The Maid of Orleans

Forums: History
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Joan of Arc. I was just listening to a symphony by Norman delloGioio (Sp.?) dedicated to the martyrdom of St. Joan. I have been thinking about this, on and off, for years. The whole Joan of Arc legend is a clever piece of public relations propaganda engineered by the French with the
inestimable aid of the See of St, Peter in Rome. Joan was cannonized by the Roman Catholic Church at a time when it was imperative to make everything English look bad and evil. Henry VIII had just broken off from Rome and established the Church of England. If the English had
burned at the stake a French heroine, she must have been a saint.

And so the story of Joan's glory has come down to us. Joan was a brave and intensely devout Christian maid who saved France in her hour of need. She was unjustly betrayed and martyred
by the English. Right? I don't think so.

If you look at the transcripts of the trial (and they have survived, incredibly enough), it becomes apparent that the judges were left with little choice. We must not forget that this was an ecclesiastic court, not a lay criminal or a civil procedure. These judges were theologians, well
versed in the doctrines of heresy of their time. And Joan was an undoubted heretic. In fact, if you look at the record, there is reason to suspect that the charges against her were quite valid, that she had, in fact, conspired with what were then called 'the Dark Powers,' had, in fact, trod
the 'left-hand Path.' To be fair, l'll concede that she may have done this in ignorant innocence but -- given the laws and folkways of her time -- this does not constitute a mitigating circumstance.

She said she heard voice, telling her how to act, and -- significantly -- these voices came to her in a grove of trees, a grove which, until the coming of Christianity, had been a druidic grove of worship. She was obviously being egged on, not by the Virgin Mary and the Archangels, but
by the old gods of a pagan tradition. Lisatening to these voices constituted prima facie evidence of consorting with the Devil. She dressed as a man. This seems to be a throwback to the days
when warrior queens were not uncommon among the ancient Celts (See the story of Maeve in the Book of Ulster; cf. also Queen Bodacea of the Britons).

And the most damning self-incrimination of all. She was given a chance to recant her heretic beliefs simply by publicly saying the Lord's Prayer in open court. Three times she refused to do this. She said she would recite the Pater Noster in the confessional with her confessor, but not in
public. But this is a cop-out. If she did it in the confessional, there would be no evidence that she had done it. The priest who heard her confession could not divulge the secrets of the confessional. She could recite 'Mary had a little lamb' in the confessional and the priest could neither confirm nor deny that she had recited the Lord's Prayer.

I personally believe that the Maid of Orleans was a badly-disturbed schizzophrenic (the 'voices' are significant), whose death at the hands of an Inquisitorial tribunal was sadly undortunate. But, within the context of the time of her conviction, no other verdict and no other sentence were
possible.

Your thoughts on this, please?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 7,157 • Replies: 34

No top replies

MA I believe she was nuts but that she is one of the few heroines we women folk have. She may have been crazed but war does that to people. Regarding her trial verdict, whe was later exonerated. Hope I am not going to far off topic by inserting this exceprt from Miranda, but I think it is relevant.

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

"The maxim nemo tenetur seipsum accusare had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which [have] long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, [were] not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the [384 U.S. 436, 443] questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has become firmly embedded in English, as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the States, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law, so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment." Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 596 -597 (1896).

0 Replies

If I understand you correctly, Joanne, you are saying that the Miranda ruling mandates two things (among others): 1) That an accused must understand the nature of the charges against him/her and the consequences of being convicted on those charges, and; 2) that any confession must be voluntary and not arrived at by any sort of torment (physical or mental) nor the threat of such torment.

These are my own words, but that is as I understand the decision. It is true that Joan was shown the instruments of torture in an effort to secure a confession. She never confessed and she was never physically tortured. There is little question that she must have understood the charges against her and the consquences, given the environment she had grown up in.

But your application of the Miranda case to Joan's situation is an ex post facto exercise. If anything, Joan was treated with great respect and courtesy for that time and place, bearing in mind the atrocities that the Holy Inquisition routinely committed and the low status commonly granted to peasant girls.

There is another factor here, usually omitted by historians who would adulate the memory of St. Joan. Her main champion during the battles in which she led the French, and afterwards during her trial, was Gilles de Rais, later himself convicted of the most abominable Satan-worshipping murders of young children. It is deRais on whose career the propotype of Bluebeard , the villain of folklore, was based. Is there a connection? Is there a reason why a Satanist like Gilles deRais would find a maid like Jeanne worthy to be followed?

0 Replies

I can add little to the discussion, Andy, except to concur with your findings. And permit me to hasten and add that that is of no insignificant moment for me, because

1.) I was born and raised in a town named Orleans (albeit only indirectly deriving its name from the French city -- my hometown was established the same year Old Hickory whupped the Brits in New Orleans.)

