The Life of Joan of Arc | Page 2

her judge, was not so simple as to tell them the whole truth. It was very frank of her to warn them that they would not know all.[4] That her memory was curiously defective must also be admitted. I am aware that the clerk of the court was astonished that after a fortnight she should remember exactly the answers she had given in her cross-examination.[5] That may be possible, although she did not always say the same thing. It is none the less certain that after the lapse of a year she retained but an indistinct recollection of some of the important acts of her life. Finally, her constant hallucinations generally rendered her incapable of distinguishing between the true and the false.
[Footnote 3: Jules Quicherat, Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, Paris, 8vo, 1841, vol. i. (Called hereafter Trial.--W.S.)]
[Footnote 4: Trial, vol. i, p. 93, passim.]
[Footnote 5: Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 89, 142, 161, 176, 178, 201.]
The record of the trial is followed by an examination of Jeanne's sayings in articulo mortis.[6] This examination is not signed by the clerks of the court. Hence from a legal point of view the record is out of order; nevertheless, regarded as a historical document, its authenticity cannot be doubted. In my opinion the actual occurrences cannot have widely differed from what is related in this unofficial report. It tells of Jeanne's second recantation, and of this recantation there can be no question, for Jeanne received the communion before her death. The veracity of this document was never assailed,[7] even by those who during the rehabilitation trial pointed out its irregularity.[8]
[Footnote 6: Trial, vol. i, pp. 478 et seq.]
[Footnote 7: Cf. J. Quicherat, Aper?us nouveaux sur l'histoire de Jeanne d'Arc, Paris, 1880, pp. 138-144.]
[Footnote 8: Evidence of G. Manchon, Trial, vol. ii, p. 14.]
Secondly, the chroniclers of the period, both French and Burgundian, were paid chroniclers, one of whom was attached to every great baron. Tringant says that his master did not expend any money in order to obtain mention in the chronicles,[9] and that therefore he is omitted from them. The earliest chronicle in which the Maid occurs is that of Perceval de Cagny, who was in the service of the house of Alen?on and Duke John's master of the house.[10] It was drawn up in the year 1436, that is, only six years after Jeanne's death. But it was not written by him. According to his own confession he had "not half the sense, memory, or ability necessary for putting this, or even a matter of less than half its importance, down in writing."[11] This chronicle is the work of a painstaking clerk. One is not surprised to find a chronicler in the pay of the house of Alen?on representing the differences concerning the Maid, which arose between the Sire de la Trémouille and the Duke of Alen?on, in a light most unfavourable to the King. But from a scribe, supposed to be writing at the dictation of a retainer of Duke John, one would have expected a less inaccurate and a less vague account of the feats of arms accomplished by the Maid in company with him whom she called her fair duke. Although this chronicle was written at a time when no one dreamed that the sentence of 1431 would ever be revoked, the Maid is regarded as employing supernatural means, and her acts are stripped of all verisimilitude by being recorded in the manner of a hagiography. Further, that portion of the chronicle attributed to Perceval de Cagny, which deals with the Maid, is brief, consisting of twenty-seven chapters of a few lines each. Quicherat is of opinion that it is the best chronicle of Jeanne d'Arc[12] existing, and the others may indeed be even more worthless.
[Footnote 9: Ne donnoit point d'argent pour soy faire mettre ès croniques.--Jean de Bueil, Le Jouvencel, ed. C. Fabre and L. Lecestre, Paris, 1887, 8vo, vol. ii, p. 283.]
[Footnote 10: Perceval de Cagny, Chroniques, published by H. Moranvillé, Paris, 1902, 8vo.]
[Footnote 11: Le sens, mémoire, ne l'abillité de savoir faire metre par escript ce, ne autre chose mendre de plus de la moitié, Perceval de Cagny, p. 31.]
[Footnote 12: Trial, vol. iv, p. 1.]
Gilles le Bouvier,[13] king at arms of the province of Berry, who was forty-three in 1429, is somewhat more judicious than Perceval de Cagny; and, in spite of some confusion of dates, he is better informed of military proceedings. But his story is of too summary a nature to tell us much.
[Footnote 13: Ibid., pp. 40-50. D. Godefroy, Histoire de Charles VII, Paris, 1661, fol. pp. 369-474.]
Jean Chartier,[14] precentor of Saint-Denys, held the office of chronicler of France in 1449. Two hundred years later he would have been described as historiographer royal. His office may be