The fatal mistake of the English. In Chapter 5 we discussed the fatal mistake Joan made when she led the events towards the coronation of Charles VII. When the English caught the girl, it was their turn to make a fatal mistake.
The fatal mistake of the English was certainly in their desire to destroy Joan Darc by all means and in the most painful way. They wanted Joan executed not only in order to defame her mission, but also because they wanted to make the French fear, using Joan's terrible death as means for that. As we know, the realization of this desire did not yield success for the English, but led them instead into a military failure. The horrible cruelty of the English towards the French did not result in obedience of the latter, but caused only rage, repulsion and bitterness. The attempts of the English to use the condemnation sentence as means to compromise Charles VII failed, because he was well protected by the sentence of the trial of Poitiers (see Chapter 3). It is difficult to understand why did not the English take into account this factor when they planned the destruction of the girl.
The English based their plans on the situation that existed immediately following coronation of Charles VII. They did not notice the failure of plans of collaborationists and the defeat of the siege of Compiegne. In autumn 1430 the English were not in a position to claim the French crown. They would have behaved much more reasonably if they followed the example of duke of Burgundy and tried the path of peace negotiations. After all, since the beginning of the war, the English did sometimes sign peace treaties with the French, then they built up new forces and resumed violence. In the light of a possible peace with the French, the English needed Joan Darc in good health. While they probably could not use her in order to improve the conditions of a peace agreement, a demonstrative gesture of mercy from their side towards the girl would have softened the position of the French people about the English.
One may object that Joan herself would not accept such mercy, based on the earlier discussed scene with the participation of Warwick, Jean of Luxembourg and Stafford (Chapter 7). However, let us not forget that the suggestion of Jean of Luxembourg at that time was obviously mocking, was made during the cruel torture of Joan in the cage, and was not offered by the English. Had Warwick absolutely seriously suggested the same when Joan was in conditions similar at least to those she had after being detained in the cage, her reply might have been very different. As in May 1431 Joan agreed to a hard abjuration, the mentioned option of releasing her under the word of honor would be much more appropriate for her. After all, her mission ended in the summer of 1429, after which she asked for a dismissal on a more than one occasion.
Releasing Joan Darc would be profitable for the English even outside a context of peace negotiations with Charles VII. The English would have shown themselves very favorably: England does not fight against girls; England offers mercy to a defeated enemy! On such background, the behavior of Charles VII and the Armagnacs would look not respectable. That might be the real moral revenge of the English for coronation of Charles VII. After all, in such case England would not need to spend enormous money on the trial of Joan Darc, tying thousands of soldiers to guard her.
Of course, one cannot be sure that a gesture of mercy towards Joan would lead England towards a victory in the war. However, we know for sure that the destruction of Joan has led England into a defeat. Basing his policy on the extermination of Joan, Bedford behaved as an inexperienced chess-player to whom the experienced adversary sacrificed his queen, trapping him in an unexpected combination ending with a checkmate of the novice.
The English really did not understand the military and moral profits they would obtain in case of a public act of mercy towards Joan Darc. They did not even consider such option.
Another consequence of the cruelty of the English was even more terrible than their defeat: the hardening of the minds of the English commanders and soldiers, making them regard cruelty as courage, even more than they already did. That drove England into a disaster later, during the wars of Roses. However, Joan was not the first victim of English cruelty.
Preparation of the trial. On January 3, 1431, three days before Joan's birthday, Henry VI authorized bishop Cauchon to judge Joan, allowing him to invite her to all necessary interrogations /2/. It is interesting to note that in that document Joan was not called a heretic or a sorceress. That might mean that not the entire environment of Henry VI desired the destruction of Joan Darc. Still, the moderate position of some of the English was not presented at the trial. The trial was dominated and controlled by the partisans of her execution on stake.
The mentioned document contained a serious contradiction: Joan was forwarded to Cauchon in his capacity as a member of the Royal Council, not as a representative of the Clergy. Hence, the trial was under jurisdiction of secular authorities of England. The judges could send Joan to stake but could not release her from the prison.
One of the results of the mentioned contradiction was the continuance of the detainment of Joan in Bouvreuil. Before January 3 that meant that the leaders of England did not believe that Joan was a sorceress; since January 3 that meant that the trial was fictitious and did not have finding of the truth as its target.
The only advantage of the trial was a little improvement in the conditions of detainment for Joan. At the end of February 1431, when the public examinations started, she was taken from the cage and placed in a chamber guarded by five soldiers. Still, Joan was permanently shackled. At nights she was chained to the bed, while during the days she was girded with a long chain held by soldiers /2/. On a number of occasions, Joan complained to the judges that the soldiers attempted to rape her /3/.
The preparation of the trial needed a preliminary investigation of hypothetic crimes of Joan. That was on the responsibility of Gerard Petit, provost of the Andelot, one of villages near Domremy. He visited Domremy and talked with residents there, but was unable to collect any accusative material against Joan, from any of them. The whole village spoke in favor of Joan. The only thing the judges took from his report was description of the games from Joan's childhood, which she shared with all other children of Domremy, near the "Wood of fairies". Gerard Petit said that he wished such reputation for his sister /2/.
Thus, the preliminary investigation provided practically nothing against Joan. The judges possessed no witnesses against the girl. Theoretically, that should mean an immediate cessation of the trial against her. Of course, such thing was absolutely impossible. Cauchon found a solution: for the preliminary investigation he used the examinations of Joan by the tribunal. However, also that would not help much if the judges did not know which questions to present to Joan. In order to obtain some material for first interrogations, Cauchon sent his agent to Joan, a Rouen priest Nicolas Loyseleur. The latter introduced himself to Joan as an Armagnac and took her confession. The confession taken was used as an initial material, necessary to begin the trial. Of course, that was a horrible violation of confidentiality of confessions. However, the disrespect to confidentiality of Joan's confession was not the worst of the numerous violations against Joan's rights in that trial.
