Riddles and versions of the origin of Joan of Arc. The Unsolved Mystery of Joan of Arc
All history textbooks and most encyclopedic articles say that the French folk heroine Joan of Arc was a simple peasant woman who, by the will of fate or God, led the army of King Charles VII at a young age and raised the whole of France to fight the English invaders.
Vision of Joan of Arc. Jules Bastien-Lepage, 1879
However, even at the first glance at the name of the heroine, vague doubt creeps in. She has a very un-peasant surname. After all, surnames with the particle “de” or “d’” have always belonged to nobles in France. Although the surname d'Arc literally translates to "from Arc", surnames of this kind usually denoted not the place from which a person came, but the place that he owned (or which his family once owned).
Shtilke Herman Anton. Appearance of Saints Catherine and Michael to Joan of Arc.
(left part of the triptych “The Life of Joan of Arc”), 1843. Hermitage.
But maybe Jeanne did not receive this surname at birth, but only later, when the king granted her and her brothers nobility? Or even later. After all, it is known that during her lifetime the heroine was never called Joan of Arc. She was called only Jeanne the Virgin or the Maid of Orleans. And the name Joan of Arc first appears only during the process of her rehabilitation, many years after the death of the heroine.
Laure de Chatillon.
But no! It is well known what the names of Jeanne's parents were. Her father was Jacques d'Arc and her mother was Isabella de Vouton. Please note that the particle “de” is found in both names. True, some textbooks claim that Jeanne’s mother’s name was Isabella Romeu. But this is also explained simply. Isabella de Wouton was nicknamed Romeu ("Roman") because in the village of Domremy, where she lived with her husband, there were rumors that the devout Isabella had made a pilgrimage to Rome. Some historians believe that this really was the case, but most scholars are inclined to believe that the rumors were somewhat exaggerated, and on her pilgrimage trips Isabella de Wouton visited only French shrines.
J.E.Milles. Joan of Arc. 1865
What happens? In the village of Domremi lives a family in which the husband and wife bear noble surnames, and the wife has the opportunity to make pilgrimages to distant shrines. But that's not all. If you delve into historical documents, it turns out that Jacques d’Arc is not an ordinary resident of Domremy. He is the commandant of the fortress, the commander of a detachment of archers, the doyen (headman) of the Vaucouleurs district and a close friend of the most influential local feudal lord, Robert de Baudricourt. Moreover, it is known that Jacques d’Arc had a coat of arms, but his family lost the right to transfer the coat of arms by inheritance. That is why Jeanne’s brothers subsequently received a new coat of arms and a new surname from the king - du Li.
Joan of Arc. Miniature of the 15th century.
The reason for the loss of the coat of arms is quite clear. The d'Arc family was too poor and could not fulfill one of the most important laws of feudal service. According to this law, in case of war, each nobleman had to field a so-called “spear” for the king’s army - a small military detachment consisting of the nobleman himself, his squire and several servants. Moreover, each person in this detachment was supposed to have at least one war horse and one spare horse. If a nobleman could not field such a detachment, then he was deprived of his nobility. But this did not make him a simple peasant. And to say that Joan of Arc is a poor peasant woman is the same as saying that the notorious Charles de Bats Castelmore d’Artagnan is a Gascony shepherd.
Shtilke Herman Anton. Joan of Arc in battle.
(the central part of the triptych “The Life of Joan of Arc”), 1843. Hermitage.
Jacques d'Arc became poorer, but did not at all lose his connections among the powers that be. And one little-known but significant fact speaks eloquently about how broad these connections are. The fact is that French queens never breastfed their children. This was done for them by nurses - specially selected young noblewomen. And what an amazing coincidence! For several generations, royal nurses at the French court invariably bore the surname d'Arc. And the woman who breastfed the Dauphin Charles, who later became King Charles VII, was generally the full namesake of the Maid of Orleans. This nurse's name was Joan of Arc. In the French archives, invoices for her maintenance and payment for her services have been preserved. It’s hard to believe in such coincidences. And if the parents of Jeanne the Virgin were related to the royal nurses, then everything falls into place. And the ease with which Jeanne got an appointment with the king is no longer at all surprising. To the very reception that opened the way for the heroine to her great exploits.
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres "Joan of Arc at the Coronation of Charles VII"
Joan of Arc was not burned at the stake.
Ukrainian anthropologist Sergei Gorbenko claims that Joan of Arc was not burned at the stake and lived to be 57 years old. He came to this conclusion after examining the skulls of the family of the French king Louis XI in the basilica of the Notre Dame de Clery church near Orleans. The skull was considered the remains of the king , according to the researcher, belonged to a woman. And the king’s skull turned out to be another, previously considered the skull of his wife Charlotte of Savoy. Later, Gorbenko found out that the king’s wife died at the age of 38, and the discovered skull belongs to a woman 55-57 years old.
George William.
After studying other remains, royal correspondence, engravings and chronicles, it became clear that “the woman whose skull was believed to be that of King Louis XI for almost 100 years was known 600 years ago as the Maid of Orleans - Joan of Arc,” says the scientist. The Ukrainian was prompted to this conclusion by doubts about the ability of a 16-year-old peasant girl to wear knightly armor. The surviving letters from d'Arc testify to her deep and extensive knowledge and, above all, to the fact that she could not be an illiterate peasant woman from Lorraine.
Joan of Arc at the walls of Compiegne. Miniature from the 15th century.
A completely different woman, not Joan of Arc, was captured by the British and burned at the stake, Gorbenko believes. Several facts speak in favor of the fact that the Maid of Orleans was buried and not burned. In particular, during the burning of the woman 30 May 1431, playing the role of d'Arc, her face was covered. There is also a tombstone on which the coat of arms of the Maid of Orleans is clearly visible.
Shtilke Herman Anton. Joan of Arc at the stake
(right part of the triptych “The Life of Joan of Arc”), 1843. Hermitage.
Joan of Arc.
A spirit appeared in a dream to an unknown shepherd girl and declared that she must save her homeland. Having gathered a detachment, Joan of Arc led it against the enemy. In May 1429, she liberated the city of Orleans, for which she was dubbed the Maid of Orleans. 1429. France was in the 82nd year of the Hundred Years' War with England. It seemed that nothing could stop the English invaders. But then a rumor spread among the people that the wizard Merlin had predicted: “A virgin (maiden) will appear with an ax in her hand and will save everyone.” The prophecy came true exactly. This maiden was 17-year-old Joan of Arc. She was born in 1412 in the village of Domremi in the family of a village elder. How did a peasant girl manage to gather the best knights under her banner and where did her military talents come from? There are many versions about the origin of Joan of Arc. French scientist and researcher Robert Ambelain, in his book “Dramas and Secrets of History,” claims that Jeanne was the illegitimate daughter of Queen Isabella of Bavaria of France. As evidence, the researcher provides the following reasoning and facts.
Jeanne was showered with honors even before she accomplished her exploits. Firstly, she had her own battle flag, which at that time was a considerable privilege. Secondly, she had golden spurs, which was only allowed to knights, thirdly, she had her own retinue and her own staff of noble nobles, who under no circumstances would submit to the subordination of a commoner; it’s another thing to serve, even if she was illegitimate, but a princess of royal blood.
And no political tricks would force the King of France to give Jeanne the sword of Bertrand du Guesclin, which she requested when she came to court. Guecklen was a famous knight, famous for his numerous exploits. And his sword, kept in the royal palace, was considered a genuine relic. But since the sword was bequeathed to the late Duke of Orleans (who, according to Ambelain, was Jeanne’s father), the weapon was given to the maiden without objection - after all, the legal heir.
When the royal physician performed a virginity test (to confirm compliance with Merlin's prophecy), Joan demanded another weapon from the prediction - a battle axe. It was made especially for her by the best craftsmen. And, remarkably, the blade was engraved with the letter "J" with a small crown on top. In the Abbey of Saint-Denis there is a slab with the image of dArc in armor and with an ax, on which you can see the same letter “J” with a crown.
How much can you trust Ambelain's historical research? It's hard to judge. There are other explanations for the oddities that are indeed evident in Joan's story. American parapsychologist J. Walker claims that all the mysteries of DArc's fate become understandable if we assume that Jeanne had paranormal abilities from birth.
Ambelain, by the way, explaining Jeanne’s successes by her high birth, also does not deny her clairvoyant gift. In his opinion, this extraordinary property was passed on to the girl from her father, Louis of Orleans, who, as is known, had the ability to see the future; he accurately “saw” the picture of his death long before the murder and described it in detail to his friends. True, the Duke of Orleans acquired this gift already in adulthood. But Zhanna’s “contacts” began in childhood.
As chroniclers testify, strange things began to happen to the girl after she visited the fairies. Near the village where she lived, there was the Shenu forest, where, according to local legends, a fairy tree grew on the banks of the Currant Creek. Zhanna loved to walk in these places. And one day, returning home, she told her parents that near an old beech tree a door to a magical land had opened in front of her. The little girl was received by the fairy queen herself and predicted a great future for her. From then on, Zhanna began to regularly experience strange visions and voices.
In the memoirs of Joan of Arc's contemporaries, hints of the girl's superpowers slip through every now and then. Eyewitnesses describe how a certain horseman cursed at the sight of a maiden in armor, to which Jeanne predicted his quick death. And so it soon happened. During one of the battles, DArk warned her comrade to step aside, otherwise he would be hit by a cannonball. The knight walked away, another took his place and was immediately killed.
