the town of Saint-Florent (Saint Florent-les-Saumur). I was out shooting quail when a messenger came to tell me that there was come to the King a maid who affirmed that she was sent by God to drive out the English, and to raise the siege which was laid by the English to Orleans. That was why, on the morrow, I went to the King who was in the town of Chinon and I found Joan talking with the King. When I drew near, Joan asked who I was and the King replied that I was the Duke of Alençon. Thereupon, Joan said: ‘You, be very welcome. The more they shall be together (who are) of the blood royal of France, the better will it be.’ And on the morrow Joan came to the King’s mass, and as she saw the Kings he bowed and the King took Joan into a chamber and I was with him and the Lord of la Tremoïlle whom the King kept with him, telling the others to withdraw. Then Joan made several requests of the King,* among others that he give his Kingdom to the King of Heaven, and that the King of Heaven after that gift would do unto him as He had done unto his predecessors and would restore him to his original estate; and many other things which I do not remember were said until the time of the meal. And after the meal the King went out to walk in the meadows and Joan galloped a-tilt with a lance, and I seeing her behave in this manner, bearing a lance, and tilting, I gave her a horse. Thereafter, the King came to the conclusion that Joan should be examined by some churchmen. To this end were deputed the bishop of Castres, confessor to the King (Gérard Machet), the bishop of Senlis (Simon Bonnet, bishop of Senlis in 1456), those of Maguellone and Poitiers (Hugues de Combarel) Master Pierre of Versailles, thereafter bishop of Meaux, and Master Jean Morin and several others whose names I do not recall. They questioned Joan in my presence: why she was come and who had made her come to the King. She answered that she was come on the King of Heaven’s behalf and that she had voices and a counsel that told her what she was to do, but of that I remember no more. But afterwards Joan, who took her meal with me, told me that she had been very closely examined but that she knew and could do more than she had said to those who questioned her. Once he had heard the report of those delegated to examine her, it was the King’s will that Joan go to the town of Poitiers and that there she be examined again. But I was not present at the examination in the town of Poitiers. I only know that thereafter in the King’s council it was reported that those who had examined her had said that they had found nothing in her contrary to the Catholic faith and that, considering his necessity, the King could make use of her to help him.” (R.102–148)
Jean d’Aulon, Knight, King’s Counsellor and Seneschal of Beaucaire: “It was about twenty-eight years ago, the King our sire being in the town of Poitiers, I was told that the Maid, who had set out from Lorraine, had been brought to the said lord by two gentlemen calling themselves Messire Robert de Baudricourt’s men, one called Bertrand and the other Jean of Metz. And to see her I went to the place of Poitiers.
“After the presentation, spake the Maid with the King, our sire, secretly and told him certain secret things, the which I know not, but that, a little later, that Lord sent to fetch some who were of his council, among whom I was, to whom he said that the Maid had told him that she was sent by God to help him to receive his kingdom which at that time and for the most part was occupied by the English, his ancient enemies.
“After these words announced by the King to the people of his Council, it was decided to interrogate the Maid, who was then aged about sixteen or thereabouts, on certain points touching the faith. To do this the King sent for certain masters of theology, jurists and other expert men who examined and questioned her on these points well and diligently. I was present in Council when these masters made their report of what they had found about the Maid and (it) was by one of them publicly said that they saw, knew nor were aware of anything in this Maid soever but only all that can be in a good Christian and true Catholic and that as such they held her (to be), and it was their opinion that she was a very good person.” (R. 155–156)
Thus the order of events, if not their exact chronology (we shall see in the commentary on this chapter how that can be established), can easily be reconstructed on the basis of the testimonies which are in agreement. Passing through Sainte-Catherine de Fierbois, Joan sends a member of her escort to announce her coming to the King and ask for an audience. She, herself, arrived at Chinon, asks to be received by the King, who hesitates and, eventually, receives her. The meeting takes place at evening. “It was high hour” (late in the day), said Joan, during her interrogation (C.135), in the great hall of the castle of which nothing today remains but a fragment of wall and a fireplace hanging in a void. The scene in which Joan recognizes the King and makes unerringly for him has been developed in our minds and in anecdotal history to an extent which it does not, perhaps, deserve.
