Notes

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE NOTES

Beaucourt, Charles VII G. du Fresne de Beaucourt, Histoire de Charles VII, 6 vols (Paris, 1881–91)

Duparc, Nullité P. Duparc (trans. and ed.), Procès en nullité de la condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc, 5 vols (Paris, 1977–88)

Hobbins, Trial D. Hobbins (trans. and ed.), The Trial of Joan of Arc (Cambridge and London, 2005)

Journal Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris, 1405–1449, ed. A. Tuetey (Paris, 1881)

Monstrelet, Chronique La Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet, ed. L. Douët-d’Arcq, 6 vols (Paris, 1857–62)

ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H. C. G. Matthew and B. Harrison (Oxford, 2004), online edn, ed. L. Goldman (2010)

Parisian Journal A Parisian Journal, 1405–1449, trans. and ed. J. Shirley (Oxford, 1968)

Quicherat, Procès J. Quicherat (ed.), Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d’Arc, 5 vols (Paris, 1841–9)

Taylor, Joan of Arc C. Taylor (ed. and trans.), Joan of Arc: La Pucelle (Manchester, 2006)

Tisset, Condamnation P. Tisset and Y. Lanhers (trans. and ed.), Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc, 3 vols (Paris, 1960–71)

INTRODUCTION

For Joan as a protean icon, see M. Warner, Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism (London, 1981).

Anyone who studies Joan of Arc has reason to be grateful to Jules Quicherat, the remarkable scholar who, in the 1840s, edited the transcripts of the trials of 1431 and 1456 and gathered them together in five volumes with a vast range of other materials relating to Joan’s life, including chronicles, poems, letters and administrative documents. Since then, the trials have been edited and translated many times. The minutes of the trial of 1431 were taken by the notaries in French, but those original documents do not survive. Instead, we have two partial copies, one from the later fifteenth and one from the sixteenth century. Shortly after the trial had finished, the French minutes were translated into Latin and collated with other relevant documents into an official transcript, of which three of the five copies made and signed by the notaries still exist. I have used the edition of the trial produced by Pierre Tisset and Yvonne Lanhers between 1960 and 1971, which gives the Latin transcript and the French minute in parallel in its first volume, and a modern French translation in its second. Since then, the main substance of the hearings has been translated into English by Daniel Hobbins, and extracts translated by Craig Taylor in his edition of selected sources for Joan’s life. The records of the nullification trial of 1456 are entirely in Latin, apart from a single witness statement in French, that of Joan’s squire, Jean d’Aulon. I have used Pierre Duparc’s edition, published in the 1970s and 1980s, which gives the complete Latin text of the trial in its first two volumes, and a modern French translation in the following two. There is no complete English translation of the nullification trial, but once again Craig Taylor offers translated extracts. I have relied on all these texts (of which full details can be found in the list of Abbreviations, p. 247), and I owe a great debt to their editors and translators; I have sought in these endnotes to cross-reference between the various volumes, so that anyone wishing to investigate further can more easily find their way to the relevant text in the appropriate language. Translation is at the heart of Joan’s historical presence, given the multiple layers of text through which her life has been transmitted, and I could not have hoped to calibrate my own readings of the texts I have quoted here without the linguistic wisdom and scholarship of my parents, Grahame and Gwyneth Castor.

‘Joan of Arc’: surnames were not yet firmly established in fifteenth-century Europe. Joan’s father’s name – which was variously given in contemporary documents as Darc, Tarc, Day, Dars – seems to have been based on a place-name. Joan’s mother Isabelle was sometimes known as Vouthon – the name of the place near Domrémy where her family lived – and sometimes as Rommée, perhaps because she had made a pilgrimage to Rome. At her trial in 1431, Joan initially said that she did not know her surname; later she mentioned her parents’ names, and said that girls of her region usually took their mother’s name. See R. Pernoud and M.-V. Clin, Joan of Arc: Her Story, trans. and revised J. DuQuesnay Adams (New York, 1998), pp. 220–1; Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 39–40nn.

PROLOGUE

Rather than give a blow-by-blow account of a military engagement over which debate still rages, I have sought to evoke the experience of the battle of Agincourt from the French perspective. For the details of the campaign and battle, and the complexities of the evidence, see A. Curry, Agincourt: A New History (Stroud, 2005, repr. 2010). An invaluable edition of extracts from primary sources is A. Curry, The Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations (Woodbridge, 2000). For a narrative of the battle, see J. Barker, Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle (London, 2005); and for discussion of the difficulties in understanding the experience of the soldiers, J. Keegan,The Face of Battle: A Study of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme (London, 1976), pp. 87–107.

For popular beliefs in France placing the (probably Roman) saints Crispin and Crispian in Soissons – although in England it was believed they had lived at Faversham in Kent – see D. H. Farmer (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (Oxford, 2003), pp. 124–5.

For France as the ‘eldest daughter of the Church’, and the king as le roi très-chrétien, see C. Beaune, Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France (Berkeley, 1991), pp. 172–80.

For the life and military career of Henry V, see C. T. Allmand, ‘Henry V (1386–1422)’, ODNB, and Henry V (London, 1992); G. L. Harriss, Shaping the Nation: England, 1360–1461 (Oxford, 2005), pp. 588–94; and, with particular emphasis on his religiosity, I. Mortimer, 1415: Henry V’s Year of Glory (London, 2009).

For Henry’s facial injury, sustained at the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403: S. J. Lang, ‘Bradmore, John (d. 1412)’, in ODNB; Barker, Agincourt, pp. 29–30.

For the capture of the French king Jean II at the battle of Poitiers in 1356, and the decision of his son, Charles V, to avoid the battlefield, see R. Vaughan, Philip the Bold: The Formation of the Burgundian State (London, 1962, repr. Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 2, 7.

For Charles VI’s illness, see F. Autrand, Charles VI (Paris, 1986), pp. 290–5, 304–17; R. C. Gibbons, ‘The Active Queenship of Isabeau of Bavaria, 1392–1417’, PhD dissertation, University of Reading (1997), pp. 24–40.

For contemporary comment on Charles VI’s appearance (including his concern about his baldness), see E. Taburet-Delahaye (ed.), Paris 1400: Les Arts sous Charles VI (Paris, 2004), p. 29.

Charles VI as le bien-aimé: Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, p. 55.

For the description of the dauphin, Louis of Guienne, see Journal de Nicolas de Baye, greffier du parlement de Paris, 1400–1417, 2 vols (Paris, 1885–8), II, p. 231, and R. Vaughan, John the Fearless: The Growth of Burgundian Power (London, 1966, repr. Woodbridge, 2002), p. 209.

Duke John of Burgundy was known as ‘John the Fearless’ because of his bravery and audacity in securing Burgundian victory against the Liègeois at the battle of Othée in 1408: Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 63; Monstrelet, Chronique, I, pp. 371, 389.

For the role of the dukes of Burgundy in French government, and conflict between John of Burgundy and Louis of Orléans, see Vaughan, Philip the Bold, pp. 40–5, 56–8, and John the Fearless, pp. 30–44.

Badges of plane and club: Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 234–5; Taburet-Delahaye (ed.), Paris 1400, p. 140.

For contemporary accounts of the murder of Louis of Orléans (including eyewitness testimony), see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 45–6, and for the conflict of the years thereafter, pp. 67–102.

For the duke’s tower at his home in Paris, the Hôtel d’Artois, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 85; Taburet-Delahaye, Paris 1400, p. 138.

‘the great all hated each other’: Journal, p. 43 (translated in Parisian Journal, p. 80).

For the absence from the battle of the duke of Burgundy and the late arrival of the duke of Orléans, and the likelihood that this was the royal council’s decision, see Curry, Agincourt: A New History, pp. 150–1, 218–20.

Making peace within the French lines: see the accounts of Waurin and Le Févre in Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, p. 157.

For the idea of the humble (rather than Shakespeare’s ‘happy’) English few, see Henry V’s speech before the battle in Gesta Henrici Quinti, trans. and ed. F. Taylor and J. S. Roskell (Oxford, 1975), pp. 78–9: ‘“… by the God in Heaven upon Whose grace I have relied and in Whom is my firm hope of victory, I would not, even if I could, have a single man more than I do. For these I have here with me are God’s people, whom He deigns to let me have at this time. Do you not believe”, he asked, “that the Almighty, with these His humble few, is able to overcome the opposing arrogance of the French who boast of their great number and their own strength?”’

For the duke of Brabant, see Curry, Agincourt: A New History, pp. 221, 276–7.

The wretched day – la mauvaise journée or la malheureuse journée – was what French contemporaries soon called the battle: Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, pp. 279, 345.

The field of blood (agrum sanguinis) is from Gesta Henrici Quinti, pp. 92–3.

1: THIS WAR, ACCURSED OF GOD

For the English interpretation of the battle, see Gesta Henrici Quinti: David and Goliath, pp. 110–11; the few against the many, and the disparity in casualties, pp. 94–7; the ‘clerical militia’, pp. 88–9; ‘that mound of pity and blood’ and ‘far be it …’, pp. 98–9; fighting a just war, pp. 14–15; Harfleur’s obstinate refusal to let Henry in, pp. 34–7; the ‘true elect of God’, pp. 2–3; ‘our gracious king, His own soldier’, pp. 88–9; severity of Henry’s restrictions on the behaviour of his troops, pp. 60–1, 68–9. Another cleric with royal connections, Thomas Elmham, wrote that St George himself had been spotted on the battlefield, fighting on the English side: Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, p. 48, and for Elmham’s career, pp. 40–2.

For medieval theories of just war, see P. Contamine, ‘La Théologie de la guerre à la fin du Moyen Age: La Guerre de Cent Ans fut-elle une guerre juste?’, in Jeanne d’Arc: Une époque, un rayonnement: Colloque d’Histoire Médiévale, Orléans Octobre 1979 (Paris, 1982), pp. 9–21; J. M. Pinzino, ‘Just War, Joan of Arc, and the Politics of Salvation’, in L. J. A. Villalon and D. J. Kagay (eds), The Hundred Years War: A Wider Focus (Leiden and Boston, 2005), pp. 365–96. For Henry’s claim to the French throne, see the family tree and note on pp. xvi–xvii.

For the aims and audience of the Gesta, see Gesta Henrici Quinti, pp. xxiii–xxviii.

For the royal chaplain’s account of the bishop of Winchester’s speech in parliament, and ‘O God …’, see Gesta Henrici Quinti, pp. 124–5.

For Thomas Basin’s account of the battle, see T. Basin, Histoire de Charles VII, 2 vols, trans. and ed. C. Samaran (Paris, 1933–44), I, pp. 42–7; Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, p. 190.

For the monk of Saint-Denis, see Chronique du religieux de Saint-Denys, trans. and ed. M. L. Bellaguet, 6 vols (Paris, 1839–52, repr. in 3, Paris, 1994), V, pp. 578–81; Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, p. 340.

For Burgundian contact with Henry V before 1415, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 205–7.

For the Histoire de Charles VI of Jean Juvénal des Ursins, see J. A. C. Buchon (ed.), Choix de chroniques et mémoires relatifs à l’histoire de France (Orléans, 1875), p. 519; Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, p. 131.

For Fenin, see P. de Fenin, Mémoires, ed. E. Dupont (Paris, 1837), p. 67; Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, p. 119.

For the Burgundian view of Armagnac cowardice at the battle, see, for example, Le pastoralet, a savage indictment of Armagnac crimes in the form of an allegorical poem. Its author has no hesitation in characterising the Burgundians as the lionhearted ‘Léonois’, who would ‘rather give up their souls than flee’, while the wolfish ‘Lupalois’, the greedy and duplicitous Armagnacs, turn tail without a second thought: Curry, Battle of Agincourt: Sources and Interpretations, pp. 352–3.

For John of Burgundy’s appearance, see his portrait in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts in Antwerp: plate section and http://vlaamseprimitieven.vlaamsekunstcollectie.be/en/collection/john-the-fearless-duke-of-burgundy.

John of Burgundy’s lands: Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 5–8, 237–8.

For the planned attack on Calais in 1406 (which did not, in the end, take place), see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 38–41.