Obviously, Zhanna also had the ability to hypnotize. Her voice, as contemporaries recalled, literally mesmerized the warriors before the battle so much that they rushed even into an obviously unequal battle, not knowing fear, and some did not even experience pain from their wounds, continuing to fight, already being mortally wounded. The warriors attributed this to divine protection. The gift of clairvoyance was also Joan of Arc’s secret weapon, says J. Worker. And, apparently, her abilities in this were truly colossal. Comparing her actions with her inner voices, she never made a mistake in her predictions, brilliantly winning one battle after another. The Battle of Potet, which was fought by the young commander-in-chief, went down in history as one of the most brilliant victories of French arms; about five thousand soldiers took part in it on the British side, and barely one and a half thousand on the French side. But, despite their numerical superiority, the British suffered a crushing defeat - they counted two and a half thousand people killed, the rest escaped or were captured. In the French army, the losses amounted to only ten people. “It was like a miracle! Jeanne's contemporaries admired her. The Virgin seemed to know the course of the battle in advance, unerringly sending troops to the most dangerous points”Mysterious voices warned Jeanne about literally everything. She even learned in advance that she was about to fall into the hands of enemies, and she warned her friends about it. Events developed like this.
Jeanne's army was preparing for a combat sortie. Before this, a service was held in the parish church of Saint-Jacques. As the girl knelt, a wave of hopeless melancholy washed over her. Jeanne's friends froze as soon as she swayed with her eyes closed - this always happened when a vision came to her. When she woke up, the maiden said: “I was sold and betrayed I know the people who did this. I can no longer help you, for I will soon be given into the hands of death!”
The commanders asked Zhanna to postpone the attack. But she refused. And soon during the battle she was captured by a Burgundian archer. The predicted betrayal also happened: Captain Guillaume Flavy ordered the gates to be closed and the drawbridge of the fortress to be raised, from which Jeanne’s detachment emerged. And the knights who still remained in it could not come to the aid of dArk.
Rumors about Jeanne's mysterious gift certainly reached her enemies. And therefore it is not surprising that they first of all accused her of witchcraft. The Holy Fathers and representatives of the Inquisition tortured DArc for a long time, everyone asked what kind of voices helped her in difficult times? The painful interrogations continued for months. There was a moment when the exhausted girl became seriously ill. The doctor, urgently brought to her prison bed, just threw up his hands, saying that medicine is powerless. But a miracle happened. Once again, the voices that had been silent poured over Zhanna, and after two or three days she completely recovered from the fever, an incurable disease at that time.
When the “witch” was taken to the stake and executed, the incredible happened again. In a pile of coal and ash, a completely untouched heart of a girl was discovered. With all precautions, he was carried to the banks of the Seine and thrown into cold water. This happened on May 30, 1431. This is the official version of the life and death of Joan of Arc. However, within the framework of this version it is impossible to explain the chain of further mysterious events. Within a few months after the bloody execution in Rouen, all the prosecution witnesses and judges died one after another: Bishop Philibert de Satigny, Pierre Loisaleur, Nicolas de Roux from heart attacks, Jacques d'Estivet drowned in a swamp, investigator Ledontein and chief inquisitor Jacques le Meyer disappeared without a trace.
Did Jeanne have a spontaneous gift or did she use it quite consciously? There is no evidence of this. But it can be assumed that she had teachers who developed her extraordinary abilities. One of them is Marshal of France Gilles de Rais, who was an associate of dArc in many of her campaigns. In some paintings depicting the coronation of Charles VII, Joan stands on the right hand, and Gilles de Rais on the left. So, this marshal was also a famous alchemist, an expert in ancient esoteric knowledge, and could well have turned Jeanne’s wonderful gift into a real and formidable weapon. Was it not for this that Gilles de Rais was captured by the Inquisition soon after Jeanne’s death? He was also accused of witchcraft and sent to the stake.
Was Joan a Princess of France? Perhaps But much more important is the fact that researchers today recognize the paranormal capabilities of this legendary woman. Indeed, in truth, this is perhaps the only reliably known case when the gift of clairvoyance was used on the scale of military operations and at the same time with consistent success. As for the fact that the ability to see the future relates to witchcraft powers, as some believe, the Inquisition called Joan of Orleans a witch! I would like to remind you that the church completely rehabilitated dArc, canonizing her as a saint in 1920.
Preview:
Municipal educational institution secondary school No. 100
RESEARCH WORK
SUBJECT:
"SECRETIES OF BIRTH,
LIFE AND DEATH
JOAN OF ARC
Completed by: 10th grade student
Utina Anna
Checked by: Dryankova E.A.
NOVOKUZNETSK
2006
Plan:
Introduction Page 2
Main part:
I. The mystery of birth. Page 3
I.1. Origin of Joan of Arc Page 3
I.2. What is the gender of Joan of Arc? Page 5
I.3. Gilles De Re's plan. Page 7
I.4. Predictions about the coming of the great Virgin. Page 8
II. The mystery of the death of Joan of Arc. Page 11
III. Life after death. Page 13
Conclusion Page 21
References Page 23
Introduction
The legend of Joan of Arc is one of the greatest falsifications in French history; perhaps the largest lie of its kind. Robert Ambelain
There are two stories: official history, which is taught at school, and secret history, in which the true causes of events are hidden.Honore de Balzac.
Joan of Arc is an eternal topic that has been exciting researchers for almost six centuries, and in it, as is usually the case with eternal topics, everything is far from being as clear as someone would like. In addition to the traditional (canonical), there is and a mass of so-called alternative versions, conventionally combined into two large directions.
One of them (in particular, it is adhered to by historians Jean Jacobi, author of the book “The Secret of Joan of Arc.” Edouard Schneider, Jean Bosler, etc.) consists
The fact is that Jeanne was not, as is officially believed, the daughter of the peasant Jacques d'Arc and his wife Isabella Romeu. She supposedly belonged to the royal dynasty, which explains her high status, her excellent knowledge of the court and the peculiarities of military affairs.
Adherents of this theory in French are called “batardists” (batardisants), that is, supporters of the fact of Jeanne’s illegal birth.
Historians of another school, the founder of which is Jean Grimaud, who published the book “Was Joan of Arc Burned?” in 1952, are based on the fact that Joan could not have been burned at the stake in Rouen. According to this theory, she managed to escape, marry and reappear under the name Jeanne des Armoise. This theory is supported by such respected historians as Jean de Saint-Jean (author of the book “Jeanne, 1407-1452”), Gérard Pem (author of the book “Jeanne des Armoise”), Etienne Weil-Rainal (author of the book “The Double Secret of Joan the Virgin”), Andre Brise, Pierre de Sermoise, Florence Macquet and others.
Supporters of this theory are called “survivists”, that is, supporters of the fact of Jeanne’s salvation.
The main goal of our research:
Without claiming to have a final resolution of all these “strange” issues, in our research we tried to systematize many strange and contradictory events that occurred in the so-called (and, without any doubt, political) “The Case of Joan of Arc”. Show the other side of the story, the ambiguity resolving many controversial issues.
Research objectives:
- Uncover the secret of the birth of Joan of Arc. Find out whether Joan of Arc was a simple girl from a peasant family or whether she belonged to a royal family, which determined her fate.
- Try to solve the mystery of the death of Joan of Arc. Was she really burned at the stake in Rouen or continued to live after her “death”.
In our work we were guided by the following methods:
- Studying factual documentary material.
- Comparative analysis of sources.
- Based on the comparative analysis, the conclusions were systematized.
Part I. The mystery of birth.
I.1. Origin of Joan of Arc.
So, on a cold November night in 1407, a group of horsemen from Paris appeared in the village of Domremy, which was located on the border of the French kingdom on the banks of the Meuse River, in the house of Jacques d'Arcas. Snow-covered and chilled warriors of the Duke of Orleans rode for eight days, and for this they there had to be a very good reason. This good reason, as you might guess, was a baby wrapped in scarves, held in the arms of Joan of Arc, the widow of Nicolas d'Arc, the brother of Jacques d'Arc. By the way, her marriage to Nicolas d'Arc was her second, and her first husband was the knight Aude de Recy, which also confirms the difficult social level of this surname.
Note that the woman who was carrying the baby was also called Joan of Arc and served as a nurse at the royal court. The fact that her name was exactly the same as our main character can be considered a coincidence, although, on the other hand, Jeanne and Jeanne was the name of probably half the French at that time.
So why did the royal nurse Joan of Arc suddenly need to rush to distant Domremy to the house of her brother-in-law? What kind of mission was she carrying out?
Before answering this question, let’s find out what Domremi is. For some reason, most historians believe that Domremy is a small village abandoned somewhere in Lorraine. Apparently, this interpretation is convenient for them as an additional emphasis in the version about the “common” origin of Jeanne.
But this is completely wrong. Firstly, Domremy is not that much of a village (after all, there were thirty-four farms in it); secondly, it is located not in Lorraine, but in the Duchy of Barrois, and this is in the neighborhood of Lorraine, at the junction of the current French departments Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse and Haute-Marne.
Why did the royal nurse suddenly need to rush to Domremy and what was her mission?
The explanation for this, simultaneously with the version about the illegal birth of the Virgin of Orleans from Queen Isabella of Bavaria and Duke Louis of Orleans, brother of King Charles VI, goes back to the beginning of the 19th century.
Now we can say that it is known for certain that on November 10, 1407, Queen Isabella gave birth to a child who, according to the chronicles, died shortly after birth. However, the grave and remains of this baby could not be found. Moreover, the 1764 edition of the “General History of the French Royal House” spoke of a boy named Philip. Surprisingly, in two subsequent editions of this book - 1770 and 1783 - they already talked about a girl named Zhanna.
