The Life of Joan of Arc | Page 8

daughter of Jacques Boucher,
steward to the Duke of Orléans, depones in the following terms: "At
night I slept alone with Jeanne. Neither in her words or her acts did I
ever observe anything wrong. She was perfectly simple, humble, and
chaste."[50]
[Footnote 50: Trial, vol. iii, p. 34.]
This young lady was nine years old when she perceived with a
discernment somewhat precocious that her sleeping companion was
simple, humble, and chaste.
That is unimportant. But to show how one may sometimes be deceived
by the witnesses whom one would expect to be the most reliable, I will
quote Brother Pasquerel.[51] Brother Pasquerel is Jeanne's chaplain. He
may be expected to speak as one who has seen and as one who knows.
Brother Pasquerel places the examination at Poitiers before the
audience granted by the King to the Maid in the château of Chinon.[52]
[Footnote 51: Ibid., p. 100.]
[Footnote 52: We must notice, however, that Brother Pasquerel, who
was not present either at Chinon or at Poitiers, is careful to say that he
knows nothing of Jeanne's sojourn in these two towns save what she
herself has told him. Now we are surprised to find that she herself
placed the examination at Poitiers before the audience at Chinon, since
she says in her trial that at Chinon, when she gave her King a sign, the
clerks ceased to contend with her.--Trial, vol. i, p. 145.]
Forgetting that the whole relieving army had been in Orléans since
May 4, he supposes that, on the evening of Friday the 6th, it was still
expected.[53] From such blunders we may judge of the muddled
condition of this poor priest's brain. His most serious shortcoming,

however, is the invention of miracles. He tries to make out that when
the convoy of victuals reached Orléans, there occurred, by the Maid's
special intervention, and in order to carry the barges up the river, a
sudden flood of the Loire which no one but himself saw.[54]
[Footnote 53: Expectando succursum regis, Trial, vol. iii, p. 109.]
[Footnote 54: Trial, vol. iii, p. 105.]
The evidence of Dunois[55] is also somewhat deceptive. We know that
Dunois was one of the most intelligent and prudent men of his day, and
that he was considered a good speaker. In the defence of Orléans and in
the coronation campaign he had displayed considerable ability. Either
his evidence must have seriously suffered at the hands of the translator
and the scribes, or he must have caused it to be given by his chaplain.
He speaks of the "great number of the enemy" in terms more
appropriate to a canon of a cathedral or a woollen draper than to a
captain entrusted with the defence of a city and expected to know the
actual force of the besiegers. All his evidence dealing with the transport
of victuals on April 28 is well-nigh unintelligible. And Dunois is
unable to state that Troyes was the first stage in the army's march from
Gien.[56] Relating a conversation he held with the Maid after the
coronation, he makes her speak as if her brothers were awaiting her at
Domremy, whereas they were with her in France.[57] Curiously
blundering, he attempts to prove that Jeanne had visions by relating a
story much more calculated to give the impression that the young
peasant girl was an apt feigner and that at the request of the nobles she
reproduced one of her ecstasies, like the Esther of the lamented Doctor
Luys.[58]
[Footnote 55: Ibid., pp. 2 et seq.]
[Footnote 56: Trial, vol. iii, p. 13.]
[Footnote 57: Ibid., p. 15.]
[Footnote 58: Ibid., p. 12.]

In that portion of this work which deals with the rehabilitation trial I
have given my opinion of the evidence of the clerks of the court, of the
usher Massieu, of the Brothers Isambard de la Pierre and Martin
Ladvenu.[59] All these burners of witches and avengers of God worked
as heartily at Jeanne's rehabilitation as they had at her condemnation.
[Footnote 59: Ibid., vol. ii, pp. 15, 161, 329; vol. iii, pp. 41 and
passim.]
In many cases and often on events of importance, the evidence of
witnesses is in direct conflict with the truth. A woollen draper of
Orléans, one Jean Luillier, comes before the commissioners and as bold
as brass maintains that the garrison could not hold out against so great a
besieging force.[60] Now this statement is proved to be false by the
most authentic documents, which show that the English round Orléans
were very weak and that their resources were greatly reduced.[61]
[Footnote 60: Ibid., vol. iii, p. 23.]
[Footnote 61: L. Jarry, Le compte de l'armée anglaise au siège
d'Orléans (1428-1429), Orléans, 1892, in 8vo.]
When the evidence given at the second trial has obviously been dressed
up to