Probably Cauchon and Warwick did not completely trust Loyseleur, because it is known that they listened in to his conversations with Joan.
In addition to seeking material against Joan, Loyseleur gave her various advices. First of all, he advised her to distrust the judges /2/. In principle, that did not harm much the trial, because Joan anyway had no trust in the judges, which she knew were paid by the English. She did trust Loyseleur, and that fact contributed to her further condemnation.
Revisionists have written that Joan was not tortured. First of all, that is wrong: as we know, she was tortured for two months in a small cage. Secondly: what would be the point in a torture when the judges did not have any accusation material, did not know what kind of confession to demand from her? Later, when they obtained something that looked like an accusation material, other reasons appeared which made them abstain from torturing Joan.
Talking about Loyseleur, it is hard to ignore the fact that The Voices did not warn Joan that he was a spy of Cauchon. What was the value of the wise advices of The Voices if they did not attract the attention of Joan to this danger? If The Voices were sent to Joan from the Heaven, then the Heaven must have meant them to cooperate with Loyseleur and Cauchon, against Joan. However, if The Voices were only a materialization of Joan's fantasies, one could not expect too much from them. On the contrary, the spy Loyseleur correlated too well with the general scheme of the sacrifice of Joan. What about The Voices-The Teachers so loved by the revisionists? In narrow chambers of Bouvreuil, in the sight of Warwick, Cauchon and numerous English soldiers they just could not appear.
One may ask: if Joan invented The Voices, why did not she confess that fact during the trial, avoiding in that way suspicions of contacts with devil's forces? Let us reply with another question: who could believe that after all that happened at Orleans and Loire? Such confession of Joan certainly would be interpreted as her wish to hide the truth about The Voices and would only cause additional accusations. After Joan had followed the way of the exploit with The Voices she had created, there was no way back for her.
Judges of Joan Darc. The total number of the judges invited by Cauchon to Joan's trial was over 100 men, including theologists, philosophers, nuns and assessors. However, only two men decided: bishop Cauchon and inquisitor Jean Le Maitre /2/.
Pierre Cauchon was a son of a winegrower from Champaign - the province Joan came from. The clerical career was his only chance in life. He was instructed at the University of Paris and later received the title of Doctor of Theology. He was also a lawyer. He had no doubts when he joined the Burgundians and later the English. Pope Martin V nominated him as a reviewer and responsible for the privileges of Paris University. In 1420, Cauchon became the bishop of Beauvais /2/.
The clerical responsibilities did not prevent Cauchon from dealing with politicians. We noted his important role in the preparation of the Treaty of Troyes (Chapter 1). Bedford gave him a position in the Royal Council on affairs of France. The annual salary of Cauchon was 1000 livres /2/.
Cauchon is traditionally accused in the destruction of Joan Darc; in principle, that is right. However, the role of Jean Le Maitre was not less important. Had he, as inquisitor, refused to sign the death sentence, the trial would collapse. Without Cauchon, the trial was possible in principle, without Jean Le Maitre - it was not. If Cauchon was ambivalent as churchman and politician, Jean Le Maitre was absolutely a churchman.
Among other judges, one may note the bishop Louis of Luxembourg, brother of Jean. He probably coordinated the trial, remaining in shade /2/.
Thus, Cauchon was merely a hangman, while other persons made the real decisions.
Of course, formally, many other judges participated in the trial. We did mention Loyseleur above.
The service of each participant in the tribunal was well paid. Cauchon received 750 livres (in addition to his main salary). Le Maitre, Manchon, D'Estivet also received good fees. Each assessor received 1 livre for each examination he participated in; usually from 30 to 60 assessors participated in examinations. Members of the delegation from Paris University that participated in the trial received also the compensation of all expenses. E.g., on March 4, 1431 they received 120 livres, on April 9 - another 120 livres, on April 21 - 100 /2/.
Not all judges completely supported the English against Joan. One of assessors criticized the judgment, was arrested by the English and was later released only due to intervention of powerful friends /2/.
Later, during the Trial of Nullification, many of judges of the Rouen tribunal - e.g., Manchon, Isambart de la Pierre and others - tried to convince that they totally supported Joan and tried to help her. Later this position was reflected in such works of art, historically correct in principle, as the novel "Joan of Arc" by Mark Twain and the movie with same name, directed by Victor Fleming. If one trusts Manchon, Isambart and others, one might believe that Cauchon and a handful of his helpers dealt with a hundred of secret protectors Joan had among the judges, which were all the time trying to sabotage the preparation of the condemnation sentence. That is absolutely wrong.
All judges knew about numerous violations of Joan's rights. They might be afraid to protest openly, but they could have contacted their friends outside the occupied territory, especially in Basel, where the so-called "Basel Cathedral" took place at that time - the assembly of heads of Clergy, which had to elect a new Pope. First, Isambart de la Pierre could and should appeal to his friends in Spain, Italy and other countries.
"The best friend of Joan", secretary Manchon, distorted her answers and other materials of the trial, as Cauchon wished it. All the judges signed the sentence condemning Joan to death.
Violations of the procedure during the Trial of Condemnation in Rouen. The procedure of the inquisitional trial allowed very hard violations of the rights of accused persons. The theoretical base for that was the assumption that saving their eternal souls was much more important than keeping their perishable bodies, and therefore it was much better to destroy an innocent person rather than to let a felon go. Presumption of innocence did not work: if the accused was not able to prove his/her innocence, then that fact alone was sufficient for a condemnation. The judges were also accusers. Tortures and cruel tests - e.g., by fire or sinking - were normal things. Confessions under tortures and standing firm against tortures were equally considered as proofs of guilt.