It had already undergone this inflation as it appears in Jean Chartier’s Chronique: “Then, Joan, who was come before the King, made the bows and reverences customary to make to the King, as if she had been nurtured at court, and this greeting done said, addressing her speech to the King: ‘God give you life, gentle King,’ whereas she knew him not and had never seen him. And there were (present) several lords, dressed with pomp and richly and more so than was the King. Wherefore he answered the said Joan, ‘Not I am the King, Joan.’ And, pointing to one of his lords, said, ‘There is the King.’ To which she replied, ‘By God, gentle prince, it is you and none other.’ ”
The writer who gives us the interview in greatest detail was not an eye-witness of it but was unquestionably well-informed: this was Jean Pasquerel, a hermit of Saint-Augustin, formerly of the monastery at Bayeux and subsequently Joan’s confessor and her companion on all her campaigns until the moment of her capture at Compiègne. “The Count of Vendome conducted Joan to the King and led her into the King’s chamber. When he saw her he asked Joan her name and she replied: ‘Gentle Dauphin, Joan the Maid is my name, and to you is sent word by me from the King of Heaven that you will be anointed (sacré) and crowned in the town of Rheims and you will be Lieutenant to the King of Heaven who is King of France.’ And after other questions put by the King, Joan said to him again: ‘I tell thee, on behalf of Messire, that thou art true heir of France and King’s son, and He has sent me to thee to lead thee to Rheims, that thou mayst receive thy coronation and thy consecration, if thou wilt.’ That heard, the King told those who were present that Joan had told him certain secrets that none knew or could know, excepting only God; that is why he had great confidence in her. All this I heard from Joan’s mouth, for I was not present.” (R.176)
What was this secret? We shall probably never know any more about this than did the Rouen judges themselves. The only testimony touching this subject which exists is to be found in a very late and somewhat anecdotal chronicle, that of Pierre Sala, who, after having served successively Louis XI and Charles VIII, in his old age wrote, at Lyons, a work entitled Hardiesse des grands rois et empereurs. He claims to have had what follows directly from Guillaume Gouffier, lord of Boissy, chamberlain and intimate of Charles VII: “He told me, among other things, the secret which had been between the King and the Maid; and well might he know it, for in his youth he had been greatly loved by that King, so much so that he would never allow any gentleman to be his bedfellow but him. In that great privacy of which I tell you was he told by the King the words which the Maid had said to him. . . . In the time of the great adversity of this King Charles VII, he found himself (brought) so low that he no longer knew what to do. . . . The King, being in this extremity, entered one morning alone into his oratory and there he made a humble petition and prayer to Our Lord in his heart, without utterance of words, in which he petitioned devoutly that if so it was that he was true heir descended from the noble House of France and that the kingdom should rightly belong to him, that it please Him to keep and defend him, or, at worst, to grant him the mercy of escaping death or prison, and that he might fly to Spain or to Scotland which were from time immemorial brothers in arms and allies of the Kings of France, wherefore had he there chosen his last refuge. A little time afterwards, it came about that the Maid was brought to him, who, while watching her ewes in the fields, had received divine inspiration to go and comfort the good King. She did not fail, for she had herself taken and conducted by her own parents even before the King and there she gave her message at the sign aforesaid (dessusdit) which the King knew to be true. And thenceforth he took counsel of her and great good it did him.”
What appears to be certain is that the King, having consented to receive Joan, was convinced by her that he was face to face with something extraordinary and worthy of closer study. It should, moreover, be remembered that for this anxiety-ridden man, tortured by doubts of his legitimacy planted by his mother herself, the mere fact that this girl claiming to be sent by the King of Heaven and from so great a distance, had reached him and hailed him, “Thou art true heir of France and King’s son,” must have had something comforting about it and even quasi-miraculous.
At all events, a few days later he decides to take Joan to Poitiers, to which town most of the University masters had retreated. The English had filled the places at the University of Paris with their own paid creatures, which was, as we shall see, to have consequences for Joan herself. It was with the professors, prelates and theologians who had remained loyal to the French cause that, in 1432, the University of Poitiers was founded. François Garivel, King’s Counsellor (in the matter of taxes*): “I remember that at the time of Joan the Maid’s arrival, the King sent her to Poitiers where she was lodged at the house of the late Master Jean Rabateau, at that time King’s advocate in the Parliament. Deputed in this city of Poitiers, by order of the King, were certain solemn doctors and masters, to wit, Master Pierre of Versailles, at that time Abbot of Talmont, later Bishop of Meaux; Jean Lambert, Guillaume Aimeri of the Order of Preaching Friars; Pierre Seguin of the Order of Carmelite Friars, Doctor of Holy Scripture; Mathieu Mesuage; Guillaume Lemaire, Bachelor of Theology, with several other King’s counsellors, licenciates in Civil Law and Canon Law, who, on several occasions, during a period of about three weeks, examined Joan.”
Joan, several times during the Trial of Condemnation, referred her questioners to the “book of Poitiers”.
JOAN: That is in writing at Poitiers.
Question: The masters who examined you there, some over a month, others over three weeks, did they question you about the change in your apparel?
