Epilogue to the execution. Reading the biography of Joan Darc, one realizes that this heroic girl could not live long in 15th century with its barbarity, tyranny, lies and treachery. In that aspect, there is a certain measure of logic in the betrayal of Charles VII and in the cruelty of Bedford. Nevertheless, that is not an excuse that could justify their actions.
However, let us put emotions aside and return to the main subject of this book. The events related to the execution of Joan offer us two additional mysteries: a white dove escaping from the flames, observed by one of the English soldiers, and Joan's heart that first did not burn in a 3-meter flame, after that could not be destroyed when the hangman put it in hot coal.
First of all: are these claims credible? They are too original for a fabrication. Could the English soldier have made a mistake when he observed the white dove? Yes, in principle. However, such mistake would be much more probable for a person compassing to Joan, and the mentioned soldier was not such case.
Can one suggest any reasonable explanation to "the white dove"? Yes, and very easy. There is a widely known phenomenon called "Kirlian Photography" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirlian_photography). It is known that some people are capable of observing aura as described by Kirlian - and that they are capable of such observations without using any equipment, and can see aura with their own eyes - if they are in a specific mood. Without touching the physical aspects of Kirlian Photography, let us just assume that the above-mentioned English soldier was able to Kirlian-observations and at the moment of the sight of "the white dove" was found in a specific mood allowing him to Kirlian-observations. We know the mood in which he was at the time of execution: an intense hate to the victim agonizing on the stake, the joy of the sight of her suffering.
Why did not other witnesses talk about the observation of "the white dove" or something like that? Most of them probably did not look at the stake; it was sufficient for them to hear the cries of Joan. As a result, they did not observe anything. Other people, having strong nerves, were either unable of Kirlian-observations, or were not in the mood appropriate for that; maybe they even observed some specific thing but did not tell about it, because they feared a possible accusation in heresy.
Now let us discuss the heart that did not burn in fire. One may think it impossible for physical reasons. However, there are two well-known phenomena: fire walking and relic. Many people, simple tourists, have photographed fire-walking, and moreover have been even able to take part in it - they just needed to be in a specific psychological state (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034336/fire-walking).
The phenomenon of relic is described in many communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relic). This phenomenon is not as extraordinary as fire walking.
Human heart resisting to fire, human skin resisting to fire and dead human tissues resisting to decay - all these facts may have a common physical origin: an organic tissue treated by certain methods develops a special resistance to oxidation (direct chemical oxidation in two first cases, or a biochemical oxidation in the third one). This resistance is probably limited: most part of the body of Joan was destroyed, fire-walkers have never yet been treated in a strict burning regime, and the relic was not sufficiently tested in laboratory conditions. Nevertheless, we may assume that a specific psychological state allows protection of parts of a human body from oxidizing processes. As we may judge on the base of the phenomenon of relic, such resistance occurs also after the death.
As the witnesses of the execution of Jon Darc told, before the death she had been in a specific ecstasy: she did not look onto the flame and the smoke approaching her but appealed to Heaven, maybe hoping to get the help she deserved.
Thus, two absolutely extraordinary mysteries of Joan Darc, related to her death and fixed in the Middle Age documents, may have a very rational explanation.
Let us note that both mentioned facts were sufficient for the canonization of Joan Darc already in 1431. However, that was impossible then for political reasons.
Events of the Hundred Years war after the execution of Joan Darc. On the day following the execution of Joan Darc, the English restarted their military operations. Their first target was Louviers. In October 1431 the town fell. Some weeks before the event, Warwick defeated the French at Beauvais. Nevertheless, these successes of the English did not change the strategic situation that formed after the Compiegne campaign. The time lost by the English during the trial in Rouen worked against them.
The French liberated step by step the territory of their country. Burgundy collapsed in interior conflicts, its army did not seriously resist to the French. In September 1435, France and Burgundy signed the peace and alliance treaty. The English lost step by step their territories in France; the French operated more and more in Normandy, sometimes even in Rouen. In April 1436, the French supported by the Burgundians conquered Paris. That realized one of predictions of Joan Darc.
In 1439 Charles VII began to organize a regular army. The process of removal of the English from France was reinforced. In 1444 France and England signed a peace treaty, which remained valid until 1449. Charles VII used this interruption for building a regular army.
