Jump to content
Complete France Forum

Joan of Arc - a survivor?

Renaud

By Renaud
in French Culture

Recommended Posts

Renaud Newbie

Renaud

Posted
Posted
It turns out that she was the niece of the French King, not a shepherdess or peasant girl and she never was burnt at the stake by the wicked English.

I was kindly given a copy of French News at the recent French Show. It contains a book review of ‘L’Affaire Jeanne d’Arc’ by Roger Senzig and Marcel Gay. The authors have gone back to the 15th century documents and come up with a very different story to the accepted tale. What follows here is their conclusions as culled from the book review.

About all that is left of the traditional story is that she was called Jeanne (or Joan or Jehanne) and was a charismatic military figurehead, instrumental in restoring her cousin Charles VII to the French throne – his father having been taken prisoner at Agincourt and dying years later in the Tower of London.

Jeanne was the (illegitimate) 12th child of the king’s brother, Louis of Orléans. She was a tomboy and mental and physical prodigy. She was trained to bear arms and joust wearing heavy armour.

Yolande, Duchess of Anjou – the force behind the anti-English party – needed a charismatic leader to rally the demoralised yet religious French public. She brought Jeanne to court where Jeanne told the prince that she would see him crowned in Reims - then in English hands. Yolande nurtured the myth that Jeanne was a previously rumoured divinely inspired peasant girl from Lorraine.

Had she indeed been a peasant from Domrémy she would have spoken the local patois not French and certainly been unable to ride stallion warhorses in armour - contemporary records have her taking part in jousting, no peasant girl could have done this, however inspired.

Jeanne led the French army that relieved Orléans and indeed saw the prince crowned King in Reims.

In due course the English captured her and a careful study of the record of her trial shows her the intellectual equal of her interrogators, some of the finest theologians of the day. Someone was burnt at the stake and Jeanne disappeared for five years.

My guess is that the English wanted to neutralise this charismatic French leader but not actually kill a member of the French nobility, a bad precedent - what would happen if her captors were themselves later captured? So they did a deal with Jeanne that she disappeared for a while and undertook not to bear arms against the English again.

The French public certainly were convinced she had died at first. The archives of the city of Orléans show that five years later they sent their herald to investigate rumours that she was still alive. He took a leisurely 36 days to get to North East France but only four to return. The city then stopped the annual festival of remembrance for her death. Instead they gave Jeanne £210 – a huge sum at that time.

By then she had married a knight - Robert des Armoises and she had been received by the king and pardoned for attacking Paris without his permission. She and Robert lived in Jaulny castle in the Meurthe-et-Moselle until she died aged about 50.

So here is a real ‘Wag The Dog’ style story. Maybe a far better one for Kate Mosse or Dan Brown et al to write than their usual concoctions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kitty Newbie

Kitty

Posted
Posted

The book is properly researched and takes its information from respected sources.  History does have to be revised, from time to time, in the light of new information.  A notable historian has discovered what is thought to be her bones.

The writers suggest that the myth of her martyrdom was perpetuated by (a) the French government, who needed a champion of the north east which was regularly changing hands between the French and the Germans, and (b) the Catholic church.

I would like to know if the book is going to be (or has been) translated into English.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
woolybananasbrother Newbie

woolybananasbrother

Posted
Posted
Now that is the first intelligent comment I have heard in a long time, on that subject. In fact I have begun to seriously doubt (split infin) the accepted interpretation, having thought about it over a few years. Trouble is that the official version is in the hands of ultra Cathos who are fierce and pistonné in their hold on things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Smith Newbie

Dick Smith

Posted
Posted
No doubt the 'accepted truth' is highly coloured, but the basic facts are pretty incontrovertible. See this review:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/22/france.angeliquechrisafis

The authors are not historians, by the way. One is a journalist and the other an ex-secret agent.

Henri Pirenne stated that all historical interpretations are biased, the skill of the historian is in recognising and filtering the bias. Unfortunately that involves mental effort and so is often ignored. Then along comes someone with another conspiracy theory.

I would agree that Jeanne's history needs careful study and some revision - apart from anything else so many influential forces have remade her image for their own purposes over the years and this has left behind a confused and partial interpretation of the period  - but this doesn't seem to be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dick Smith Newbie

Dick Smith

Posted
Posted
[quote user="Hoddy"]I think it would have been great if they could have announced that Joanne

" escaped with the help of English soldiers"

last week.

That way Sarko could have thanked the Brits for that too.

Hoddy[/quote]

It would only be the latest example of a French leader using her for advantage - but the French have no monopoly on the misuse of historical figures. Each 'new interpretation' speaks to us not of the past but of ourselves and our contemporary preoccupations. Another Pirennism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...