JOAN: I do not remember. (C.93)
One of the Poitiers examiners survived to be present at the Trial of Rehabilitation, Brother Seguin Seguin of the Order of Preaching Friars, professor of theology and, by this time, at about seventy years of age, Dean of the Faculty at Poitiers University: “I saw Joan for the first time at Poitiers. The King’s Council had met there in the house of one La Macée, and among them was the Lord Archbishop of Rheims, then Chancellor of France (Regnault de Chartres). Summoned, apart from myself, were Master Jean Lombard, professor of theology at the University of Paris, Guillaume Lemaire, Canon of Poitiers, Bachelor of theology, Guillaume Aimeri, professor of theology of the Order of Preaching Friars, Brother Pierre Turelure, Master Jacques Madelon and several others whom I no longer remember. We were told that we had been summoned by the King to interrogate Joan, and to report what we made of her (ce qu’ il nous semblait d’elle) to the King’s Council, and we were sent to the house of Master Jean Rabateau at Poitiers, where Joan was lodging, to examine her. When we arrived we put several questions to Joan and, among other questions, Master Jean Lombard asked her why she was come and that the King wanted to know what had impelled her to come to him. And she answered boldly and gravely that while she was guarding the beasts, a voice had manifested itself to her which told her that God had great pity on the people of France and that she, Joan, must go to France. Upon hearing that, she had begun to weep; then the voice told her that she should go to Vaucouleurs and that there she would find a captain who would take her safely into France and to the King, and that she should doubt not; and she had done accordingly and had come to the King without any obstacle.
“Master Guillaume Aimeri interrogated her: ‘Thou hast said that the voice told thee that God wishes to deliver the people of France from the calamities which afflict it. If he wishes to deliver it, it is not necessary to have men-at-arms.’ Then Joan answered him: ‘By God the men-at-arms will do battle and God will give victory.’ With this answer Master Guillaume held himself satisfied. I asked her what language the voice spoke. She answered me: ‘Better than yours.’ Me, I spoke Limousin. And again I asked her if she believed in God; she answered me, ‘Yes, better than you.’ And then I told Joan that it was not God’s will that she be believed if nothing appeared by which it should seem that she ought to be believed, and that the King could not be advised, on her mere assertion, to entrust her with soldiers that they be placed in peril, unless she had something else to say. She answered: ‘In God’s name, I am not come to Poitiers to make signs; but take me to Orleans, I will show you the signs for which I have been sent,’ adding that men be given her in such number as should seem good to her and that she would go to Orleans. Then she told me, me and others present, four things which were then to come and which thereafter happened. First, she said that the English would be defeated and that the siege which was laid to the town of Orleans would be raised and that the town of Orleans would be liberated of the English, but that first she would send them summonses.* She said next that the King would be crowned at Rheims. Thirdly, that the town of Paris would return to its obedience to the King; and that the Duke of Orleans would return from England. All that I have seen accomplished.
“We reported all that to the King’s Council, and were of opinion that, given the imminent necessity and the peril in which the town of Orleans stood, the King could well use her help and send her to Orleans.
“We enquired, I and the others designated, into Joan’s life and morals (mores) and we found that she was a good Christian and lived as a Catholic and was never known to be lazy. And the better to understand how she comported herself, women were sent to her who reported all she did and said to the Council. I believe that Joan was sent by God, considering that the King and the people who were his lieges (en son obeissance) had no hope, but that all believed in beating a retreat.” (R.107–109)
That the case was, indeed, desperate is attested by all the writings of the times. In Joan’s own circle, a woman who was well qualified to speak since her husband was in charge of the royal finances, the Marguerite la Touroulde whose evidence has already been quoted, conveys this impression for us: “When Joan came to the king at Chinon,” she declares, “I was at Bourges where the Queen was. At that time there was in his kingdom and in those parts obedient (loyal) to the King, such calamity and such penury of money that it was piteous, and indeed those true to their allegiance to the King were in despair. I know it because my husband was at the time Receiver General and, both of the King’s money and his own, he had not four crowns. And the city of Orleans was besieged by the English and there was no means of going to his aid. And it was in the midst of this calamity that Joan came, and, I believe it firmly, she came from God and was sent to raise up the King and the people still within his allegiance, for at that time there was no hope but in God.” (R.118)
The impression made by the contemporary texts is that things had come to such a pass that in the general opinion Joan might just as well be tried: things might, perhaps, go better in consequence, but could not go worse.
Jean Barbin, advocate in the Parliament: “Finally, it was concluded by the clerks after the interrogations and examinations by them accomplished, that there was in her nothing evil nor anything contrary to the Catholic faith, and that, given the King’s necessity and the kingdom’s, since the King and the inhabitants who were faithful to him were then in despair and could not hope for aid of any sort if it came not from God, that the King might as well take her in aid.” (R.109–110)
Joan, meanwhile, was bearing all these delays impatiently.
Jean Pasquerel: “I have heard her say that she was not pleased with all these interrogations and that they were preventing her from accomplishing the work for which she was sent and that the need and time were come to act.” (R.176)
Her first care, when at last permission was given her to take action, was to send the English a letter of summons.