In 1449, the war restarted. The French conquered Rouen and got the documents of the Trail of Condemnation of Joan Darc. In 1450, the French defeated the English army at Formigny and then seized the entire territory of Normandy.
In 1451-1453 the French conquered Aquitaine and defeated the English at Castillon /1/. That was the last battle of the Hundred Years war. The only town in France that remained under control of the English was Calais, which was taken by the French only later, in 16th century.
"Was The Maid of Orleans burnt?" We remember the reaction of the simple French to the capture of Joan Darc (Chapter 7). There were numerous gossips about her "escape". These gossips were very nice for those who were not ready to make any attempt to rescue Joan when it was still possible. Even less than the French were willing to act for Joan, were they ready to accept the fact of her death. Practically immediately after her execution there were gossips that she had escaped from the prison or was saved by the Armagnacs. Of course, the Armagnacs supported these gossips, which relieved them of the responsibility for not helping the national heroine in her hour of need. Also king Charles VII was interested in these gossips, for the same reason as the Armagnacs. Also the Burgundians supported these gossips, because they were interested to cancel the negative reaction that they caused by delivering Joan to the English.
At some moment the gossips about the rescue of Joan systematized to something pseudo-scientific. The version of rescue of Joan Darc got a special name - `survivism' (from the word "survive"). The survivism has even survived till today. At some time, `survivism' merged with `batardism', resulting in what is now called `revisionism'. The ideas of survivism are present in the revisionist biographies of Joan Darc.
No doubt, the basis for the revisionism-survivism is extremely weak. Too many people observed the execution of Joan Darc; moreover, it is impossible to believe that the English and the churchmen that had worked so hardly in order to achieve the sentence condemning the girl to death would suddenly release her. The psychological basis for the revisionism is people's desire of a happy end. Does such desire change anything in the history?
It is interesting to note that England, though very interested in the survivism, does not consider it as an option. Joan is considered as a saint martyr, and her statue is found in some English cult institutions.
In beginning of 20th century, when the canonization of Joan was under discussion, many objections appeared, but none of them was backed by ideas of survivism.
One might reject the revisionism-survivism as an absolutely baseless fantasy, if not one detail: very soon after Paris was taken by the French, one lady named Joan of Armoises introduced herself as Joan Darc saved...
Impostors existed always. In the Middle Age, when there were no passports with photos, while most of people were illiterate, they also had a good chance of success. The image of The Maid of Orleans was too attractive; therefore many impostors took her name. We might easily reject Mme of Armoises if not one additional detail: brothers Jean and Pierre Darc recognized this lady as their sister ...
Let us not reject Mme of Armoises right away, but analyze the information available about her.
Fig. 9.1. Portrait of Mme of Armoises
Unfortunately, the information about this lady in historical publications is very poor. Since she is considered as an impostor, professional historians do not pay to her much attention. Maybe we find anything in the publications of revisionists?
Nothing can be found there.
Some of revisionists impose the hermaphrodite version of the princess recorded at her birth as Philip (see Chapter 2). However, Mme of Armoises was married and had two sons /2-4/. Could the Church authorize a marriage between a hermaphrodite and a nobleman Robert of Armoises? Did Robert of Armoises somehow find a way to violate the actual norms regarding marriage? The revisionists, partisans of the hermaphrodite version, understand this absurd and assume that Mme of Armoises transformed into a hidden hermaphrodite /2/. But then where did the children of couple of Armoises come from? The revisionists, partisans of the hermaphrodite version, believe that the children were adopted. Where did Robert of Armoises take the children that inherited his title and fortune? This question has no answer.
As we noted in Chapter 2, many of revisionists, though supporters of the batardisant version of the birth of Joan Darc, believe that she was initially a normal woman (and, respectively, was able to bear children) /3, 4/.
Mentioning the identification of Mme of Armoises by brothers Darc, the revisionists do not specify in detail how exactly that was performed and what was said during this procedure. Maybe they just confirmed the similarity of this lady to Joan Darc? Well, let us assume that the identification was organized more seriously and Mme of Armoises exhibited the knowledge of some specific things regarding Joan and known to her brothers.