All the above allowed the judges of Joan Darc to cruelly violate her rights. However, the organizers of the trial violated even those poor rights that were allowed by the inquisition judgment procedure itself. The first violation was her detainment in Bouvreuil, the second - hiding of material from the preliminary investigation. We have mentioned the distortion of answers that Joan gave to questions from the tribunal. Let us note also such violation as non-assignment of a defender to Joan; more precisely, she was invited to choose a "defender" from her judges. Later, a very serious violation was added: Joan was refused in her demand to forward her file to the consideration of the Pope and of the Basel Cathedral.
It is difficult to understand why the judges violated the rights of Joan Darc so severely: they invalidated the condemnation sentence that was coming! However, even more astonishing is the fact that none of the judges-murderers was punished for these violations. While the condemnation was nullified later, the trial as a whole was declared as mainly corresponding to the formalities of catholic law.
Beginning of the trial. The trial started at 8AM in the morning of February 21, 1431. We will not analyze all details of the examinations, first - because the protocols are found on the Internet /4/, second - because that is not the goal of this book. Let us only analyze the examinations in general.
As follows from the answers of Joan, she tried to delay the conclusion of the trial. She certainly hoped that the French she had saved would help her. She could not know that the Armagnacs profited from her imprisonment, moved and acted freely in Normandy and robbed the province, but did nothing to help her.
Since the trial started, the main aspect of the interrogations was the procedure: Joan refused to answer all questions posed by the judges, referring to The Voices which, as she said, did not allow her to do it. That behavior of Joan had a very good impact on the trial, because then the judges did not have any accusation material from the preliminary investigation but possessed only the poor information Loyseleur obtained from her confession. Moreover: also that poor information might not be used openly, or else Joan would understand the violation of the secrecy of her confession. Subjecting Joan to tortures made no sense, because the judges had no clue what kind of confessions to demand from her. Therefore, in the beginning of the trial the judges allowed Joan not to answer all questions. On the other hand, they always returned to the aspect of the procedure.
Joan did not abuse her first success. She did not refuse to answer the questions that had obvious answers - e.g., about her. In many cases she avoided clear answers and sometimes answered with questions. E.g., once she was asked if she had seen any clothes on The Voices. Joan replied: "Do you believe God could not give clothes to His Saints?" Such answer might be interpreted as affirmative, but could not be used to trap Joan. Let us note that answers of such kind absolutely correspond to our version that Joan invented The Voices.
Once Joan asked to release her from the shackles. The judges refused for the reason that she MANY TIMES had tried to escape. One attempt of escape is obvious: in Beaulieu. But which other cases did the judges refer to? They may have referred to events in Beaurevoir. However, that means that the judges considered her fall from the window as an attempt to escape, and not as a suicide attempt. That is an additional argument for the version that Joan had used then a rope ladder and did not jump, and that fact must have been well known to the judges.
The revisionists frequently note that Joan did not say the "Pater Noster" prayer, when the judges suggested it. She did not refuse, but asked to let her pray and confess in better conditions, and that was not appropriate for the judges. The revisionists consider that as the proof that a secret Order forbad Joan to pray. Is that right? Joan understood that the judges were against her and that they explored any reason to accuse her. She guessed that also the demand to say the "Pater Noster" prayer was aimed to serve for accusing her. What would be the reaction of the judges if Joan complied with their demand? They might easily blame her in the distortion of the sense of the prayer, the goal of which is to address God, not to demonstrate her knowledge. Even that might be considered as an act of heresy.
After all, why did not the judges satisfy the demand of Joan? Why was she asked to show her religious loyalty, yet forbidden to have the usual support of the Church?
Let us note that the refusal of Joan to say the "Pater Noster" did not appear in the accusation material "Twelve articles", not openly at least.
During the examinations, Joan predicted a number of things. At least some of them realized - e.g., her prediction that the English would be defeated soon again, and that they would then lose France. While after Compiegne campaign such prediction was not difficult, one may note the sagacity, the insight and the clear vision of future that illiterate Joan had.
Another prediction of Joan was related to herself: she said that The Voices promised that she would be released from the prison before June 1, 1431. It is difficult to understand how Joan came to such prediction but it realized in most terrible way one might imagine: the girl was executed on May 30, 1431.
Very often Joan escaped the questions presented to her. Sometimes that was a brilliant discovery. E.g., once she was asked by Jean BeaupХre, a theologist: "Do you believe that you are in God's grace?". Either positive or negative answers to this question would be considered as a heresy sufficient for the condemnation to stake. Joan certainly understood that the question contained a trap for her. She replied: " If I am not, may God place me there; if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest in the entire world if I knew that I were not in God's grace." /4/. She certainly did not know that such answer solved one of "eternal" problems of theology. However, the prize to the talented girl was not a Degree in Theology but just a short delay of the painful death.
Similar answers Joan gave to other question-traps: did Heaven promise her the eternal bliss, did she believe herself able to a mortal sin, etc. /2/. Of course, such answers needed not instruction but strong mind, caution and talent.
Once she was asked which of the Popes she believed right. Her reply was perfect: "Are there two?"
Sometimes the lies and the hypocrisy of the judges became so painful for Joan that her answers became dangerous but excellent in their noblesse. E.g., when she was asked why her banner was in the Reims Cathedral during the crowning of Charles VII, she replied: "The banner suffered pain, therefore it earned the honor of being present there". Unfortunately, such excellent answers allowed the judges to accumulate accusation material against the girl.
When Joan was asked about her understanding of the problems of war and peace, she answered that she appealed to the duke of Burgundy to make peace with Charles VII, but the peace with the English would become possible only if they left France.
Many times the judges touched the subject of the male dress Joan was wearing. The girl explained that it allowed her to better protect her maiden chastity while she was among men. She agreed to wear a female dress if she was placed in a female monastery. When she was asked if she was ready to wear a female dress to a mass, she answered positively, but added that she would need a male dress if she had to return to Bouvreuil.
