Joan of Arc

by Regine Pernoud

  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.

  4

  ORLEANS

  “Jhesus-Maria, King of England, and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the Kingdom of France, you, Guillaume de la Poule, count of Suffort*, Jean, sire of Talbot, and you, Thomas, sire of Scales, who call yourselves lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, acknowledge the summons of the King of Heaven. Render to the Maid here sent by God the King of Heaven, the keys of all the good towns which you have taken and violated in France. She is here come by God’s will to reclaim the blood royal†. She is very ready to make peace, if you will acknowledge her to be right, provided that France you render, and pay for having held it. And you, archers, companions of war, men-at-arms and others who are before the town of Orleans, go away into your country, by God. And if so be not done, expect news of the Maid who will come to see you shortly, to your very great injury. King of England, if (you) do not so, I am chief-of-war and in whatever place I attain your people in France, I will make them quit it willy nilly‡. And if they will not obey, I will have them all slain; I am here sent by God, the King of Heaven, body for body, to drive you out of all France. And if they will obey I will be merciful to them. And be not of another opinion, for you will not hold the Kingdom of France from God, the King of Heaven, Son of St. Mary, but will hold it for King Charles, the rightful heir, for God, the King of Heaven so wills it, and that is revealed to him by the Maid who will enter into Paris with a goodly company. If you Will not believe the news (conveyed) by God and the Maid, in what place soever we find you, we shall strike into it and there make such great babay, that none so great has been in France for a thousand years, if you yield not to right. And believe firmly that the King of Heaven will send greater strength (more forces) to the Maid than you will be able to bring up against her and her good men-at-arms; and when it comes to blows will it be seen who has the better right of the God of Heaven. You, Duke of Bedford, the Maid prays and requires of you that you cause no more destruction to be done. If you grant her right, still may you come into her company there where the French shall do the greatest feat of arms which ever was done for Christianity. And make answer if you wish to make peace in the city of Orleans. And if you make it not, you shall shortly remember it, to your very great injury. Written this Tuesday of Holy Week (March 22, 1429).” (C.221–222)

  THE SIEGE OF ORLEANS

  The Captial B preceding certain names means Blockhouse.

  It was in these terms that the letter of summons sent by Joan to the English was written, the moment she was made free to act, after the Poitiers examination. And it seems likely that it was from this letter that the enemy first heard of her existence. Until then nothing but vague rumours had gone the rounds, rumours which must have been eagerly seized upon wherever the people were for the French king, but which the English, sure of themselves, had probably made fun of as a lot of old wives’ tales. Up until the moment when Orleans had been delivered, as we shall see in the following quotations, Joan was treated by them as nothing but an adventuress on whom insults should be heaped; thereafter, in the stupefaction caused by her unexpected victory, she was, for them, nothing but a witch and magician.

  Orleans was the essential feat of arms, the very sign of her mission, as she herself had expressly stated (see Seguin Seguin’s evidence in the previous chapter). It is therefore necessary to go back a little in time again, in order to follow events in Orleans before Joan arrived.

  “The Count de Salebris (John, Earl of Salisbury), who was a very great lord and the most renowned for feats of arms of all the English and who, for Henry, King of England, whose kinsman he was and as his lieutenant and chief of his army in his kingdom, had been present in several battles and diverse encounters and conquests against the
French, in which he had always borne himself valliantly, thinking to take by force the city of Orleans which was held by the party of the King its sovereign and lord, Charles, Seventh of that name, had besieged it Tuesday the twelfth day of October 1428 with great power and army which he encamped on the Sologne side and near to one of the villages which is called the Portereau. In this army were with him Messire Guillaume de la Poule, count of Suffort and Messire Jean de la Poule (John de la Pole), his brother, the Lord of Scales—Classidas, of great renown (William Glasdale)—and several other lords and soldiers* both English and others false Frenchmen on their side. But the soldiers who were there (i.e., in Orleans) by way of garrison, had that same day, before the coming of the English, with the aid and council of the citizens of Orleans, pulled down the church and monastery of the Augustins of Orleans and all the houses which were at the Portereau, in order that their enemies could not use them as billets nor there construct fortification against the City.”