Thus, the revisionists agree in one only thing: they deny the death of Joan Darc at the stake in Rouen. In all details they contradict known historic facts, logic and even each other.
As a result, one cannot trust the facts cited by the revisionists in regard to Mme of Armoises. Therefore, let us consider the information about her found in historic sources. The thing most important for us is the identification of this lady by brothers Darc. Of course, these might lie for any reason only they knew. Maybe they were misunderstood. There is even a version that Mme of Armoises was identified not by brothers Darc, but by other impostors, her accomplices /5/.
Nevertheless, one serious detail does not allow us to neglect Mme of Armoises: in that period the condemnation sentence of Joan to death was not yet in process of being nullified. That meant that Mme of Armoises, if she actually played the role of Joan Darc, risked to be burnt. Why did she accept such mortal risk?
Let us note that the latest factor is an additional proof that Mme of Armoises might not be Joan Darc. If Joan was saved due to a miracle, she would not remain in the sight of her powerful enemies that could easily send her to a stake. And the Clergy would not ignore the behavior of Mme of Armoises unless the Clergy was absolutely sure that Joan Darc had been executed.
Thus, the lady-imposter mortally risked herself pretending to the name of Joan Darc. Who and why would accept such a risk? The only explanation of her motivation: the memory of Joan was too precious for Mme of Armoises. This factor limits the list of potential candidates. It is too difficult to assume that an eventual impostor would accept the mortal risk, sacrifice herself only for some money she would receive due to her lie.
In Chapter 2 we mentioned the mysterious sister of Joan - Catherine. We noted that her destiny was absolutely unclear. If she was in life in 1436-1440 and met brothers Darc, they certainly identified her as their sister.
Catherine very probably looked like Joan. She certainly was sister of brothers Darc. Nevertheless, that did not transform her into Joan.
The version that Mme of Armoises had been Catherine Darc is suggested since 19th century. The statement is not supported by strong arguments (though nobody sought such arguments). The only argument against this version is the unclear information about the possible death of Catherine in 1429-1430 (see Chapter 2). However, it is obvious that the woman that became Mme of Armoises once had vanished somewhere and been claimed dead. This is well applicable to Catherine.
If the suggested version is right, what could be the way of Catherine Darc to Mme of Armoises?
Let us assume that Catherine was forced to marry a husband she did not love. In 1429 her sister became the national heroine of France, then earl of Lilies. If Catherine wished to leave her husband, he could not stop her. On the other hand, the couple was not interested to advertise the break-up of their marriage. It was much better for them to imitate the death of Catherine. In such case, the husband was allowed to marry again, while Catherine got freedom. As follows from publications, she might take the first name Claude. If Catherine married later Robert of Armoises, she certainly preferred to hide her real name, to avoid a punishment for bigamy. But why did Catherine take the name of Joan? She might do it in order to try to revenge against the murderers of her sister. To see a woman whose painful death was in the sight of thousands people would be too hard for psyche; moreover, in this case the analogy with Jesus Christ would be obvious. No doubt, Catherine invented any acceptable explanation for her pretended rescue.
Robert of Armoises certainly was informed about the behavior of his wife and supported her, probably because he was outraged by the acts of Armagnacs against Joan Darc. On the other hand, one finds no information about any attempts of the couple of Armoises to hand down the earl title of Lilies to their children.
Let us note that a similar version exists too, assuming that Mme of Armoises was a cousin of brothers Darc. That seems possible, and the lady impostor might have a motivation similar to that analyzed above, but this version does not have more proofs than the hypothesis about Catherine Darc.
Let us note an interesting detail: the municipality of Orleans paid to Mme of Armoises 210 livres. What was that - the estimation of the merit of Joan? Three months of the service of Pierre Cauchon to the English were paid much better.
Thus, we have all reasons to conclude that Mme of Armoises could not be Joan Darc. But maybe after 1431 revisionists have found other arguments?
Let us pose a very simple question. Why might the English wish to keep Joan alive? In principle, this question is answered in Chapter 8: a public act of mercy to the national heroine of France would reduce the hate of the French to the occupants, moreover, that would relieve thousands of English soldiers from guarding the prisoner girl. However, all that would make sense only in condition that the English showed Joan in good health to the public. In such a case the trial would not be needed. Why did the English perform a very hard trial, invest enormous money to the ransom and guarding of Joan? Would that be done only to let Joan go away after imitating her execution, only to reinforce outrage of the French? Or was the purpose to dishonor England and personally Bedford because of this cruelty? Isn't this too absurd for the English?