Gobert Thibault, King’s esquire: “I was at Chinon when Joan came seeking the King who was then residing at Chinon, but I did not have much acquaintance with her at that place. I knew her better thereafter, for, as the King wished to go to Poitiers, Joan was taken there. . . . She was lodged in the house of one Rabateau, and it was in that house that Pierre de Versailles and Jean Erault, in my presence, talked to Joan. As we were arriving there, Joan came to meet us and she clapped me on the shoulder, saying that she would like well to have many men of my sort. Then Pierre de Versailles told Joan that they were sent to her by the King. She answered, ‘I think that you are sent to question me,’ saying (adding), ‘Me, I know neither A nor B.’ Then we asked her why she was come. She answered, ‘I come on behalf of the King of Heaven to raise the siege of Orleans and to conduct the King to Rheims for his coronation and sacring.’ She asked us if we had paper and ink, saying to Master Jean Erault: ‘Write what I shall tell you: “You Suffort, Classidas and La Poule, I summon you, in the name (de par, by) of the King of Heaven, that you go away to England.” ’ And on that occasion, Versailles and Erault did nothing else, that I remember, and Joan remained in Poitiers for as long a time as did the King.”
The “book of Poitiers”, the Minute-book in which the questions put to Joan, and her answers, were recorded in writing, has not, unfortunately, been preserved for us; were it ever to be found it would be a source-document of the very highest value, for it would give us what the Trial of Condemnation does not: Joan freely answering questions put to her in good faith, whereas what the Trial of Condemnation shows us is a prisoner being questioned by people bent upon convicting her, under the control of a judge whom she knows perfectly well to be “her capital enemy”, as indeed she was to tell him, since he had revealed himself to be an agent of the English.
Nothing remains to us of the Poitiers interrogatories but a few lines, the conclusions which were passed on by the doctors to the King and used again at the Trial of Rehabilitation: “That in her is found no evil, but only good, humility, virginity, devotion (devoutness), honesty, simplicity.”
And the fact is that this conclusion convinced the King that she could perfectly well be allowed to take action and undertake that trial which, she declared, would be the “sign” of her mission: the attempt to deliver Orleans. Another examination had, however, taken place, which was, as it were, a double-check to the first: the girl was calling herself Joan the Maid; but was she, or was she not, a virgin? If she was not then she was clearly guilty of a flagrant imposture; if she was, that might be proof that she had, as she claimed, indeed “vowed her virginity to God”, virginity being the sign of one who dedicates himself or herself wholly to God.
Jean Pasquerel: “I have heard it said that Joan, when she came to the King, was examined by women to know how it was with her, whether she was a man or a woman and whether she was corrupt or virgin. She was found to be woman and virgin and maid. Those who visited her (person) were, as I have heard say, the lady de Gaucourt (Jeanne de Preuilly) and the lady de Treves (Jeanne de Mortemer).” (R.175)
Both these ladies were in the suite of Yolande of Aragon, Queen of Sicily, the King’s mother-in-law and one of the notabilities utterly devoted to his cause. It was under her influence it is said that Charles VII, albeit himself vacillating and timorous, had made up his mind, some years previously, to take the title of King of France.
Jean d’Aulon: “The Master’s report having been made to the King, this Maid was put into the hands of the Queen of Sicily, mother of the Queen our sovereign lady, and to [sic] certain ladies being with her, by whom this maid was seen, visited and secretly regarded and examined in the secret parts of her body. But after they had seen and looked at all there was to look at in this case, the lady said and related to the King that she and her ladies found with certainty that she was a true and entire maid in whom appeared no corruption or violence. I was present when the lady made her report.
“After having heard these things, the King, considering the great goodness which was in this maid and what she had said to him, that by God was she sent to him, concluded in his Council that, henceforth, he would use her aid for the war, given that to do so was she sent to him. It was, therefore, deliberated that she should be sent into the City of Orleans which was then besieged by the English. For this were given to her people for the service of her person, and others to take her there. For the ward and conducting of her, I was ordered by the King, our lord.*
“For the safety of her body, the lord King had made for the Maid harness (armour) proper to her body and, that done, ordered her a certain quantity of men-at-arms to lead and conduct her safely, she and those of her company, to the place of Orleans.” (R.156–157)
Joan was taken first to Tours where, while the King was making an effort to raise a fresh army, her armour and banner were made. It was in Tours that Jean Pasquerel made her acquaintance.
Jean Pasquerel: “The first time I heard Joan spoken of and heard tell how she was come to the King, I was at Puy. In that town were Joan’s mother and some of those who had brought Joan to the King.† As they knew me slightly, they told me that I ought to go with them to Joan and that they would not let me go until they had taken me to her. And I went with them to the town of Chinon and beyond to the town of Tours in whose convent (monastery) I was Lector.
“In this town of Tours, Joan was lodged at the house of Jean Dupuy, a burgess of Tours. I found Joan at his house and those who had brought me spoke, saying, ‘Joan, we have brought you this good Father, if you knew him well you would love him much.’