‘my lord has been and is as saddened …’: letter from the duke’s treasurer Jean Chousat, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 40, and for Chousat’s career, pp. 121–4.

‘very distressed by the deaths …’: Journal, p. 66 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 96–8).

For the character of the dauphin Louis (including his tendency to sleep all day and carouse all night), and his death, see Journal de Nicolas de Baye, II, pp. 231–2; Journal, pp. 66–7 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 97); Chronique du religieux, V, pp. 586–9.

‘the use on either side of injurious or slanderous terms …’: Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 200.

The count of Armagnac’s wisdom and foresight: Chronique du religieux, V, pp. 584–5.

The count of Armagnac in sole charge of the kingdom, and as cruel as Nero: Journal, pp. 69, 92 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 98–9, 115).

For the cabinet of curiosities at Hesdin, see R. Vaughan, Philip the Good: The Apogee of Burgundy (London, 1970, repr. Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 137–9.

For the Council of Constance, and Gerson and Cauchon, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 210–12.

For the duke of Gloucester as a hostage, and ‘What kind of conclusion …’, see Gesta Henrici Quinti, pp. 169–75.

For Burgundy and Hainaut, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 212–13; B. Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons: La Maudite Guerre, 1407–1435 (Paris, 1988, repr. 2009), pp. 225-6.

For the deaths of the dauphin Jean and Count William of Hainaut (who was married to John of Burgundy’s sister), and for the presence of the new thirteen-year-old dauphin Charles in Paris from 1416, see Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, pp. 226–8; Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 212–13; Juvénal des Ursins in Buchon (ed.), Choix de chroniques, p. 533; Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 58–61.

For the breach between the dukes of Burgundy and Anjou, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 247–8.

For John of Burgundy’s open letter, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 215–16; Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, p. 234.

‘Paris was now suffering …’: Journal, p. 80 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 105).

Innuendo about Isabeau: see, for example, Chronique du religieux, III, pp. 266–7. For discussion of the rumours about the queen, see R. Gibbons, ‘Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France: The Creation of an Historical Villainess’, in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, ser. 6, VI (1997), pp. 51–73, and for sexual slurs on powerful women, see H. Castor, She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth (London, 2010), pp. 31–3.

For Isabeau, see Gibbons, ‘Active Queenship’, chs 5 and 6; Vaughan, John the Fearless, p. 221; Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, pp. 239–41.

For Henry V’s conquests in Normandy, see J. Barker, Conquest: The English Kingdom of France in the Hundred Years War (London, 2009), pp. 8–18.

‘Some people who had come to Paris …’: Journal, p. 83 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 107).

For Martin V’s envoys, see Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, p. 247; Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 221–2.

For the events of 29 May and 12 June, including the terrible weather, see Journal, pp. 87–98 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 111–19); Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 230–7, 242–51.

Parisians wearing Burgundian crosses of St Andrew: Journal, p. 90 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 113).

‘God save the king …’: Journal, p. 89 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 112).

‘Paris was in an uproar …’: Journal, pp. 90–1 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 113).

For the description of the count of Armagnac and other southern captains as ‘foreigners’: Journal, p. 67 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 98).

‘like sides of bacon …’: Journal, p. 91 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 114).

For the band of flesh, see Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, p. 252; Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, p. 141.

For the entry into Paris of the duke of Burgundy and Queen Isabeau, see Journal, p. 104 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 123); Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 252–5; and an anonymous contemporary letter quoted in Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 226–7.

For Henry V’s arrival outside Rouen, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 20–1.

For the dauphin’s counsellors and supporters, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 60–7, 113–18; M. G. A. Vale, Charles VII (London, 1974), pp. 23–4; Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, pp. 257–8.

‘one of the worst Christians in the world’: Journal, pp. 89–90 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 113).

The dauphin as ‘regent of France’: Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, p. 120.

For the dauphin’s court and the division of France, see Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 263–5; Vale, Charles VII, pp. 22–7.

For the fall of Rouen and the English advance, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 22–5.

‘No one did anything about it …’: Journal, p. 121 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 135).

‘So the kingdom of France …’: Journal, p. 113 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 129–30).

France torn apart; see, for example, Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 202–3, 322–5.

For the three-way negotiations and their failure: Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 314–17, 324–48 (including the truce between the dauphin and the duke of Burgundy, pp. 334–45).

John of Burgundy as a servant of Lucifer: Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 230–1.

For the storms of the summer of 1419 and their interpretation, see Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 332–3.

For the fall of Pontoise, and the arrival of refugees from the town in Paris, see Journal, pp. 126–8 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 139–40).

For events at Montereau, see the authoritative analysis of Vaughan, John the Fearless, pp. 274–86, and contemporary documents in Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France et de Bourgogne (Paris, 1729), pp. 271–91 (including details of Tanguy du Châtel’s role in setting up the meeting, pp. 272–3, the duke’s black velvet hat, p. 273, and the swordsman kneeling over the duke, pp. 274–5). The surviving eyewitness accounts of the murder (of which the most detailed is that of the duke’s secretary, Jean Seguinat) differ significantly: some have the duke of Burgundy raised to his feet by the dauphin before the attack began, for example, and others report the intervention of a lord named Archambaud de Foix, who died as a result of head wounds sustained in the mêlée. Since it is not possible to reconcile this testimony into a single coherent narrative, I have sought instead to offer an evocation of the murder. The circumstantial evidence supports the Burgundian case that the dauphin was centrally involved in the Armagnac plan.

For the dauphin’s ungainliness, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 195, 203, 229.

For the dauphin’s account of the duke’s death, see Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France, pp. 298–9 (his initial letter addressed to the towns of France), and G. du Fresne de Beaucourt, ‘Le Meurtre de Montereau’, Revue des questions historiques, V (1868), pp. 220–2 (letter to Philip of Burgundy, including the suggestion that Philip should stay calm), 224–9.

See Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 173–8, for a dauphinist reading of the evidence.

Philip of Burgundy’s distress: Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 2.

For the duchess of Burgundy’s comparison of the murder with Judas’s betrayal of Christ, see Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France, p. 292 (letter to the duchess of Bourbon).

For the Burgundian response to their perception of the dauphin’s guilt, see, for example, Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 376–9.

‘where they are with their poor retinue …’: Journal, p. 135 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 147).

For the activities of Philip of Burgundy and the dowager duchess Margaret in the autumn of 1419, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 3–4; Monstrelet, Chronique, III, pp. 358–62.

For the bitter winter, see Journal, pp. 129–32 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 142–4).

The dauphin’s declaration of his commitment to peace: Schnerb, Armagnacs et Bourguignons, pp. 282–3.

The English as the lesser of two evils: Journal, p. 139 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 150); Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 376–9.

For the negotiations, and gathering at Troyes: Monstrelet, Chronique, III, pp. 363–4, 378–80, 388–9.

For the architectural history of Troyes Cathedral, see S. Murray, Building Troyes Cathedral: The Late Gothic Campaigns (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1987), p. 35; S. Balcon, La Cathédrale Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Paul de Troyes (Paris, 2001), p. 10.

For the terms of the treaty of Troyes, see Monstrelet, Chronique, III, pp. 390–402; Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 410–31 (‘notre très-cher fils’, pp. 424–5; the ‘so-called dauphin’ and his crimes, pp. 428–9; Henry to bring the rebels back into line, pp. 416–17).

2: LIKE ANOTHER MESSIAH

For the sacred history of France, see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology: Clovis, pp. 70–89; the Holy Ampulla, p. 78; the oriflamme (which was in historical, rather than mythical, fact first carried into battle by Louis VI in the twelfth century), pp. 53–5, 78–9, 217. The three possible St Denises, who were conflated at different historical moments in different combinations, were Denis the Areopagite, who became bishop of Athens after being converted to Christianity by St Paul in the first century ad; a third-century Denis, bishop of Corinth; and a Denis who was sent to evangelise Gaul in the first or perhaps the third century and became bishop of Paris. The confusion over the saint’s identity meant that the relics of St Denis kept reverently within the kingdom of France included two bodies and another separate skull: see pp. 21–32. For St Louis, pp. 90–104; the Trojan origins of Paris, pp. 226–44, 333–45; Paris as a new Athens, Rome and Jerusalem, p. 51; the French as the ‘chosen people’ of a holy land, pp. 172–81.

Henry V’s device of a fox’s brush: Journal, p. 139 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 151).

For the Anglo-Burgundian treaty, confirmed by Henry V on 25 December 1419, see T. Rymer (ed.), ‘Rymer’s Foedera with Syllabus: December 1419’, Rymer’s Foedera, IX, British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=115251.

Letters patent declaring the dauphin’s guilt: Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 384–5.

The Armagnac pamphlet is ‘La réponse d’un bon et loyal françois au peuple de France’: see N. Grévy-Pons (ed.), L’Honneur de la couronne de France: Quatre libelles contre les Anglais (Paris, 1990), pp. 123, 132.

For the fleurs-de-lis, see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. 197–8, 200–19; for St Michael, pp. 152–8.

For the dauphin’s standards, banners and armour, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, p. 199.

The dauphin’s physical weakness: G. Chastellain, Oeuvres, ed. K. de Lettenhove, 8 vols (Brussels, 1863–6), II, pp. 178, 181; Vale, Charles VII, pp. 34, 229.

‘we may all tilt and joust …’: Journal, p. 140 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 151).

For the exhumation of John the Fearless, see Monstrelet, Chronique, III, pp. 404–5; J. Le Févre, Chronique, ed. F. Morand, 2 vols (Paris, 1876–81), II, p. 44.

For the English advance to Melun, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 31–2.

For the dauphin’s armour and army, his palace of Mehun-sur-Yèvre and the count of Vertus, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 210–12, 215.

For the entry of ‘our French lords’ into Paris, starvation in the city and wine flowing in the conduits, see Journal, pp. 144, 146 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 153, 155); Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 16–17.

Musicians playing for Catherine at Melun: Monstrelet, Chronique, III, pp. 412–13.

For the judicial sentence against the dauphin, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 217–18; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 17–20.

Departure of Catherine and Henry for England: Barker, Conquest, p. 37.

For the dauphin sending pilgrims to Mont-Saint-Michel, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, p. 219.

For the Scots in France, see B. Chevalier, ‘Les Écossais dans les armées de Charles VII jusqu’à la bataille de Verneuil’, in Jeanne d’Arc: Une époque, un rayonnement, pp. 85–6.

For James I as Henry’s prisoner, see E. W. M. Balfour-Melville, James I, King of Scots, 1406–1437 (London, 1936), pp. 28–32, 80–3; Chevalier, ‘Les Écossais’, pp. 88–9.

For Clarence and Baugé, see Allmand, Henry V, pp. 158–9; G. L. Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline (Oxford, 1988), pp. 103–4; G. L. Harriss, ‘Thomas, duke of Clarence (1387–1421)’, ODNB; Barker, Conquest, pp. 37–9; Walter Bower, Scotichronicon, ed. D. E. R. Watt and others, 9 vols (Aberdeen, 1987–98), VIII, pp. 118–19.

For the Scottish earls’ letter to the dauphin, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 220–1.

‘drunken, mutton-eating fools’ and ‘like another Messiah’: Bower, Scotichronicon, VIII, pp. 112–15.

For Buchan as constable, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 222–3, and for the dauphin’s armour and standard with an image of St Michael, p. 223n.

For the dauphin’s advance and retreat, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 226–30, and for his letter to the people of Lyon explaining the difficulties his army faced, p. 461; J. H. Wylie and W. T. Waugh, The Reign of Henry V, III (Cambridge, 1929), pp. 330–2.

For the effects of the bad winter, and Henry’s return to France, Journal, pp. 153–6 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 160–2).

Catherine’s pregnancy: M. Jones, ‘Catherine (1401–1437)’, ODNB.

For the difficulties of the siege at Meaux, see Journal, p. 160 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 164–5); Allmand, Henry V, p. 164.

For the holy foreskin of Christ, see Journal, p. 376n; Parisian Journal, p. 356n; N. Vincent, Holy Blood: King Henry III and the Westminster Blood Relic (Cambridge, 2001), p. 170n.