Let us note that, when Joan was asked who advised her to wear a male dress, she mentioned not Jean of Metz (see Chapter 3) but The Voices, and the related permission of the tribunal of Poitiers. Why didn't Joan mention Jean of Metz? She certainly did not want to endanger him. Mentioning Jean of Metz could not save her anyway, but might ruin him. On the other hand, mentioning The Voices in the context of her male dress characterized her relation with them: Joan attributed to them things which were obviously not related to them, if that allowed the girl to defend herself or other people. She probably would not behave in that way with saints sent by God.
Some replies of Joan help to better understand the situation at the trial. The judges-accusers attacked her all together ("Sirs, please, speak one by one!"), many times asked the same thing ("I answered it already, ask the secretary") and they distorted her answers ("You write only things against me, never for me"; "If you mistake in such manner again, I'll tear off your ears"). Let us note that Joan was interrogated twice a day, for a number of hours in the morning and again in the evening /2/.
One may ask: why did the judges record in the protocol replies of such kind that were not good for them? Probably they simply did not bother. They could afford ignoring complaints of the accused girl. Really, when the materials of the trial were sent to the Paris University, nobody there paid any attention to the complaints of Joan.
However, the main answer Joan gave was the reply to persistent demands of the judges for her to recognize their Trial and to answer all asked questions without exception.
Joan's illusionary chance. When Joan was asked to deliver herself to the Clergy, she answered that she was ready to accept the judgment of the Pope. That really meant that she required the judgment by "Basel Cathedral", because there was no elected Pope yet at that time, and the mentioned institution accomplished his duties. This required having a Pope elected from three candidates.
The judges of Joan were unable to raise any solid objections to her demand. Their argument - "The Pope is far away" - was absolutely not serious. The usurpation of the authority of Pope was impossible for the Rouen Trial. Even such solution as the authorization of the Trial by Martin V who supported Cauchon was not good, because on February 20 Martin V died.
Thus, Joan's demand practically nullified the Trial of Condemnation. The fact that this demand of Joan was refused became the absolute reason for the future nullification of the condemnation sentence. Unfortunately, that was a posthumous nullification.
Of course, the English would not agree to let Joan go to Rome or to Basel. What alternatives existed? First of all, there was an alternative of cessation of public examinations. Since the moment when Joan asked for the judgment by Pope, practically all examinations were private. Exceptions were made on May 24 (the abjuration under threat of stake) and the execution on May 30. However, the publicity of examinations and the influence on the public opinion were principal goals of the process, without which the process lost all sense and became useless for the English.
Second: the judges carefully drew Joan away from the theme of judgment by the Pope. They did all possible in order not to let Joan realize that she had a bingo with it. That did not really succeed and Joan persistently repeated her demand; she did it also on the day of her abjuration. Nevertheless, the judges persuaded the English that all was okay.
It is a widespread opinion that The Voices suggested the astonishing answers that Joan gave to her judges. That probably should concern also her demand of the judgment by the Pope. Let us ask: if The Voices advised Joan to ask for a judgment by the Pope, why did they not do it already at the first public examination? Why did they not tell Joan that she should not talk about other subjects but only ask for a judgment by the Pope? If The Voices were really sent by God and advised answers to Joan, we have to conclude that their purpose was not protection of the girl from the calumny, but only demonstration of their power. However, if Joan invented The Voices, then they certainly did not advise anything, and her amazing answers to the judges came only out of her heart and wisdom.
The revisionists suggest that The Teachers-The Voices somehow contacted Joan (telepathically?) and advised her how to answer. Then what - did The Teachers know beforehand the questions of each judge? Did they preview the question of Jean BeaupХre and solved it beforehand, hiding the solution from the theological community? And, after all, why did they not advise Joan with a simple way to stop the parody of judgment she was treated by?
Theoretically, if on the first day of the trial Joan appealed to the Pope and refused to answer any questions, the judges could do nothing. The accusation material did not exist then, and the only thing the judges could do was to dismiss the trial altogether. Unfortunately, even that would not have saved Joan. She certainly would be executed, probably on stake. Of course, that would be very bad for the English, because it would cancel the results of all their efforts, but, as we have shown above, Bedford and his environment were unable to act reasonably about anything regarding Joan Darc, or otherwise the Trial of Condemnation would never start.
Joan Darc and Saint Catherine. Let us leave for a short while the trial in Rouen and return to the aspect of The Voices. We have analyzed above the version, according to which Joan invented The Voices and so created them for herself. Let us recall that among The Voices she mentioned St Michael, St Marguerite and St Catherine. That was a normal thing: historians note that these three saints were very popular in the region of Domremy and nearby. One may suggest that in Joan's dreams The Voices looked similar to the mentioned saints. In such case, The Voices that materialized from her dreams were really similar to these saints.
Let us recall that it was St. Catherine that had recommended to Joan to use the mysterious sword from the chapel of de Fierbois, as Joan claimed. Saint Catherine made the suggestion, and also the chapel where the sword was found - was devoted to the same saint. Thus, the fantasies of Joan were related to Saint Catherine.
Now let us consider this saint with more attention.
"Of noble birth and learned in the sciences, when only eighteen years old, Catherine presented herself to the Emperor Maximinus who was violently persecuting the Christians, upbraided him for his cruelty and endeavoured to prove how iniquitous was the worship of false gods. Astounded at the young girl's audacity, but incompetent to vie with her in point of learning the tyrant detained her in his palace and summoned numerous scholars whom he commanded to use all their skill in specious reasoning that thereby Catherine might be led to apostatize. But she emerged from the debate victorious. Several of her adversaries, conquered by her eloquence, declared themselves Christians and were at once put to death. Furious at being baffled, Maximinus had Catherine scourged and then imprisoned. Meanwhile the empress, eager to see so extraordinary a young woman, went with Porphyry, the head of the troops, to visit her in her dungeon, when they in turn yielded to Catherine's exhortations, believed, were baptized, and immediately won the martyr's crown. Soon afterwards the saint, who far from forsaking her Faith, effected so many conversions, was condemned to die on the wheel, but, at her touch, this instrument of torture was miraculously destroyed. The emperor, enraged beyond control, then had her beheaded and angels carried her body to Mount Sinai where later a Clergy and monastery were built in her honor." /5/.