“Joan answered that she was well pleased and that she had already heard tell of me and that on the morrow she would like to confess to me. The next day I heard her confession and sang mass before her, and from that hour I followed her always and remained with her unto the town of Compiègne where she was seized. . . .
“Joan had her standard made on which was painted the image of Our Saviour seated in judgment in the clouds of the sky, and there was an angel painted holding in his hand a fleur-de-lys which the image was blessing. I was in Tours, there where this standard was painted. . . .
“When Joan left Tours to go to Orleans, she asked me not to leave her, but to remain always with her as her confessor, which I promised her to do. We were at Blois, about two or three days, waiting for the victuals which were there being loaded into boats, and it was there that she bade me have made a banner to rally the priests, and on this banner to have painted the image of Our Lord crucified, which I did. This banner completed, Joan twice a day, morning and evening, caused all the priests to assemble and, when they were met together, they sang anthems and hymns to Saint Mary, and Joan was with them and she would not have the soldiers mingle with the priests if they had not confessed. And she exhorted all the soldiers to confess that they might come to this assembly. And at the assembly itself all the priests were ready to hear those who wished to confess. When Joan set out from Blois to go to Orleans, she caused all the priests to rally about this banner, and the priests marched ahead of the army. They went out by the Sologne way thus assembled, singing the Veni Creator Spiritus and many other anthems, and camped that night in the fields and the same on the day following.”
This banner differed from the standard which Joan bore into battle as her “ensign”, carried by a standard-bearer who preceded her. It was the custom at the time, a time when, since one was completely encased in iron when leading an attack, a distinctive sign was necessary to rally the men of one’s “battle”, a “battle” being a captain’s company. The account book of Master Hemon Raguier, King’s treasurer, contains the following entry: “And to Hauves Poulnoir, painter, living at Tours, for painting and providing the stuff for a great standard and a small for the Maid, 25 pounds* tournois.”
She had not only an intendant, Jean d’Aulon, but two pages: one called Raymond who was to be killed during the assault on Paris, and Louis de Coutes. In addition, two heralds named, respectively, Ambleville and Guyenne. In other words, she was equipped and treated exactly the same as any other captain.
“It was at Tours,” declares Louis de Coutes, “that I was told and ordered that I was to be Joan’s page, with one named Raymond. From that hour I was always with Joan and I always went with her, serving her in my office of page at Blois as at Orleans, until we arrived before Paris. At the time when she was at Tours, a suit of armour was given to her and Joan received her condition (commission, rank) from the King. And from Tours she went to the town of Blois in company with some men-at-arms of the King, and that company, from that very time, had great confidence in Joan, and Joan kept with the soldiers in the town of Blois during some time, I no longer remember how much, and then it was decided to withdraw from Blois and to go to Orleans on the Sologne side. And Joan withdrew with her troops of men-at-arms, continually exhorting the soldiers that they trust altogether in God and confess their sins. And in her company I often saw Joan receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.” (R.169)
Certain details of her equipment are known to us. Thus, and again in Hemon Raguier’s accounts, we find, for May 10, 1429, a payment: “To the Master Armourer, for a complete harness for the Maid, 100 pounds tournois.”
In addition to the armour there was the sword itself, of which we know that she had caused it to be taken from the church of Sainte-Catherine at Fierbois.
JOAN: When I was at Tours or at Chinon I sent to seek a sword which was in the church of Sainte-Catherine of Fierbois, behind the altar, and it was found at once all covered with rust.
Question: How did you know that this sword was there?
JOAN: This sword was in the earth, all rusty, and there were upon it five crosses and I knew it by my voices and I had never seen the man who went to seek this sword. I wrote to the prelates of the place that if they please I should have the sword and they sent it to me. It was not very deep under ground behind the altar, as it seems to me, but I do not know exactly whether it was before or behind the altar. I think that I wrote at the time that it was behind the altar. After this sword had been found, the prelates of the place had it rubbed, and at once the rust fell from it without difficulty. There was an arms merchant of Tours who went to seek it, and the prelates of that place gave me a sheath, and those of Tours also, with them, had two sheaths made for me: one of red velvet and the other of cloth-of-gold, and I myself had another made of right strong leather. But when I was captured, it was not that sword which I had. I always wore that sword until I had withdrawn from Saint-Denis after the assault against Paris. (C.76–77)
Question: Had you, when you went to Orleans, a standard, and of what colour?
JOAN: I had a standard whose field was sewn with fleurs-de-lys and there was the world figured and two angels at the sides and its colour was white, (and) of boucassin canvas. And there, it seems to me, were written the names of Jesus and of Mary, and they were embroidered in silk. . . .
Question: Which did you like the better, your standard or your sword?
JOAN: I liked better, even forty times, my standard than my sword.
Question: Who caused you to have this painting on the standard done?