Be that as it may, this event posed a great problem for the queen. Most historians agree that the child (no matter whether a boy or a girl) could not possibly have been the child of King Charles VI, who suffered from insanity, did not actually rule the country and did not “communicate” with his wife for many years.
In those distant times, illegitimate children among kings and princes were a very ordinary matter (the child was raised with others, and he received a worthy position in society), but such a child for a queen put her in an uncomfortable and even dangerous position. The only real way out of such a situation is to destroy traces of the child by declaring him dead and sending him to a wet nurse.
The historian Paul Ruelle notes this interesting fact: there were two more people in the d'Arc family - certain Guillaume and Yvon. Both of them in 1423 would become guardians and advisers to the born Dauphin (that is, the crown prince, not yet crowned to the throne) Louis, the king's son Charles VII and Mary of Anjou. In addition to the fact that this once again proves the difficult origins of the d'Arc family, this also suggests the following: there is no fundamental difference between one royal child, given to the care of representatives of the d'Arc family, and another a royal child, also fostered by the same family. Paul Ruelle writes:
“The difference is only in publicity, perhaps associated with the ambiguity of establishing the gender of the child, which will remain in doubt until puberty. If we were talking about a girl, there would be no problem: she would be placed in a monastery, and then a husband would be found for her, “profitable” from the point of view of royal policy. As they say, the woman makes the cart easier for the mare! But if it turned out to be a boy, a minimum of decorum had to be observed. Therefore, it was necessary to entrust the child to the family traditionally responsible for royal guardianship, but it was necessary to do this as secretly as possible.”
I.2. What is the gender of Joan of Arc?
Not everything is clear about the child born to Isabella of Bavaria in November 1407. It is not even clear what gender he was, because he is called either a boy, or a girl, or Philip, or Jeanne. Chroniclers of that time agree that this child died without living even a day - so does it matter what gender he was and what his name was? But on the other hand, there was supposedly one curious document - a kind of “travel certificate” issued to the legitimate son of Louis of Orleans, Charles, with an order to deliver a certain baby from the Barbette Palace (Queen Isabella’s chambers in Paris) to Domremy. This certificate is dated late autumn 1407. All the dates agree, and there is no doubt that this was the same baby - either Philip or Jeanne. But, alas, this document disappeared, which gives supporters of the canonical version the confidence that it never existed.
They say the same thing about the so-called “Book of Poitiers,” which supposedly exists in the secret collections of the Vatican. This book supposedly collected all the records of the investigation conducted by the royal commission in 1429 on the question of whether Joan of the Virgin was who she said she was and whether she could be trusted to command the troops.
Historians who have seen the Book of Poitiers claim that there are protocols there, from which it is clear that all the residents of Domremy, where Jeanne was raised, considered her the illegitimate daughter of Queen Isabella of Bavaria and Duke Louis of Orleans.
However, the Book of Poitiers is currently unavailable, and the Vatican claims that it does not exist and never existed. Why this is necessary for officials from the Vatican is not difficult to guess: it is not at all fitting for anyone, and they, to discredit the honorable name of Saint Joan, canonized in May 1920. A saint, and suddenly - the illegitimate daughter of a mother of dubious reputation, who brightened up her leisure time with her husband's younger brother? Horror! Catastrophe! This cannot be allowed...
But why did the chroniclers still get confused in determining the gender of the child born to Isabella of Bavaria in November 1407? There is one consideration here that has given rise to new versions identifying the so-called Joan of Arc or, if you prefer, “Joan of Arc” (in quotes).
The point is this: two medical examinations that Jeanne was subjected to in 1429 showed that she was not only a virgin, but could not lose her virginity even theoretically. Such were, how can I say this more delicately, the structural features of some of her external and internal organs.
Is this why, by the way, Bertrand de Poulangis, who accompanied Jeanne on the journey from Vaucouleurs to Chinon, who was not even forty years old, said:
“Every night she lay down next to me and Jean from Metz, without taking off her cloak and boots. I was young then, but despite this, I did not experience any desire or bodily attraction...”
The famous French researcher of the biography of Joan of Arc, Regine Pernu, also noted, proving the impressions of Jeanne’s companions during her trip to Chinon:
“All along the way... she slept next to them at all stops, lay down without undressing, without unbuttoning, without taking off either her camisole or her pants; and they never had a “movement of the flesh” toward her.
However, there is also irrefutable evidence that outwardly Jeanne was still a girl, with a pleasant face, graceful body and beautiful breasts, which she, without hesitation, often showed off to her soldiers.
All this can only indicate one or another degree of development of hermaphroditism - a genetic disease that is rare, although not to such an extent that these cases are completely unique.
As is known, in the case of hermaphroditism it can be extremely difficult to determine the sex of the baby. With complete hermaphroditism, this is completely impossible, since the characteristics of both sexes are combined equally. But even with false hermaphroditism, and this is precisely what was observed, apparently, in our case, the signs of one sex begin to predominate only as they grow older, and in infancy it is very, very difficult to establish sex.
Is this where Jeanne’s unbridled desire to fight, endurance, reckless courage and even success in knightly tournaments come from?
I.3. Gilles De Re's plan.
It must be said that Gilles de Rais was fabulously rich and willingly took upon himself the costs of organizing banquets, hunting and other amusements that Karl adored so much. It is not surprising that Gilles de Rais was always greeted as the most valued guest in Chiynon.
One day at dinner the conversation once again turned to the Duke of Bedford's new military operations. Karl once again began to complain about the lack of soldiers, about their lack of fighting spirit and faith in the possibility of victory over the British. True, Karl himself had little faith in this possibility.
And here Gilles de Rais proposed the following plan. A simple village girl allegedly comes to the Dauphin, to whom the saints appear and prophesy that after Charles becomes king, France will again be united. Gilles de Rais himself undertook to finance the creation of a regular army and gave money to organize the militia.
I.4. Predictions about the coming of the great Virgin.
Karl liked the proposed plan, and he immediately began to develop it. True, to develop is a loud word; Karl did not know how to develop anything, but he thought of turning for advice to his beloved mother-in-law Yolanda of Aragon, whom he revered more than his own mother.
Yolanda of Aragon knew the old truth well: miracles are where they are believed in, and the more they are believed in, the more often they happen.
By that time, the position of the French, and especially the blockaded Orleans, this last serious outpost preventing the advance of the British to the south of the country, was so bad that it could not have been worse. Therefore, even if Gilles de Rais’ proposal failed, Karl himself did not lose anything.
The only question was where to get this divine girl who would inspire people to fight against the British and put Charles on the throne? Who will perform all these miracles?
A very reliable candidate was needed, and it was then that Queen Yolande reminded Charles of the existence of his sister Jeanne, who, according to rumors, lived somewhere in the north of France. Here she is, a princess by blood, who could well play the role of a God-sent Virgin. If it is well prepared -
Apparently, she could well have inspired fighting spirit in the French soldiers, and besides, another important point was connected with her, which seemed
Yolanda of Aragon was simply a miraculous coincidence.
Jeanne was the same illegitimate child as Karl himself. Jeanne's father was Louis d'Orléans, many at the court of the late King Charles VI the Mad knew about this. But whose son was the Dauphin Charles himself - Louis of Orleans or the simple nobleman Louis de Bois-Bourdon?
In the first case, it was still possible to fight for his “legitimacy”; after all, Louis of Orleans was the king’s younger brother; in the second - in no way. This is where Jeanne, the undoubted princess of the blood, should have appeared on the stage. She should have miraculously appeared and confirmed that “the son of adultery, the incarnate sin of his mother” is the Dauphin, that is, the legal heir to the French throne.
The historian Robert Ambelain wrote about this:
“A whole scenario was drawn up, the purpose of which was to position the country in favor of Charles VII.”
And this extremely simple idea was later to be decorated with stories about “Joan of the Virgin”, about “Divine Voices”, about the “salvation of France”, about “national identity”, etc.
The basis of the intended intrigue was the idea that the French people needed the legend of the Virgin to raise their morale. Where did the idea come from that France would be destroyed by a woman and reborn by a virgin?
The ancient prophecy, which Yolanda of Aragon and her son-in-law Charles decided to rely on, was based on the traditional opposition between a woman and a maiden. Researcher of the Jeanne phenomenon Vladimir Raitses, author of the books “The Trial of Joan of Arc” (1964) and “Joan of Arc: Facts, Legends, Hypotheses” (1982), who studied the etymology of this prophecy, argued that it went back “to the fundamental Christian antithesis "Eva - Maria". As they say, Eve destroyed and Mary saved.
Regarding the woman murderer, everything is clear here. We could only talk about Charles’s mother Isabella of Bavaria. General rumor (at least in the lands that recognized Charles) had long placed the main blame on her for the disasters that befell France. It was she who defected to the British; she recognized the rights to the throne of her English grandson, thereby supporting the enemy occupation of half the country (they allegedly came to maintain order in “their” kingdom).
Regarding the Virgin Savior, everything was somewhat more complicated. Vladimir Raitses wrote:
“Predicting the coming of the Virgin Savior is a very complex phenomenon in its genetic nature. It, of course, was reflected in the general growth of mystical sentiments on the basis of continuous disasters, military failures, social cataclysms, devastation of the country, epidemics, famines, etc. It is also clear that this prediction was associated with the widespread cult of the savior of all humanity among the people kind of - the Virgin Mary."