Is not it too similar to the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc? A beautiful sagacious maid is imprisoned by an evil sovereign and needs to discuss philosophical subjects. Her mind allows her to defeat the evil knowledge of the opponents charged by their sovereign. The threat of torture transforms into nothing due to a miracle. Who is that about - Saint Catherine or Joan Darc?
No doubt, Joan herself paid attention to this coincidence. Although, the history of Saint Catherine ended with her execution, beheading. Joan very probably expected a similar final for her trial. She sometimes told her judges that she was not afraid of a possibility of being beheaded, though nobody ever mentioned such possibility to her. Joan probably did not take seriously the threat of a stake until the day of her abjuration.
Could the French stop the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc? Raitses suggests a very simple and obvious way in which the French could stop the trial in Rouen: an appeal to the "Basel Cathedral", with an emphasis on the procedural violations committed by the tribunal. In addition to those mentioned above one might note also the violation of the rights of Charles VII whose interests were directly touched during the trial, while he was not presented in Rouen /2/.
Such appeal very probably would stop the trial in its actual form. That would not save Joan, although, as we already noted above. After all, did the Armagnacs need it?
All historians believe that the Rouen Trial harmed the interests of Charles VII. Is that right? As the further events showed, the condemnation of Joan Darc did not harm Charles VII in any way. That was recalled much later, when the war came to its end and Charles VII needed to rebuild his reputation. From 1431 to 1449 the condemnation sentence of Joan Darc, prepared by Cauchon and his team, was not really working. While the English sometimes reminded to the public opinion that it was a woman that was executed for heresy and sorcery had crowned Charles VII, nobody considered that seriously, because the procedure violations during the Rouen Trial were well known. After all, Charles VII had a very good cover: the sentence of the tribunal in Poitiers. If needed, he certainly would make it work. However, this was not necessary.
On the other hand, if the Armagnacs made enough noise around the procedure violations in Rouen and "Basel Cathedral" forbad Cauchon to commit any further violations, he could simply fulfill the formal procedure. Cauchon might hide Joan in one of monasteries nearby, invite some pro-Burgundian churchmen from Poitiers, suggest a cretin advocate for Joan, etc. The sense of the trial would not change, the condemnation would be the same, but it would become much harder for the Armagnacs to nullify the sentence later.
Thus, the partisans of Charles VII could stop the Condemnation Trial of Joan, but were not interested to do it at all.
Events of the Hundred Years war during the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc. While Joan Darc fought against the calumny of her judges-Clergymen and thousands of English soldiers were busy guarding her, the Armagnacs had a serious freedom of manoeuvre. They met resistance mainly from the Burgundians, whose army just reconstructed after the disaster of the Compiegne siege. On the background of the passive behavior of the English, some French detachments led by La Hire, Poton of Xaintrailles, Dunois and Gilles of Rais operated in Normandy. La Hire conquered Louviers, a town to South of Rouen. The goal of the French operations was to reinforce the power of Charles VII in Normandy. Some sources believe that Poton of Xaintrailles tried to trap Bedford and to exchange him for Joan /1/, but it seems more probable that this attempt was aimed to get a good ransom for Bedford.
There is a legend that on the day of the execution of Joan, May 30, Gilles of Rais tried to arrive at Rouen, but his guide let him down. This legend seems absolutely not serious. First of all, why was the exploration of the Rouen region delayed to the last day? Second: why nothing was done on May 24, when Joan was in a mortal danger and was forced to sign the statement of abjuration? Gilles of Rais probably invented this legend after the death of Joan Darc, in order to look better in the eyes of the French. Later he felt on his own skin the betrayal of his king and the cruelty of the inquisitors.
Formulation of the accusation. As we remember, the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc started without any clear accusation material against her. The information received via Loyseleur allowed the judges only to formulate their preliminary questions but could not be used in an accusation act. Joan avoided brilliantly all theological traps. However, one month of hard interrogations allowed the judges to prepare something similar to a compromising file. This contained, first of all, the refusal of Joan to submit to the Clergy (her agreement to the judgment by Pope was certainly forgotten), her contacts with The Voices, her male dress, childish games at the "Wood of fairies" and the fall from the window of Beaurevoir tower. This was considered now not as an attempt of escape but as an attempt of suicide inspired by The Voices. To the end of March, 1431 the accusation material counted 70 articles. The judges read them to Joan. She gave point-to-point answers to all articles, but the main job of the judges was done: something like accusation appeared. The formal prosecutor was Jean d'Estivet. There was no defender, of course.
However, Joan did not need a defender to defeat the accusation. She easily showed that most of the accusation articles were obtained by the simple distortion of her actual replies, while others were too political. On April 2, Cauchon rejected the "70 Articles" of Jean d'Estivet and appointed Nicolas Midi to formulate the new version. The previous "70 Articles" transformed to "12 Articles". This time the accusation minimized the distortions but tendentiously interpreted the actual answers of Joan on the questions regarding the judgment by the Clergy, wearing male dress, games near "Wood of fairies", contacts with The Voices and the attempt of the escape from Beaurevoir. The "12 Articles" certainly did not contain a word about the appeal of Joan for a judgment by the Pope. In principle, also that was nonsense, but Cauchon simply did not have time to do better. The English were angry with the delay of the condemnation and openly pressed Cauchon and the other judges.