JOAN: I have told you often enough that I did nothing but by God’s commandment. I bore this standard when we went forward against the enemy to avoid killing anyone. I have never killed anyone. (C.78)
What impression did this girl—whose company, given to her by the King, were obliged to obey her as they had to obey any other military commander—make on her soldiers? Several of them have told us.
Thiband d’Armagnac or de Termes, Knight, bailiff of Chartres: “Apart from the matter of the war, she was simple and ignorant. But in the conduct and disposition of armies and in the matter of warfare, in drawing-up the army in battle (order) and heartening the soldiers, she behaved as if she had been the shrewdest captain in the world and had all her life been learning (the art of) war.”
Louis de Coutes: “As far as I was in a position to know, Joan was a good and honest woman, living in Catholic fashion. She very readily heard mass and never missed going to hear it if that was possible for her. She waxed very wrath when she heard the name of God blasphemed, or if she heard someone swear. Several times, I heard, when the lord Duke of Alençon swore or spoke some blasphemy, that she reprimanded him, and in general nobody in the army dared, before her, swear or blaspheme for fear of being by her reprimanded. She would not have any women with the army. Once, near to the town of Château-Thierry, having seen the mistress of one of the soldiers, a Knight, she pursued her with drawn sword. She did not, however, strike the woman, but warned her gently and charitably that she be no longer found in the company of the soldiers, otherwise she would do something to her which would not please her.” (R.176)
This testimony is confirmed by the Duke of Alençon himself: “Joan was chaste and she detested the women who follow soldiers. I saw her once at Saint-Denis, returning from the King’s coronation, pursue with drawn sword a girl who was with the soldiers, and in such manner that in chasing* her she broke her sword. She became very incensed when she heard the soldiers swear, and scolded them much and especially me who swore from time to time. So that when I saw her, I refrained from my swearing. Sometimes in the army I lay down to sleep with Joan and the soldiers, all in the straw together (a la paillade), and sometimes I saw Joan prepare for the night and sometimes I looked at her breasts which were beautiful, and yet I never had carnal desire for her. . . .
“Joan, in these matters, apart from the matter of war, was simple and young, but in the matter of war she was very expert, in the management of the lance as in the drawing up of the army in battle order and in preparing the artillery. And at that all marvelled, that she could act in so prudent and well-advised a fashion in the matter of war as might a captain of twenty or thirty years experience have done, above all in the preparation of the artillery, for it was in that that she comported herself very well.” (R.153–154)
Simon Beaucroix, esquire: “Joan was a good Catholic, fearing God . . . I remember very well that from the moment I was with her never did I have the will to do evil. Joan slept always with young girls, she did not like to sleep with old women. She detested swearing and blasphemy, she apostrophised those who swore and blasphemed. In the army she would never have had those of her company pillage anything. Never would she eat victuals when she knew them to have been looted. Once, a Scot gave her to understand that she had eaten of a calf which had been looted. She was very angry and for that made to strike the Scotsman.
“She would never have women of evil life in the army with the soldiers. That is why none such would have dared be found in company with Joan. When she found any of them, she obliged them to go away, unless the soldiers were willing to take them as wives. I believe that she was a true Catholic, fearing God and keeping his precepts, obedient according to her capacity to the Church’s commandments. She showed pity not only for the French, but also for the enemies. I know this for during a long time I was with her and often I helped her put on her armour.” (R.115–116)
We have in her page Louis de Coutes another witness to that pity shown to the enemy: “Joan was pious and she felt great pity at such massacres. Once, when a Frenchman was leading away some English prisoners, he struck one of the Englishmen on the head so hard that he left him for dead. Joan, seeing this, dismounted from her horse. She had the Englishman make his confession, supporting his head and consoling him with all her power.” (R.172)
But it was above all Joan’s purity which seems to have struck the men-at-arms.
Gobert Thibault: “Joan was a good Christian. She willingly heard mass every day and often received the sacrament of the Eucharist. She was much vexed when she heard swearing, and that was a good sign according to what was said by the lord confessor of the King, who took great pains to inform himself concerning her life and all things about her.
“In the army she was always with the soldiers, and I have heard it said by several of Joan’s familiar acquaintances, that they had never felt desire for her, that is to say that sometimes they had the carnal desire for her (ils en avaient volonté charnel), however never dared give way to it, and they believed that it was not possible to try it (or “to want to”). And often, when they were talking among themselves about the sin of the flesh and spoke words which might excite lust, when they saw her and drew nigh her they could no longer talk of such things and abruptly ceased their carnal transports. On this subject I questioned several of those who sometimes lay down to sleep at night in Joan’s company, and they answered me as I have said, adding that they had never felt carnal desire at the moment of seeing her.”