In addition, the coming of the Virgin was predicted by the prophecies of the famous wizard Merlin, a character in many legends and chivalric novels, who lived in the 6th century at the court of the no less famous King Arthur. According to Merlin, the Virgin was to appear on the backs of archers,” and after she had “taken the fortresses and dried up the sources of evil with her breath,” she would be killed by “a stag with ten horns.”
All these prophecies were well known and, based on them, a good performance could be staged. In principle, Zhanna was perfect for this role. On the one hand, she was “her” person, on the other hand, she was not a “simple girl.” In general, this was not bad, since the nobles would not have taken an ordinary peasant woman into account. But what then to do with the prophecy that “God is pleased to act through the simple Virgin” (in Latin - Simplex Puella)? But a way out was found here too, because “simplicity” can be understood not as a “low” social position, but as a complex of moral qualities: simplicity, purity of thoughts, chastity. After all, the Lord often chooses precisely such “simple” people as his instruments, thereby punishing human pride. In addition, the word “Virgo”, which had become a commonly used cliché, had one of the meanings of the concept of “maidservant”, which could well be interpreted as “handmaiden of the Lord God”.
No sooner said than done. Through her reliable confidants and relatives, Queen Yolanda made inquiries with some knowledgeable people, and they confirmed that sister Charles, the illegitimate daughter of Queen Isabella of Bavaria, really lives in the north in Domremy in the house of Jacques d'Arc.
On the advice of his mother-in-law, Charles quickly equipped a messenger named Colet de Vienne, accompanied him by the Scottish archer Richard and sent them both to Vaucouleurs, the city closest to Domremy, where his vassal Robert de Baudricourt ruled. Colet de Vienne carried with him fairly clear instructions regarding Jeanne.
PART II: THE MYSTERY OF THE DEATH OF JOAN OF ARC
According to the canonical version, Joan was executed on May 30, 1431 in the Old Market Square in Rouen. However, almost immediately rumors spread that it was not Jeanne herself who was burned at the stake, but some completely different woman.
Who was this sufferer? Perhaps a double volunteer who was well aware that he would die a martyr’s death under someone else’s name in exchange for a direct path to heaven? Or maybe just an unfortunate woman who had no connection with Jeanne, accused of some crime, who would have met death at the stake anyway?
It will remain a secret. Only one thing is clear so far: instead of Zhanna, another woman went to the fire.
Many facts speak about this.
First of all, everyone was amazed that the victim was sent to the stake with amazing haste, disregarding the strict rules of procedure usually adopted in the process of the Inquisition, without asking for a decision from a secular court.
Local residents who came to watch the execution could not really see the victim, because a powerful cordon of eight hundred soldiers did not allow spectators to approach the scaffold, and even the windows of the nearest houses were ordered to be closed by the authorities of Rouen with wooden shutters.
Usually, the condemned went to the fire with their faces open and their heads bare, except for a paper cap coated with a sulfur compound. This time the face of the condemned woman was completely covered.
Was this only a precautionary measure due to fears that a last-minute attempt would be made to free Jeanne? This is unlikely, because the population of Rouen was on the side of the British. Consequently, the authorities could only fear the revelation that it was not Zhanna, but some other woman, who was taken to the fire.
Another very strange point: on the eve of execution, the condemned woman was not given unction, and in the 14th and 15th centuries no one was exempt from this, and especially the criminals.
After the execution, Joan's jailer, Earl of Warwick, gave the order to collect the victim's ashes and throw them into the Seine: there was no question of allowing the crowd to turn them into relics.
Of course, the stories about the heart preserved in the fire and about the white dove that flew out of the fire towards France are all naive legends that have nothing to do with the material laws of nature, but the fact remains that not even ashes remained of the so-called Jeanne. Of course, executioners XV centuries, they could not even think about methods of identifying a person from his remains using the analysis of his DNA; they were guided by something else - Jeanne had to disappear, and disappear forever and, if possible, without a trace.
And a very curious fact: despite the strictest discipline and scrupulousness of the inquisitors, no entry was found in their “accounting” books about the expenses specifically for the execution of Jeanne. At the same time, records of money for firewood and other “entourage” for other executions are available in full.
As we see, this execution was marked by mystery and some strange inarticulateness: the procedures were carried out with obvious violations, no one saw the face of the executed woman, everything was done hastily, one might even say, clumsily. When Jeanne’s rehabilitation began twenty-five years after the execution, it turned out that none of the representatives of the judiciary had passed any sentence on the Maid of Orleans. In addition, none of the participants in the trial could accurately describe how the trial and execution took place: some reported that they saw nothing, others that they did not remember anything, and still others that they left Rouen long before the execution. And even the date of the execution itself turned out to be not entirely accurate: contemporaries and historians called not only the day May 30, but also June 14, and July 6, and sometimes February 1432 (this, in any case, is what the English chroniclers William Caxton and Polydore Virgilius).
From all that has been said, only one conclusion can be drawn: it was not Jeanne who was executed on the Old Market Square, but a figurehead who had nothing to do with her. And this should not have been noticed not only by the numerous spectators, but also by the participants in the execution themselves.
PART III: LIFE AFTER DEATH.
III. 1. SIMULATED EXECUTION
After a secret abduction, Jeanne was taken to the remote castle of Monroe-ttier, located two leagues from the Savoyard city of Annecy, where she was destined to spend the next few years of her life.
This castle was not chosen by chance, since since 1427 it belonged to the vassal of Duke Amadeus of Savoy, Pierre de Monton, the same one who was present at the feast of the Earl of Warwick on May 13, 1431. He, as you might guess, was entrusted with the secret abduction of Jeanne from Rouen, her delivery to Montrottier and the organization of reliable security.
It is also important to note that Pierre de Monton was not just one of the vassals of the Duke of Savoy, he was also his adviser and diplomatic intermediary in negotiations between Charles VII, Philip the Good and Charles of Orleans.
As for the castle, located among the steep cliffs, in its main tower there is a room that for a long time was called the Prison of the Virgin. The recluse marked the days of her stay there with dashes cut into the window opening, which correspond to the time that Jeanne spent in Montrottier. Historian Robert Ambelain wrote:
“The one who was entrusted with protecting a particularly valuable
Prisoner, I couldn’t think of a better prison.”
Almost nothing is known about what exactly Joan did after her liberation and before 1436. Of course, she was kept under guard and did not have freedom of movement. Charles VII, who took care of her rescue and actually exchanged her for John Talbot, needed time for the French to forget about their heroine, believing in her death.
Once again, the trace of Jeanne appears only five years after the “burning of Rouen.” Five years is a long time, and a lot has happened over the years.
Nobody really knows what Jeanne did during these years, but in 1436 she showed up in Arlon, a small town on the border of modern Belgium with Luxembourg, and this fact is recorded in many sources.
Historian Robert Ambelain indicates that Jeanne Poton de Xentray and his assistant Jean de Blanchefort took Joan from Montrothieux. Nobody particularly interfered with this “escape”.
In Arlon, Jeanne entered under the supervision of the powerful nobleman Jean de Rodmac. It is also known for certain that in Arlon, Jeanne was received by the Duchess of Luxembourg.
Let us be clear: this Duchess of Luxembourg should not be confused, as Paul Ruelle does, for example, with Jeanne of Luxembourg, who communicated with Jeanne at the very beginning of her captivity in Burgundy. In fact, the Duchess of Luxembourg is Elizabeth, the cousin of Jean of Luxembourg. By marriage she was the Duchess de Görlitz. And Jeanne of Luxembourg, who at one time showed compassion for the prisoner of the Beaurevoir castle, as we remember, died unmarried in 1430. She had two nephews, one of whom was Jean of Luxembourg, cousin of Elizabeth of Luxembourg and owner of the Beaurevoir castle.
The Duchess of Luxembourg was a very rich and influential lady, so it is unlikely that she would host a girl whose origins would raise any doubt in her mind. Quite the opposite, she happily accepted Zhanna, feeling remorse for the months that Zhanna was forced to spend in prison with her relative.
At Arlon Castle, Jeanne lived in luxury, surrounded by the care of Duchess Elisabeth de Görlitz and her loved ones, and after that she was taken by Count Ulrich of Warnemburg to the city of Cologne, where his father, Duke of Warnemburg, lived. Historian Paul Ruelle claims that the count "courted" Jeanne, and Jeanne "allowed herself to be courted." Robert Ambelain goes even further, claiming that “the said count fell in love with her very much.”
In Cologne she began to wear men's clothing again. In the book “The Truth about Joan of Arc,” published in Paris in 1895, it is said that Count Warnemburg gave her beautiful armor.
In Cologne, Jeanne “merrily feasted” with the Count of Warnemburg, and then began to actively interfere in the intrigues of local feudal lords. Such was her active nature, and neither being in captivity, nor the trial, nor five years in Montrottier, it seems, did not change her.
Interesting information about the reappearance of Jeanne can be found in the ancient “Chronicle of the abbot of the monastery of Saint Thibault de Metz,” which states:
“In 1436, Mr. Philippen Marcoux was the senior city councilor of the city of Metz. In the same year, on the twentieth of May, Jeanne the Virgin, who was in France, arrived in La Grange-aux-Ormes, near Saint-Privat. She came there to talk with several noble citizens of Metz... And on the same day, two brothers of the Virgin arrived there, one of whom, sir Pierre, was a knight, and the other, Jean Malysh, was a squire. They thought she was burned, but when they saw her they recognized her, and she recognized them too.”