After all, in the Middle Ages the execution on the stake was not perceived as a barbarian action.
By the way, the revisionists do not take care of such analysis. Their logic is very simple: assuming that Joan was a princess, aunty of Henry VI, they claim she may not have been executed. Why? During the wars of Roses and later, the English easily killed their kings and princes. Why would they offer mercy to a rebel princess? If the English considered Joan as an English-French princess, her chances to survive would not increase.
Aiming to receive the explanation from the revisionists themselves, the author of this book contacted authors of /2-4/. This request was answered on May 19, 2005 by the author of /4/. First: he has recognized that nothing proved that Joan Darc had survived (Very interesting! Thus, Mme of Armoises is not a proof even for revisionists?!). Second, the author of /4/ believed that Joan may have been saved due to an agreement between Charles VII and the English. The author of /4/ found possible that Joan got a mercy because Anne Bedford that may have been a member of the Franciscan Third Order which had influence on Bedford. Such answer of the author of /4/ caused too many questions that I sent him the same day, but they have not been answered:
- If Charles VII contacted the English asking to rescue Joan Darc, why he had not done the same while she had been in the hands of the Burgundians? In addition to the rescue of the girl, that would prevent the trial that touched the honor of Charles VII.
- Why would Charles VII be interested to save Joan on May 30, 1431 if that was not the case in October 1430?
- There is information that Mrs. Anne Bedford was the head of the commission that checked the virginity of Joan /6/, but that does not seem sufficient to request mercy for a dangerous rebel lady.
- What are the proofs that Mrs. Anne Bedford was a member of any secret order? What was her position there? Did this order have enough power to influence John Bedford if it wished to rescue Joan Darc?
- If Joan Darc was rescued, then why wasn't this information, so favorable for England, ever published? Why the modern England not only recognizes the responsibility for the execution of Joan Darc but also considers her as a saint martyr?
- As we remember, on May 24, 1431 Joan signed the abjuration, because of the threat to be burnt (Chapter 8). If she did not, Cauchon would not have any choice other than her immediate execution. What was changing in the attitude of the English to Joan Darc in next 6 days?
Revisionists do not answer these questions.
Revisionists frequently claim that the public was not able to see the condemned lady on the stake. Is that right?
The scheme of the execution of Joan is given on Figs. 9.2 and 9.3.
Fig. 9.2. The scheme of the execution of Joan Darc, view 1.
Fig. 9.3. The scheme of the execution of Joan Darc, view 2.
Both figures show that the condemned girl was easily observed from the entire territory and from the windows of the houses nearby. Moreover, she was well observed by the English soldiers. All the people at the place heard the cries of the perishing girl, while the voice of Joan Darc was well known to residents of Rouen and soldiers of the garrison. Too many people assisted in the public examinations of Joan by the tribunal and at the scene of the abjuration.
It is obvious that the organizers of the execution were sure that the identity of the condemned girl would not cause any doubt to the English soldiers. They were right.
In article /5/, it is written that the face of the condemned girl was not covered. There is also a list of some French organizers of the execution that lately confirmed the death of Joan on the stake: Pierre Cusquel, Guillaume de la Chambre, les notaires Guillaume Manchon, Guillaume Colles, Nicolas Taquel.
Nullification. As we have shown above, the condemnation of Joan Darc by the tribunal in Rouen did not practically influence the events of the Hundred Years war. Moreover: that did not change the attitude and sympathies of Joan Darc by the French people. Her abjuration was considered as a result of her terrorization by the sight of the stake. The Trial of Condemnation was perceived as an English action of the destruction of the girl-liberator of France. The execution of Joan was considered as a martyrdom of the saint girl. The cult of Saint Joan developed and expanded. Its center was Orleans. In the honor of the ex-communicated girl millions of people prayed and performed solemnities. The ex-communication of Joan harmed the Clergy much more than the memory of the girl.
