Since the century XV, the personality of The Maid of Orleans excites public opinion. She attracts not only historians and philosophers, but also writers, composers, producers and ordinary people.
A simple peasant girl whose merits earned her and her family the title of Earl of Lilies (Fleur-Du-Lis). A 17 year old warrior and leader that created a very strong army, basing it on gangs of mere pillagers, liberated half of her country, destroyed three English armies and in a month and a half changed the strategic situation in one of the longest wars in the history, using tactics that later in the century XX have been named "Blitzkrieg".
A peasant girl that crowned king Charles VII, to be betrayed by him to pain and death. An illiterate child that for a number of weeks stood against some tens of doctors of theology and, while trying to save her life, found answers to questions, some of which were considered at that time as problems without solutions.
"The champion" in the number of names and nicknames she has had in various languages, and in the number of books, melodies and movies she has inspired. An absolutely legendary person whose life is known almost precisely.
These are the paradoxes we find as soon as we take a very brief look into the biography of Joan.
A widely spread opinion suggests that Joan considered her main goal in replacing the authority of English king Henry VI in France with that of French king Charles VII. That is wrong. As we show below, the English behaved very cruelly in France. Therefore the main, if not the sole, goal of Joan consisted of saving the French from suffering and destruction. As Joan said, she felt pity for her sweet France tormented by aggressors. Crowning of Charles VII was just a necessity, as Joan believed, a means to gain this goal.
It is only normal that Joan became the symbol of patriotism and heroism worldwide. During World War II, many partisan detachments in France and in other European countries occupied by Nazi took the name of Joan of Arc.
The memory of Joan does not belong only to France. Many foreign representatives were glad to meet Joan when she was staying with Charles VII. After her tragic death, Joan conquered hearts of people of various nations, including the English.
French, English, German, Italian, American and Russian authors wrote about her. Many producers made movies about Joan. Her theme permanently appears in Hollywood.
On the other hand, Joan is a subject of hate for the people, who lie and calumniate about those they cannot understand. In France and in other countries there are numerous absurd myths and calumnies about this heroic girl that saved her country and received the payment back with her tragic death.. These myths are too much like that same calumny the "judges" of Joan threw upon her when they explored every pretext to condemn her to death on stake.
Some aspects of Joan's biography do not seem impossible today, in century XXI. Victories of Garibaldi and Bolivar were not less spectacular than those of Joan. Bertrand du Guesclin, one of most talented captains of the Hundred Years' war, was illiterate like Joan. Flemish Joan, the wife of Jean of Montfort, successfully commanded the defense of their fortress. After all, why is The Maid of Orleans so special for us? Maybe she is, because she did the impossible thing, decisively contributed to the cessation of the cruel war and saved French people from foreign aggressors. And - because of the ingratitude France paid to Joan. This paradox - between Joan's exploit and the reward for it - is probably the main mystery of The Maid of Orleans.
The goal of this book consists in the analysis of most important mysteries of The Maid of Orleans and their possible explanations in the light of the modern science.
The following sources were used in the preparation of this book:
V.I.Raitses. The trial of Joan of Arc. (Russian: В.И.Райцес. Процесс Жанны д'Арк. М.-Л., 1964.)
Virginia Frohlick. Saint Joan of Arc Center. http://www.stjoan-center.com/
This site contains numerous references on the subject and suggests answers to frequently asked questions regarding Joan.
Hundred Years' War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years_War
We take into consideration also other publications on the subject, including articles of revisionists of the biography of Joan. Each chapter contains the list of used references.
We thank MrsMrs. Virginia Frohlick (Saint Joan of Arc Center) for useful consultations.
We thank Mr. Nikolai Shulgin (Moscow), Ph.D., for useful discussion.
Chapter 1. Important events and mysteries of Hundred Years' War before The Maid of Orleans
Reasons that caused the Hundred Years' War. In 1066 duke William the Conqueror defeated the Saxon army of king Harold II in the battle of Hastings and became king of England. Nothing indicated at that time the enormous price France would pay for this invasion.
Separated from the continent, England developed in a somewhat specific manner. The invasion of William caused a painful tension between the English-Saxon majority of the population and the Franco-Norman leaders, in addition to the traditional contradictions between "noble" and "simple", rich and poor. The factor of additional (inter-ethnic) tensions stimulated the fast development of England, in comparison with other European countries, including France. As a result, in 1215 king John was forced to sign The Great Charter. While the Charter protected mostly the interests of English barons, it stimulated the development of democratic mentality and became the juridical base for the future European democracy.
The geographic separation of England from the continent allowed the English to reduce their expenses for defense and let them spend less money on military needs. Of course, such weak neighbors as Scotland, Wales and Ireland were unable to menace England seriously. This factor was very favorable for the economic development of England. The powerful economy allowed England to organize a very strong army that performed excellently in the Hundred Years" War.
As the ethnical tensions in England eased, the country became the most developed and powerful part of Europe. The fast development of England resulted in aggressions of England against its neighbors. While Scotland, Wales and Ireland were too weak, the French sometimes succeeded in battles with the English. As a result, in the beginning of century XIV, the French conquered most of English continental lands (see Fig. 1.1).
Fig. 1.1. English presence in France, 1337. French territory - yellow, English - grey /3/.
First mystery of Hundred Years' War. The first mystery of the war appeared some ten years before the first shot.
While the main reason that caused the war was the fast political and economical development of England, the formal reason was related to problems of French inheritance /1, 2/.
In 1314, Philip IV, king of France, died. He had three sons. During next 14 years they (Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV) all died, leaving no heirs. The Capetian dynasty ceased to exist. The French crown became vacant.
A really strange series of events! The first explanation: conspiracy. Maybe some pretender organized the death of all three brothers? No, such assumption is hardly acceptable. To make sense for such conspiracy, the succession rights of the pretender should be very convincing, otherwise the pretender only helped his rivals. As we show below, the rights of both pretenders to French crown were too doubtful, therefore, they did not have enough reason to work hard. The only reasonable explanation: maybe Charles IV killed both of his brothers, then deceased for some reason not related to policy or crown. However, his wife might have a son. In the last case, the pretext for the war would be delayed.
Now, let us analyze the situation in France after the death of Charles IV. There were two pretenders to the French crown: English king Edward III (his mother Isabel was a French princess, daughter of Philip IV) and earl Philip Valois (nephew of Philip).