For the birth of the future Henry VI, and the Parisian journal-writer’s despair, see Journal, pp. 163–4 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 166–7); Allmand, Henry V, p. 167.

The fall of Meaux: Barker, Conquest, pp. 42–3.

For the hermit Jean de Gand, see R. Jacquin, ‘Un précurseur de Jeanne d’Arc’, Revue des deux mondes (1967), pp. 222–6.

For the wedding of the dauphin and Marie of Anjou, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 235–6.

For Henry and Catherine in Paris, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 99–101. For the Hôtel Saint-Pol, see Parisian Journal, p. 11.

For the unusually hot summer, see Journal, p. 175 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 177).

For Henry’s illness and death, see Allmand, Henry V, pp. 170–1, 173; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 109–12.

For Henry’s will of 1421 and codicils of 1422, see P. Strong and F. Strong, ‘The Last Will and Codicils of Henry V’, English Historical Review, 96 (1981), pp. 89, 98–9.

For the last journey of the king’s body, and his funeral, see Allmand, Henry V, pp. 174–8; W. H. St John Hope, ‘The Funeral, Monument, and Chantry Chapel of King Henry the Fifth’, Archaeologia, 65 (1914), pp. 129–45, 184–5; P. Cochon, Chronique normande, ed. C. de Robillard de Beaurepaire (Rouen, 1870), pp. 288–90; Monstrelet,Chronique, IV, pp. 112–16. Monstrelet says the body was taken to Notre-Dame in Paris, but the Parisian journal-writer says that it bypassed Paris and was taken instead to Saint-Denis outside the city walls: Journal, p. 176 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 178).

For Charles VI’s death and funeral: Journal, pp. 177–80 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 179–82); Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 486–99.

Henry feared and Charles loved: see, for example, Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 480–3, 486–7.

For the duke of Gloucester as protector in England, see R. A. Griffiths, The Reign of King Henry VI (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1981), pp. 19–24, 28–9.

For Bedford as regent in France, and popular disquiet at that development and Burgundy’s absence from Paris, see Journal, p. 180 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 183); Juvénal des Ursins in Buchon (ed.), Choix de chroniques, p. 572. For the sword Joyeuse, and the possibility that Bedford also took the oriflamme, see G. Thompson, ‘“Monseigneur Saint Denis”, His Abbey, and His Town, under English Occupation, 1420–1436’, in C. Allmand (ed.), Power, Culture and Religion in France, c.1350–c.1550 (Woodbridge, 1989), p. 26.

For the duke of Burgundy at Henry and Catherine’s wedding in black velvet, see Wylie and Waugh, Reign of Henry V, III, pp. 206, 224–5. For Burgundian interests and priorities in these years, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 6–8, 16–17, 27–8, 31–5; ‘in the service of the king of France’, p. 17.

For Anne of Burgundy and the treaty of Amiens, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 9. For the new duchess going everywhere with Bedford, see Journal, pp. 200, 230 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 201, 227). The comment that Anne and her sisters were as ‘plain as owls’ (‘laides comme des chouettes’) is quoted by Ernest Petit from unnamed manuscripts, including accounts and receipts of judicial fines, to demonstrate the unpopularity of John the Fearless and his family in Burgundy itself; it is possible, therefore, that this may not have been a universal or objective view of Anne’s appearance: E. Petit, ‘Les Tonnerrois sous Charles VI et la Bourgogne sous Jean Sans Peur (épisodes inédits de la Guerre de Cent Ans)’, Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de l’Yonne, xlv (1891), p. 314. Anne’s sister Margaret had previously been married to the dauphin’s elder brother, Louis of Guienne: see above, p. 25. For Richemont, see below, pp. 67–8.

For Armagnac praise of Henry V and the story of St Fiacre, see Juvénal des Ursins in Buchon (ed.), Choix de chroniques, p. 571, adapted and adopted from the less partisan Chronique du religieux, VI, pp. 480–3. The Scottish chronicler Walter Bower had no hesitation in dubbing the Irish St Fiacre a Scot, and putting into the dying king’s mouth an acknowledgement of his sin: ‘Wherever I pursue the Scots alive or dead’, Bower’s Henry observes grimly, ‘I find them in my beard …’: Bower, Scotichronicon, VIII, pp. 122–3, 205n.

For the dauphin’s piety, see Vale, Charles VII, p. 43, and for his enduring interest in astrology, pp. 43–4; also Beaucourt, Charles VII, VI, pp. 399–400.

For Germain de Thibouville, see Le ‘Recueil des plus célèbres astrologues’ de Simon de Phares, ed. J.-P. Boudet, I (Paris, 1997), pp. 552–3. Beaucourt (Charles VII, I, pp. 222–3) mistakenly says that it was John Stewart of Darnley, not the earl of Buchan, who was given his services.

For Charles calling himself king of France at the beginning of 1423, see Journal, p. 183 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 185); and for the proclamation of his title at Mehun-sur-Yèvre, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 55.

For the territories controlled by Charles in 1423, and the isolated Armagnac garrisons in Champagne, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 8–9.

For the accident at La Rochelle, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, I, pp. 240–1, and for the grant to Mont-Saint-Michel in April 1423 with explicit reference to the incident, see S. Luce, Jeanne d’Arc à Domrémy: Recherches critiques sur les origines de la mission de la Pucelle (Paris, 1886), pp. 87–93.

For the white cross as the badge of the kings of France (at least from the fourteenth century), see P. Contamine, Guerre, état et société à la fin du Moyen Age: Etudes sur les armées des rois de France, 1337–1494 (Paris, 1972), pp. 668–9.

For St Michael adopted as patron saint by Charles, in opposition to St George of England, and the white cross as his emblem, see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. 163–6.

The battle of Cravant, and Charles’s attempt to play it down: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 58, and the full text of the king’s letter in Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, pp. 493–4; B. G. H. Ditcham, ‘“Mutton-Guzzlers and Wine Bags”: Foreign Soldiers and Native Reactions in Fifteenth-Century France’, in Allmand (ed.), Power, Culture and Religion, p. 1; Vale, Charles VII, p. 33. Unsurprisingly, there is a great deal of historiographical confusion between John Stewart, earl of Buchan, the constable of France, and John Stewart of Darnley (starting with Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 161–2). It was Buchan who was the constable, and not at Cravant; Darnley who was at Cravant, and who lost an eye and his liberty.

Buchan and Wigtown’s journey to Scotland: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 59–60; Chevalier, ‘Les Écossais’, p. 88.

Charles’s letter to Tournai about Buchan’s return: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 59–60.

Letter announcing the birth of the dauphin Louis: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 60.

For the Scots arriving in France, and discussion of their numbers, see Chevalier, ‘Les Écossais’, p. 88; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 63. For the earl of Douglas’s military past, see M. H. Brown, ‘Douglas, Archibald, fourth earl of Douglas, and duke of Touraine in the French nobility (c.1369–1424)’, ODNB; M. Brown, The Black Douglases: War and Lordship in Late Medieval Scotland, 1300–1455 (Edinburgh, 1998), pp. 105–6; W. Fraser, The Douglas Book (Edinburgh, 1885), pp. 368, 372–3. For Douglas in France, and his treatment of Tours, see Brown, The Black Douglases, pp. 220–2; Chevalier, ‘Les Écossais’, p. 91.

For the decision that Charles should not take part in the campaign, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 70–1, and for Aumâle’s previous success in Normandy, pp. 58–9. For all other details of the Armagnac army, the road to Verneuil and the battle itself, see M. K. Jones, ‘The Battle of Verneuil (17 August 1424): Towards a History of Courage’, inWar in History, 9 (2002), pp. 375–411.

For the observation that no one could tell who was winning, see Journal, pp. 197–8 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 198).

The Burgundian chronicler with the English army was Jean Waurin, who noted the significance of Bedford’s robe at Ivry: J. de Waurin, Anchiennes cronicques d’Engleterre, ed. E. Dupont, 3 vols (Paris, 1858–63), I, p. 255, and for Bedford’s prowess, p. 267 (translated in J. de Waurin, A Collection of the Chronicles and Ancient Histories of Great Britain, now called England, from AD 1422 to AD 1431, trans. E. L. C. P. Hardy (London, 1891), pp. 68, 76–7).

For Bedford’s return to Paris and the year’s vintage, see Journal, p. 200 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 201).

For the burial of the earls of Douglas and Buchan, and the blockade of the Scots garrison at Tours, see Bower, Scotichronicon, VIII, pp. 126–7; Ditcham, ‘“Mutton Guzzlers and Wine Bags”’, pp. 6–7; Brown, The Black Douglases, p. 223.

3: DESOLATE AND DIVIDED

For the dukes of Bedford and Burgundy in Paris in the autumn and winter of 1424, and Burgundy’s return to ‘his own country’, see Journal, pp. 201–2 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 202–3); also Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 208–9; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 364.

For Philip of Burgundy’s appearance, and his badge, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 127, 143.

‘a city which had loved him so well’: Journal, p. 165 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 168).

Fines for calling the dauphin ‘king’ or the Armagnacs ‘French’: B. J. H. Rowe, ‘Discipline in the Norman Garrisons under Bedford, 1422–35’, English Historical Review, 46 (1931), p. 205; Barker, Conquest, p. 74. Repeat offenders, Bedford said, could expect to have their tongues pierced, their foreheads branded and, if they still persisted, all their possessions confiscated. English France also included the duchy of Gascony in the south-west, which had been in English hands (albeit now in reduced size) since the twelfth century.

For Charles’s various pronouncements on his forthcoming victory in 1423–4, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 58–64.

‘At that time the English …’: Journal, p. 190 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 191).

For Gloucester and Jacqueline, see G. L. Harriss, ‘Humphrey, duke of Gloucester (1390–1447)’, ODNB, and M. Atkins, ‘Jacqueline, suo jure countess of Hainault, suo jure countess of Holland, and suo jure countess of Zeeland (1401–1436)’, ODNB; and for the course of events in the Low Countries, Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 34–7.

For diplomatic exchanges between Bourges and Dijon in 1424, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 20; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 357–8.

For Bedford and the Burgundians at Verneuil, see Jones, ‘The Battle of Verneuil’, pp. 403–5.

For the text of the truce of September 1424, see U. Plancher, Histoire générale et particulière de Bourgogne, 4 vols (Dijon, 1739–81), IV, pp. xliv–xlv.

For the conflict between Gloucester and Burgundy, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 37–9. Burgundy’s challenge to Gloucester, and Gloucester’s acceptance, can be found in Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 216–22. For the description of Philip’s preparations by Jean Le Févre, the duke’s herald, see Le Févre, Chronique, II, pp. 106–7; for an extract from the accounts detailing Philip of Burgundy’s expenditure, see L. de Laborde, Les Ducs de Bourgogne, 3 vols (Paris, 1849–52), I, pp. 201–4.

For Jacqueline’s capture and escape, and the following war, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 39–42 and ff.

The dukes of Brittany did sometimes hold the earldom of Richmond, in the sense of the lands in England, but their use of the title – however contested it might be by the English – did not depend on the possession of those estates. For Richemont at Agincourt, see G. Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, ed. A. le Vavasseur (Paris, 1890), p. 18. For all other details here, see E. Cosneau, Le Connétable de Richemont, Artur de Bretagne, 1393–1458 (Paris, 1886), pp. 1–74.

For Richemont’s rapprochement with the Armagnacs, see Cosneau, Connétable, pp. 84–92; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 77–87.

For Yolande, her family and her plans, see G. de Senneville, Yolande d’Aragon: La Reine qui a gagné la Guerre de Cent Ans (Paris, 2008), esp. pp. 67–70, 104–10, 123, 127–43.

Yolande’s private correspondence with Philip of Burgundy: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 353.

Yolande’s return from Provence and visits to Brittany in 1424–5: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 61, 64, 71–3, 352–3; Senneville, Yolande, pp. 172–9.

For the removal from the Armagnac court of Louvet and du Châtel, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 84–104.

‘the good advice and counsel of our dearest and most beloved mother’: Cosneau, Connétable, p. 508.