We will, by way of summing up these impressions, conclude with the evidence of Marguerite la Touroulde, of particular value because it is the judgment of a woman who lived intimately with Joan and must have known her in all her diverse aspects. Marguerite la Touroulde: “I did not see Joan until the time when the King returned from Rheims where he had been crowned. He came to the town of Bourges where the Queen was and me with her . . . Joan was then brought to Bourges and, by command of the lord d’Albret, she was lodged in my house. . . . She was in my house for a period of three weeks, sleeping, drinking and eating, and almost every day I slept with Joan and I neither saw in her nor perceived anything of any kind of unquietness*, but she behaved herself as an honest and Catholic woman, for she went very often to confession, willingly heard mass and often asked me to go to Matins. And at her instance I went, and took her with me several times.
“Sometimes we talked together and some said to Joan that doubtless she was not afraid to go into battle because she knew well that she would not be killed. She answered that she was no safer than any other combatant. And sometimes Joan told how she had been examined by the clerks and that she had answered them: ‘In Our Lord’s books there is more than in yours . . .’ Joan was very simple and ignorant and knew absolutely nothing, it seems to me, excepting in the matter of war. I remember that several women came to my house while Joan was staying there, and brought paternosters (chaplets) and other objects of piety that she might touch them, which made her laugh and say tome, ‘Touch them yourself, they will be as good from your touch as from mine.’ She was open-handed (large) in almsgiving and most willingly gave to the indigent and to the poor, saying that she had been sent for the consolation of the poor and the indigent.
“And several times I saw her at the bath and in the bath-houses (étuves), and so far as I was able to see, she was a virgin, and from all that I know she was all innocence, excepting in arms, for I saw her riding on horseback and bearing a lance as the best of soldiers would have done it, and at that the men-at-arms marvelled.” (R.119–120)
Poitiers was, indeed, what Boissonade called it, a “stage of capital import in Joan of Arc’s mission”. When she arrived there she was as yet no more than a strange young girl whose words people wondered whether to take seriously. The King was manifestly shaken by some revelation which she made to him, but was not yet sure whether it had been made by a witch, a woman possessed, or simply by an illuminata.
What did the “royal sign” consist of? We have already given all that we have by way of documents touching this subject, and are bound to conclude only that we do not know, that our ignorance is as total as that of the Rouen doctors. Some have insisted on believing that there must have been a material “sign”, legendary sayings which went the rounds in the Middle Ages are recalled; legends of a crimson cross or fleur-de-lys on the right shoulder, which Kings (of France) were supposed to have been born with. (See, in this connection, Le signe royal et le secret de Jeanne d’Arc, Antoine Thomas, Rev. List. CIII. p. 278.)
In fact, given the almost total want of documentation, any hypothesis whatsoever is permissible—on condition that it be offered as an hypothesis and not as a certainty.
After Poitiers, Joan had permission to take action. She was not really “War Chief” (chef de guerre) as it was put in the letter-of-summons sent by her to the English (see next chapter); she herself denied or deprecated the epithet which was probably added by the clerk to whom she dictated the letter. Some such proceeding was common enough at the time: you dictated your letter to a clerk who “cast it into correct form”, not infrequently adding something of his own devising. The conduct of the military operations at Orleans was entrusted to the Bastard of Orleans, subsequently count of Dunois, the town being a fief of his half-brother Charles, at that time a prisoner-of-war. As to the Loire campaign, the expeditionary force was commanded by the Duke d’Alençon. But Joan was nevertheless treated as a captain on an equality with the other captains, a La Hire, for example, or a Xaintrailles, with her own military household, her own “battle”, her own men-at-arms.
Her Poitiers examination was studied in detail by Boissonade (op. cit. above). It included a theological enquiry: during three weeks Joan was questioned at the house of Master Jean Rabateau, Counsellor in the Parliament of Poitiers who lived “in the hotel of the Rose” (on the site of the rue de la Cathedrale). During this time two mendicant friars were sent to Domremy to enquire into Joan’s origins and morals (Jean Barbin’s deposition). Subsequently came the verification of Joan’s virginity under the control of Yolande of Sicily, the King’s mother-in-law. That, it should be noted, was the only occasion when we find her interfering directly in any matter concerning Joan. She financed, in part at least, the Orleans expedition, but that was neither the first nor the last time she did something of the kind, having energetically espoused her son-in-law’s cause and played the part of a mother to him whose own mother, Isabeau of Bavaria, was neither inclined nor able to do so. Impossible to infer from this, as some however have done, that Joan was the Queen of Sicily’s “tool”; for in that case we should also have to see her as Bedford’s “tool” since, on the occasion of the second verification of Joan’s virginity which was to take place at Rouen, control of the examination was entrusted to Anne of Burgundy, Duchess of Bedford. The most we can say is that on both occasions choice was made of the woman best placed to inspire complete confidence.