According to the Salic Law (Lex Salica, law from the period of Frankish empire), a woman could not inherit French crown. In England, the Salic Law was not valid.
Let us note that problems of inheritance have caused a series of other terrible wars: the Wars of the Roses in England.
In April 1328, the Royal Council of France elected Philip Valois, and he was crowned as Philip VI. Edward III accepted this decision and recognized Philip VI as French suzerain /1, 2/.
In 1337, the conflict between these two kings renewed. Robert Artois, felon in the eyes of Philip VI, escaped to Aquitaine, one of English provinces in France. France confiscated Aquitaine, for reasons of rebellion and disobedience. Then the English attacked Zealand (Battle of Cadsand or Cadzand). In 1338, England declared war to France, Edward III claimed the French crown and added the French heraldic symbols to his coat of arms /1, 2/.
The claims of the French crown by English kings remained even after the dynastic changes in England, when Lancaster replaced Plantagenet.
Thus, it is not correct to believe that only England was responsible for the Hundred Years" war. The French king did all possible to cause the violence.
The dynastic conflict between English and French kings started one of most terrible wars in Human history. We call it the "Hundred Years' war", while it really consisted of a number of periods of military violence interrupted by unstable armistices. Most important events of Hundred Years' war from 1337 to 1420. After the first victory in Battle of Cadsand, English were defeated a number of times, especially on the sea /2/. Enemies attacked each other without definite success until the battle of Crecy (1346). During this battle, the French side organized very poorly the interaction between their cavalry and infantry (the Genoese). The Genoese were easily defeated by English archers that also used cannons (first time in European battlefield). When Genoise tried to escape the enemy, they collided with the cavalry of French knights, while the latter was on the way to attack the English.. The French cavalry was very soon totally defeated by the English /2, 3/.
Because of the pandemics of the Black Death (Black Plague, the bubonic plague) both sides interrupted the battles. The population of Europe died by tens of millions. Only in Avignon, the number of dead people was about 62 thousands in two months (50% of residents), while the number of the French lost in the battle of Crecy was 3 thousands /2/.
Later, the English invasion restarted. In 1356, a brave deceptive incursion into the depth of enemy positions allowed the English to win the battle of Poitiers /2/. The main result of the battle consisted in the capture of king Jean II by the English. While the victory at Crecy gave to the English the North-West part of France, Poitiers gave them the South-West of the country.
In the following years, the English invasion was stopped due to the excellent defense of French fortresses. However, the rebellion of Jacquerie and revolts in Paris allowed the English to obtain very favorable conditions of peace treaty of Bretigny (1360). Then the map of France looked as shown on Fig. 1.2.
Fig. 1.2. English presence in France, 1360. French territory - yellow, English - grey /3/.
According to the Treaty of Brétigny, England received above 1/3 of the French territories, mostly in South France, but agreed to renounce the French crown.
The peace Treaty of Brétigny remained in force until 1369, and was sporadically violated by collisions of the English and the French in France and in Castile. Due to the French support, Henry of Trastamara obtained the Castilian throne, was crowned as Henry II and became an ally of France against England.
In June 1369 France, supported by Castile, attacked the English on the sea. In 20 years, the French won back most of territories they lost in 1360. The situation of the English was complicated by interior problems, including the dynastic fight and Wat Tyler's revolt in 1381 /2, 3/.
In 1375, the English and the French signed a new peace agreement, which remained in force only until 1377. The further fighting was not successful for both sides. In 1389 a new peace agreement was signed /2/. The map of France of 1380 is on Fig. 1.3.
Fig. 1.3. English presence in France, 1380. French territory - yellow, English - grey /3/.
Another mysterious key event happened in France, 1392: French king Charles VI exhibited madness. Dukes of Orleans and Burgundy, brothers of Charles VI, started the fight for the right of regency /2/. In 1393, Louis of Orleans succeeded and became the regent. In 1396 France and England signed a new peace treaty, and English king Richard II married the French princess Isabel. However, Richard II lost the English throne in 1399. The throne was taken over by Henry IV (Bolingbroke) /2, 3/.
In 1402 the Scottish allies of France were defeated in the Battle of Humbleton Hill /2, 3/. However, French naval forces defeated the English. Most of English captives were killed by the French. In revenge, the English devastated French lands.
Thus, in beginning of century XV the war between England and France progressed with alternating success of the rivals, success swinging from one side to the other like a pendulum. None of the enemies succeeded definitely, and both adversaries aimed mainly to the destruction of peaceful people. Both England and France were cruel with peaceful population and with captives.
However, in 1411 the pendulum of war tended to the side of England. The permanent conflict of Orleans and Burgundy resulted in a civil war in France. The English sided with Burgundy.
Very soon Louis of Orleans was assassinated, and Armagnac became the leader of the French resistance to England and to Burgundy. Later, the name "Armagnac" was attributed to all partisans of freedom of France, while that was not correct. The real Armagnac was just one of numerous feudal seniors. In 1413, when residents of Paris organized a revolt, this was cruelly suppressed by partisans of Armagnac.
In 1413 Henry V Lancaster took the English throne. In 1415 his army landed in Normandy and defeated the French in the battle of Agincourt. This victory was achieved due to a perfect interaction of English archers with cavalry and due to the use of palings. During this battle, the English killed some thousands of French captives.
Till 1419, the English occupied North-West France and, thanks to their alliance with Burgundy, took Paris.
The Treaty of Troyes and the change of the character of the war. In May-June 1420 Henry V was recognized successor of the French crown, by the signature of the Treaty of Troyes, and married princess Catherine, daughter of Charles VI. The Treaty of Troyes was prepared by French queen Isabel and by Philip, the duke of Burgundy. A very important contribution in the preparation of this treaty was by pro-English Paris University and especially by the bishop Pierre Cauchon. Theologists of Paris University provided a theoretical foundation for the bi-national state as a "City of God" without ethnic or state frontiers /1/.
According to this treaty, the son of Charles VI, dauphin Charles, was deprived the rights for succession. After the expected death of king Charles VI, the French crown should belong to Henry V (The English), then to his son, to be born by princess Catherine. A special article of the treaty allowed Henry V to punish any French refusing to accept his authority. It is easy to understand that this article was freely applied by the English for repressions against every French suspected in non-sufficient loyalty to England.
