The Life of Joan of Arc Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doubtless many matters were elucidated by the one hundred and twenty-three witnesses heard at Domremy, at Vaucouleurs, at Toul, at Orleans, at Paris, at Rouen, at Lyon, witnesses drawn from all ranks of life--churchmen, princes, captains, burghers, peasants, artisans.

But we are bound to admit that they come far short of satisfying our curiosity, and for several reasons. First, because they replied to a list of questions drawn up with the object of establishing a certain number of facts within the scope of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Holy Inquisitor who conducted the trial was curious, but his curiosity was not ours. This is the first reason for the insufficiency of the evidence from our point of view.[48]

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is unimportant. But to show how one may sometimes be deceived by the witnesses whom one would expect to be the most reliable, I will quote Brother Pasquerel.[51] Brother Pasquerel is Jeanne's chaplain.

He may be expected to speak as one who has seen and as one who knows.

Brother Pasquerel places the examination at Poitiers before the audience granted by the King to the Maid in the chateau of Chinon.[52]

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

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

145.]

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

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

109.]

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

The evidence of Dunois[55] is also somewhat deceptive. We know that Dunois was one of the most intelligent and prudent men of his day, and that he was considered a good speaker. In the defence of Orleans and in the coronation campaign he had displayed considerable ability.

Either his evidence must have seriously suffered at the hands of the translator and the scribes, or he must have caused it to be given by his chaplain. He speaks of the "great number of the enemy" in terms more appropriate to a canon of a cathedral or a woollen draper than to a captain entrusted with the defence of a city and expected to know the actual force of the besiegers. All his evidence dealing with the transport of victuals on April 28 is well-nigh unintelligible. And Dunois is unable to state that Troyes was the first stage in the army's march from Gien.[56] Relating a conversation he held with the Maid after the coronation, he makes her speak as if her brothers were awaiting her at Domremy, whereas they were with her in France.[57]

Curiously blundering, he attempts to prove that Jeanne had visions by relating a story much more calculated to give the impression that the young peasant girl was an apt feigner and that at the request of the n.o.bles she reproduced one of her ecstasies, like the Esther of the lamented Doctor Luys.[58]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And if G.o.d had chosen the Maid to perform so great a task, it must have been because in her he beheld the virtue which he preferred above all others in his virgins. Henceforth it sufficed not for her to have been chaste; her chast.i.ty must become miraculous, her chast.i.ty and her moderation in eating and drinking must be exalted into sanct.i.ty.

Wherefore the witnesses are never tired of stating: _Erat casta, erat castissima. Ille loquens non credit aliquam mulierem plus esse castam quam ista Puella erat. Erat sobria in potu et cibo. Erat sobria in cibo et potu._[66]

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

The heavenly source of such purity must needs have been made manifest by Jeanne's possessing singular immunities. And on this point there is a ma.s.s of evidence. Rough men at arms, Jean de Novelompont, Bertrand de Poulengy, Jean d'Aulon; great n.o.bles, the Count of Dunois and the Duke of Alencon, come forward and affirm on oath that in them Jeanne never provoked any carnal desires. Such a circ.u.mstance fills these old captains with astonishment; they boast of their past vigour and wonder that for once their youthful ardour should have been damped by a maid.

It seems to them most unnatural and humanly impossible. Their description of the effect Jeanne produced upon them recalls Saint Martha's binding of the Tarascon beast. Dunois in his evidence is very much occupied with miracles. He points to this one as, to human reason, the most incomprehensible of all. If he neither desired nor solicited this damsel, of this unique fact he can find but one explanation, it is that Jeanne was holy, _res divina_. When Jean de Novelompont and Bertrand de Poulengy describe their sudden continence, they employ identical forms of speech, affected and involved. And then there comes a king's equerry, Gobert Thibaut, who declares that in the army there was much talk of this divine grace, vouchsafed to the Armagnacs[67] and denied to English and Burgundians, at least, so the behaviour of a certain knight of Picardy, and of one Jeannotin, a tailor of Rouen, would lead us to believe.[68]

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

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

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

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

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

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