However, the official documents of that period practically did not mention Joan Darc /6/. The victories of 1429 were attributed to the captains wisely led by king Charles VII. So similar to the modern quasi-historians-revisionists...
One of the reasons of this silence about Joan was her condemnation by the Clergy. A good word about her would cause a negative reaction of churchmen, especially Paris University. Also the Burgundians would not be happy to be reminded who delivered the heroine to the English. Also the Armagnacs were not ready to recognize the real contribution of the girl to the victory.
However, in the situation where the simple people had canonized Joan Darc, the Clergy and the king could not ignore all that happened. Charles VII was a politician of sufficient wisdom and vision to understand the necessity of the change of his policy concerning the memory of Joan.
In the years 1440s the king of France understood that the removal of the English from France would not take long. That meant for him that it was a good moment to clean his reputation from the calumny of the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc. When the French took Rouen and got the documents of the trial, the nullification of the condemnation became possible. However, the king of France could not nullify the part of the trial compromising him without the total nullification of the condemnation.
On February 15, 1450 Charles VII asked his adviser in Paris University to perform a preliminary investigation of the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc. In March 1450, some witnesses were interrogated, including Manchon, Massieu, BeaupХre and assessors of the inquisition. When the investigation ended, the king received a general report and the answers of the witnesses /6/.
The lawyers in the environment of Charles VII concluded that the good address for the revision of the Trial of Condemnation of Joan Darc was the Clergy curia in Rome (now Vatican). The principal reason for that was the international exposure of the trial /6/. There was, however, an additional reason: the demand of the judgment by Pope pronounced many times by Joan during the trial and ignored by her judges. Now her demand was working for Charles VII.
As the plaintiff of the future trial, the family Darc, first of all her mother, was chosen. The king preferred to remain in the shadow.
In April 1452, cardinal d'Estouteville, the legate of Pope Nicolas V, began the official investigation of the file of Joan Darc, regarding its revision and the nullification of the condemnation of the girl. Together with the Great Inquisitor of France Jean Brehal, he interrogated in Rouen 5 witnesses, including former judges of Joan - Manchon, Isambart de la Pierre and Ladvenu. These witnesses, who would be properly named murderers, attributed all the responsibility of the execution of Joan Darc to Cauchon and anonymous "the English", remaining silent about the role of LeMaitre and Paris University. Some days later the interrogations concerned 11 additional witnesses /6/.
When he returned to Rome, cardinal d'Estouteville forwarded the file he prepared, including copies of the condemnation protocol, to two experts in the canonic law - advocates of the Pope curia. They analyzed the file of Joan Darc. The experts noted the problematic aspects of the Trial of Condemnation (mentioned in Chapter 8) /6/. "12 Articles" was criticized, it was noted that its author neglected the truth for the lie and the calumny. Practically, all the principal points of the accusation were in doubt.
A similar discussion took place in France. The clerical choir that had destroyed living Joan was ready to sing Halleluia to her ashes. In this choir, the voices of former "the false French" were very distinguishable. The ashes of Joan Darc did not bother anyone; on the contrary, they seemed very appropriate to grow good careers.
The Nullification Process was interrupted because of a conflict between Charles VII and Nicolas V. However, the latter died in spring 1455. French cardinals elected a new Pope, Callixtus III. On June 11, 1455 he nominated some French archbishops to the commission on the revision of the file of Joan Darc with the right of an ultimate sentence /6/.
The Trail of Nullification formally started on November 7, 1455 in the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. Isabelle, mother of Joan, asked the tribunal to free the memory of the girl from the calumny and the dishonor. Her demand was accepted by the tribunal /6/.
The tribunal interrogated numerous witnesses, checking not only the file of Rouen but also the circumstances of the life of Jon, her behavior. The list of witnesses included not only friends of Joan, her compatriots, but also her murderers. None of the former judges of the Trial of Condemnation, responsible for the execution of the girl, pronounced one word in the favor of the condemnation.
The replies of the witnesses included not only concrete details about Joan but also numerous legends; some of them were mentioned in the previous chapters.
While the protocols of the Trial of Condemnation present Joan as single and hunted down but firm heroine fighting until the end for her ideals against the band of murderers, Joan of the Trial of Nullification definitely looks like a saint of Heaven that eventually visited France, called to order the English marauders and elegantly tried the martyr crown.