As soon as Henry V married princess Catherine, he came to Paris.
The English executed by thousands people which they suspected in resistance. English occupation authorities took hostages: every time when they were unable to find the performers of one or other anti-English action, they arbitrarily arrested the French and then executed them. Only at the Market Place of Rouen (where The Maid of Orleans was executed later) numerous gallows were occupied with bodies of executed men. Chopped-off human heads were pinned on pickets at the city gate. One day in autumn of year 1431, the occupants executed there about 400 French. Only in Normandy, the English executed up to 10 thousand people a year /1/. Taking into consideration the population of France during that period, one may conclude that the goal of English consisted not only in the cessation of the resistance but also in a total extermination of the aborigine people.
In the zones of English occupation, the taxes were enormous. English barons and knights got French lands. Philip, duke of Burgundy, occupied step by step the Northern France, including Champaign /1/.
The signing of the Treaty of Troyes changed radically the character of the war. This became a just war of liberation, rightful for the French. Now their fight was not for the occupation of England but for saving French people from extermination.
Dauphin Charles claimed that he did not recognize the Treaty of Troyes and conflicted with his mother, queen Isabel. He created his "state" in Bourges, to South of Loire /1/.
From Troyes to Orleans. We already noted a number of mystic key events related to the Hundred Years' war, comprising the cessation of the Capetian dynasty and the madness of Charles VI. In August, 1422 another mystic event happened, this time favorable for the French: Henry V died from gas gangrene, at that time called "St Antony's fire". Two months later, also Charles VI deceased. Had he died before Henry V, the latter would have become king of France. Now, in accordance with the Treaty of Troyes, young Henry VI was the king of both kingdoms, but he could be crowned only in 1431 /1, 2/. Before 1431, many events made his crowning a nonsense.
The regency was divided between uncles of Henry VI, Bedford and Gloster: Bedford ruled in France, while the latter ruled in England. The title of the supreme regent belonged to John Bedford. He was in France with Henry Beaufort, the cardinal and bishop of Winchester. This one helped Bedford in his contacts with the French Church /1/.
The low number of occupants did not allow them to rule France without aborigine collaborationists. Among these, men of Church were very numerous. We mentioned already the role of bishop Pierre Cauchon and of Paris University in the preparation of the Treaty of Troyes. Paris University was a very powerful institution. In the time of civil war in France, Paris University sided with Burgundy /1/.
The entourage of Bedford in France included numerous men of Church that even the English called "the false French". They were in the Royal Council, worked as state secretaries, completed important diplomatic missions. Their service was well paid with high salaries, pensions and land offers /1/.
Some privileges were offered also to residents of territories loyal to the English. E.g., the privileges in trade with England, granted to residents of Aquitaine, went to such extent that the residents were against Charles VII. When his army occupied Aquitaine in years 1450, its residents even tried to revolt /2/.
In addition to military operations and cooperation with pro-English French collaborationists, the English reinforced their relations with France by marriages. After Henry V married princess Catherine, John Bedford married Anne, the young sister of duke Philip of Burgundy (1423) /1, 2/.
For the absolute majority of the French, the English authority meant suffers, terror and deportations. The cruelty of aggressors caused resistance rather than obedience. The resistance began as soon as the English entered Normandy. Initially, there were only sporadic acts of self-defense against the English and the collaborationist marauders. Later, the movement became organized and turned into a total resistance to the occupants. The political goal of the resistance was the removal of the English from the French land, as responsible for the suffers of aborigine people /1/.
Among the participants of the resistance, there were not only ruined peasants but also knights whose lands were confiscated and offered to the English, merchants deprived by hard contributions and taxes, artisans that lost revenues in towns, and even poor priests that observed and shared suffering of simple people /1/. However, the main force of the resistance were peasants that were the first to suffer from English authorities, from new English seniors, marauders and collaborationists /1/.
Some hundreds of partisan detachments operated in forests of Normandy. Each of them counted only a few people, but they were highly mobile. As all partisans in Human history, they organized ambushes, attacked separate English detachments and garrisons. Each newcomer fighter in such partisan detachment promised that he would do all possible in order to harm the English /1/. The history of Robin Hood repeated in a large scale, but this time the English and the Franco-Normans exchanged their roles.
English occupants organized punitive expeditions, combed forests and executed suspected people. English authorities paid fees for each partisan's head. The English paid also for the information about everyone who helped the "forest brothers". However, as it was written in chronics, each head cut was immediately replaced by three new ones /1/.
Partisans in Northern France not only harmed directly the English but also harmed their communications and made it harder for them to penetrate into central and Southern zones of France. The English needed more and more soldiers in the garrisons of the occupied towns. As a result, the English move into South France was inhibited and slowed down. In 1425, the military activity diminished, and the situation calmed /1/.
In autumn 1428, the political map of France looked very motley (see Fig. 1.4). North-West and South-West of France were occupied by the English. Burgundian allies of England controlled most part of Northern and North-East France. However, in the occupation zones, there were isles of territories supporting dauphin Charles. One of them was Vaucouleurs in Northern Champaign. Near Vaucouleurs there was the village of Domremy - the "little motherland" of future Maid of Orleans /1/.
Fig. 1.4. Map of France in autumn, 1428. French territory - yellow, English - grey, Burgundian - dark grey.
Siege of Orleans. To conquer completely France, the English forces from Northern France just needed to cross Loire, then move to South-West and join the English forces in Aquitaine. That was the strategic plan of Bedford that he started to accomplish in autumn 1428. The central point of his plan was conquering of the city of Orleans. This city was of strategic importance, because it controlled the roads from Northern France to South France. If Orleans was conquered by the English, these should not expect any serious resistance in South France. Thus, the battle for Orleans was decisive for the fate of France.
In June 1428 Sir Thomas Montacute, 4th Earl of Salisbury landed in Calais, leading an army of up to 6000 soldiers, accompanied by quite large units of artillery. In August 1428, the army had reached Loire and started the offensive on the region of Orleans. First of all, Salisbury seized some fortresses to the North of Orleans. In August - September 1428 he conquered Jargeau, Meung-sur-Loire and other towns and fortresses in the Northern part of the valley of Loire /1, 2/.