For the schism, see A. Black, ‘Popes and Councils’, in C. Allmand (ed.), The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume VII c.1415–c.1500 (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 65–9.

For Marie Robine, see M. Tobin, ‘Le Livre des révélations de Marie Robine (+1399): Étude et édition’, in Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome, Moyen-Age, Temps Modernes, 98 (1986), pp. 229–64; A. Vauchez, ‘Jeanne d’Arc et le prophétisme féminin des XIVe et XVe siècles’, in Jeanne d’Arc: Une époque, un rayonnement, pp. 163–4; R. Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Poets, Saints and Visionaries of the Great Schism (Pennsylvania State University, 2006), pp. 81–6, and for the young cardinal Pierre de Luxembourg, pp. 75–8. Marie Robine made her journey to Avignon after the death of Pierre de Luxembourg in July 1387 and before the death of Pope Urban IV in October 1389, so 1388 is the most likely date.

For Jeanne-Marie de Maillé, see Vauchez, ‘Jeanne d’Arc et le prophétisme féminin’, pp. 162–3; Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Poets, Saints and Visionaries, pp. 91–3.

For the Armagnac call to arms, and Yolande and the royal council’s financial retrenchment, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 121–3.

For grants to Darnley, see Vale, Charles VII, p. 33; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 131, and III, p. 511.

For Bedford’s return to England, and his lieutenants in France, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 87–8.

For difficulties getting rid of Jean Louvet, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 90–101.

For Pierre de Giac, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 103, 123–5, 132–7 (with Richemont’s letter pp. 134–5). Guillaume Gruel says that Giac was removed by the advice of Yolande of Aragon: Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, p. 48.

For Le Camus de Beaulieu, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 140–2.

For La Trémoille, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 142–6.

Yolande leaving court: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 146.

The battle of the blind, the greasy pole and the Danse Macabre: Journal, pp. 203–5 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 204–6, and for the etymology of the name ‘Danse Macabre’, p. 204n).

Bedford’s return to Paris and dreadful weather in the spring of 1427: Journal, pp. 213–14 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 212–13).

For the Anglo-Breton treaty and the fighting at Montargis and Sainte-Suzanne, see Barker, Conquest, p. 89; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 28–9, 389; J. Chartier, Chronique de Charles VII, ed. V. de Viriville, 3 vols (Paris, 1858), I, pp. 54–6.

Richemont’s rebellion and Charles’s response: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 149–73.

For the campaign that led to the siege of Orléans, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 96–8; M. K. Jones, ‘“Gardez mon corps, sauvez ma terre” – Immunity from War and the Lands of a Captive Knight: The Siege of Orléans (1428–29) Revisited’, in M.-J. Arn (ed.), Charles d’Orléans in England (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 9–26.

‘a thorough soldier …’: Journal, p. 212 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 211).

For the topography and defences of Orléans, see K. DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader (Stroud, 1999, new edn 2011), pp. 27, 54–5.

Salisbury’s report of the campaign, in a letter to the mayor and aldermen of London, 5 September 1428: J. Delpit (ed.), Collection générale des documents français, I (Paris, 1847), pp. 236–7.

For the English bombardment and Salisbury’s death, see the ‘Journal du siège d’Orléans’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 96–100; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 298–300; Bower, Scotichronicon, VIII, pp. 128–9; K. DeVries, ‘Military Surgical Practice and the Advent of Gunpowder Weaponry’, Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 7 (1990), pp. 136, 139.

For Suffolk strengthening the blockade, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 56–7; and for reinforcements under Scales and Talbot, ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 103.

‘believing that, if it were lost …’: Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 301.

Charles’s response to the siege, and the petition of the estates-general: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 170–5.

The duke of Burgundy’s visit to Paris: Journal, p. 225 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 222). For Burgundy’s concerns in the Low Countries, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 48–9.

For the duke of Alençon and Yolande at Chinon, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 170, and for Richemont at Parthenay, see Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, pp. 66–7.

‘too long and boring’: Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 301.

For details of the Battle of the Herrings, see S. Cooper, The Real Falstaff: Sir John Fastolf and the Hundred Years’ War (Barnsley, 2010), pp. 53–6 (including his identification of the battle site as Rouvray-Sainte-Croix rather than Rouvray-Saint-Denis); Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 310–14; Journal, pp. 230–3 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 227–9).

‘if a hair of them escaped …’: Journal, pp. 231–2 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 228).

‘How dreadful it is …’: Journal, p. 233 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 229).

For the injury to the Bastard of Orléans, and the other survivors, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 124.

For the king’s fortunes going from bad to worse, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 310, 313.

For the possibility that the king might flee to Scotland or Castile, or retreat to the Dauphiné, and the debate about tactics, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 175–6. It has sometimes been suggested that the later reporting of these rumours is after-the-fact exaggeration to emphasise the significance of God’s intervention at Orléans, but it is clear both that the loss of the town would have been a major blow to the Armagnac position and that contemporaries believed the king to be under serious threat. See, for example, the letter sent on 10 May 1429 from Bruges by the Italian merchant Pancrazio Giustiniani to his father in Venice, in which he says that, if the English were to take Orléans, they would easily make themselves lords of France, and that Charles would be reduced to begging for his bread: A. Morosini, Chronique: Extraits relatifs à l’histoire de France, ed. and trans. G. Lefèvre-Pontalis and L. Dorez, 4 vols (Paris, 1898–1902), III, pp. 16–17.

‘that the persecutions of war, death and famine …’: from an anonymous Flemish chronicle, in J.-J. de Smet (ed.), Recueil des chroniques de Flandre, III (Brussels, 1856), p. 405.

The date of Joan’s arrival at Chinon is not completely certain. According to the testimony in 1456 of Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy, who accompanied her, the journey took eleven days, and the most specific statement – that of Jean de Metz – suggests that they set off ‘around the first Sunday in Lent’, which in 1429 was 13 February. An eleven-day journey beginning on that Sunday would have brought them to Chinon on 23 February, which is the date given by the relatively well-informed and almost contemporaneous account of the clerk of La Rochelle. That is therefore the date I have adopted (cf. Tisset’s discussion in Condamnation, II, pp. 55–6n; Vale, Charles VII, p. 46; L. J. Taylor, The Virgin Warrior: The Life and Death of Joan of Arc (New Haven and London, 2009), pp. 38–9, 222n). Bertrand de Poulengy, however, seems to offer a slightly different chronology, which implies that they left a little later, and other writers have suggested that she arrived at Chinon as late as 4 March (see, for example, Taylor,Joan of Arc, p. 10), or 6 March (the date given by the chronicler of Mont-Saint-Michel, for which see Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel (1343–1468), ed. S. Luce, I (Paris, 1879), p. 30). For the account of the clerk of La Rochelle, see J. Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite sur Jeanne d’Arc’, Revue historique (1877), p. 336; for the statements of Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 290, 306 (translated into French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 278, 293, and into English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 272, 276–7).

Joan’s dark hair (‘cheveux noirs’) is reported in the detailed description given by the clerk of La Rochelle: see Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite sur Jeanne d’Arc’, p. 336. For her clothes and cropped hair, see also the account of Mathieu Thomassin in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 304; for her companions, see the testimony of Jean de Metz in Duparc,Nullité, I, p. 290 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, p. 278; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 272).

4: THE MAID

For Joan writing to the king from Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois, see her own testimony in 1431: Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 51 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 55; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 55, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 144).

For Joan’s first visits to Robert de Baudricourt and to the duke of Lorraine, and her eventual journey to Chinon, see testimony given in 1456: Duparc, Nullité, I, 289–91 (Jean de Metz), 296 (Durand Laxart), 305–7 (Bertrand de Poulengy), 378 (Marguerite La Touroulde) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 277–8, 283–4, 292–3, and IV, p. 61; for Metz, Laxart and Poulengy in English, see Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 271–4, 276–7). See also Joan’s own testimony in 1431: Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 48–51 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 47–56; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 54–5, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 142–40). The timing and precise details of these events are confused because of discrepancies between these various accounts: see Tisset’s discussion in Condamnation, II, pp. 49–52nn.

For Baudricourt not taking Joan seriously to start with, see also the later reports of Jean Chartier, in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 52, and the ‘Journal du siège d’Orléans’, in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 118.

For Ermine de Reims, the ‘discernment of spirits’ and the referral of her case to Jean Gerson, see Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Poets, Saints and Visionaries, pp. 89–91; D. Elliott, ‘Seeing Double: John Gerson, the Discernment of Spirits, and Joan of Arc’, American Historical Review, 107 (2002), pp. 27–8, 39–43.

For Joan’s black and grey outfit, see the clerk of La Rochelle in Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite sur Jeanne d’Arc’, p. 336; for her red dress and help with clothes and equipment from the people of Vaucouleurs, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 289–90 (Metz), 296 (Laxart), 298 (Catherine, wife of Henri le Royer), 299 (Henri le Royer), 306 (Poulengy) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 277–8, 283–7, 293; Metz, Laxart, Catherine le Royer and Poulengy in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 271–2, 274, 275–6).

For Colet de Vienne, see Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 290 (Metz) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, p. 278; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 272); Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 53n.

The dangers of the route: Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy said that they sometimes travelled at night for fear of meeting English or Burgundian soldiers. See Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 190, 306 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 278, 293; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 272, 276).

For the likely role of René of Anjou and Yolande in facilitating Joan’s arrival at court, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 49–51; Taylor, Virgin Warrior, pp. 34–5.

For Joan’s arrival, her meeting with the king (there are conflicting reports of how soon, but Joan herself said it was the day of her coming to Chinon), and the nature of her mission, see Joan’s own testimony in 1431, in Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 51–3 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 55–6; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 55–6, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 144), and evidence given in 1456, in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 317 (Bastard of Orléans), 326 (Raoul de Gaucourt), 329 (Guillaume de Ricarville), 330 (Regnauld Thierry), 362 (Louis de Coutes) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 2–3, 11, 14, 15, 46–7, and the Bastard and Coutes in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 277–8, 294); also the testimony, recorded in French, of Jean d’Aulon in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 475 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 339). In 1456 Jean Pasquerel and Simon Charles both gave more extensive accounts of Joan’s meeting with the king – Pasquerel saying that the king declared that she had told him secrets no one else knew, and Simon Charles that she had recognised the king despite his attempts to conceal himself among other members of the court. However, neither Pasquerel nor Simon Charles was present at Chinon to witness this encounter. It is clear both that they were keen to echo Joan herself in suggesting that her arrival had a miraculous quality – in 1431, she said that ‘when she entered her king’s chamber, she recognised him among the others by the counsel of her voice, which revealed him to her’ – and that they may have conflated her first encounter with the king with a later, more public presentation at court, for which see below, pp. 99, 270. See Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 389–90 (Pasquerel), 399–400 (Charles) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 71–2, 81–2; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 311–12, 317–18); for Joan’s testimony, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 51–2 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 56; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 55, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 144).

For Joan addressing the king as ‘Dauphin’ because he was not yet crowned, see the testimony in 1456 of François Garivel: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 328 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 13; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 286). In other testimony she is sometimes said to have called him ‘dauphin’ and sometimes ‘king’; in her letters, she always referred to him as king: see pp. 98, 122.

Her mission: note that no one who knew Joan in Domrémy or Vaucouleurs said that she talked of relieving the siege at Orléans. Instead, they remembered her saying that she would save France from the English and take the king to be crowned at Reims. Those witnesses in 1456 who had been inside the besieged town in the spring of 1429 remembered hearing that she was coming to save them, but it makes psychological sense, given their own overwhelming need, that that might have been their conclusion at the time and their memory after the fact. What seems more likely is that the specific task of relieving Orléans was added to the general ones of repelling the English and securing the king’s coronation once Joan had access to more detailed information at Chinon about the progress of the war. This was not how she herself presented the evolution of her mission during her trial in 1431, but her evidence on the subject was neither internally consistent nor wholly plausible. See, for witnesses from Domrémy and Vaucouleurs, Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 278 (Jean Waterin), 290–1 (Metz), 293 (Michel le Buin), 296 (Laxart), 298 (Catherine le Royer), 305 (Poulengy) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 265, 277–8, 280, 283, 285, 292–3; Metz, Laxart, Catherine le Royer and Poulengy in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 271–6); for Joan’s testimony in 1431, below, chs 9 and 10; and see below, pp. 269–70, for evidence suggesting that the relief of Orléans was adopted as a test of her mission during her interrogation at Poitiers.