As we can see, the abbot of the monastery of Saint Thibault confirms that in 1436 Joan was recognized by her brothers and some nobles, not only in La Grange-aux-Ormes, but also in Metz, Type and several other cities and villages. It is especially important that she was recognized by Ser Nicolas Louv, who was very close to the “former” Jeanne.
There is simply evidence, and there is undeniable evidence. Nicolas Louv was at that time one of the most respected citizens of Metz. He was a knight of Charles VII and took part in his coronation at Reims. It would simply never have occurred to such a person to participate in any hoax, recognizing Jeanne as the Virgin as an impostor. He also could not be mistaken, he knew Jeanne too well. By the way, he was elevated to the rank of knight precisely thanks to her intercession, and all the gifts that he gave her were a manifestation of his endless gratitude.
It is quite obvious that the abbot of the monastery of Saint Thibault sincerely considered the woman who appeared in 1436 to be the original Joan of Arc. We only need to add that there is another manuscript of his chronicle, in which the author allegedly admits his mistake. The following is written there:
“This year a young girl appeared who called herself the Virgin of France and played her role in such a way that many were misled, especially the older people.”
This is very similar to an unconditional refutation of the first evidence, but is there any guarantee that this explanation of the so-called “impostority” is not a tendentious insertion made much later?
While in Metz, Joan wrote several letters, including to King Charles VII, who was in the castle of Loches. These letters were brought to the king by Jean d'Arc, and we will return to this fact a little later.
But in 1436, the king did not even think of honoring Jeanne with an answer. Haven't honored it yet...
Oddly enough, for some reason no one asked Zhanna where she had spent the previous five years that had passed since her alleged execution and miraculous salvation. She herself did not touch upon this issue.
Generally speaking, Jeanne's actions, if we assume that she was an impostor, are difficult to explain. Really, only a very confident person could behave so carelessly. The first obvious imprudence was entering into correspondence with the king, and then meeting with his “brothers” from Domremi. Already at this stage, the impostor’s career could have ended happily without really beginning. But then there’s more: Jeanne agreed to marry the lord des Armoises, knowing full well that when marrying a nobleman, confirmation of her noble origin would be required.
III. 2. JEANNE'S MARRIAGE TO ROBERT DES ARMOISE
Jeanne actually married the noble knight Robert des Armoises, lord of Tichmont. This happened in Metz at the beginning of November 1436. Some historians give a more precise date for the wedding - November 7, 1436. There is an opinion that the recently widowed groom (his first wife was Alique de Manonville, and with her he had a son, Philippe) was chosen for Jeanne by the Duchess of Luxembourg herself.
Nothing was found to impede the marriage, and a magnificent wedding took place, after which Jeanne began to be called Jeanne des Armoises.
Let us ask ourselves, would Senor Robert, the son of Marshal Richard des Armoises, even while in exile, marry a woman without family or tribe? Of course not. For a noble nobleman this was simply out of the question. In any case, the des Armoises family still maintains the tradition of considering Jeanne the most glorious and revered of their ancestors.
Subsequently, a marriage contract of Jeanne des Armoises and a deed of gift were found, according to which Robert des Armoises transferred part of his possessions to his wife Jeanne, who was repeatedly called the “Maiden of France” in the text.
According to professor and historian Albert Bayeux, in 1907 he personally held Jeanne’s marriage contract in his hands, but then this priceless document was destroyed in February 1916 during the bombing of the town, where the castle of the Seigneurs des Armoises still stands today. The signature of Lord Robert's wife on it was completely identical to the signature on Joan of Arc's letter to the residents of Reims, dated March 16, 1430.
Apparently, more reliable evidence of Joan of Arc’s authenticity is the reaction of Robert des Armoise’s friends to her, who at one time knew Joan of Arc well.
For example, Jean de Toneltil and Joblet de Daine, who put their seals on the document transferring part of her husband’s possessions to Jeanne, knew the real Maid of Orleans. And it is unlikely that they had any reason to participate in deceiving their friend. Or maybe they were playing a joke on him? Of course not. They were his true friends: the first was a powerful lord, and the second was a royal judge in Marville, a small town northwest of Metz. Such people would not put their seals on dubious documents.
And finally, Robert des Armoises himself was a relative of Roberude Baudricourt, the same captain who at one time helped send Jeanne the Virgin from Vaucouleurs to Chinon (in 1425, Robert des Armoises married Alarda de Chamblay, the cousin of Robert des Armoises).
Why didn’t Captain de Baudricourt open his cousin’s eyes if some impostor intended to become his wife?
All this indicates that there was no impostor, and the wife of Robert des Armoise really became Jeanne of Domremy, the illegitimate daughter of the Duke of Orleans and Queen Isabella of Bavaria, raised in the family of Jacques d'Arcas.
III. 3. MEETING OF JEAN AND MARCHAL GILES DE RÉ
Very little is known about what Joan did in 1437 and 1438. According to the fragmentary information available, having received no response from Charles VII, she left for Italy.
The book “The Truth about Joan of Arc” tells that she arrived in Rome, “where she offered her services to Pope Eugene IV. She fought for him against the Duke of Milan and, as they say, killed two soldiers with her own hand.” After this , “having succeeded in the service of the pope and proud of his support, she returned to France.”
According to Robert Ambelain, everything was completely different. Jeanne had not been to any Italy, but in December 1436 she left Metz and headed to Tiffauges, where, as she knew, her old acquaintance Gilles de Rais lived.
Jeanne arrived in Tiffauges in January 1437. After that, for almost two years, together with her old friend, admirer and patron Gilles de Rais, she fought against the British in southwestern France.
Gilles de Rais gathered a large army. One of the commanders in this army was Jean de Sicanville.
On this occasion, Regine Pernu only notes that Gilles de Rais “takes her with him to war.” According to some fragmentary information, not confirmed by serious documents, during this war Jeanne took part in the siege of La Rochelle, and then Bordeaux. She was allegedly wounded near Bordeaux.
One cannot help but recognize the following fact as even more extraordinary: in July; 1439, that is, more than eight years after the official death of Jeanne, she personally came to Orleans.
Jeanne, and she was now called Madame des Armoises, was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of townspeople, among whom there were many people who knew their heroine well from the time of the famous siege. Historical chronicles leave no doubt that the people of Orléans unconditionally accepted Jeanne des Armoises as the Maid of Orléans. Moreover, the account book directly states that on August 1, 1439, Jeanne was presented with a large sum of money (two hundred and ten livres, or eight thousand four hundred francs) with the wording “for the benefit she provided to the city during the siege.”
Many historians claim that Jeanne's name was used by an impostor in 1439. Well, there really were plenty of all kinds of impostors in history. Moreover, how in those distant times was it possible to distinguish a real Virgo from a false Virgo? After all, there was no press, no television, no photographs then, and no one in France really knew the appearance of the real Jeanne...
With France - it’s understandable, but what about Orleans, where literally every resident remembered Joan by sight, not to mention her immediate associates? After all, they would have immediately noticed the substitution, especially since Jeanne was not hiding at all, but, on the contrary, took an active part in numerous social events organized in her honor.
Do we have the right, having such evidence, to question the conclusion that Jeanne des Armoises, who arrived in Orleans, was the real Maid of Orleans? Do we have the right to challenge this conclusion without providing any arguments to explain what motivated all these people to participate in a collective hoax or why and how they were deceived?
French historian and academic Gerard Pem claims that he has found very important evidence. Until now, it was believed that Jeanne's adoptive mother Isabella Romeu came to Orleans only in July 1440, that is, a year after the appearance of a woman allegedly posing as her daughter. However, in the list of city expenses from March 6, 1440, there is a note about payment to two persons for the maintenance and treatment of Isabella from July 7 to August 31. Here we can clearly only talk about 1439.
There is also a record of the payment of the pension established by the city of Isabelle Roma for September, October and November 1439. If the authenticity of these records is not questioned, then they indicate that the woman who raised Jeanne from birth was in Orleans at the time when Jeanne des Armoises was solemnly received there. It is difficult to imagine reasons why Isabella Roma would need to participate in deception.
It should be noted that Jeanne's appearance was described. In particular, specific signs were known, which in those days (in the absence of plastic surgery) were extremely difficult to copy: a dark birthmark behind the ear, scars - traces of wounds - in certain places of the body (Virgo was wounded several times in the neck and shoulder, later - in the thigh; this should have left scars that are hardly possible to fake).
The hospitality shown to Jeanne des Armoises in Orleans allows only three interpretations: it could be an involuntary mistake or the result of a collective hallucination, it could be a conscious collective complicity in falsification and, finally, Jeanne des Armoises could really be saved from execution by Jeanne.
A mistake by Jeanne's adoptive brothers is unlikely. Regine Pernu's conclusion that they hoped to "use this adventuress to beg money from the king and try to enrich themselves at her expense" is just a simple assumption.
Another thing is important: immediately after her appearance in Lorraine, Jeanne hastened to contact people who had known her since birth. On the part of the impostor, this would be an overly bold step, if one does not assume that it was not made as a result of a preliminary agreement, of which, however, there is no evidence. As for the numerous residents of Orleans, it is generally difficult to discover motives on their part for complicity in deception.
In his book “Was Joan of Arc Burnt?” Jean Grimaud concludes:
“The attitude of Robert des Armoises and all his relatives, well known in Lorraine, the gifts presented to the du Lys brothers, the high honors bestowed upon them, and the impossibility of mass hallucination among the inhabitants of Orléans - all these indisputable facts completely refute the point of view of those who believe Jeanne des Armoise is an impostor. The chronicle of the rector of the church of Saint Thibault, the archives of the Orleans fortress, notarized papers - all this is a single and inviolable proof of the authenticity of her personality; all this more than outweighs any assumptions based on probability.”