On October 12, 1428 the English were ready to attack the southern suburbs of Orleans. The English forces counted only 4 to 5 thousand soldiers, because the English were forced to leave garrisons in many cities they had seized. The city was defended. Though the French garrison in the city counted only 500 soldiers, it was reinforced by a large number of volunteers. The French were able to form 34 detachments, one detachment per tower. The first target of the English was fort Les Tourelles. After three days of bombardments, the French left Les Tourelles (October 23, 1428) /1, 2/.
We noted above three mystic events that seriously influenced the war: the ending of the Capetian dynasty, the madness of French king Charles VI and the death of English king Henry V. In October 1428 another mystic event took place, when one day after Les Tourelles was taken by the English, Salisbury visited the fortress. Suddenly, one of cannons of Orleans fired. The stray cannonball killed him (probably when it broke a window near to which he stood). The event occurred on October 27, 1428.
The death of the Earl of Salisbury saved Orleans from an immediate attack by the English which probably would have finished the existence of an independent French state.
To avoid loss of soldiers, English captains decided to organize a siege on Orleans, instead of attacking it directly. They built a system of forts around the city, which made it very difficult to supply food into Orleans. As a result, the city was expected to capitulate in order to avoid hunger. A similar siege allowed the English to conquer Rouen (1419), where some thousands of residents died of hunger, and many others were killed by English soldiers when the city capitulated. The English had all reasons to believe that same tactics would be effective also against Orleans.
At a certain time, chances of the English to succeed started to look doubtful. On February 12, 1429, the French and the Scottish attacked the English forces which were led by Sir John Fastolf. However, the French hesitated with the attack, and that hesitation allowed the English to organize their defense, using wagons loaded with herrings. The French and the Scottish were definitely defeated /3/. Since that moment the fall of Orleans became only a matter of time.
Thus, the history of Hundred Years war counted enough mystic facts even before The Maid of Orleans came. However, we still have not mentioned the most wonderful mystery of that period:
"Merlin's prophecy". In the years after the Treaty of Troyes was signed, a very strange legend-prophecy appeared. This was attributed to wizard Merlin, a friend and protector of king Arthur and of the knights of his Round Table. A number of versions of this "prophecy" exist, but its essence is as follows: "France will be ruined by an evil queen but saved by a simple, innocent, pure maiden out of an oak-wood from Lorraine".
As soon as the Treaty of Troyes was imposed onto France by queen Isabel and duke Philip of Burgundy, French were persuaded that the first part of the "prophecy" had realized, hence, very soon, a simple, innocent, pure maiden out of an oak-wood from Lorraine would save France. Therefore, when Joan claimed that her mission was to remove the English from France and to crown dauphin Charles, many people believed that she really was the maiden from "Merlin's prophecy".
"Merlin's prophecy" played a very important role in the success of the mission of The Maid of Orleans, because not only did it attract sympathy of people but it also made most of knights to forget the simple origin of Joan, since she was noted by great Merlin. It has been very possible that Joan herself was influenced by this "prophecy".
Where did this "prophecy" come from? This is a difficult question. It is too easy to suggest that "the prophecy" was invented by partisans of dauphin Charles when Joan followed her way to Chinon, or even earlier. Such version is supported by revisionists of the biography of The Maid of Orleans (see further chapters). Although, such explanation has a fatal drawback discussed below.
The author of this book has dealt frequently with most wonderful predictions that were realized in a very strange manner. Their detailed analysis stands outside the scope of this book, but let us mention one of such predictions, much more wonderful than "Merlin's prophecy".
In 1898, a science fiction writer Morgan Robinson published a novel entitled "Futility", which told the story of sinking of a very large ship named "Titan". It was 70,000 tons displacement and 800 feet long. It set sail in early April, struck an iceberg by a glancing blow and began to sink. Unfortunately, "Titan" did not carry enough lifeboats to accommodate all her passengers in the event of such an emergency. As a result, most of her passengers died in the icy sea.
Fourteen years later, the same thing happened to a very real ship - the "Titanic".
The correspondence between the prediction and its realization is practically absolute: many of details for the imaginary "Titan" are identical to those of the real "Titanic", while others differ only a little. And, what is very important, the prediction of Morgan Robinson was not oral but published.
Thus, "Merlin's prophecy" seems very modest against the novel "Futility". Therefore, we may suggest that the author of "Merlin's prophecy" was just a man, and not as clear sighted as Morgan Robinson.
However, one may object that the prediction of Robinson contained some errors, even if not important, whereas "Merlin's prophecy"...
"Merlin's prophecy", on the contrary to the prediction of Robinson, was definitely wrong and was not supported by facts. Because the simple, innocent, pure maiden that saved France from foreign aggressors was not from Lorraine but from Champaign - there, at the frontier with Lorraine, has been the village of Domremy which Joan came from. Very near Lorraine, but not Lorraine. And not from an oak wood did Joan come. While Domremy was a small village, it was not an oak wood at all. Moreover: not an evil queen ruined France. Queen Isabel contributed only a little to the catastrophe of France. French people blamed her because she was of foreign origin (from Bavaria), but it would be much more correct to accuse French kings and princes that imposed the terrible war on their country.
After all: NOT an evil queen, NOT Lorraine, NOT oak wood. What YES? What is the part of "Merlin's prophecy" which has realized? Only Joan herself, nobody and nothing more. If not maiden Joan from a village in Champaign, nobody would have saved France.
For illiterate Joan, that ignored geography, mistaking Champaign for Lorraine was pardonable. Also for most of the French that was not important of all. However, the great and sage wizard Merlin could not mistake so seriously.
It is very strange that the Burgundians and the English have not used this important detail to discredit Joan in the eyes of the French. Those tried all kinds of calumny against her but forgot the principal thing: "Armagnacs, your Maid Joan cannot be the maiden predicted by Merlin, because she is NOT out of an oak-wood from Lorraine but she is just out of a village in Champaign".
The fact that Joan realized "Merlin's prophecy" in its deep sense meant her great desire to help her people and country, to stop the cruel war, using any possibility for that goal, even illusions. The merit of the author of "Merlin's prophecy", whoever he was, is too doubtful.
Now let us assume for one minute that "Merlin's prophecy" was invented by partisans of dauphin Charles aiming to make Joan credible in the eyes of simple French. The only conclusion: these inventors ignored the geography of France - like illiterate Joan...