  The Journal of the Siege of Orleans, from which these details are taken,† was composed, at least as to the part which concerns us (touching the beleaguering and deliverance of the City) from notes written down day by day, some of which can be checked by still extant documents in the town’s archives. It gives the detail of what took place beginning on Tuesday, October 12, 1428.

  “The Sunday following (October 17th) hurled the English into the City six score and four stones from bombards and great canon, of which there was one such stone weighed 116 pounds. Among the others, they had installed near Saint-Jean-le-Blanc . . . a great canon which they called Passe-volant. This one hurled stones weighing 80 pounds which did great damage to the houses and buildings of Orleans albeit it killed not nor wounded any unless one woman, named Belle, living near to the Chesnau postern.*

  “This same week did the English canon damage or destroy twelve mills which were on the river Loire between the city and the Tourneuve. Accordingly those of the town had made eleven horse-mills which much consoled them. And meanwhile the canons and engines of the English made, against the French within Orleans, several sorties and raids between the Tourelles† of the bridge and Saint-Jean-le-Blanc since that Sunday until Thursday one -and-twentieth day of the same month.‡

  “On this day of Thursday, the English assailed a boulevard (rampart) which was made of faggots and earth, before the Tourelles, against which the assault lasted four hours without ceasing, for they began at ten o’clock in the forenoon and did not leave off until two o’clock in the afternoon. There were done several great feats of arms on one side as on the other. The women of Orleans were of great succour, for they ceased not to carry very diligently to them that defended the boulevard, several things necessary, as water, boiling oil and fat, lime, ashes and caltrops. At the end of the assault there were some wounded on both sides but especially the English of whom died more than twelve score. It came to pass that during the assault (there) rode about Orleans the lord de Gaucourt of which he was governor, but in passing before Saint-Pierre-au-Pont, he fell from his horse peradventure, so that he broke his arm. He was at once taken to the baths to have it dressed.

  “The Friday following, twenty-second of the month of October, tolled the belfry bell, for the French thought that the English were attacking the Tourelles boulevard from the end of the bridge by way of the mine which they had dug; but they brought themselves not to it in that hour . . . The Saturday following, twenty-third day of this month, those of Orleans burnt and threw down the Tourelles boulevard and abandoned it because it was all mined and was no longer tenable from what the soldiers said.

  “The Sunday following twenty-fourth day of October the English attacked and took the Tourelles from the end of the bridge because they were all demolished and broken by the canon and heavy artillery which they had hurled against (them). Thus there was no defence because none dared any longer stay in them.” (J.S.O.07–100)

  The information contained in this shows how the English, with great strategic shrewdness, had from the beginning of the siege cut Orleans itself off by severing its only communicating link with what we should now call the “free zone”. This bridge, defended by the Tourelles fortification, and taken on October 24th, was in fact the bridge over the Loire which linked Orleans with the left bank—the part of France which, as we have seen, was still in the French King’s hands. The two fortifications named above, Saint-Jean-le-Blanc and the Augustins were, likewise, on the left bank of the Loire, on the river bank, and they were immediately occupied. Having made themselves masters of this vitally important point, the English settled down to besiege at their leisure a town which was now sure to fall into their hands sooner or later. For the preceding months had witnessed a brilliant advance along the whole front; and in August the Earl of Salisbury had made sure of all the country between Dreux and Chartres, then the towns and countryside of Toury, Le Puiset, Jauville, Meung and Beaugency.