But, as you know, for every hypothesis there is always a counter-hypothesis. Articles by numerous supporters of the official version of the story about Joan of Arc immediately began to appear against the book of Jean Grime and his followers in newspapers and magazines. The most active protestors were Maurice Garson, Philippe Erlanger, Charles Samaran and, of course, the recognized leader “ traditionalists" Regine Pernu.
But what about the fact that the “imposter” was recognized by her relatives? And there is a quote from Anatole France:
“They believed it because they really wanted it to be that way.”
Regine Pernu’s “scientific” approach generally surprises with its impenetrability:
“All the arguments of pseudo-historians do not deserve to be dwelled upon at length.”
Like this! No more and no less! And no explanation of who is considered pseudo-historians. Maybe. all those whose opinions differ in some way from the generally accepted...
III. 4. JEANNE'S ARRIVAL IN PARIS AND HER "EXPOSURE"
Inspired by the Orleans triumph and encouraged by Gilles de Rais, in 1440 Jeanne went to Paris.
The purpose of this trip is obvious: Jeanne dreamed of taking her rightful place next to her brother-king. This trip was the same attempt at “restoration” for Gilles de Rais, who hoped, with the assistance of Jeanne, to restore his shaky positions at court, and at the same time to plug the gaping holes in his budget.
But the question is, did Charles VII need such a double “restoration”? From his point of view, these two people had long since fulfilled their function, and their appearance in Paris seemed to him extremely undesirable. Why share fame with someone? After all, it is only those who have nothing who are ready to share with others...
The Parisian Parliament, and at that time it was only a judicial institution, having received instructions from the king, took measures to prevent the same enthusiastic reception of Jeanne as it was in Orleans.
It would be better to prevent admission altogether, and this was not so difficult to do. While still on the way to the capital, Jeanne was detained and taken to parliament under guard. Paris is not provincial Orleans; here almost no one knew Jeanne personally, and she had no one to count on. One conversation “with passion” was enough for Zhanna to understand that the idea of a triumphal entry into Paris was not the most successful. As parliament demanded, Jeanne declared herself an impostor. Like, sorry, the devil confused me...
What else could she do? But after admitting the “impostor,” she was immediately released and sent home.
III. 5. THE LAST YEARS OF ZHANNA'S LIFE
On October 26, 1440, Gilles de Rais was executed. Jeanne, deprived of support, was sent home to Lorraine.
After this, her name is hardly mentioned anymore. In the book “The Truth about Joan of Arc” it is only briefly noted that “she returned to private life.” Where? In the castle of Zholny, five leagues from Metz. With whom? With her husband Robert des Armoise.
Now a number of documents have been found, the authenticity of which is undeniable, through which, based on a number of indirect evidence, it is possible to calculate Joan’s life path after 1440. ---
Firstly, this is a notarial deed dated July 29, 1443, which records the grant of the Ile-aux-Boeufs estate on the Loire to Pierre du Lys, who was freed from many years of captivity by Duke Charles of Orleans “for faithful service to the king and the duke himself.”
Some historians believe that Joan died; in 1446 at the age of thirty-nine. Historian Robert Ambelain claims that Joan died in the summer of 1449. He bases his statement on the following. Jeanne's official mother, Isabella Romeu, was seriously ill in the last years of her life and lived in Orleans. The city authorities helped her as best they could.” But what’s interesting is that in the register of city expenses until 1449 it says “Isabeau, mother of the Virgin,” and from September 1449 - “Isabeau, mother of the late Virgin.” From these purely accounting (and therefore most reliable) facts, two circumstances arise: firstly, Jeanne really died not in 1446, but in 1449, and secondly, she never considered Isabella Romeu to be her natural mother - otherwise there is no way to explain her complete inattention to this elderly and sick woman who was living out her life in Orleans.
Jeanne had no children, and she was buried in the village of Pulligny. Her husband Robert des Armoises died about a year after Jeanne. He was buried in the same grave as her, where the following inscription was engraved on the memorial plaque:
“Here lies the body of Jeanne des Armoises with her jewels, as well as the body of her husband, the knight Robert des Armoises, in his armor.”
There is evidence that the coat of arms of Joan the Virgin was carved on the stone vault next to the grave. During the Great French Revolution, by decree of 1793, it was barbarically destroyed.
The versions put forward that at the end of her life Zhanna was raising her children do not stand up to criticism. Zhanna simply could not have children. As for the children, there were some, but these were not the children of Jeanne and Robert, but of Philippe des Armoise, a relative of Jeanne’s husband, and Isabella du Fe. Childless Jeanne developed tender feelings for her young nephews and became the godmother of their first-born, named Louis, in honor of her father Louis of Orleans (before that, none of the children in the des Armoises family had such a name).
CONCLUSION
At the end of 2003, the media reported a sensational statement by the Ukrainian anthropologist Sergei Gorbenko, who claimed that the famous Joan of Arc was allegedly not burned at the stake, but lived to be fifty years old, that she was not a simple peasant woman, as the legend says, she came from the royal family of Valois and that there was no Joan of Arc at all, but the French themselves invented her at one time.
To understand the seriousness of this statement, it is enough to say that Sergei Gorbenko works at the Institute of Anthropology in Lvov and, being a successor to the Theories of the famous Soviet scientist Mikhail Gerasimov, is engaged in plastic reconstruction of appearance using the skulls and skeletons of people of past eras.
Being a world-famous specialist, Sergei Gorbenko was invited by the French government to study the remains of members of the royal family. Having examined the tomb of the French monarch Louis XI in the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Clery near Orleans, Sergei Gorbenko discovered that the female skull, stored along with the king’s skull, did not belong to Queen Charlotte of Savoy, who died at thirty-eight years old, but to a completely different woman.
The Ukrainian scientist told the London Independent newspaper:
“Having opened the graves, I received information that led me to conclusions that I myself could hardly believe.”
One of the skeletons struck him the most.
“The skeleton belonged to a woman who wore heavy equipment and had developed muscles. In the Middle Ages, only knights wearing steel armor could have such muscles.”
Sergei Gorbenko came to the conclusion that these are the remains of the so-called Joan of Arc, who in reality was an illegitimate princess of the Valois royal family.
As you know, the death of Joan of Arc, burned at the stake on charges of heresy and witchcraft brought forward by the British and their allies from the Catholic Church, is one of the main components of the French national spirit.
Sergey Gorbenko stated:
“I am sure that a group of nobles drew up a plan that was intended to influence the French people and army and demoralize the English. We must not forget that at that time people were deeply religious and believed in miracles. The conspirators needed a woman sent by God to save France. The myth of Joan of Arc spread, gaining a reputation as an immutable truth. At that time, the French throne was shaking, and the monarchy urgently needed a “heroic” figure who could not only mobilize to fight the invaders, but also support the claims of the heir to the throne. However, such a figure It’s unlikely that a rural girl could become like the Maid of Orleans from the legend.”
But, as it turned out, the illegitimate princess played her role much better than anyone could have imagined. She became too influential a figure in the eyes of her followers, which is why she herself began to pose a threat to the French throne.
Dr. Gorbenko, who believes that after the illegitimate princess was removed from the stage, her place at the stake was taken by a completely different woman who became a martyr, concluded:
"I think that if she had declared herself a member of the Valois dynasty, she could have overthrown the Dauphin himself."
Bibliography:
LEVANDOWSKIYA. P. Joan of Arc. M., 1962.
MEREZHKOVSKY D. S. Joan of Arc // Faces of saints from Jesus to us. M., 1999.
RAYTSES V. I. Joan of Arc: facts, legends, hypotheses. St. Petersburg, 2003.
TWAIN Mark. Joan of Arc (translation from English). Minsk, 1961.
AMBELAIN Robert. Drames et secrets de 1"histoire. Paris, 1981.
ANDRE Francis. La verite sur Jeanne d"Arc, ses ennemis, ses auxilieres et sa mission d"apres les chroniques du XVe siècle. Paris, 1895.
GRIMAUD Jean. Jeanne d'Arc a-t-elle ete brulee? Paris, 1952.
GUILLEMIN Henri. Jeanne dite Jeanne d "Arc. Paris, 1970.
LAMY Michel. Jeanne d'Arc. Paris, 1987.
PERNOUD Regine. J"ai nom Jeanne la Pucelle. Paris, 1994.
PESME Gerard. Jeanne d'Arc n'a pas ete brulee. Paris, 1960.
QUICHERATJules. Proces de condamnation et de rehabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc, dite la Pucelle. 5 vol. Paris, 1841-1849.
SAVE Gaston. Jeanne des Armoises, Pucelle d'Orleans. Nancy, 1893.
SERMOISE Pierre de. Les missions secretes de Jeanne la Pucelle. Paris, 1970.
WEILL-RAYNAL Etienne. Le double secret de Jeanne la Pucelle revele par des documents de 1 "epoque. Paris, 1972.
In the works of modern French historians, a version is increasingly found that radically diverges from the traditional biography of Joan of Arc: she is the illegitimate daughter of Queen Isabella of Bavaria of France and Duke Louis of Orleans, brother of King Charles VI, secretly born in 1407 and immediately given over to the nobles for a decent upbringing. 'Arkam, owner of the village of Domremi. Naturally, the noble guardians taught the girl of royal blood everything that a noble lady was supposed to know. Since Jeanne was drawn to boyish amusements from childhood, she had every opportunity to become acquainted with the complex art of wielding a sword, spear and war horse.