However, should we reproach the compatriots of Joan for such a mistake? Even much later, when explorers of her biography very frequently touched "Merlin's prophecy", they did not pay attention to its mistaken character. Especially those intelligent educated gentlemen that have thoughtfully concluded: "Well, this prophecy certainly has meant that Joan was specially prepared to play the role of liberator of France".
After Joan defeated the English in the campaign of Orleans, "Merlin's prophecy" became irrelevant. It didn"t matter anymore where the maid-liberator of France came from. It was much more important that the liberation of France began. Let us talk about that in next chapters.
REFERENCES
1.V.I.Raitses. The trial of Joan of Arc. (Russian: В.И.Райцес. Процесс Жанны д'Арк. М.-Л., 1964.)
3. Hundred Years' War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years_War
Chapter 2. Joan in Domremy
Joan by the eyes of the witnesses. In Chapter 1 we have considered some mysteries of the Hundred Years' war before the appearance of The Maid of Orleans. Now let us talk about our main heroine.
Descriptions of Joan are available from many witnesses who lived in her time. She was a tall, slender, black-eyed brunette. She frequently laughed and not rarely wept, was very sincere, as all normal girls. She was moderate in eating and almost did not drink alcohol.
Was she beautiful? All witnesses characterized Joan as a very beautiful girl. Of course, the comprehension of beauty in her time was very different from ours. However, the model of beauty of century XV - Agnes Sorel - would have looked as a very attractive woman also today (see Fig. 2.1).
Fig. 2.1. Portrait of Agnes Sorel /1/
Many painters painted Joan. Moreover, in many cases the features of her face were attributed to saints. However, we do not possess any reliable portrait of Joan. That is yet another mystery related to The Maid of Orleans. The image in Fig. 2.2 maybe more or less resembles the face of Joan.
Fig. 2.2. A bas-relief possibly presenting Joan in a helmet.
Today, some painters suggest their vision of the portrait of Joan (Figs. 2.3-2.6)
Fig. 2.3. Portrait of Joan suggested by Virginia Lindsley-Frohlick, version 1
Fig. 2.4. Portrait of Joan suggested by Virginia Lindsley-Frohlick, version 2
Fig. 2.5. Portrait of Joan suggested by Virginia Lindsley-Frohlick, version 3
Fig. 2.6. Portrait of Joan suggested by an anonymous painter.
Village of Domremy and the Hundred Years" war. Domremy, the village where Joan was born and grew up, was positioned by the side of a road along the Maas river. This was an ancient road, constructed long time back, in the days of Rome. That was very important for communications between Flanders, Burgundy and Province. Many merchants, knights and soldiers walked through Domremy, frequently met the night in the village, were welcome and fed by inhabitants of Domremy. As a payment for good treatment, they told stories about the events in France and in other countries /2/. In such way the residents of Domremy received news from outside, including the news about the Treaty of Troyes. They sympathized with poor dauphin Charles, deprived by his evil mother.
Sometimes the war touched Domremy, ruining and devastating the village. Though this territory was not occupied by the English, Domremy was abused by marauders and feudal lords from Lorraine and Burgundy. Once the castle of Vaucouleurs was under a siege, but did not fall.
That was the situation in which the girl, that later saved France, had grown.
The Mystery of the name. The reader may have noticed that we still avoid using the commonly accepted name of Joan - "of Arc". The reason follows.
Historian V.I.Raitses /2/:
"In her village, she was called Janette. She was a daughter of peasant Jack d'Arc and his wife Isabelle Romee, the fourth child and the elder daughter. When she was asked in 1429 about her age, she answered: 17 or 19. Hence, she was born in 1410 or 1412. Most of historians find the second date much more probable.
We write her name with an apostrophe " ' ". In the time of Joan, her name was written as "Darc". Moreover: then there was no apostrophe, and the "noble" indices "de", "du", "d' " and "des" (all translated into English as "of" - comment of the author) were written together with the main name. The last name of Joan was spelled not only as Darc but also sometimes as Tarc, Dare and Daye. Such disorder in spellings of names was typical for the Middle Ages, when passports and other identification documents did not exist. The form "d'Arc" (of Arc) came into use by a 16th century Orleans poet, who wished "to ennoble" Joan, and thus transformed her name into the form that we use now." /2/.
Let us note that not only Joan's name was written in various forms. The last name of one of her men, squire Bertrand, is some times written "Poligny", and in other times as "Poulengey".
Thus, the correct spelling of the name of Joan is "Darc". Let us note, as a comparison, that the correct spelling of the name of the French captain mentioned in Chapter 1 as "du Guesclin" is "Duguesclin". One may object that spelling Joan"s name as "of Arc" is not forbidden today, since we do write "of Guesclin". No, that would be a serious error, because it would imply that Joan was of a noble family, which possessed a familial property Darc. On the other hand, the Duguesclin were a noble family indeed, and did have a familial property, the Guesclin.
Revisionists of the biography of Joan Darc use the erroneous spelling of her name as a "proof" of her noble origin.
Let us note that nowadays the French usually write, as a compromise, "D'arc", while in English both forms - "of Arc" and "Darc" - are found.
Therefore, in the further text we use the correct form of spelling of the last name of Joan, Darc, though this form is not dominating.
Let us note the following mystic aspect of the mistake related to the traditional form of writing the name Darc. Many peoples have a sacred taboo on the use of real names of an exceptional hero. The French, as other European peoples, have no such taboo. However, the mistake of the above mentioned poet from Orleans practically created the same taboo for the name of Joan Darc. Let us recall the above-mentioned fact of the missing detailed portraits of Joan: painting exceptional heroes is also a taboo for some peoples. Of course, in both cases, that results from eventual factors. However, such coincidence does seem quite mystic. Let us return to the aspect of these hypothetic taboos in further chapters.
The family of Joan. Jack Darc, father of Joan, was a key person in his village, had about 20 hectares of land and was a juridical representative of Domremy by records of 1423 and 1427. In 1419, joining other families of Domremy, he rented fort Chateau d'Ile /2/. However, very soon after the execution of Joan, the Darc family left Domremy and resided in Orleans, where they received municipal pensions.