The Poitiers “trial” was conducted, as were to be the two others—those of condemnation and rehabilitation—by a series of interrogatories recorded by clerks. Theologians were, as far as possible, also called into consultation, and it is to this that we owe two treatises: Jean Gerson’s*—he was ex-Chancellor of the University of Paris but had taken refuge in Lyon at the time of the English invasion—and Jacques Gelu’s, Archbishop of Embrun and loyal partisan of the French cause. And once conclusions had been reached, the King’s council, having deliberated, adopted them.
What happened to the Book of Poitiers? The only part we find recorded in the Minutes of the Rehabilitation Trial is the text of the doctors’ conclusions (Q.111, 391–392). It has been supposed that Regnault de Chartres, Archbishop of Rheims, who had been chairman of the Poitiers Commission of Prelates and theologians, destroyed it in 1431: given the man’s character—he was the very type of the opportunist—it may well have been so; he may have been afraid that he had protected a heretic.
But there is no reason why a copy should never have been made. There are so many documents, bundles of papers and registers in our archives still unidentified or inadequately studied that we may legitimately hope to recover the whole text one of these days; and it will surely be the greatest historical discovery of the times. Some surprise, even, may be felt at the fact that methodical research into so captivating a subject has never been undertaken.
On the other hand, there has of recent years been a rumour going the rounds that this Poitiers record exists—and is to be found “in a secret cupboard at the Vatican”. Let us first make it clear that the Vatican’s secret cupboards must be of monstrous dimensions to contain all the documents on all kinds of subjects which are attributed to them; but that is not the point. According to the tittle-tattle we are alluding to, the text of the Poitiers trial is kept hidden “by order of the Church” because, it seems, in it is to be found the proof of Joan’s “bastardy”.
History has nothing to do with such allegations. If we really have a “secret” cupboard to deal with, who is supposed to have been able to get a sight of the document? And if someone has seen it, why on earth did he not bring away a classification mark, reference, an indication of some sort, capable of persuading us to believe in its existence? A document devoid of reference and which nobody can consult, and whose existence is unverifiable, does not exist for the historian. It is really altogether too easy to “prove” an imaginary fact by announcing it to be based on a “secret” document.
(i) It would be necessary to prove, then: That the record of the Poitiers trial is still actually in existence; where; and in what form.
(ii) That it does indeed contain proof of Joan of Arc’s “bastardy”.
And it is by no means clear why “the Church” should be so bent on keeping it hidden. the Church never showed any great enthusiasm in the matter of Joan’s sainthood. One might rather reproach it for want of enthusiasm, since it waited 500 years to canonise her. If, less than forty years after that canonisation, a new fact compromising the heroine’s sanctity came to light, it may safely be assumed that the Church would not be unduly disturbed: the Church did not hesitate to demote St. Philomena when archaeological research revealed a mistaken identity.
Furthermore, since when has bastardy been a bar to canonisation? The Church’s most recently made saint, Martin de Porres, beatified in 1837 and canonised 6 May 1962, was the bastard son of a Negro mother and a Spanish father. In the eyes of the Church, at least, bastardy is not an obstacle to perfection.
We will add a word or two which will give some idea of the methods, methods incompatible with historical method to say the least of it, which are used by partisans of the bastardy hypothesis. During her trial, Joan stated that the sword which she had sent for from the church’of Sainte-Catherine of Fierbois was marked with five crosses. Cauchon, trying to confound her by proving that she had made use of crosses as magical signs in her military activities, asked: “Of what use were the five crosses which were on the sword?” And Joan answered: “I do not know.” The bastardy-theorists consider this question and answer “singular”; they consider that for “crosses” we should read “fleurs-de-lys” and that this would prove that Joan was of royal birth; and that the words “fleurs-de-lys” were scratched out and “crosses” substituted in order to preserve the secret.
Refutation of such stuff would serve no purpose here: one must resign oneself to the fact that texts are texts, legends—legends.
* The text of the record repeats, each time she speaks of “her” King, the form “him whom she calls her King”.
* i.e., Are proper to.
* Actually “intersignes”.—E.H.
* Or it could be “required certain things of the King”.—E.H.
* “sur le fait des aides”: taxes is perhaps too formal: “in the matter of raising subsidies” might be better.
* i.e., she would summon them to go or to surrender.—E.H.
* Jean d’Aulon became Joan’s intendant, sharing her fate throughout the wars and even into prison.
† 1429 was one of the years in which the famous pilgrimage to Puy takes place—years in which Good Friday falls on March 25, day of the Annunciation.
* The livre tournois was probably about one silver shilling.--E.H.
* The word is poursuivant; it could possibly mean chastising.—E.H.
* “quoi que ce soit de trouble”: the witness means, I think, any troubling, any want of clear purity of Joan’s mind and spirit.—E.H.
* See the study of this treatise by Wayman, Dorothy G., The Chancellor & Jeanne d’Arc, Vol. 17, Nos. 2–3, 1957. Franciscan Studies, St. Bonaventure University, New York.