2.) The earliest playmate I had in said town was a young maid (aged 3, I myself being 2 at the time) by the name of Joan, and

3.) Of most consequence, you will take note of my avatar and understand that Mr. Clemens was of the opposite camp in this matter. Nonetheless, I am not bound to acceptance of his views on all subjects, and the fact is, his book on Joan of Arc was the only of his works I could not stomach.

Quasimodo got a bummer rap, if you care to have MHO.

0 Replies

M. deBacle, mon coeur est replis avec ...

oh, the hell with it. Thank you for your input. I knew you'd see the light. And I regret, truly, to admit that I am unfamiliar with Mr. Clemens's dissertation on this subject. Embarrassed

0 Replies

I really wish I knew more on this subject.

Certainly, though, talk about our current methods of interrogation, and our current rules regarding torture, cruel and unusual punishment and the like is, indeed, an ex post facto exercise. Today, we feel that lethal injection is perhaps the most 'merciful' form of execution. Tomorrow, we might feel that hanging or even drawing and quartering is more merciful - and of course it would be unfair to judge the standards of today by the standards of tomorrow, much as it is unfair to judge yesterday's standards by today's.

I know the basics about Joan of Arc, but that's about it. And, for me, she doesn't have a religious appeal. So, she, um, led an army against the English and was brought before the Inquisition for heresy and admitted she heard voices. Plus, she didn't admit her 'guilt'. Am I missing anything?

0 Replies

Thank you for joining the discussion, Jes, and for your legal expertise.

No, you're not missing anything as far as the dry facts are concerned. My point is that those facts -- her story -- have been twisted out of shape to give a particular 'spin' to her story, a spin which validates the view that she was a martyr and a role-model. My further point is that this 'spin' is patently in contradiction to the facts as they are available to us and it's high time for historians to re-examine the Jeanne d'Arc legend and set it right. They largely won't, of course, because the Maid has become such a potent symbol for the French and any revisionism in this case would be seen as Francophobia or worse.

0 Replies

Unspinning the spin (there's a phrase for ya) might also be, to some people, male chauvinism.

I hate to break this to anyone, but the Middle Ages was an awful, horrible, icky time to be female. There were few women who lived lives beyond continual pregnancy and childbirth, or a celibate life of devotion to the church.

Was the Jeanne d'Arc story spun into a hero-worship-type tale because she was (a) different from her contemporaries and (b) warlike? And, perhaps, because she was spiritual and, in more modern terms, kind of strange?

What about Eleanor of Aquitaine as a feminist role model? Yes, she's known more for her relationships to kings than for actual ruling, but she influenced how many kings?
* Louis, um, something-or-other (you can tell I don't feel like getting up and locating the book I have about her :-D) of France, her first husband
* Henry II of England, her second husband
* Richard the Lionhearted of England, her favorite son
* John of England, another one of her sons

And she did her thing without directly taking anyone to war. So why isn't there a St. Eleanor? Is it just because she wasn't a martyr? But that's not the sole (or dispositive) criterion, is it? Is it because she wasn't known for her piety (at least, not any more or less fervent than her contemporaries)? But wasn't - from what I'm reading from you - Joan of Arc also suffering from, heh, piety deficiency?

I'd start a canonize (or at least recognize her as a proto-feminist) Eleanor of Aquitaine movement, but I can't fit the name of the movement on a tee shirt. :wink:

0 Replies

If I only had time ...
[My mother will go -we hope- next week for rehabilitaion in a sanatorium. Thus, we only have to take care of my aunt, so can be online more then just these few minutes just now.]

I've visited quite a few places, where Joan d'Arc still seems to be present (which could be complete France - sometimes - , I know).

And when you study law and/or history in Europe (which I did, both), you are bound to learn something about this case - the one or the other way. [Another point is that I taught "anti-sexistic 'youthwork' for boys and emancipating 'youthwork' for girls later.]

A quite interesting collection about Joan d'Arc is this site:
http://www.stjoan-center.com/

Kelly DeVries wrote about her military genius - a bookreview is to read here:
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/joan_ib.html

The more "women-related history" part can be read here
http://kings.edu/~wmnhist/joanarc.html

Well, and THE sourcebook for medival history has of course the trial online:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/joanofarc-trial.html

0 Replies

One of my favorite historic characters, Jes, Eleanor of Aquitaine. (And Kate Hepburn was terrific in the role in The Lion in Winter.) Perhaps Eleanor can't be considered for sainthood because she was a twice-married woman. Virginity tends to be valued in female Saints for some reason not quite clear to me. One would think that being the mother of 'great men' would count for something.

For sainthood, I would nominate Elizabeth of Bingham, a true 'Rennaisance man' (HA!) at the height of the High Middle Ages.