The secret of Jeanne’s birth is closely connected with the secret of her death. In the Middle Ages, human life was inexpensive. Commoners were executed with ease, and no mystical voices that the convicts allegedly heard softened their fate. On the contrary, hallucinations and visions were most often attributed to the machinations of the devil, which led to tougher investigations and torture. In the case of Zhanna, we see a completely different picture. After the Virgin was captured by the English, during the investigation in Rouen in 1431, she was kept in very comfortable conditions in the castle of Bouvreuil in the room where the Queen of England had stayed before her. Judging by the protocols that have reached us, questions were asked to her in a polite manner, and the answers were listened to very favorably. Moreover, Bishop Cauchon, who presided over the trial, sent her dishes from his table (the defendant once had an upset stomach from too fatty carp).
Virgin of France. Miniature from the late 15th century
The official nickname of the heroine - Jeanne the Virgin or Maid of France forced the investigation to resort to an examination, but it was also very unusual. The examination of the accused for innocence was carried out not by the executioner or some midwife, but by the specially invited Duchess of Bedford with her personal physician Delashambre. An examination showed that Zhanna, due to her unusual body structure, was physically incapable of sexual activity.
Interestingly, this was not the first such examination for Zhanna. Two years earlier, a similar examination had already been carried out. And not just anyone, but personally Queen Yolande of Anjou, mother-in-law of Charles VII. The crowned gynecologist established that in front of her was a “genuine and unbroken virgin.” It seems that at the French court they still doubted the true gender of the overly masculine girl.
Stained glass window depicting Saint Joan
Bishop Cauchon faced a difficult choice. The British demanded that Jeanne be executed, as a heretic, a witch and a troublemaker. However, the demands were not very persistent - after all, if Jeanne was a member of the French royal family, then she was the half-sister of the Queen of England. Oh, these dynastic marriages! In any case, at the end of the seventy indictments, a fire loomed unambiguously. But it was somehow not customary to burn royalty in the 15th century.
As a result, on May 30, 1431, a strange execution took place on the market square of Rouen. 800 British soldiers fenced off almost the entire square. The closest spectators were at least thirty meters from the fire. The convict's cart was also tightly surrounded by troops. Her head was covered not only by the usual paper cap for an auto-da-fé, but also by a hood pulled low and hiding almost her entire face. The pole to which the victim was tied was also fenced off from the public by a huge shield with a large sentence painted on it - a rarity for such spectacles. It was moved away only when the executioner cleared away the flaming wood with a hook and presented the already charred body to the crowd. No one was able to see the face of the executed woman.
Zhanna at the stake
Immediately after the execution, many doubted that they really burned Jeanne. Here is the testimony of contemporaries: “In the city of Rouen in Normandy, she was raised to the stake and burned. That’s what they say, but the opposite has since been proven!” (Chronicle of the rector of the Cathedral of St. Thibault in Metz.). “They ordered her to be burned in front of all the people. Or some other woman like her. About which many people have had and still have different opinions” (Manuscript No. 11542 of the British Museum in London). It’s strange, but in the city archive of Rouen, where documents about several executions carried out in 1431 were preserved (bills for firewood, receipts for the delivery of money to the executioner, etc.), the burning of Jeanne the Virgin is not mentioned at all. The death sentence that the secular authorities had to pronounce has not survived either.
In 1436, a wedding took place in Metz. The marriage contract, the original of which historians discovered in 1907, was destroyed during the shelling of the city of Fresnes-en-Voivre during the First World War. But the chronicle of the rector of the Cathedral of St. Thibault in Metz: “And there a marriage was concluded between sir Robert des Armoises, a knight, and the said Jeanne the Virgin, and then the said sir des Armoises left with his wife the Virgin to live in Metz, in the dwelling of the said sir Robert, which he had in the parish Saint Segolena." Who is Joan the Virgin? Perhaps there is some confusion here?
Portrait of Robert des Armoises
But it turns out that even before the wedding, the identity of Robert des Armoise’s bride was certified by the brothers Pierre and Jean d’Arquis, who grew up with Jeanne in Domremy. The chronicle of the rector of the German cathedral reports: “In this year (1436), on the 20th day of May, the Virgin Joan, who was in France, arrived at Grange-aux-Ormes near Saint-Privet and was brought there to talk with some of the nobles of Metz, and ordered to call her Claude... And on the same day, both brothers visited her, one of whom was a knight, and ordered to call himself Sir Pierre, and the other, Little Jean, was a squire. And they thought that she was burned. And when they saw her, they recognized her, and she did the same to them.”
The four-year pause in the biography of the Virgin is explained by her imprisonment in the castle of Montrotier, in Burgundy, where Jeanne’s room is still shown. When traveling from places of imprisonment to Lorraine, where she spent her childhood, she used the name “Claude”. In the “Diary of a Parisian Citizen,” preserved in the Vatican archives, there is a mention of the sermon of the chief inquisitor of France, Jean Graveran: “She renounced her errors and that, as repentance, she was sentenced to four years in prison on bread and water, of which she did not serve any day... She demanded to be served like a noble lady.”
The fact that Jeanne des Armoise is the Maid of Orleans was confirmed by hundreds of people who knew Jeanne well before. Less than ten years have passed since her military exploits, and it is unlikely that the residents of Orleans and Tours were struck by mass sclerosis. In honor of the guest, magnificent feasts and numerous receptions were held, in which those who fought with the Virgin shoulder to shoulder, including her closest associates, for example, Marshal Gilles de Rais, took part. If at least someone had declared the newly found Virgin an impostor, it is unlikely that the numerous celebrations would have been so cloudless.
City of Metz
At the end of September 1439, King Charles VII also met with Lady des Armoises, at whose coronation in 1429 the Virgin of France and, possibly, her half-brother were present as an honored guest. Here is what Guillaume Gouffier, Seigneur de Boisy and chamberlain to King Charles VII, writes about this meeting: “Jeanne went straight to the king, which he was amazed at and could not find other words than those that he said to her very affectionately, bowing: “Virgin, my darling, welcome, in the name of our Lord, who knows the secret that is between you and me...”
Supporters of the traditional version have tried and are trying to declare Jeanne des Armoise an impostor, and everyone who recognized her as accomplices in the fraud. But in this case, the behavior of the false Joan is extremely strange, and half of France, including the king, turns out to be her accomplices. Sometimes there are references to a certain Paris trial, which allegedly exposed the impostor and even put her in the pillory. However, the original documents of the trial have not survived. Perhaps he was, but he condemned one of several false Jeannes who declared themselves Virgos without any evidence. The profession of the “children of Lieutenant Schmidt” has medieval roots.
Portrait of Jeanne des Armoises
To convict Lady des Armoises of impostor, some historians even tried to attribute to her the birth of two sons, which was biologically impossible for the Virgin of France, but the genealogical history of the des Armoises family refutes this assertion - the marriage of Jeanne and Robert was childless. Whoever Joan was - an impostor or the Virgin of France, her earthly journey ended in 1449. It was in this year that an additional word appeared in the records of pension payments from Orleans to the official mother of his savior - before that, the recipient was listed as “mother of the Virgin Jeanne,” and from 1449 - “mother of the late Virgin Jeanne.” Coincidence?
Doubts about the traditional biography of Joan of Arc have been voiced for almost seven centuries. In the 20th century, it became more difficult for historians: their research began to contradict the canonical biography of the official saint - in 1920, the Vatican canonized Joan. If peasant origins and death at the stake are included in the life, then evidence to the contrary is heresy. Supporters of the traditional version, both French and Soviet, called their opponents vulgar, sensationalists, subverters and Francophobes. However, offensive nicknames will not solve the still unanswered mysteries in the biography of the most famous French heroine.
The Life and Death of Joan of Arc
1. Official version
Historical science knows, it seems, everything about Joan of Arc. The future national heroine of France was born in the Lorraine village of Domremy into a peasant family around 1412. From the age of 13, the girl began to be haunted by mysterious visions and voices calling on her to save France from the English invaders. In the winter of 1428-29, Jeanne arrived in the city of Vaucouleurs, where she begged the commandant Robert de Baudricourt to organize a meeting for her with the heir to the French throne, the future king Charles VII. Presenting herself before the bright eyes of a potential monarch at Shannon Castle, she predicted Charles’s crowning on the condition that he put her at the head of the army. After much thought, he decided to take such a step. In the spring of 1429, troops led by Joan lifted the Anglo-Burgundian siege of Orleans, and then during the summer they marched victoriously to Reims, where Charles was crowned.
After this, the new king suspended hostilities and entered into peace negotiations with the British and Burgundians. Highly appreciating Jeanne's merits, the monarch assigned her a coat of arms, brought her closer to the court and gave her a new surname - du Lys. However, his peaceful initiatives were not to the taste of the Maid of Orleans, and she, at her own peril and risk, continued military operations against the invaders, which proceeded with varying degrees of success.
The new military campaign of 1430 turned out to be fatal for Joan of Arc. In the battle of Compiegne, she was captured by the leader of the Burgundians, Jean of Luxembourg. After keeping her for several months, he eventually sold the captive to the British for 10 thousand gold livres. The British arranged a trial over her in Rouen with the participation of inquisitors from the Sorbonne. They tried to accuse Jeanne of witchcraft and thereby question the legality of the coronation of Charles VII: after all, the British had their own contender for the French crown - Henry VI Lancaster. The judges failed to convict Jeanne of witchcraft, and then she was asked to renounce her claims about the divinity of her visions. She did this allegedly under torture, but then retracted her renunciation. In the end, the tribunal, in violation of all the rules, sentenced her, and the Maid of Orleans was burned at the stake on May 30, 1431.