For de Baudricourt suggesting that Joan’s family should give her a few slaps, see the testimony in 1456 of Durand Laxart: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 296 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, p. 283; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 274). Deborah Fraioli and Larissa Juliet Taylor both suggest that Joan was also met with derision by those around the king at Chinon, but the sources they cite refer to her initial reception at Vaucouleurs; by the time she arrived at court – perhaps thanks to Yolande’s intervention – the message she brought was already being considered seriously: see D. Fraioli, Joan of Arc: The Early Debate (Woodbridge, 2000), p. 7, and the chronicle of Jean Chartier in Quicherat,Procès, IV, p. 52; Taylor, Virgin Warrior, p. 42, and Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 377–8 (La Touroulde) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 61).

‘excessive, overeager …’: from Jean Gerson’s On the Proving of Spirits (De probatione spirituum) in Fraioli, Early Debate, p. 18n.

For Joan’s clothes, see R. Wirth (ed.), Primary Sources and Context concerning Joan of Arc’s Male Clothing, Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies (2006), p. 1 and note 1.

For the Old Testament prohibition on cross-dressing, see Deuteronomy 22:5 – ‘A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the Lord thy God’.

For arguments between Gerson and Cauchon at Constance, see above, p. 26.

For Armagnac scholars from the university of Paris reconvening at Poitiers in the kingdom of Bourges, see R. G. Little, The Parlement of Poitiers: War, Government and Politics in France, 1418–1436 (London, 1984), pp. 104–5.

For Gerson’s exile and settlement at Lyon, see B. P. McGuire, Jean Gerson and the Last Medieval Reformation (Pennsylvania State University, 2005), ch. 10; and for his principles for the discernment of spirits as laid out in On Distinguishing True from False Revelations (1401), On the Proving of Spirits (1415) and On the Examination of Doctrine(1423), see Elliott, ‘Seeing Double’, pp. 28–9, 42–3.

For Joan’s physical examination by ladies of the court, see the testimony of Jean Pasquerel in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 389 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 71; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 311). This is hearsay, since Pasquerel was not at Chinon when Joan arrived, but is entirely plausible as a first step before any further spiritual examination, and the identity of the ladies he names supports his story, since their husbands were both at Chinon with the king. Pasquerel also says that Joan was examined twice. For what seems to have been the second occasion, at Poitiers, see pp. 97, 270.

For the correspondence with Jacques Gélu, which exists now only in seventeenth-century summaries, see M. Forcellin, Histoire générale des Alpes Maritimes ou Cottiènes, II (Paris, 1890) pp. 313–16; and discussion in Fraioli, Early Debate, pp. 16–23.

For Joan’s lodgings at Chinon, see the testimony of Louis de Coutes in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 362 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 47; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 90).

For the investigations at Poitiers, see Fraioli, Early Debate, ch. 3; Little, Parlement of Poitiers, pp. 94–108 (though note that he sees the process as political rather than theological); C. T. Wood, ‘Joan of Arc’s mission and the lost record of her interrogation at Poitiers’, in B. Wheeler and C. T. Wood (eds), Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc (New York, 1996), pp. 19–28 (though note that he reaches the opposite conclusion to the one I propose here about the nature of Joan’s mission: he suggests that the relief of Orléans, but not the coronation at Reims, was part of Joan’s mission from the beginning).

No transcript of the inquiry at Poitiers survives. Instead, we have a short summary, which was widely publicised, of the conclusions reached by the clerics. For its text (quoted here and below: ‘in two ways …’, ‘She has conversed …’, ‘For to doubt or discard …’, ‘The king … should not prevent …’, and calling Joan ‘the Maid’), see Quicherat,Procès, III, pp. 391–2, and various English translations in Fraioli, Early Debate, pp. 206–7; Hobbins, Trial, pp. 217–18; Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 72–4.

For the unlikelihood that the raising of the siege of Orléans, which was more than 250 miles away from Domrémy, formed part of Joan’s mission from the beginning, see above, pp. 267–8. For the argument that it emerged as her ‘sign’ during the investigation at Poitiers, see Fraioli, Early Debate, p. 33, citing the account of Pope Pius II, written probably in 1459 – evidence that is supported by the testimony given in 1456 by the captain of Chinon, Raoul de Gaucourt, and Joan’s squire, Jean d’Aulon: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 326, 475–6 (Gaucourt trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 11–12; d’Aulon trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 339–40). Note, however, that other testimony gives other versions. Joan’s own account of her sign in 1431 is full of discrepancies and grows under pressure into something much more elaborate: see below, chs 9 and 10.

For Archbishop Gélu’s worries about ridicule, see Forcellin, Histoire générale, p. 314.

For the second check on Joan’s virginity under the supervision of Yolande, see the testimony of Jean d’Aulon in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 476 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 339–40).

For the text of Joan’s letter to the English, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 221–2, or Quicherat, Procès, I, pp. 240–1, and various English translations in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 134–5; Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 74–6; Fraioli, Early Debate, p. 208. See also discussion in Fraioli, Early Debate, ch. 5.

For the story given by the clerk of La Rochelle of Joan’s public presentation to the king, see Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite sur Jeanne d’Arc’, pp. 336–7. He, like Jean Pasquerel and Simon Charles in 1456, believed this to be Joan’s first meeting with the king, before her interrogation at Poitiers, but it seems more likely, following the testimony of other witnesses (see above, pp. 266–7), that the first meeting took place in private, and that this public encounter happened only once the decision had been made to test Joan’s mission at Orléans: cf. Taylor, Virgin Warrior, pp. 46–7.

Copies of the Poitiers Conclusions reached as far afield as Scotland and Germany, and may have been dispatched as an ‘official circular’: see Little, Parlement of Poitiers, pp. 108–11.

For the chronogram and prophecies, and the Latin poem Virgo puellares (which also reached Germany and Scotland), see Fraioli, Early Debate, pp. 61–6; Taylor, Virgin Warrior, pp. 47–8; Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 77–8 (comment and translation); Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 305.

The story of Joan’s sword also comes in different versions. Joan herself said in 1431 that she thought it was buried not very deep in the ground near the altar (in front or behind, she was not sure), and that when the clerics rubbed it, the rust immediately fell off it – though of course she was not there to witness its unearthing. She said she knew from her voices that it was there; her voices are not mentioned in sources before the trial, so the clerk of La Rochelle and the ‘Journal du siège d’Orléans’, for example, report simply that she knew it would be found there. I quote the clerk of La Rochelle because his account suggests a non-miraculous means by which that might have been possible: if the sword was kept in a coffer that had been opened within living memory, Joan could have heard of it when she stopped at the church on her way to Chinon. But in fact that is also possible if the sword were buried. Legend had it that the great warrior Charles Martel had given his sword to the church at Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois after his eighth-century victory against the invading Moors, and other soldiers had left weapons there as offerings, so it may well have been a church full of swords with stories attached to them. As Joan’s myth developed, it would eventually be said that the sword she carried was that of Charles Martel himself. See the clerk of La Rochelle in Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite sur Jeanne d’Arc’, pp. 331, 337–8; Joan’s testimony in Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 76–7 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 75–6; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 67–8, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 155–6); for the ‘Journal du siège’, see Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 129; and for discussion see Taylor, Virgin Warrior, pp. 51–2, and B. Wheeler, ‘Joan of Arc’s Sword in the Stone’, in Wheeler and Wood (eds), Fresh Verdicts, pp. xi–xv.

For St Catherine – who was also usually depicted with the wheel that failed to kill her – and her cult in France and specifically at Fierbois, see Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, pp. 127–32.

For Joan’s armour, which cost the large sum of a hundred livres tournois, and the painting of her banners, see the extract from the accounts of the king’s treasurer for his wars in Quicherat, Procès, V, p. 258. The painter is named as ‘Hauves Polvoir’, which is probably the Scots name ‘Hamish Power’: see discussion in Beaucourt, Charles VII, VI, p. 415.

Contemporary descriptions of Joan’s banners vary in detail, but all agree on the white ground and the fleurs-de-lis. For Joan’s version, see her testimony in 1431 in Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 78 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 77; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 69, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 157); for that of Jean Pasquerel, see Duparc,Nullité, I, p. 390 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 72–3; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 312).

For Joan moving to Tours, and her squire, pages and chaplain, see Duparc, Nullité, I, 362–3 (Coutes), 388–9 (Pasquerel), 476–7 (d’Aulon) (Coutes and Pasquerel trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 46–7, 70–1; all three trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 294–5, 310–11, 340).

For the likelihood of Joan’s military training during these weeks, see, for example, Taylor, Virgin Warrior, pp. 49–50.

For the duke of Alençon, see his testimony in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 381–2 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 64–5; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 304–5).

For the involvement of La Hire and de Rais as well as Yolande and de Loré in gathering supplies and troops, see the testimony of the Bastard of Orléans: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 318 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 3; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 278).

Gerson’s treatise: this is the Latin text known as De quadam puella, for which see Quicherat, Procès, III, pp. 411–21, and English translations in Fraioli, Early Debate, pp. 199–205, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 112–18. The authorship, timing and intention of this work have all been the subject of debate. For the argument that it is the work of Gerson, see Fraioli, Early Debate, pp. 25, 41–3, and note that it was included in the first ever printed edition of Gerson’s writings in 1484. The argument that that attribution was erroneous rests to a large extent on the suggestion that it does not ‘sound’ like Gerson, and that its cautious argument differs from the support for Joan expressed inDe mirabili victoria, another treatise believed to have been written by Gerson (for which, see pp. 112–3, 275–6). In considering variations in the style of argument, it may be important to remember both that Gerson characteristically wrote at great speed, and that these were the very last months of his life (see McGuire, Jean Gerson, pp. 251, 253, 318–19). The differences between De quadam puella and De mirabili victoria may also be explicable in terms of their dating. The date of De quadam puella is uncertain, but it talks of Joan riding in armour and carrying a standard, which suggests that it was written after the interrogation at Poitiers, during the period when she was preparing for military action. Fraioli argues that it should be located before the Poitiers inquiry (Early Debate, pp. 24–5), largely on the basis that it appears to be a contribution to a theological debate that is not yet settled; but, given that Orléans was to be Joan’s test, the theological debate was very much alive in the weeks between Poitiers and Orléans, when the Poitiers Conclusions were being circulated and Joan was being equipped for war, but the outcome of her mission was not yet known. The absence from the text of any reference, implicit or explicit, to victory at Orléans means that it seems plausible to suggest that Gerson, having heard at Lyon of Joan’s arrival at Chinon, the inquiry at Poitiers and the preparations for her intervention at Orléans, did indeed write the even-handed De quadam puella during these weeks in late March and April – and that he might subsequently have reached a more positive judgement on her mission in De mirabili victoria once her test at Orléans had vindicated her claims in May. (Note, however, that there remains the difficulty of a sentence in De quadam puella remarking that towns and castles submit to the king because of Joan; again, this makes a date before Poitiers much less likely, and Craig Taylor argues (Joan of Arc, p. 112) that it must indicate instead that the text was written later, in the summer of 1429. However, the equivocal position adopted in De quadam puella would not easily fit with a summer date in terms of the evolution of theological responses to Joan over these months; such a date is also especially hard to reconcile with Gerson’s authorship, if the latter is accepted, since it is likely that he wrote the much more positive De mirabili victoria in May, and died on 12 July.)

‘false French’: a phrase used in the ‘Journal du siège d’Orléans’ to describe the Parisians who fought alongside the English at the Battle of the Herrings: Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 119.

For the delegation to the duke of Burgundy (and note that Poton de Xaintrailles had previously fought for Burgundy in Hainaut against the duke of Gloucester), see Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 16–23; Little, Parlement of Poitiers, pp. 93–4; ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 130–1; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 317–19.