The Armagnacs participating in the trial as witnesses carefully escaped "bad questions" like the sieges of Paris and La CharitИ-sur-Loire or circumstances of the capture of Joan at Compiegne. None asked difficult questions to the judges of the Trial of Condemnation. LeMaitre was not touched in the beginning of the Trial of Nullification but was mentioned the first time in the end of 1455 when he already deceased /6/.
It is interesting to note that the file of the trial of Poitiers that had vanished to 1431 did not reappear in 1455 while numerous witnesses permanently mentioned it.
On July 7, 1456 the president of the tribunal declared the ultimate sentence:
" After having, with great matureness, weighed, examined, all and each one of the aforesaid things, as well as certain Articles beginning with these words "A certain Woman, &c.," (the Twelve Articles) which the Judges in the first Process did pretend to have extracted from the confessions of the said Deceased, and which have been submitted by us to a great number of staid persons for their opinion; Articles which our Promoter, as well as the Plaintiffs aforesaid, attacked as iniquitous, false, prepared without reference to the confessions of Jeanne, and in a lying manner:
That our present Judgment may come as from the Face of God Himself, Who weighs the spirits, Who alone infallibly knows His revelations, and did hold them always at their true value, Who blows where He listen, and did often choose the weak to confound the strong, never forsaking those who trust in Him, but being their Support in their sorrows and their tribulations:
After having had ripe deliberation, as much on the subject of the Preparatory Inquiries as on the decision itself, with persons at the same time export, authorized, and prudent:
Having considered their solemn decisions, formulated in the treatises written out in a compendious manner, and in numerous consultations:
Having considered their opinion, written or verbal, furnished and given, not only on the form but also on the basis of the Process, and according to which the actions of the said Deceased, being worthy of admiration rather than of condemnation, the judgment given against her should, in form as well as in basis, be reprehended and detested:
And because on the question of revelations it is most difficult to furnish a certain judgment, the Blessed Paul having, on the subject of his own revelations, said that ho know not if they came to him in body or in spirit, and having on this point referred himself to God:
In the first place, we say, and, because Justice requires it, we declare, that the Articles beginning with the words "A woman," which are found inserted in the pretended Process and Instrument of the pretended sentences, lodged against the said Deceased, ought to have been, have boon, and are, extracted from the said pretended Process and the said pretended confessions of the said Deceased, with corruption, cozenage, calumny, fraud and malice :
We declare, that on certain points the truth of her confessions has been passed over in silence; that on other points her confessions have been falsely translated a double unfaithfulness, by which, had it boon prevented, the mind of the Doctors consulted and the Judges might have boon led to a different opinion:
We declare, that in these Articles there have been added without right many aggravating circumstances, which are not in the aforesaid Confessions, and many circumstances both relevant and justifying have been passed over in silence:
We declare, that even the form of certain words has been altered, in such manner as to change the substance:
For the which, these same Articles, as falsely, calumniously, and deceitfully extracted, and as contrary oven to the Confessions of the Accused, we break, annihilate, and annul; and, after they shall have boon detached from the Process we ordain, by this present judgment, that they be torn up:
In the second place, after having examined with great care the other parts of the same said Process particularly the two sentences which the Process contained, designated by the Judges as "Lapse" and " Relapse " and after having also for a long time weighed the qualifications of the Judges and of all those under whom and in whose keeping the said Jeanne was detained:
We say, pronounce, decree, and declare, the said Processes and Sentences full of cozonage, iniquity, inconsequences, and manifest errors, in fact as well as in law; We say that they have boon, are, and shall be-as well as the aforesaid Abjuration, their execution, and all that followed-null, non-existent, without value or effect.