This is the brief story of the life and death of Joan of Arc. However, not so long ago a group of revisionist historians appeared in France, who very reasonably questioned the heroine’s official, but very fantastic biography.
2. Bastardism and survivalism
Historians who doubt the veracity of the official biography of Joan of Arc are divided into two directions: bastardism and survivalism.
The ideologist of the first movement was Robert Ambelena, a Mason of a very high degree of dedication. He drew attention to the fact that the honors given to the Maid of Orleans at the French court did not in any way correspond to her official status as set out in the traditional biography. So, for example, Jeanne was given a whole retinue; she was allowed her own banner; she was dressed in expensive knightly armor with golden spurs; the size of the ransom for her corresponded to the ransom for a person of royal blood. Moreover, the coat of arms of the Maid of Orleans has the same colors and symbols as the coat of arms of Charles VII. Isn't it too much for a simple peasant woman? Wasn't Jeanne really of royal blood?
Ambelain's guess was confirmed in 1934, when historian E. Schneider discovered interrogation protocols of the Maid of Orleans in the Vatican archives. Among them is a report from two Franciscan monks who interviewed residents of the village of Domremy, where Joan of Arc was allegedly born. They all unanimously argued that the heroine of France was not a peasant woman at all, but none other than the daughter of Isabella of Bavaria and her husband’s brother Louis of Orleans. In editions of the book “History of the Royal House” until the middle of the 18th century there is evidence that Isabella and Louis actually gave birth to a girl named Jeanne on November 10, 1407. In later editions, suddenly not only did this child's name change, but also his gender. For some reason, the girl Zhanna became the boy Philip. It is obvious that the History of the Royal House was edited by the Bourbons so that there could be no doubt about the veracity of the official biography of the heroine of France.
Thus, most likely, Joan of Arc was indeed of special royal blood, and not a rootless peasant, and was the sister of Charles VII and Queen Catherine of England. Henry VI Lancaster is, accordingly, her nephew.
In such a situation, the question arises: could such close relatives stubbornly insist during the trial of the Maid of Orleans on her burning, as follows from the official biography of Jeanne’
This is where the Survenists take over the baton from the bastardists, who openly say: the heroine of France was not burned. At the same time, they point out obvious inconsistencies in the official version.
Firstly, Jeanne was executed without a sentence from a secular court, which was completely unacceptable at that time.
Secondly, there is no direct evidence that it was the Maid of Orleans who was led to the stake: the face of the executed woman was covered with a cap. The execution took place “behind closed doors” - only English soldiers were present.
Moreover, the official date of Jeanne’s execution turns out to be more than arbitrary. Different documents indicate four different dates: May 30, June 14, July 6, 1431, and February 1432.
Doubts that d'Arc was burned become practically proven if we consider: she is not mentioned in the accounting books of those executed by the Inquisition. In other words, it turns out that the secular authorities had nothing to do with the burning of Jeanne, since they did not sentence her, and the Inquisition also had nothing to do with it, since, according to the documents, it did not execute her. Thus, the burning of the Maid of Orleans simply did not happen!
In an effort to confirm their guesses, revisionist historians were able to find documents from which it is clear: five years after the alleged execution, a woman appeared in Lorraine, identified by many as Joan of Arc. Among these were comrade-in-arms commanders and King Charles himself. On November 7, 1436, this person married the Comte de Armoise. Moreover, in 1438-39 she took part in the fighting in Aquitaine. A year later she went to Orleans, where she met Charles VII. Finally, Joan of Arc, married to de Armoise, retired from military and political affairs in 1440. The heroine went to Zholny Castle, where she lived until her death in 1449. She died under mysterious circumstances, just shy of 42 years old.
3. Secret puppeteers from knightly orders
The real story of Joan of Arc raises many questions, and the main one is: why did her closest relatives put her on trial, achieve her execution, and then, apparently, save her by staging the execution?
It turns out that the answer to this question must be sought in events that occurred long before the birth of the Maid of Orleans herself.
As you know, the first rulers of France were the Merovingians. Related to them was the dynasty of the Aymerings of Septimania, which originated from certain Jewish princes. From the Aymering family were the brothers Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Flanders. It was they who became the organizers of the crusades. In 1099, the brothers created the knightly order of the Priory of St. Sion with the goal of restoring the Merovingian dynasty in Western Europe and especially in France. As a subsidiary structure of the Order of Zion, the Order of the Templars was established in 1118. But soon friction begins between the orders, and they become independent, nevertheless maintaining strong ties with each other.
After the fall of the Crusader state in Palestine, both orders moved to Europe. The Zionists settled in Orleans, and the Templars settled in Paris, who turned out to be such resourceful businessmen that they entangled the whole of Europe in a financial web. Here it was almost impossible to find a monarch who did not owe the Templars a significant amount of money. Needless to say, in a similar situation they determined policy in Europe. This could not please the Zionists, who wanted to run everything themselves. In 1307, they finally broke relations with the Templars and began to strengthen their opposition to them. It was the members of the Priory of St. Zion who inspired the French king Philip IV the Fair to defeat the Templar Order. In 1314, Grand Master Jacques de Molay, Prior of Normandy Geoffroy de Charnay and other major functionaries of the order were executed. However, the Templars were not completely destroyed, they went underground and managed to save their untold treasury by transporting it in 18 galleys to England. Moreover, they did not forgive either France or the Zionists for the defeat of their organization and began to take revenge.
A few months after the execution of de Molay, the offenders of the Templars, Philip the Fair and Pope Clement V, died under mysterious circumstances. Then all of Philip’s male descendants went to the next world. As a result, a struggle for power began in France between the Valois dynasty and the English kings, who wanted to seize the French throne. In the end, the Valois prevailed. But the English king Edward III, incited by the Templars, who had agreed to the accession to the throne of the Valois dynasty, retracted his words. This became the reason for the Hundred Years' War. In fact, it was unleashed by the Templars who went underground. They, burning with revenge against France, financed the English army from the order's treasury they had exported.
Obviously, the Zionians knew very well the background of the Hundred Years' War and tried to counteract the Templar underground.
The fighting proceeded with varying degrees of success, but France was devastated for a whole century by the British and the Burgundians who joined them, whose dukes were related to the last Master of the Templar Order.
At the last stage of the Hundred Years' War, France needed a national hero more than ever. It seems that the grandmaster of the Priory of Saint Sion from 1418 to 1480, Rene of Anjou, took up the preparation of this. Apparently, being the illegitimate daughter of royalty, Joan of Arc was brought up in the village of Domremy, which, being part of the order lands of the Zions in Lorraine, was under their careful supervision. The idea of making her a hero-liberator came to the grandmaster in the late twenties of the 15th century. It is precisely established that the first meeting of Jeanne and Rene of Anjou took place in the winter of 1429, and literally a few months later rumors spread throughout the country about a Lorraine peasant woman to whom the Savior himself appeared and predicted the liberation of France from the invaders. The propaganda machine of the Zionists and Charles VII quickly made her a national heroine, an instrument of a just war of liberation in the hands of God. If you look at it, it’s easy to see that the troops led by the Maid of Orleans fought no better than the French armies led by other military leaders. This is once again confirmed by her capture at the Battle of Compiegne.
When Jeanne found herself in the hands of the Burgundians, her closest relatives on both sides of the front were faced with the question: how to save the woman, because it was unlikely that her brother, Charles VII, and sister, Queen Catherine of England, wanted her dead. Only the Templars who had gone underground insisted on the heroine’s execution. The French were unable to buy it from the Duke of Burgundy, who, being a descendant of Jacques de Molay, simply did not make a deal with them. Therefore, her sister, Queen Catherine of England, took up the task of rescuing Jeanne. She easily bought her relative from the Burgundians, but she couldn’t just let her go. If she had done this, the underground Templars, at best, would have deprived the English army of funding, and at worst, they would have easily sent the British queen to the next world, as they did with Philip the Fair.
To get around all these obstacles, Catherine started a fake trial and a fake execution of Joan of Arc. In fact, the Maid of Orleans was released. The Queen of England’s scam was revealed only a few years later, and the Templars reached Jeanne in 1949; In any case, this is evidenced by the mysterious circumstances of her death. The Templars did not go into open conflict with Catherine at that time, since England continued to regularly torment France, which they hated, with their money for another four years. Catherine's son, Henry VI, had to settle accounts with the behind-the-scenes puppeteers. It is possible that it was at the instigation of the Templars that the War of the White and Scarlet Roses broke out in the British kingdom, during which Catherine’s son was deposed in 1461, and six months after a short restoration, in April 1471, he again lost power, was taken into custody and killed under mysterious circumstances in the Tower of London.
Joan of Arc went down in French history as a liberating heroine. And although today it is possible to restore her true biography, this will never be done, because then it is necessary to revise the history of the Hundred Years' War, which in this case may appear in a very unfavorable light for both France and England. Then it will turn out that both countries were only tools in the skillful hands of behind-the-scenes puppeteers who were solving their own problems, which were very far from the interests of both kingdoms. Will the French and British agree to this? Of course not! So the truth about Joan of Arc will most likely remain known only to a narrow circle of historians.
Loading...