For the duke of Burgundy’s movements in April, see Journal, pp. 233–4 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 230–1).

For the return of Xaintrailles with a Burgundian herald, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 146–7.

For stories about the Maid circulating in Orléans, see the testimony of the Bastard of Orléans in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 316–17 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 2–3; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 277–8), and, for example, that of Guillaume de Ricarville: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 329 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 14).

‘she prohibits murder …’ from De quadam puella (see above, p. 272, for discussion on authorship): Quicherat, Procès, III, p. 412, and English translations in Fraioli, Early Debate, p. 199, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 113.

For Joan sleeping in her armour, see the testimony of her page, Louis de Coutes, who says she was bruised as a result: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 363 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 48; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 295).

For 26 April as the likely date of the departure from Blois, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, p. 66 at n. 58.

5: LIKE AN ANGEL FROM GOD

For the loss of soldiers whose contract had come to an end, see Barker, Conquest, p. 115.

For the departure of the Burgundians, see above, p. 102.

For the interception of the wine, pork and venison intended for the English, see the ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 143.

For the priests leading the Armagnac forces, and their formation, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 318–19 (Bastard), 391–2 (Pasquerel) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 3–5, 73–4; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 278–80, 312–13); ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 150–3. The details of their arrival at Orléans are once again inconsistent, for example about how much of the journey took place by river and how much by land: for discussion, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 66–9.

For the response of the English soldiers to Joan, see, for example, Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 363–4 (Coutes), 394 (Pasquerel) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 48, 76; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 295, 314).

For Henry V outside Harfleur, see above, p. 20.

For Joan’s entry into Orléans, see the ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 152-3; Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 319 (Bastard), 331 (Jean Luillier) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 5, 16; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 280, 287); DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 69–70.

Joan’s anger: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 318–20 (Bastard), 363 (Coutes) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 4–5, 48; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 279–80, 295).

For the behaviour of Joan’s soldiers, see, for example, the testimony of the Bastard of Orléans in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 319 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 4; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 279).

‘The king … should not prevent …’: from the Poitiers Conclusions, for which, see above, pp. 97, 269.

For the events of 30 April, including Joan’s confrontation with the English, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 154–5; Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 320 (Bastard), 363–4 (Coutes) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 5, 48; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 280, 295).

For the Bastard’s departure for Blois, and Joan familiarising herself with the town, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 155–6; Jean Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 55–6; Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 319–20 (Bastard), 477–8 (d’Aulon) (Bastard trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 5; both trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 280, 341).

For the procession in Joan’s honour, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, p. 73.

For the Bastard’s return and the assault on Saint-Loup, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 157–8; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 56–7.

For Joan’s mood and her eating, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 364 (Coutes), 392 (Pasquerel) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 48–9, 74–5; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 296, 314).

For the text of Joan’s third letter to the English, and the response of the English soldiers, see the testimony in 1456 of her confessor Jean Pasquerel: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 393–4 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 75–6; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 84, 314).

For the events of 5–8 May, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 159–64; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 60–3; Perceval de Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 7–10; Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 320–1 (Bastard), 331–2 (Luillier), 364–6 (Coutes), 394–5 (Pasquerel), 480–4 (d’Aulon) (all except d’Aulon trans. French in Duparc,Nullité, IV, pp. 6–7, 17, 49–50, 76–8; all trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 280–1, 287–8, 296–7, 315–16, 343–5). I have sought to convey the broad outline of events, but note that, once again, the timing and details – including Joan’s own movements and the question of whether there was disagreement over strategy between her and the other commanders – are confused and inconsistent between the different accounts: for discussion, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 75–87.

For Monstrelet’s report on the English decision to withdraw, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 322.

For the celebrations in Orléans on 7 and 8 May, including the citizens embracing the soldiers as if they were their children, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 166–7.

For the letter of Pancrazio Giustiniani, the Italian merchant in Bruges, see Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 43–54 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 87–8).

For Jean Dupuy’s addition to his Collectarium historiarum, see Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 89–91, and discussion in Fraioli, Early Debate, ch. 9.

For the Latin text of Gerson’s De mirabili victoria (or De puella Aurelianensi), see Quicherat, Procès, III, pp. 298–306, and Duparc, Nullité, II, pp. 33–9 (part trans. English in Fraioli, Early Debate, appendix IV, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 78–83). Again, there has been debate about the authorship of the treatise, and Fraioli argues that it is not by Gerson (Early Debate, ch. 8). However, it was confidently attributed to Gerson during the nullification trial of 1456, and dated to 14 May 1429 – in other words, just after the raising of the siege of Orléans (Duparc, Nullité, II, p. 33); Gerson was also named as the author by Pancrazio Giustiniani in a letter of 20 November 1429, written to accompany a copy of the treatise which he was sending to Italy (see Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 234–5), while Gerson’s modern biographer says the attribution is certain, citing Daniel Hobbins’s work on the manuscripts (McGuire, Jean Gerson, p. 401 n. 89). Craig Taylor thinks it odd that there is no explicit reference to the victory at Orléans (Joan of Arc, p. 78), but the text does implicitly refer to a miraculous event. See also Dyan Elliott’s discussion in ‘Seeing Double’, pp. 44–7.

For the king’s letter to the town of Narbonne, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 101–4 (part trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 86–7).

For Joan and the Bastard going to meet the king, and debates about what to do next, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 167–8; Eberhard de Windecken in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 496–7; the Bastard’s testimony in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 321 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 7; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 281).

For the king’s lack of money, see, for example, Guy de Laval’s letter in Quicherat, Procès, V, p. 109.

Guy de Laval reported his encounter with Joan to his mother in a letter written on 8 June 1429: Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 106–11 (part trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 92–3).

For events at Jargeau, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 167–73; Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 12–13; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 64–5; DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 98–102.

For Meung, Beaugency and Patay, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 174–8; Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 14–16; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 65–9; and, for the English perspective, see the eyewitness account of Jean Waurin in Collection of the Chronicles, trans. Hardy, pp. 179–88. See also discussion in DeVries,Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 102–3, 105–15.

For Richemont, see Gruel, Chronique d’Arthur de Richemont, pp. 70–4, and the testimony of the duke of Alençon in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 385–6 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 68–9; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 308–9).

‘by the renown of Joan the Maid …’ and ‘And by these operations …’: Waurin, Collection of the Chronicles, trans. Hardy, pp. 183, 188.

For the English retreat from towns to the north of the Loire, see, for example, ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 178.

6: A HEART GREATER THAN ANY MAN’S

For the duke of Orléans’s gift to Joan, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 112–14. Quicherat notes that the colours of the dukes of Orléans had originally been crimson and bright green, which darkened first after the murder of Duke Louis, and then to green so dark that it was almost black after the capture of his son at Azincourt.

For Gerson’s comment on Joan’s clothes, see De quadam puella in Quicherat, Procès, III, p. 412: ‘Ubi autem de equo descendit, solitum habitum [mulierbrem] reassumens, fit simplicissima, negotiorum saecularium quasi innocens agnus imperita.’ Note that mulierbrem does not appear in Quicherat’s text, but see Fraioli, Early Debate, pp. 28–9. For English versions, see Fraioli, Early Debate, p. 199, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 113, which translate habitum as ‘manners’ and ‘nature’ rather than ‘clothes’. Fraioli justifies this on the grounds that ‘the latter disagrees with all the facts we know about Joan, who maintained male dress continually from Vaucouleurs’ (Early Debate, p. 29n) – but in fact we have no definitive evidence that Joan did maintain male dress continually from Vaucouleurs, and, even if she did, Gerson, who had never seen her, might have believed otherwise. The word habitus is frequently used in texts referring to Joan’s male clothes, and it therefore seems plausible that the word here, as elsewhere, carries the double sense of clothes and comportment: see, for example, discussion in K. Sullivan, The Interrogation of Joan of Arc (Minneapolis, 1999), p. 50.

For the wine and ring described by Guy de Laval, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 107, 109 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 93). His grandmother Anne de Laval, to whom Joan sent the gold ring, had once been married to Bertrand du Guesclin, the great hero of an earlier stage of the wars against the English: Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 105–6n.

For Joan and Alençon with the king, and discussion about Richemont and the campaign to come, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 168–9, 178–9; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 69–71; Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 17–18; testimony of the Bastard of Orléans in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 323–4 (trans. French in Duparc,Nullité, IV, p. 9; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 283); Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 221–3.

For Fastolf at Janville, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 177–8.

For the military summons issued by the king, see Little, Parlement of Poitiers, pp. 114–15; see also Joan’s letter to the people of Tournai, calling on them to come to the coronation at Reims, in Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 123–5 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 93–4).

For the king’s letter sent ahead to Troyes, for example, see the seventeenth-century précis of Jean Rogier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 287.

For Auxerre, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 180–1.

For the course of events at Troyes, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 181–4; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 72–6; the clerk of La Rochelle in Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite’, pp. 341–2; and especially Jean Rogier’s account, compiled in the early seventeenth century from the town registers of Reims, in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 284–302, including Joan’s letter (pp. 287–8), the response of the people of Troyes (pp. 288–91), their later letter to Reims (pp. 295–6), and the letter from the brother of the captain of Reims (pp. 296–7).

For Brother Richard in Paris, see Journal, pp. 233–7 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 230–5); for his presence and conversion to Joan’s cause at Troyes, see Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite’, p. 342; Jean Rogier’s account in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 290; cf. Joan’s testimony in 1431 in Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 98 (trans. Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 94–5; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 80–1, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 169).

Joan the Braggart: the French word is coquard (Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 290), which – with its apparent derivation from coq, or cockerel – also seems to play in a derogatory sense on Joan’s masculine self-presentation. The squire who reported to the brother of the captain of Reims compared Joan to ‘Madame d’Or’ (Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 297), a female fool at the court of the duke of Burgundy: see Le Févre, Chronique, II, p. 168.

For the letter from the people of Châlons to those of Reims, and the king at Sept-Saulx, see the account of Jean Rogier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 298–9.

For the king’s arrival in Reims and the coronation, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 184–6; the clerk of La Rochelle in Quicherat, ‘Relation inédite’, pp. 343–4; Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 19–20; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 77–8.

For the cathedral’s labyrinth (which was destroyed in the eighteenth century), see R. Branner, ‘The Labyrinth of Reims Cathedral’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 21 (1962), p. 18.

For the trumpets sounding so loudly that the vaults might shatter, see the report of three Angevin gentlemen to the queen and her mother Yolande, in a letter written on the day of the coronation itself: Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 127–31.

For discussion of the coronation ceremony, see R. Jackson, Vive le Roi! A History of the French Coronation (Chapel Hill, 1984), pp. 34–6.

‘Noble king, God’s will is done’: ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 186.

For the presence of Joan’s family at Reims, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 255 (Jean Morel, her godfather, who saw her at Châlons, and it seems plausible that he went on to Reims), 296 (Durand Laxart, her cousin by marriage, sometimes referred to in the testimony of 1456 as her uncle) (both trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 243, 284; Laxart in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 274); R. Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses (London, 1964), pp. 125–6; Taylor, Virgin Warrior, p. 93.

For La Trémoille’s contact with the Burgundian court in late June and early July, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 401–2.

For Joan’s letter to the duke of Burgundy, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 126–7 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 95–6). Her first letter to the duke is lost, but we know of its existence from the reference in this one.

For the duke of Burgundy’s arrival in Paris, see Journal, p. 240 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 237). He had been asked to come by Bedford because of the reverses of the previous weeks: see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 333.

For Bedford’s attitude to Joan, see p. 208.

For Bedford’s letter requesting reinforcements and King Henry’s coronation, see H. Nicolas (ed.), Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, III (London, 1834), pp. 322–3.

For Bedford and Burgundy in Paris and the ceremony of 14 July, see Journal, pp. 240–1 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 237–8); the journal of Clément de Fauquembergue, the clerk of the Paris parlement, in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 455; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 333–4.

For English payments to the duke of Burgundy, see J. Stevenson (ed.), Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France, II, part I (London, 1864), pp. 101–11; Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 17.

For Burgundian envoys at Reims, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 403–4.