The biographies of the parents of Joan and of her brothers Jack, Jean and Pierre are well known. Jack had an illness and died young, leaving no children. Jean and Pierre participated in the war and had children. In years 1450th they and Isabelle initiated the trial of Nullification of the condemnation of Joan. Jack Darc, the father, died very soon after the execution of Joan. That was probably because of an illness of heart caused by the news about the terrible death of his daughter. Isabelle died soon after the condemnation of Joan was nullified.
Thus, the biographies of the parents and of the brothers of Joan are known well enough. But what about her sister...
The first name of the sister of Joan was probably Catherine. She is not less mysterious than Joan.
First of all, it is not clear whether the sister of Joan was older or younger than Joan. According to some sources, Catherine was three years younger than Joan. According to others, she was older. There is even an opinion that Joan had two sisters.
The destiny of Catherine Darc is absolutely unclear. According to some data, in 1429 she was forced by her parents to marry Colin, the mayor of Greux, then vanished or died of illness or at childbirth, in 1429 or 1430.
Let us agree that such a misty biography of Catherine Darc looks very strange on the background of so many details that are known about the other members of her family. Was it so difficult for the biographers of Joan to inquire either her mother, brothers, and Colin of Greux for more details about Catherine? Or did these have a reason to keep silence about Catherine? The latter suggestion seems to be the most probable.
Of course, residents of Greux might just ignore the destiny of Catherine. Colin himself might have reasons of his own to remain silent about Catherine. But why didn"t her mother and brothers shed some light about Catherine? If Catherine just died young, why wasn"t this fact registered, as was the case with the death of her brother Jack? Or was it something in the behavior of Catherine that made her family build a wall of silence around her? Let us leave Catherine Darc for a while. We will come back to her later, when we come to analyze the mysteries related to Joan after her death.
Now let us talk about the beginning of the life of young Jeanette, or more exactly - her birth.
One of the numerous legends related to Joan tells that on the night of her birth the cocks crowed before the daybreak. In Domremy that was considered as a sign of a great joy coming. Historians note that this is just a legend. The birth of Joan was not understood in Domremy as an extraordinary event. Moreover, until 1428 Joan looked as an ordinary girl, attractive, patient, devout and dreamy. In the age of 16 she was nearly forced by her parents to marry a man she did not love. When she informed her relatives about the intention to go to Vaucouleurs to accomplish a mission of saving France, her father Jack was very angry with her and even threatened to kill her. One can imagine the feelings of father Jack Darc somewhat later, when his daughter accomplished what she had intended and became the national heroine of France. And - what did he feel when he recalled his own behavior of 1428, after he was informed about her execution? No wonder that he died very soon after.
The alternative version of the origin of Joan. There is, however, an alternative version of the birth of Joan: revisionist or batardisant (from French word "bâtard", meaning an illegitimately child born, a bastard) /3-6/. This version emerged in the period before the nullification of the condemnation of Joan and aimed to prove her noble origin. The modern revisionism is mostly attributed to an esoterician occultist Robert Ambelain, which is sometimes considered also as an historian.
Ambelain suggested that the mysteries of Joan were related to a secret Order. He also referred to the Bible, and used methods of the mystic science of Kabbalah. He believed that there was no exploit or execution, only a falsification, organized by leaders of England, France, Burgundy and the Church.
First of all, let us consider the idea of the codes of Kabbalah, also known as the Bible Codes.
Kabbalah is based on specific features of Hebrew and of documents written in Hebrew, first of all of the Holy Book - the Torah (the first part of Bible). The Bible Codes are based on ELS - Equidistant Letter Sequences. If the original Hebrew text of the Holy Book, with all spaces removed, is scanned by a special computer program selecting letters located within a given fixed distance from each other (e.g., each 10th letter), one may sometimes obtain meaningful texts. These texts are mostly very short and usually do not contain very detailed and original information.
Different opinions exist about the Bible Codes. The opinions range from deep skepticism to total acceptance. For example, Harold Gans, a senior cryptologist mathematician from the Pentagon, in a public statement made in June 3rd, 1997, admitted that he found an "extremely strong statistical evidence for the existence of the encoding of great Jewish sages" names and dates of birth and death in the Hebrew text of the book of Genesis". At the same time, even Harold Gans was aware of the fact that given a large volume of data, any short message can be derived from it by means of ELS. The "strong statistical evidence" in the case above was supported by correlation of meaningful data that belong together in a relatively small volume of text - the names and the dates of birth and death of the sages were found in close proximity to each other - such that in no way could occur randomly time after time, for a number of famous people (the sages). There are other examples of sets of ELS that are found in such proximity and context that make it impossible to explain them by randomness.
No strong correlation of any straightforward meaningful data was ever found about Joan, surely not in a limited volume of text that would have put the data in a similar context.
Every explorer who investigated the "Codes of Torah" knows that they allow to obtain any short text (in Hebrew) if the program tries enough options. Moreover, the transcription of non-Hebrew names with Hebrew letters allows additional manipulations. E.g., the name "Joan Darc" can be re-written as:
1) joandarc,
2) darcjoan...
and so on, and on top of that one has to take into account the numerous possibilities for spelling her name and nicknames, such as "Maid Joan" and "The Maid of Orleans". Since Hebrew does not have exact analogue of letter "j", this can be replaced with "z" (zain) or "g" (guimel). The vowels "a", "o" etc. can be just removed or replaced with mute vowels - alef and ayin (also letter "hei" is mute in the end of a word). The sound "k" can be given with letters Koof or Caf. Thus, before the scanning program runs, we already have thousands of variants for spelling the name and the nicknames of Joan Darc. As a result, it is only a normal thing to expect finding strings of text like "Merlin's Prophecy" which was mentioned in Chapter 1. The fact that such text is found using ELS does not mean that somebody foresaw the heroic exploit of Joan at the time when the Torah was written, whoever wrote the Holy Book. The fact that some of these messages are found only means that the computer techniques offer excellent opportunities to those who can use them.
Let us note that before the computer era, none of known revisionists claimed to possess a proof of Joan"s noble origin or of the heroic exploit of Joan - by methods of Kabbalah.
Hence, if somebody claims that he has succeeded, using techniques from the Kabbalah, to make an extraordinary discovery or revelation, such statement should not be trusted too easily. Arguments of his opponents should be considered too. And, of course, arguments of both sides should be tested with the best expert - logic.
Let us analyze another suggestion of revisionists - that the exploit of Joan was organized by some mysterious / religious Order (usual reference is to Franc masonry or Franciscan Third Order).