Nevertheless, in so far as is necessary, and as reason did command us, we break them, annihilate them, annul them, and declare them void of effect; and we declare that the said Jeanne and her relatives, Plaintiffs in the actual Process, have not, on account of the said Trial, contracted nor incurred any mark or stigma of infamy; we declare them quit and purged of all the consequences of those same Processes; we declare them, in so far as is necessary, entirely purged thereof by this present:
We ordain that the execution and solemn publication of our present Sentence shall take place immediately in this city, in two different places, to wit,
To-day in the Square of Saint Ouen, after a General Procession and a public Sermon:
To-morrow, at the Old Market-Place, in the same place where the said Jeanne was suffocated by a cruel and horrible fire, also with a General Preaching and with the placing of a handsome cross for the perpetual memory of the Deceased and for her salvation and that of other deceased persons:
We declare that we reserve to ourselves [the power] later on to execute, publish, and for the honor of her memory to signify with acclaim, our said sentence in the cities and other well-known places of the kingdom wherever we shall find it well [so to do], under the reserves, finally, of all other formalities which may yet remain to be done." /7/.
Thus, the main reason for the nullification of the condemnation was the permanent violation of the procedure during the Trial of Condemnation that was recognized by Italian experts in 1452. Who needed the several years that the nullification procedure lasted?
Who needed the lies of the Trial of Nullification? The resurrection of Joan Darc was impossible. The memory of her was not harmed by her clerical ex-communication.
Based on the image created by the Trial of Nullification, Joan should be canonized right then, in 1456. However, even the canonization was delayed, and took four more centuries to come.
The Trial of Nullification became the process of the clearing of the reputation of the Armagnacs that betrayed Joan, led by the king of France.
Nevertheless, the Trial of Nullification was not useless. It allowed the reconstruction of almost entire biography of the heroine. It was very important that this trial opened the way to the future canonization of Joan Darc. Her canonization has been practically the recognition of the merit of all heroes fighting for freedom, including William Wallace, Simon Bolivar, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Red Chapel, Warsaw Ghetto-1943, Paris Rising-1944, and defenders of White House in Moscow-1991...
Historical role of Joan Darc. It is a widely spread opinion that the influence of Joan Darc onto the world history was negligible: "she replaced Henry VI with Charles VII, nothing more".
Is that right? Let us analyze this aspect of the events of 1429-1431.
Let us assume that Joan remained in Domremy instead going to help Orleans. No doubt, the city would fall very soon. A united English-French kingdom led by Henry VI would be finally established. The military fervor of the English would not dilute, they would certainly try to develop their success. First of all, the English would restrict the power of the duke of Burgundy. Then would be the turn of former allies of the French - Scottish, Castile, and Genoa. The weakness of the small states in Italy and Germany would allow the further expansion of the English-French kingdom towards East. As a result, Europe would get a very powerful and aggressive state aiming to enlarge its territory due to the expansion to East and having no serious adversary.
While Joan defeated the English armies but did not occupy England, she disabled the English expansion into Europe. As a result, England needed to pay much more attention to the interior problems, including the development of the political system. Another result of the cessation of the English expansion in Europe was the development of the navigation that allowed the colonization of new lands. Both these factors resulted, three-four hundreds years later, in the creation of the English-speaking system of democracy - the basis of the modern civilization.
Thus, the first historical result of the exploit of Joan Darc consists in the very serious contribution to the world democracy.
However, another consequence of the Joan's exploit, psychological one, is even more important. The Maid of Orleans became the example for heroes of all epochs and nations: love your people, do not spare yourself for their freedom, use any opportunity, even illusion, to defeat evil, fight to the end even if you have no visible chance to win. In this sense, also the English are debtors of Joan Darc, because she showed the example for their future heroes. The achievement of The Maid of Orleans is the standard of exploit forever. The ashes of Joan Darc are bound forever to the heart of everyone who supports the ideas of freedom and justice.
Thus, we have considered numerous mysteries related to Joan Darc, The Maid of Orleans. Some of them are well known, while others appear due to an analysis of well known facts. Most of the considered mysteries have a rational explanation. Some others are based on the doubtful information. However, some of the mysteries need a complex philosophic analysis. These include spontaneous paranormal abilities of Joan, obvious symptoms of her sacrifice, a mysterious sacred taboo of her actual name and images, the wonderful similarity of the last part of her biography to the history of St Catherine, and horrible mysteries related to the death of the heroine.
Of course, all the analysis presented in this book is just a hypothesis based on the modern scientific methods. The real solution of the mysteries of The Maid of Orleans has gone with her to the eternity.
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap9/ris._9.1.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap9/ris._9.2.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_f_a/chap9/ris._9.3.jpg)