For the continued Armagnac advance towards Paris, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 187; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 78.

Gerson’s death: see McGuire, Jean Gerson, p. 319.

For Alain Chartier’s Epistola de puella, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 131–6 (quotations from pp. 134, 135), and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 108–12.

For Christine de Pizan’s Ditié de Jehanne d’Arc, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 3–21 (quotation from p. 11), and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 98–108.

For Joan’s letter to the people of Reims, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 139–40, and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 118–19.

7: A CREATURE IN THE FORM OF A WOMAN

For Bedford’s report of the duke of Burgundy to the royal council, which has a definite air of protesting too much, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 403n.

For the Armagnac delegation to Arras, which arrived in the first few days of August, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 405–7; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 348–9; Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 21–2.

For the presence of Anne of Burgundy, duchess of Bedford, at her brother’s court, see Journal, p. 241 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 238); Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 186–7; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 407–8.

For the reinforcement of the defences of Paris, see Journal, p. 239 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 236); DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, p. 130.

For Bedford’s return with new troops, see Journal, p. 242 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 238); journal of Clément de Fauquembergue in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 453; Nicolas (ed.), Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council, III, pp. 322–3; J. H. Ramsay, Lancaster and York: A Century of English History, I (Oxford, 1892), pp. 401–2.

For Bedford’s letter from Montereau, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 340–4, and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 119–22.

For Brother Richard riding with the Armagnacs, see Journal, pp. 242–3 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 238–9).

For the encounter at Montepilloy, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 344–7; Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 21–3; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 82–4; ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 192–6.

For Bedford moving to defend Normandy, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 34; Barker, Conquest, pp. 133–4.

For the submission of Compiègne and Beauvais to the Armagnacs, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 190, 196–7.

For the negotiations at Arras and Compiègne, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 405–10; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 348–9; Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 21–2.

For the letter from the count of Armagnac and Joan’s response, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 225–6, and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 122–3.

For Joan’s move from Compiègne to occupy Saint-Denis, see Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 24–5; Thompson, ‘“Monseigneur Saint Denis”’, pp. 27–8.

For the king moving to Saint-Denis and Joan to La Chapelle with all her captains, see Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 25–6; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 85–6; ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 197–8.

For the defences of Paris, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 141–2.

For the summons issued by Bedford, see Stevenson (ed.), Letters and Papers, II, part I, pp. 118–19.

For the Armagnac assault on Paris, including ‘… these men were so unfortunate’, and Joan’s shouted exchange with the soldiers defending the walls, see Journal, pp. 244–5 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 240–1); also the journal of Clément de Fauquembergue in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 456–8; Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 26–7; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 86–8; ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 197–9; DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 143–6.

For Charles’s letter to Reims, 13 September 1429, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, pp. 518–19; and for the financial difficulties of his government, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 200; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 239n.

For Joan the next day, see Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 27–9; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 88; DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 146–7.

Collecting the dead: Journal, p. 246 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 241).

Quotations from Gerson’s De mirabili victoria: Duparc, Nullité, II, p. 39, and English translations in Elliott, ‘Seeing Double’, p. 47; Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 83; Fraioli, Early Debate, p. 212.

The treatise De bono et malu spiritu was definitely written before 22 September, when the university of Paris paid for a copy. Its author is unknown, but he was a member of the university responding to Gerson’s De mirabili victoria. For its Latin text and a French translation see N. Valois (ed.), ‘Un nouveau témoignage sur Jeanne d’Arc: Réponse d’un clerc parisien à l’apologie de la Pucelle par Gerson (1429)’, in Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de France, 43 (1906), pp. 161–79; English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 125–30, and see discussion in Elliott, ‘Seeing Double’, pp. 47–50.

Jean Chartier reported that the armour Joan left at Saint-Denis was the very armour in which she had been injured: Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 89.

For Joan’s journey back to the Loire valley, see ‘Journal du siège’ in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 201.

‘And thus was the will …’: Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 29.

For Bedford’s return to Paris, and the fines imposed on Saint-Denis, see Journal, pp. 246–7 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 242).

For the extension of the Armagnac–Burgundian truce to include Paris, Burgundy’s arrival in the capital, and Burgundian negotiations with both sides, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 411–13; Stevenson (ed.), Letters and Papers, II, part I, pp. 126–7; Journal, pp. 247–8 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 242–3). The Parisian journal-writer believed that the duke of Burgundy became regent of France, and that the duke of Bedford’s authority would now be limited to Normandy; this was not true, but emphasises how important the gesture of making Burgundy the governor of Paris was for the city’s inhabitants.

For Bedford’s private suggestion that April might see a new campaign rather than peace, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 362.

For Henry VI’s English coronation, see Griffiths, Reign of King Henry VI, p. 190.

For Alençon wanting Joan with him, and being refused: Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 29–30.

For Perrinet Gressart, see A. Bossuat, Perrinet Gressart et François de Surienne (Paris, 1936), pp. 113–19; Barker, Conquest, pp. 137–8.

For the siege of Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, see the testimony of Jean d’Aulon in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 484–5 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 345–6); DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 151–6; and re timing, Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 229–30n.

For Joan’s letter to Riom, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 147–8 (where Quicherat notes that he saw a fingerprint and a black hair caught in the wax of the seal), and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 130–1.

For Pancrazio Giustiniani’s letter of 20 November, see Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 228–37.

8: I WILL BE WITH YOU SOON

For the siege of La Charité, including comment on the cold, see the account of the Berry herald in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 49; also Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 31; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 91; DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 157–8.

For the king at Mehun-sur-Yèvre, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 265.

The tax exemption for Domrémy: Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 137–9.

For the ennoblement of Joan and her family, granted at Mehun-sur-Yèvre in December 1429, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 150–4.

Joan’s movements are relatively hard to track in January and February 1430, but see itinerary in Pernoud and Clin, Joan of Arc: Her Story, p. 271.

For the deliberations of the town council of Tours about Joan’s request for financial support for the wedding of the painter’s daughter, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 154–6.

For Philip of Burgundy’s marriages and illegitimate children, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 8, 54–7; for the Order of the Golden Fleece, pp. 57, 160–2. Isabel of Portugal’s mother was Philippa of Lancaster, eldest daughter of John of Gaunt. For Jean Le Févre’s astonishing account of the wedding celebrations, see Le Févre, Chronique, II, pp. 158–72; for the Order of the Golden Fleece, pp. 172–4.

For Burgundy refusing the Garter, and his statement of independence, see C. A. J. Armstrong, ‘La Double Monarchie, France-Angleterre et la maison du Bourgogne (1420–1435): Le Déclin d’une alliance’, in Annales de Bourgogne, 37 (1965), pp. 105–6; Chastellain, Oeuvres, II, pp. 10–11.

For Anne of Burgundy at the wedding, see Le Févre, Chronique, II, pp. 166–7.

For St Michael in the Salisbury breviary, see Bibliothèque Nationale de France MS 17294 f. 595v, available online via Gallica at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8470142p/f1200.image; P. Contamine, ‘La “France anglaise” au XVe siècle: Mythe ou réalité?’, in La ‘France anglaise’ au Moyen Age, actes du IIIe Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes (Poitiers, 1986), I (Paris, 1988), p. 27.

For La Hire seizing Château Gaillard on 24 February, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 142–3.

For the Armagnac attack on Saint-Denis, see Journal, p. 251 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 246).

For Burgundy becoming count of Champagne, and contracting to serve King Henry for two months, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 17–18; Armstrong, ‘Double Monarchie’, p. 90; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 418.

For the founding membership of the Order of the Golden Fleece, see Le Févre, Chronique, II, pp. 173–4.

For Hugues de Lannoy and his campaign for anti-Armagnac action, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 22–4; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 415–17.

For Burgundian–Armagnac jousting at Arras, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 376–7; Chastellain, Oeuvres, II, pp. 18–26.

For the complexities of Burgundian interests and entanglements in the Low Countries, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 48–52, 57–60.

For English preparations for Henry VI’s coronation campaign, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 144–5.

For Joan’s letters to Reims, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 159–62, and translations in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 131–2, 133–4.

For Joan’s letter to the Hussites, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 156–9, and translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 132–3.

For Catherine de La Rochelle, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 103–6 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 99–100; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 83–4, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 172–3).

Joan’s movements in April are once again not easy to track, but see Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 32; Chartier in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 91–2; DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 162–3.

For Armagnac raids on Paris, and ‘the duke of Burgundy was expected daily’, see Journal, p. 253 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 247).

For Compiègne, its defences and its significance, see Barker, Conquest, p. 146; DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, p. 164.

For Henry VI’s arrival and entourage, see Griffiths, Reign of King Henry VI, pp. 190–1; Barker, Conquest, pp. 144–5.

For Pierre Cauchon, see F. Neveux, L’Évêque Pierre Cauchon (Paris, 1987), pp. 70–82, 85–6; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 389.

Negotiations for peace were supposed to start on 1 April, but the duke of Burgundy refused to come, and the English asked for a postponement until 1 June: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 418–20.

For Burgundy’s muster at Péronne and his journey south, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 378–84.

For Charles’s letter to the towns of Armagnac France on 6 May, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 423.

It is very difficult to establish a clear chronology of military events during these weeks, but for Franquet d’Arras, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 384–5; Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 150–1 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 130; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 103, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 190–1).

For Poton de Xaintrailles, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 382.

For Joan at Soissons, see the account of the Berry herald in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 49–50.

For Joan at Crépy and Compiègne, the fighting and her capture, see Cagny in Quicherat, Procès, IV, pp. 32–4; Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, pp. 386–8. There has been much discussion over the years about whether the closing of the gate of Compiègne was the result of treachery, but there is no clear evidence that it was, and no plausible reason to think it, given that Compiègne did not subsequently fall. For detailed discussion, see DeVries, Joan of Arc: A Military Leader, pp. 166–74.

For Duke Philip’s meeting with Joan, and Monstrelet’s failure to recall what was said, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 388.

The duke’s letter announcing Joan’s capture: Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 166–7; see also Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 186.

For Joan in the custody of Jean de Luxembourg at Beaulieu-les-Fontaines, see Monstrelet, Chronique, IV, p. 389.

For a précis of the archbishop’s letter to Reims, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 168–9.

For the letters from the university of Paris and the vicar-general of the inquisitor in English France to the duke of Burgundy, and another letter from the university of Paris to Jean de Luxembourg, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 4–9.

For the thinking behind the trial, see Hobbins, Trial, pp. 20–1.

For Burgundy’s difficulties and commitments in the summer of 1430, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 24–5, 63–4; Barker, Conquest, pp. 152–3.

For Cauchon’s role and the decision to ransom Joan, see Neveux, L’Évêque Pierre Cauchon, pp. 86, 135–6.

For Henry’s arrival in Rouen, see Cochon, Chronique normande, pp. 312–13.

For the situation in Normandy, the reconfiguring of the royal council during the young king’s visit, and the counsellors’ attitude to Joan’s trial, see A. Curry, ‘The “Coronation Expedition” and Henry VI’s Court in France, 1430 to 1432’, in J. Stratford (ed.), The Lancastrian Court (Donington, 2003), pp. 40–2; Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, p. 202; Barker, Conquest, pp. 150–1.

For Cauchon’s payment for the negotiations, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 194–5.

For the English raising money to buy Joan from the Burgundians, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 178–92.

For Pieronne in Paris, see Journal, pp. 259–60 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 253–4).

For Joan’s escape attempts, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 145, 153, 155–6 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 127, 131, 133; English in Hobbins, pp. 100–1, 103–5, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 187, 191–3); and see below, pp. 176, 178, 181–2, 290.

For the letters from the university of Paris to Cauchon and King Henry, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 11–14 (Latin letter to Cauchon trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 13–14; both letters trans. English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 38–9).

For King Henry’s edict, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 14–15 (trans. English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 40–1, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 135–6).

For Joan in Rouen by Christmas Eve, see Pernoud and Clin, Joan of Arc: Her Story, p. 101.