Of course, activities of a secret order, as every secret organization, are covered with silence, otherwise it is not secret. However, its goals are obvious: power and money (one being related to the other). All other things - mysteries, traditions, rituals, symbols, special effects in Hollywood style - all these are just a camouflage making it easier to advance toward the main goals. The camouflage impresses every person that does not have enough experience, but covers only an empty space.
Advancing towards its main goals (mentioned above), a secret Order collides with various forces and authorities. Of course, some collaboration exists too, but none yields his power voluntarily. As a result, if during the Hundred Years" war some Order played games related to Joan Darc, it should have permanently collided with authorities of England, France, Burgundy and the Church. While some of their leaders might cooperate with the Order, interests of one mostly opposed those of others. Therefore, if the order liked to intervene in the events, the resistance it met would be much stronger than the support.
One may object that the Order might be so powerful that it could easily command all kings and popes. In such case, why did this Order allow the Hundred Years" war and then the War of Roses to happen? Why did not the Order stop the English and French kings as soon as they intended to take weapons into their hands? Who is the powerful governor allowing waste of human and other resources without a good reason? Nobody but a psychopath with a mania of destruction. Psychopaths rarely get the power and, if they do, they very soon lose it.
Moreover: the events around Joan Darc characterize too badly England, France, Burgundy and the Church. Why would the powerful Order do that to its faithful servants?
On the other hand: taking profit from an objective historical process in order to reinforce their prestige in the eyes of unsuspecting simpletons and that way getting their money and support - that would be a normal, easy and useful thing for chiefs of some Order to do. Without influencing in any way the events of Hundred Years" war, without intervening into the tragic destiny of the heroine, representatives of the Order might have spread rumors saying that they had given the mission to Joan Darc, and that then they had saved her. Not saving Joan Darc, but stealing her glory.
After all, it is difficult to ignore the information found on the Internet - that Ambelain himself is related to the Franc masonry. If this is true, his theoretical explorations may aim to support his Order. Nevertheless, much more probable is the version that Ambelain was just making his money. The man did not find any better business.
After all, most of revisionists avoid references to Kabbalah and are not sure at all about secret Orders. Some of their arguments are funny. E.g., as a proof that Joan was related to a secret Order, they refer to one of her signatures - a ring. As revisionists suggest, that is a symbol used by some of secret orders. That reminds the cover-up of Russian serfdom peasants. When they prepared a complaint against their landlord, they signed the paper in such a manner that the signatures formed a ring. Of course, such collective signature did not allow anyone to figure out who signed first. Does that mean that Russian serfdom peasants were Franc Masons?
The main version of the modern revisionism is as follows:
An illegitimate child was born to French queen Isabel of Bavaria on November 10, 1407. This child was baptized as Philip and soon after was declared dead. His father was the duke of Orleans, or some other noble man. Then contradictions between revisionist versions begin. Some of them suggest that the child was initially hermaphrodite that transformed later into a woman /4/. Others believe that the child was initially a normal girl, but she was recorded as a boy in order to conceal the fact of the birth of an illegitimate child; how might that help, the revisionists do not explain /5, 6/. However, all revisionists agree that the child was declared dead and was then given to the peasant Darc family, who gave her the name Joan /4-6/.
Thus, according to the concept of revisionism, Joan Darc was a daughter of queen Isabel of Bavaria, half-sister of the English queen Catherine and the aunt of English king Henry VI. Fighting against England, "Princess Joan" destroyed the policy of her family. Not bad?
To support this version, revisionists use the following strange arguments:
1) Joan did not know her exact age (well, in those days many other people did not - e.g., queen Isabel of Bavaria and Agnes Sorel);
2) Joan was a good horse rider. (Why not - as a daughter of a rich peasant?!)
3) Joan had never given her last name. (Of course! As all "non-noble" French, she always gave her first name, later also her nickname - Maid Joan!)
4) There were no papers about the birth of Joan of Arc of parents Jack and Isabel. (But that is true about all children of Domremy!)
5) The revisionists claim that someone taught Joan to use weapons. (But she never used them!)
6) As a support to their hypothesis, the revisionists cite Joan"s words to the Duke of Alencon: "The more royal blood join us, the better for the case of France". So - why should that mean any royal blood in Joan? What is the relation to "the princess"?
It is very strange that "the princess" was not educated in the house of her father - if this was not Jack Darc. Let us note that "Le Bâtard d'Orléans" (the Bastard of Orleans, Dunois), was educated in the home of his father, the Duke of Orleans. Who would seek for the mother if the illegitimately born child was educated in the house of the father, like the Vicomte of Bragelonne with Atos (in the stories of A. Dumas)?
Why was a peasant family invited to intervene in the affairs of the queen? Even if the Darc family was credible enough and did not talk too much, the neighbors certainly would notice the appearance of the child from nowhere. Why did queen Isabel give a pretext for gossips?
After all, it is a very strange fact that father Jack Darc behaved with Joan like a normal peasant father would have behaved with his normal daughter of that time: he tried to force her to marry according to his choice and even threatened to kill her. Why would have he cared for the behavior of a princess educated in his house - if she was? And why did not the men of the queen explain to the peasant how should he talk to a princess?
As we show below, Joan took care of the household since her childhood, worked with a needle and grazed cattle. It is very strange that "the princess" was not given lessons in reading and writing, but remained illiterate. Also strange was it that she was asked to go to the war - instead of The Dauphin Charles. Is it not too strange that the princess learned riding and using weapons but not reading and writing? And, certainly, cleaning of peasant house was not very appropriate for a princess.
Now let us return to those chapters in the history of Joan Darc that do not cause any doubt.
Childhood of Joan Darc. As Raitses wrote /2/, the childhood of Joan was similar to that of other peasant children. From her mother, she learned three prayers, and that was all instruction she got. Later, when she was in the royal palace, she learned also to sign her first name. Since a very young age, she learned to work at house and to use a needle. Later, she was sent to work in field. As all children of Domremy, Joan helped adult herdsmen to graze cattle of the villagers /2/.
Jeanette had many friends. On holidays, boys and girls of Domremy usually met outside the village near an old beech tree called the "Wood of fairies". A legend told that long ago fairies had walked there and danced in rings, but once the priest of Domremy had dropped there some holy water, and they had vanished.