"12 Articles" were sent to Paris University and other Clergy institutions on the occupied territories. About April 15 Cauchon received positive reviews allowing him to formulate the condemnation sentence of Joan. On the other hand, there were obvious shortcomings in the accusation, and the tribunal needed an elementary cooperation of the accused girl. That was problematic: in those days Joan fell serious ill, probably because of a poisoned food (fish). On April 18 Cauchon and other judges visited her in the prison and required her to submit to the Clergy, this meaning themselves. Joan had a fever. She refused to do as they asked. Warwick bothered to call for doctors to the girl. She was treated by bloodletting. Once she felt better, she was invited to a private examination, and the judges required of her to submit. She refused.
It seems very possible that the fish she received from Cauchon caused the illness. Of course, he might not intend to poison his precious prisoner. But maybe French patriots poisoned the fish, hoping that the bishop would eat it? Another explanation is also possible: they knew that the fish was for Joan and so idiotically tried to save her from the stake. As a result, they only made the suffering to the girl worse.
On May 9 Joan was threatened with tortures. The girl replied that she would not abjure, and that if she would be forced to do it because of pain of torture, she would later nullify her own words. As a result, Joan turned a possibility of torture into nonsense. Her abjuration might have a sense only on a condition that she would later confirm it, otherwise the judges might sign with their own hands, on her behalf, any abjuration they liked to.
Thus, when the accusation was ready, the judges of Joan Darc intended to apply a torture to her, but her firmness and her claim of the nullification beforehand of all confessions she might do because of tortures prevented these. However, the revisionists do not recognize these facts.
Three days later Cauchon discussed again the opportunity of applying torture to Joan, but this time most of judges objected. They remembered the recent claim of the girl, moreover, were afraid that she might die during the torture.
On May 14, 1431 Paris University authorized the conclusions of the Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of Decrees (Canonic Justice) with respect to the file of Joan Darc. Both faculties qualified the behavior of Joan as heresy and sorcery. The University informed about that the Rouen tribunal and sent a letter to Henry VI, asking him to punish Joan very strictly /2/.
On May 23, Joan was informed about the conclusions of the University and it was suggested to her again to accept an abjuration. She replied: "I will answer to you. As to my submission to the Clergy, I have answered the Clergy on this point. I have answered them also on the subject of all the things I have said and done. Let them be sent to Rome to our Holy Father the Pope, to whom after God I refer me as to my words and deeds: I did them by God's order; I charge no one with them, neither my King nor any one else. If there be any fault found in them, the blame is on me, and no one else." /4/.
The last battle of Joan Darc came to its end. Instead of 2-3 weeks expected by Bedford, the girl resisted for longer than 4 months. All that time the English forces, thousands of soldiers, were immobilized in Rouen. In the military aspect, that was equivalent to a defeat of the English army, which was even more than the defeat at Patay. Although, this time Joan was alone and could not survive her victory. She gave to France a great victory but lost.
Abjuration. On May 24, 1431 Joan was moved under a strong guard to Saint Ouen Cemetery. Many people waited there. The stake for Joan was ready. Somebody from the crowd threw stones at the girl - probably, collaborationists. Joan probably believed that this was only a bluff. She was partially right, but only partially.
Accuser Jean d'Estivet read a speech that contained accusations and offenses of Joan and Charles VII. Joan interrupted him, protesting and defending the king. She repeated her requirement of the judgment by the Pope. That was ignored again. Cauchon was reading the condemnation sentence of death, while other judges were persuading Joan to abjure. The girl refused trice. When the hangman approached her, took her waist chain and drew her to the stake, Joan became really afraid. She cried that she accepted the conditions of the abjuration.
The conditions of the abjuration that Joan was expected to accept did not seem too terrible. She should submit to the Clergy, promise to contact nevermore The Voices, change the male dress for the female one and repent. Judges promised her to nullify her ex-communication and to take her under the protection of the Clergy. Although, when Joan signed the abjuration, the text acceptable for her was replaced with another, practically confessing the accusation by "12 Articles". Of course, the illiterate girl could not read that.
As soon as the English soldiers understood that Joan would not be executed same day, they were outraged. Let us remember this detail. One must also note that not all English soldiers hated Joan; many of them were fascinated with her.
Joan was driven back to Bouvreuil and was asked to take a female dress. According to the conditions of the abjuration, her head was shaved. She remained shackled, guarded by English soldiers. Men of Cauchon took off her male dress.
It is easy to understand why did Joan abjure: of course, she was afraid of the terrible death. Her abjuration also showed she lost her faith in The Voices. However, there was a stronger reason for her to abjure. The execution, being extremely cruel and terrible, would be also a suicide, because its alternative consisted of more or less acceptable abjuration. Moreover: the judges persuaded Joan that the Clergy took the responsibility if her abjuration was wrong. Under such conditions, Joan as a good Christian should abjure. Although, the abjuration of Joan was both written and oral, in the sight of hundreds of people, while the promises of the judges were whispered into her ear and few people could hear them.
One may ask: what would happen if at the last moment Joan did not abjure? No doubt, she would be executed immediately. Cauchon might cause the dissatisfaction of Warwick and English soldiers in condition he obtained the abjuration of Joan. Otherwise he had no way to retreat. After reading the condemnation sentence in presence of many people, delivering the condemned girl to the hangman - suddenly stopping the execution? That would be unimaginable. While without Joan's abjuration her condemnation was not convincing, both the accepting and rejecting of the abjuration did not help Joan much.
No doubt: if Joan did not abjure On May 24, 1431, her biography would end on that same day.
It appeared as if the English had achieved their political goal: the woman responsible for crowning Charles VII had confessed herself as a heretic and a sorceress. However, the English were enraged. They authorized the execution on St-Ouen cemetery not to allow their enemy to go back in life and in a good health. Probably even Warwick had not been informed about the plan Cauchon realized in the cemetery /2/. Nevertheless, cardinal Winchester certainly had been informed. Probably also Bedford knew about this cruel farce. However, Warwick and English soldiers did not need to wait long for the hour of their triumph. Cauchon just needed a pretext to accuse Joan in relapse of heresy /2/.