  However, this same day of October 24th ended with a serious loss for the whole English Army:

  “This day, Sunday, in the evening, the Earl of Salisbury, having with him the Captain Glasdale and several others, went into the Tourelles after they had been taken, the better to look over the site (assiette) of Orleans. But while he was there, looking at the town through the windows of the Tourelles, he was struck by a canon that was said to have been fired from a tower called the Tour Notre-Dame (situated at the west of the town). . . . The canon-shot struck him so in the face that it beat in one half of the cheek and put out one of his eyes. Which was a very great good to this kingdom, for he was chief of the army, the most feared and renowned in arms of all the English.

  “The Monday following there arrived in Orleans, to comfort, succour and aid the city, several noble lords, knights, captains and esquires very renowned in warfare in which they were the principals. Jean, Bastard of Orleans, the lord of Saint-Sévère, marshal of France, the lord Du Bueil, messire Jacques de Chabannes, seneschal of the Bourbonnais, and a valiant Gascon captain called Etienne of Vignolles, called La Hire, who was of most great renown, and the valiant men of war who were in his company.

  “The Wednesday following, twenty-seventh day of October, departed this life during the night the Earl of Salisbury, in the town of Meung-sur-Loire, where he had been carried from the siege after he had received the canon-shot of which he died. At his death were right dumbfounded and doleful the English maintaining the siege and they made great mourning albeit they did so as secretly as they might for fear lest those of Orleans should perceive it. . . . The earl’s death did great injury to the English and, on the other hand, great profit to the French. Some have said since that the Earl of Salisbury came to that end by the divine judgment of God and they believe it as much because he failed of his promise to the Duke of Orleans, prisoner in England, to whom he had promised to injure none of his lands, as because he spared neither monasteries nor churches but looted them and had them looted as soon as he could enter. . . . Especially there was looted by him the church of Notre-Dame de Clery and its village (bourg).” (J.S.O.100–102)

  However, this loss was to be rapidly made good:

  “The first day of December following, arrived at the Tourelles of the bridge several English lords of whom among the rest him of greatest renown was messire Jean Talbot, premier baron of England, and the lord of Scales, accompanied by three hundred combatants who brought victuals, canons, bombards and other gear of war by which they have since been hurling against the walls and into Orleans continually and more powerfully than before they had done in the lifetime of the Earl of Salisbury, for they cast such stones as weighed eight score four pounds which wrought much evil and injury against the city and many houses and fine buildings.” (J.S.O.103)

  The siege continued during several months without any notable event; at the time the English counted mainly on famine and exhaustion to reduce the town. However, the diarist of the Journal of the Siege did preserve for us some notes worth recording here, for they help us to recapture the atmosphere of the t
ime and place.

  There were, for example, the exploits of master Jean, the “culverineer”, a native of Lorraine . . .

  “. . . Who was said to be the best master there was in that trade. And well he showed it, for he had a great culverin from which he often hurled . . . so much so that he wounded and killed many English. And to mock them he let himself sometimes fall to the ground, feigning to be dead or wounded, and had himself borne into the town. But he returned at once to the fray and so wrought that the English knew him yet living to their great injury and displeasure.” (J.S.O.105)

  Or, again, there is the episode of the Christmas truce:

  “Christmas Day were given and granted truces on one side as on the other from nine o’clock in the morning until three o’clock in the afternoon. And during this time, Glasdale and other lords of England requested of the Bastard of Orleans and of the lord of Saint-Sévère, Marshal of France, that they might have a note of high minstrelry (haut menetriers), trumpets and clarions, which was granted them. And they played the instruments quite a long time, making great melody. But as soon as the truces were broken (i.e. over), each fell again on guard.” (J.S.O.105)

  And the days succeeded each other and brought the people none but bad news: their reserves of victuals were diminishing and they began to feel the pinch of famine. Thus, every arrival of fresh victuals was noted in the Journal of the Siege:

  “The 3rd January arrived before Orleans one hundred and fifty-four swine large and fat, and four hundred sheep, and passed these cattle in by the Saint-Loup gate at which the people were right joyful, for they came at need.” (J.S.O.108)