On winter nights, Janette went to her friend Mangette, or Mangette came to the house of the Darc. The girls worked with spindle and wool, and talked /2/.
In those days, many villages around Domremy were in flame. The peasants watched from the belfries, escaped from marauders to castles, kept cattle and goods in secluded places. The fear and feeling of danger were permanent. None knew where next trouble would come from /2/.
In 1428, the Burgundians attacked Domremy, and villagers took refuge in the castle of Neufchâteau. The marauders ruined the empty houses and burned the church /2/.
That was the childhood and the adolescence of Joan Darc - in the years of the war, in the permanent menace, near flames, blood and suffering of innocent people.
The suffering of French people touched the soul of the girl and inflamed her heart with a great desire to help her country. As Joan said, she felt pity to "sweet France" /2/. Let us remember this sentence, it will allow us to suggest below an explanation for one of most important mysteries of Joan Darc.
"The Voices". One of the most extraordinary mysteries of Joan is the phenomenon she called "The Voices". Joan told that since the age of 13, she heard voices of saints, then later the saints came to her sight. Joan believed that they were St. Michael-Archangel, St. Catherine and St. Marguerite. Of course, such young girl might have various fantasies, and they could be dismissed, if not the extraordinary biography of Joan herself.
First of all: what do we know about The Voices? As Joan told, St. Michael-Archangel, St. Catherine and St. Marguerite talked with her, gave advices, initially abstract and similar to usual religious instructions, later more concrete. Her first contact with The Voices Joan described as follows: one day, when she was grazing cattle, a voice told her that God had pity of the people of France and that she (Joan) would need to go soon to France. When she heard that, Joan wept. The voice said that she should go to Vaucouleurs, where she would find the captain that would lead her to France, and that she should not hesitate /7/.
Later The Voices told Joan that it was her a mission to save France and to crown dauphin Charles. The Voices seemed to predict some events, give recommendations about the military events - campaigns, battles. During the Rouen Trial of Condemnation, The Voices suggested to Joan how to answer the questions of the judges.
Let us leave meanwhile the aspects of military, juridical and theological recommendations of The Voices - those will be analyzed in next chapters. Let us analyze now the general aspects of this phenomenon.
The first, simplest explanation: the permanent images of suffering of French caused Joan some kind of madness, and therefore she saw various silly things. Sorry, but this explanation does not work at all. Mad people do not win battles, nor do they win theoretical debates with professionals. Moreover: as we show in next chapters, Joan had a very stable psyche. Let us add that during her short life Joan predicted many events, all of which realized, sometimes tragically for the girl. Therefore, the explanation about madness, while very simple, is absolutely not acceptable. Let us try other explanations.
During the Condemnation Trial (Rouen, 1431) the judges of Joan suggested the following explanation of The Voices: that was a real contact with upper forces, though not Saints but evil. Such explanation did not work even then and was nullified soon by The Nullification Trial (1456). Leaving alone arguments of The Nullification Trial, let us just note that devilish forces certainly would not aim to save some millions of innocent French people and would not act to stop the bloody war - as The Voices did. Hence, also this explanation is not valid.
The Catholic version assumes that The Voices were actually Saints sent by God, and that Joan really accomplished the wish of Heavens. Of course, such explanation is very good for every Catholic and for most of other Christians. However: if The Voices were sent by God, we should then conclude that they consciously led the girl to the painful death. Could not God invent anything better? The answer "the ways of God are out of our grasp" may seem good for some Christians, but not for all people.
The Voices chose a destiny that was not good enough not only for Joan but also for France. As we show in one of next chapters, just after the campaign of Loire, Joan could easily conquer Paris and finish the war very soon. Instead of that, The Voices advised her to go to Reims and to crown there dauphin Charles. Not only did that result in the terrible death of Joan, but it also prolonged the war for some tens of years.
The near coronation of Charles might have been the desire of illiterate Joan, to offer the lawful monarch to France. But why did the Saints wish the same thing?
The version of revisionists is based on the presumption that The Voices were men of queen Isabel of Bavaria. They became The Teachers for Joan and gave her advices.
Let us imagine the first meeting of Joan with The Teachers playing the role of The Voices.
Jeanette, 13 years old, with other children of Domremy, grazes cattle near the forest. Suddenly the children see well dressed gentlemen approaching them and saying something like this:
- Well! Everyone except Joan - do not listen! Joan, you listen very attentively! We work for queen Isabel of Bavaria. We have to inform you that you are not a simple peasant but an illegitimately born princess of royal blood!
Jeanette is certainly surprised:
- Wow! What does it mean - an illegitimately born princess?
The Teachers are confused:
- Well, that is not exactly a princess. That is more similar to The Batard of Orleans (Dunois), but of female gender. Your mother is queen Isabel, while your father is... well, let us talk about him later. You must know that, according to the decision of the Royal Council and Franciscan Third Order, in next three or four years you will accomplish a very important mission...
An interesting thought: would the girl have trusted them so easily? Wouldn"t she have taken them for madmen, filchers or kidnappers? Was she not afraid, did she not escape or call the adults to help her? Did she not ask for any proof? If she did, how did it look, such proof?
Did nobody in Domremy pay attention to these unknown visitors - The Teachers?
And maybe that was a very simple thing - maybe the Teachers were introduced to Joan by her father Jack Darc? But how does that correlate with his further behavior? Moreover, in such case also Joan would describe her first contact with The Voices very differently.
We have noted above that The Teachers did not even teach Joan to read and write. They probably did not wish her to read books, from which she could learn that the normal thing for an illegitimately born princess has been to marry at least an earl, rather than to seal gaps in the national defense. Well... but maybe The Teachers themselves were illiterate?
Instead of teaching reading and writing to Joan, The Teachers persuaded her to fulfill instructions of Church and to prepare herself to the mission of saving France. Very strange! Why did they require such things from an illiterate girl that, according to instructions of Church, should first of all obey her parents and then her future husband? The Teachers would have done much better if they charged with the same mission the poor Dauphin Charles, and persuaded him to show himself as a man and a knight, one who takes care of his kingdom.
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._1.1.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._1.2.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._1.3.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._1.4.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._2.1.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._2.2.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._2.3.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._2.4.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._2.5.jpg)
![[]](/img/r/romm_freddi_a/jdarc2/fig._2.6.jpg)