The final adjudication and sentence of death. On May 27, gossips spread in Rouen that Joan relapsed into heresy and was wearing again a male dress. On the morning of May 28, Cauchon, Le Maitre and 7 assessors visited Joan in the prison and found her in the male dress she removed only four days earlier. Joan told them that she put these clothes on voluntarily. That certainly was wrong.
First of all, men of Cauchon 4 took the male dress earlier. Joan could not get it back but with help from Cauchon.
Second: being shackled, Joan could not change the dress. No doubt, she was first released of the shackles, then undressed, then she put on - herself or forced by someone - the male dress, after that she was shackled again. Of course, that could happen only with assistance of the English guards.
Wearing the male dress, Joan certainly understood she condemned herself to a stake. In such case, why did she not only dress male clothes but also claimed that she had done it voluntarily?
Joan suggested the explanation: The Voices came to her and explained that her abjuration was wrong. They probably found it necessary to burn Joan. If God had sent The Voices - then we have no comment. If Joan invented The Voices, then she certainly did not need to die in terrible pain for her own fantasy. That is valid also in the case if The Voices were The Teachers, men of queen Isabel of Bavaria.
Very strange: The Voices cooperated again with Cauchon!
In any case, the explanation Joan suggested was wrong or not sufficient. The Voices could not give her the male dress, take off the female dress and perform the manipulations with the shackles. No doubt, all that happened with the active participation of Cauchon and the English guards. What more happened that made Joan not wish to talk about it? Why did not she complain to the judges about acts of the guards?
An explanation was given by Massieu /2, 4/:
"Her woman's dress was taken away while she was asleep, and the English soldiers refused to give it back to her, offering in its stead the man's dress she had previously worn, 'which they emptied from a sack.' She refused to wear it, reminding them that it was forbidden her; but at last, at midday, finding them deaf to her remonstrance, she was obliged to rise and attire herself in the prohibited garments."
This explanation is absurd. The English could force Joan to take the male dress, but she certainly would complain to the judges. Hence, something much more horrible must have happened.
Raitses suggests a philosophic explanation: Joan agreed to take the male dress, because she was outraged by the behavior of her judges that promised her to take her away from Bouvreuil but lied /2/. This explanation does not work at all: it does not explain either the motion of the dresses and the manipulations with the shackles. Moreover, it is too difficult to believe that Joan would accept the painful death because of the outrage caused by the illegitimacy and lie.
There is another explanation. The Dominican Brothers (Le Maitre and Isambart de la Pierre) declared that she had been assaulted by an English milord, as she told them, and that she therefore considered it necessary to return to the protection of her old dress; but considering the type of soldier in whose care she was placed, there is no need to seek for any further explanation than her own, as given in the text, and as later corroborated by Manchon and De Courcelles /4/.
Raitses writes that the male dress could not save Joan from being raped /2/. We absolutely agree with him.
The most probable, in the point of view of the author of this book, is the version that tells that Joan was not only assaulted but was also raped /4/. She was raped with assistance of the English guards. They took off her female dress, unshackled her for a while, made the raped girl dress in male clothes, and then shackled her again.
The rape was a torture frequently applied to victims widely known by their chastity, and Joan certainly was the case. This torture not only caused pain to the body, but also was very hard morally. The moment when Joan was being asked why had she worn the male dress, the soldiers that had raped her were at the entrance. What kind of answer might Joan give? Should she complain about the rape to the judges that delivered her to the rape?
Let us assume that Joan agreed to dress in female clothes again. What would she expect in future? Night after night, she would be again left alone with the rapists. The girl could not accept that. Moreover: even if she agreed to be patient, some days later the judges would test her virginity and claim that she lost it to devil. That would become the pretext for the sentence of death but would be accompanied by the pain and dishonor even worse that Joan suffered before May 28, 1431. Thus, the English raped her and did not leave her any choice. Joan could only dress in male clothes and tell that she had done it voluntarily.
Some people considering themselves as supporters of the memory of Joan claim that the hypothesis that Joan was raped is offensive to her memory. That is absolutely absurd. If that really happened, that characterized very negatively the English, the inquisition, the Armagnacs, but not Joan - shackled, unprotected, alone - a heroine that tried to resist to an entire world of violence and lie.
Anyway, the pretext for the sentence of death that Cauchon desired so much was obtained.
On May 28 Joan was sentenced to death, this time finally.
Preparation of the execution of Joan Darc. As soon as the tribunal sentenced finally Joan to death, the authorities of Rouen received the command to prepare all the necessary for the execution of the girl. The execution was planned at the Market Place (now - Old Market Place), Morning, 8.00, May 30, 1431.
In the technical aspect, there was not much to prepare. They just drove to the Market Place the stake that was prepared earlier at the Saint Ouen cemetery.
The execution on a stake is one of the most cruel kind. One of its features is the impossibility for the condemned person to lose consciousness till the moment of the death, because the high temperature stimulates flow of blood into the brain.
The execution on stake has numerous variations created by the rich fantasy of inquisitors, hangmen and their successors. The "canonic" is burning at a pillar; such was the stake prepared for Joan. However, also burning at pillar could be performed in many variants.
First of all, the execution might be relatively "easy". There were two variants for that. First: the executioner might, after the flame was kindled, get to the back of the pillar and imperceptibly strangle the victim. Second: before the execution began, the executioner put a running knot on the neck of the victim; when he agonized because of the pain, the knot strangled him. Of course, even the "easy" variant meant terrible pain for the victim, but at least that ended in 2-3 minutes.
Much more painful was "fast burning". In this case, the executioner neither allowed the victim to strangle himself, neither did he strangle the victim, but the flame was initially kindled very intensively. In 2 minutes, the temperature around the victim rose to 200 degrees Celsius and more. Very soon, the lungs filled with hot air, and then they and other vital organs were destroyed, and the victim perished. In this variant of the stake, the suffering of the victim was enormous, but that ended after some minutes. However, even "fast burning" was considered as relatively easy.