0 Replies

I'm sorry, MA, but you've been totally hoodwinked. The "trial" which Jeanne endured violated all the rules of canon courts, and, in the end could find nothing substantive to accuse her of, other than wearing men's clothing. She had protested that she did so to protect herself from the unwanted advances of her jailers, which was a little disingenuous on her part, but a valid complaint nonetheless. At a certain point in her ordeal, she apparently decided that it was not worth the struggle, and reverted to wearing men's clothing, and so, was condemned. Before you make holy joes of the s.o.b.'s who originally condemned her simply because it was claimed to be a canon court, perhaps you should also read the record of her interrogation (not a hostile one, but a fact-finding panel) before her public career, when the Dauphin wanted to be assured he wasn't being hoodwinked before he gave her material support. Then read the record of the canon court who reviewed her original condemnation, took eye-witness testimony, and exhonerated her. The inquisitor for Rouen, where she was condemned, refused to participate, and one of the "luminaries" of the University of Paris, hostile to the Dauphin, and dreaming of hoodwinking the English and the Burgundians to become the true masters of France, was brought in to run this kangaroo court, which is actually an insult to kangaroo jurists everywhere.

As for the issue of sainthood, that's a scam that is largely meaningless to me. As for her being the savior of France, i haven't the slightest doubt, after a good deal of reading on this subject, that she provided a focus for the inchoate sense of national identity which was growing among the speakers of the French language in a region of Europe which was not yet France as a nation. Absent any leadership, this feeling simply bred resentment against both the English invaders and selfish members of the French aristocracy. Jeanne gave the people leadership (she was a competent military leader, not simply a symbol), and a means to focus their identity.

0 Replies

Thank you for those links, Walter. I hope you will come back and contribute some of your own thinking.

Best wishes for your mother's health.

0 Replies

Jespah, i have a good citation for you to read on the subject of Jeanne, La Pucelle (the maid), as she called herself. I'll try to get back here and post it before i head out for Canadia.

0 Replies

Setanta -- thank you for your input. I don't mean to minimize Joan's impact on the history of France nor her role in awakaning feelings of French nationalism. Indeed, it would be impossible for me (or anyone else) to do so. What I am saying is that her role has been misperceived in the general adulation and that, in fact, she may well have been 'guilty' of some of the things of which she was accused.

0 Replies

Well, Boss, the only thing, in the end, of which the kangaroo canon court that tried her was able to impeach her of was the wearing of men's clothing. As for hearing voices and whether or not that made her schizophrenic, i couldn't say--but that would not have constituted grounds for condemnation by a canon court without a more thorough examination. Quite apart from that, her rights before the original court were trampled on to an appalling degree. The University of Paris, rightly as it turned out, considered her a real threat to their scheme to take control in France, and would stop at nothing to get rid of her.

I do hope you know, there is never any personal animus in the excitement i dsiplay in such matters. And i fully agree with you that she has become an unreal figure in our times. Like Washington, she deserves to be seen as the "mother" of her country, and like Washington, almost no one today has a realistic picture of Jeanne.

0 Replies

A little clarification here: Jeanne's offense, as outlined by the inquisitor from the University of Paris, was that she would not submit to the Church Militant (i.e., the church on earth, as opposed to the church in heaven). The wearing of men's clothing was the evidence of her refusal to submit. Apart from the larger jurisdictional issues, it was by no means certain that she was in violation of any specified requirement of the Church Militant when wearing men's clothing. The case made against Jeanne at Rouen was very weak indeed, and most canon scholars of that day immediately recognized this. Jeanne's biggest liability was the Dauphin, who would do nothing to ransom her while she languished as a prisoner of the Burgundians for almost a year, and would take no steps thereafter to halt the proceeding of an ecclesiatic body whose authority was recognized by no one other than the English. Even within their own ranks, these men were divided, and several members of the interrogation team either left Rouen as soon as they safely could do so, or protested and were punished for it. Two of them died in questionable circumstances. Jeanne was the victim of a very concerted effort to "get" her, for anything which could be trumped up.

0 Replies

For Jespah, and all others with an interest in this subject:

The definitive modern biography is:

Jeanne d'Arc, Regine Pernoud et Marie-Veronique Clin, Paris, 1986.

This is available as Joan of Arc, Her Story, translated, edited and "expanded" by Jeremy Duquesnay Adams, New York, 1998.

For the "trials" themselves, both the "condemnatory" and the "rehabilitation" trials, see:

Le proces de condemnation et le proces de rehabilitaion de Jeanne d'Arc, Raymond Oursel, editeur, Paris, 1959.

(sorry, folks, no way to type the diacritical marks necessary for "complete" french--damned Gateway keyboard . . . )

0 Replies

Setanta,

Are you sre the keyboard is at fault? Is Windows set to use U.S. International?

0 Replies

Oh sure, CdK, make my life unnecessarily difficult . . .

Couldn't be arsed to check it . . .

0 Replies

Ok. ;-)

But if ya want the lil' French fellers they are most likely only a few clicks away.

0 Replies

The Maid of Orleans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know