"Easy stake" was applied to victims that had not caused serious problems to inquisitors and confessed very fast. During the interrogations, when the accused person was already crippled and suffered extremely, the promise of "easy execution" became frequently the decisive factor allowing the inquisitors to receive the desired confession.
To the condemned persons that had caused troubles to the judges or exhibited an extraordinary heresy, the slow stake was applied. That was probably applied to Miguel Servet (burnt by Calvinists) and Giordano Bruno.
In the case of slow stake, there was no chance for an "easy death". The flame was regulated weak for some hours, to burn but not destroy mortally the victim. For this purpose, the hangman dropped water onto the brushwood. Only after the organizers and spectators were satisfied, the flame was kindled intensely.
One of the modifications of the slow stake included suffocation of the victim by kindling moist brushwood, into which sulfur and other pungent components were added. In such cases, the victim was either burnt by a weak flame and suffocated by pungent smoke.
Both variants of the slow burning were extremely cruel.
When the judges instructed the hangman about Joan, they forbad him to strangle her. She should die of slow burning. As her execution was described by witnesses (see below), that was probably the suffocation with pungent smoke. The English and the judges revenged Joan Darc for saving France, for her popularity, for the love of residents of Domremy and for long months of the hard trial. All that should be paid with some hours of hellish torment in the sight of the public.
As soon as Joan would have died, the hangman should kindle the flame to the maximal intensity, in order to totally destroy the body. The hangman should burn all organs of Joan and then throw her ashes to Seine river, not to allow the French to turn them into a subject of cult.
Very important for the choice of the means of the execution of Joan was the desire of the English soldiers to observe her suffers. Most of the noble English, on the contrary, preferred to ignore this "amusement". From the English leaders, probably only Winchester was there. Maybe even Warwick did not come. It was sufficient for him that he seriously contributed to the painful death of Joan.
Some sources tell that English chroniclers were removed from Rouen at the day of the execution of Joan. Historians do not confirm that. After all, it is difficult to understand how could the English do it? Would they force the chroniclers to leave Rouen for one day? Why? Every literate English could describe the execution of Joan. Chroniclers probably were not invited on purpose to the execution, that is easy to understand: not all English had cannibal feelings to Joan, and Bedford was not interested to advertise too much this event in England.
Let us note that among the observers of the execution were strangers. Some of them lately described all they saw.
The hot heart of Joan Darc. The month of May was fatal for Joan Darc. In May, 1428 she met first time Robert of Baudricourt. In May, 1429 she saved Orleans. In May, 1430 her companions-in-arm betrayed her. Exactly one year later she had to abjure. May 1431 did not yet come to its end when the young life of Joan Darc ended in flame and smoke.
At 8:00 in the morning of May 30, a chime sounded in Rouen. On that dawn Martin Ladvenu and Jean Toutmouille informed Joan about her soon expected execution. Maitre Pierre Maurice that accompanied them asked her who was the angel that brought a crown to Dauphin Charles. She replied that she herself was the Angel /4/. One of her visitors told her: "Attend, Jeanne, you always told us that your Voices assured you that you would be delivered: you see now how they have deceived you; tell us therefore the truth." The girl replied: "Truly, I see indeed that they have deceived me." /4/. When Cauchon came to her, she said: "Bishop, I am dying because of you." /2/. Maybe that hour she regretted about her agreement to accept the execution.
As her last desire, she received Sacrament of Confession and Penitence, then the Sacrament of the Eucharist. That was a very serious violation of conditions of her ex-communication, but Cauchon did not object. He obtained all he needed, while he probably did not hate the girl privately. Then she was dressed in a long chemise, taken out of the prison, put into a vehicle with bars, attached to the bars and driven to the place of the execution. She had a little cap on her head. The condemned girl wept bitterly and quietly.
The English worried about possible disturbances; therefore 120 soldiers accompanied the vehicle, 800 additional soldiers waited at the Market Place.
When Joan was brought to the place of the execution and taken from the vehicle, Cauchon read the condemnation sentence, this time final. The representative of the king commanded the sergeants to begin. Joan was brought to the bailly for a secular condemnation. However, the English soldiers were very angry with the long procedure and made a noise. Following their desire, the bailly neglected the formalities and passed Joan to the hangman. The following happened then:
"Joan was risen onto faggots and attached to the pillar, the brushwood was kindled. She cried "Jesus" and appealed archangel Michael. The image was not for nervous people. An English soldier that stayed at the bottom of the stake and mocked of Joan suddenly observed a white dove flying from the flame. He lost the consciousness; some hours later, when he felt better, he confessed to an English Dominican nun, that he had outraged a saint lady. About 16.00 the hangman came to Martin Ladvenu and Isambart de la Pierre and repented about his destruction of the saint lady. He told that when had risen to the scaffold to clean all there he had found her heart and other organs not burnt. He was supposed to burn all, therefore he put them a number of times onto burning coals but could not transform them to ashes. He was chocked by this obvious miracle, left in peace this Heart, put it with all the rest into a bag and threw all that into the Seine river." /1/
Other sources add a detail that in beginning of the execution moist brushwood was put around Joan. The execution started at 9.00. The girl almost immediately began to suffocate, while she cried and wheezed. About the noon Joan exhibited no more life; her dress was burnt. Then the hangman moved the brushwood, checked that Joan had died, kindled the flame that the flames shot up to more than 3 meters (3 yards). The cremation of the body continued until 16.00. After all was finished, the hangman found among the remains the heart that he was unable to destroy. The ashes were thrown into Seine.
That was the ending of the life of this wonderful girl, Joan Darc, but not the end of her mysteries.
Fig. 8.1. The execution of Joan Darc (painter - Serguey Muratov, Sydney, Australia)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap8/ris._8.1.jpg)