9: A SIMPLE MAID

The interrogations that took place during Joan’s trial were so wide-ranging and repetitive, and her answers at times so elliptical and contradictory, that it is impossible here to cover everything contained in the whole transcript. Instead, I have sought to give a flavour of the exchanges, a sense of the central theological issues, and the main contours of Joan’s developing responses.

For the opening of the session of 21 February, and the list of those in attendance, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 32–3 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 32–3, and notes on personnel; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 46–7).

For the university’s sense of its own importance, the narrowing of its intellectual outlook as it became a partisan institution as a result of the civil war, and the principles of academic discourse, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 2–6.

For the session of 9 January, see Tisset, Condamnation, pp. 2–3 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 4–5; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 34–5).

For the process of inquisition initiated by public infamy, see Hobbins, Trial, pp. 16–22.

‘the report has now become well known …’: Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 1 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 1; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 33).

For the care taken to follow proper procedure, the possibility of saving Joan’s soul, and the vacancy in the see of Rouen, see Neveux, L’Evêque Pierre Cauchon, pp. 137–9.

For the hearings from 9 January to 20 February, and their personnel, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 3–32 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 4–32; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 34–46).

Joan summoned ‘to answer truly …’: Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 33–4 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 33–4; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 47–8).

Joan’s response to the summons, and the judges’ decision not to allow her to hear mass: Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 35–6 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 35–6; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 48).

Examination of her virginity, under the supervision of the duchess of Bedford: see testimony in 1456 in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 360 (Jean Monnet), 379 (Jean Marcel), 432 (Jean Massieu) (all trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 45, 62, 112; Massieu in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 333).

Exchange between Cauchon and Joan over the question of the oath: Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 37–9 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 37; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 49–50, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 137–8).

For details of the first day’s interrogation (Wednesday 21 February), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 40–2 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 38–42; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 50–1, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 138–9). Joan explained that she was known at home as Jeannette, and then from when she came to court as Jeanne. Later in the trial, on Saturday 24 March, she said that her surname was d’Arc or Rommée, and that girls in her region took their mother’s surname (which, in this case, would therefore mean that she was Jeanne Rommée): see Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 181 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 148; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 116, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 204).

For the second day’s interrogation (Thursday 22 February), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 42–54 (quotations from pp. 45–6, 50, 53) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 43–57; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 51–6, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 140–5).

For the third session (Saturday 24 February), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 54–68 (quotations from pp. 56, 59, 61–2, 67) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 57–68; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 56–63, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 145–51). Where there are slight variations between the French minute and the Latin transcript in these pages, I have preferred the French text, since its meaning seems clearer: see, for example, Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 62, where the Latin has Joan say that the light comes ‘in the name of the voice’, whereas in French she says that the light ‘comes before the voice’.

Clerics struggling to find a seat: when the first inquiry into the trial process took place in 1450, a friar named Guillaume Duval testified that he had attended one session with another friar named Isambard de la Pierre. Neither of them, he said, had been able to find a seat, so they had sat on the carpet near to Joan herself in the midst of the assembly. The session these two men attended (assuming that the ‘Jean Duval’ listed in the trial transcript of 1431 is a clerical error for ‘Guillaume’) took place in the same chamber on 27 March, when around twenty fewer clerics were present than on 24 February, so it seems safe to assume that on this earlier occasion latecomers might have had to stand. For the testimony of Guillaume Duval, see P. Doncoeur and Y. Lanhers (ed. and trans.), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII en 1450 et le codicile de Guillaume Bouillé (Paris, 1956), pp. 46–7; for Duval’s attendance in 1431, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 185 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 152; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 119), and for the identification of Jean with Guillaume, see Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 398.

For the trial as a case of the discernment of spirits, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 32–41.

For Gerson warning against the possibility that women and the unlearned might claim the gift of discernment for themselves, see Elliott, ‘Seeing Double’, pp. 29–30, 33–5, 37–8, and, for the need for prudence and humility in seeking counsel in such cases, pp. 39–40.

For the parish prayers on which Joan drew in her answer about being in a state of grace, see Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 63 n. 1.

For the theological issues relating to the tree of the fairies, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 7–20.

For the fourth session (Tuesday 27 February), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 68–79 (quotations from pp. 69, 72–5) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 69–79; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 63–70, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 151–8).

For saints, angels, and the need for a sign, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 23–32, 35–41, 61–4; see also K. Sullivan, ‘“I do not name to you the voice of St Michael”: The Identification of Joan of Arc’s Voices’, in Wheeler and Wood (eds), Fresh Verdicts, pp. 85–112.

For the nature and tactics of the interrogation, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 82–99; Hobbins, Trial, pp. 13–17.

For the theological implications of a woman wearing men’s clothes, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 42–54; S. Schibanoff, ‘True Lies: Transvestism and Idolatry in the Trial of Joan of Arc’, in Wheeler and Wood (eds), Fresh Verdicts, pp. 31–60.

For the fifth session (Thursday 1 March), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 80–90 (quotations from pp. 84, 88) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 79–89; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 70–7, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 159–66).

For the last day of public interrogation (sixth session, Saturday 3 March), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 90–109 (quotations from pp. 104, 106) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 89–102; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 77–85, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 166–74).

For the appointment of Jean de La Fontaine to lead the next phase of questioning, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 109–10 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 102–3; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 85–6).

For the first session in Joan’s prison cell (Saturday 10 March), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 110–18 (quotations from p. 117, where I have preferred the French reading) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 103–9; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 86–9).

For the second session in prison (Monday 12 March), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 121–9 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 111–16; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 93–4, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 178–82).

For the third session in prison (Tuesday 13 March), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 133–42 (quotation from p. 136) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 119–24; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 95–9, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 182–6).

For the fourth, fifth and sixth sessions in prison (Wednesday 14, Thursday 15, Saturday 17 March), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 143–79 (quotation from p. 166) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 126–46; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 99–114, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 186–203).

For the decision made on Passion Sunday, discussion of procedure, and d’Estivet’s seventy articles (which he began to read on Tuesday 27 March and continued on Wednesday 28), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 179–286 (quotation from pp. 191–2) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 146–242; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 114–55).

For turning the seventy articles into twelve, plus the opinions of the theologians and the lawyers, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 289–327 (quotation from p. 298) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 244–84; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 156–66, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 207–12).

For the rigour with which the trial was conducted, see Hobbins, Trial, pp. 16–19, 21–4, 26.

For the concern of the judges for the fate of Joan’s soul, see Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 106–13, 120–8.

10: FEAR OF THE FIRE

For Joan’s illness, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 328–9 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 285–6; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 166–7).

For the visit to Joan’s cell on 31 March, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 286–9 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 242–4; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 155–6, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 205–6).

For Joan’s escape attempts, see the interrogations of 14 and 15 March: Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 143–5, 153, 155–6, 164 (quotation from p. 156) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 126–7, 131, 133, 137; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 100, 103–5, 108, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 187, 191–3, 196). Joan and her interrogators spoke always of her ‘leap’ from the tower, but the Burgundian ‘Chronicle of the Cordeliers’, written around 1432, instead describes an escape attempt in which whatever she was using to lower herself from the tower broke, thus causing her fall: see Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 237.

For St Catherine resisting the interrogation of pagan scholars, see Taylor, Virgin Warrior, p. 26.

For exchanges between Joan and her judges about the possibility that she could hear mass if she would put on women’s clothes, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 156–8, 167–8, 182–3 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 133–4, 139–40, 149–50; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 105–6, 110, 117, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 193–4, 198–9, 204–5).

For the visit to Joan’s cell on Wednesday 18 April, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 327–33 (quotations from pp. 329, 330, 332) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 284–8; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 166–9).

For Cauchon’s birth probably in 1371, see Neveux, L’Evêque Pierre Cauchon, p. 7.

For the session on Wednesday 2 May, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 333–48 (quotations pp. 337, 342–3, 346–7) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 288–301; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 169–78).

For the threat of torture on Wednesday 9 May, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 348–50 (quotation from p. 349) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 301–2; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 178–9). The following session on 12 May consisted of the judges’ deliberations about whether or not they should proceed to the use of torture: see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 350–2 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 302–4; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 179–80). In the session after that, on 19 May, Cauchon and fifty-one advisers met to consider the opinions on the case sent by the faculties of theology and canon law at the university of Paris: Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 352–74 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 304–25; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 213–16, and summary in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 180–4).

For the final hearing (Wednesday 23 May), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 374–85 (quotations from pp. 376, 380, 383–4) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 325–35; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 184–90).

For Pierre Maurice’s age, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 418 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 364; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 205); for his career, see Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 417.

For proceedings at Saint-Ouen, and events afterwards, on Thursday 24 May, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 385–94 (quotation from p. 386), (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 335–43; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 190–2, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 216–19).

For Joan previously asking to be taken to the pope (on 17 March and 2 May), see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 176, 343 (quotation from p. 343) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 144, 298; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 113, 176, and, for 17 March, Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 202).

For the executioner waiting with his cart, see the testimony of Guillaume Manchon in 1456: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 425, 427 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 106, 108; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 328, 330).

For the discovery of Joan’s relapse and the visit to her cell on Monday 28 May, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 395–9 (quotation from p. 398) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 344–6; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 196–8, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 220–2); and see discussion of Joan’s distressed state in Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 131–9.

For discussion of Joan’s resumption of male clothing, see Hobbins, Trial, pp. 24–6, and above, pp. 225–6, for the suggestion in 1456 that she might have found herself under threat or coercion, albeit that the stories varied in their detail. Certainly, the fact that men’s clothes were still available to her in her cell suggests that someone had an interest in the possibility of her relapse.

For the hearing of Tuesday 29 May, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 399–408 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 346–53; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 198–9).

For the visit to Joan’s cell on the morning of Wednesday 30 May, see the witness statements compiled on 7 June in Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 416–22 (quotation from p. 418) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 362–8; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 204–9). Many historians have been reluctant to accept the evidence contained in these statements, on the grounds that they were recorded eight days after the event and not signed by the notaries. Larissa Juliet Taylor, for example, mentions them only in an endnote, to say that ‘additions to the trial transcript were made on June 7 but not signed by the trial notaries, including a falsified confession’ (her emphasis, Virgin Warrior, p. 236n). However, this is an endnote appended to a part of Taylor’s text entirely derived from witness statements given twenty-five years after the event, in the context of a no less politicised inquiry than that of 1431. The absence of the notaries’ signatures can straightforwardly be explained by the fact that they were not there to witness the meeting of 30 May; and they were not there to witness it because, in the terms by which the trial was conducted, this was a pastoral visit concerned with saving Joan’s soul, not a judicial one, since the fate of her body was already decided. Certainly, the judges and the English had an interest in Joan being seen to renounce her claims, and the fact that these statements were taken down and added to the trial transcript is undoubtedly significant, but if their account of Joan’s words were wholly falsified – a suggestion for which there is no evidence – it is hard not to believe that the confession put into her mouth would have been, on the one hand, more fulsome and dramatic, and, on the other, less psychologically detailed and convincing. As a whole, the description of Joan on her last morning derived from these testimonies seems to me to be consistent with the distress evident in her last formal interview on 28 May. It presents a psychologically plausible account of her voices and visions: for example, several witnesses at the nullification trial spoke of her love for the ringing of bells (see pp. 234, 238). It also presents a plausible explanation of her story of her ‘sign’ as an angel presenting a golden crown to the king – something which has not become a part of her myth in the same way as the communication she claimed with Saints Catherine, Margaret and Michael, precisely because it seems to strain credulity too far. Joan’s acknowledgement of error also helps to explain why she was allowed that morning to make confession and take communion, an unusual privilege for a relapsed heretic. I see no reason not to take the evidence recorded on 7 June as seriously, and carefully, as the rest of the evidence from the two trials. See discussion in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 12–13; Sullivan, Interrogation, pp. 71–81, 139–48.

For the official transcript of Joan’s final sentencing on 30 May, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 408–14 (quotation from p. 410) (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 353–60; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 199–202, and Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 222–4).

For the cap Joan wore to the stake, see the journal of Clément de Fauquembergue in Quicherat, Procès, IV, p. 459, and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 228.

For the English soldiers, and Joan saying the name of Jesus amid the flames, see, for example, testimony given in 1450: Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 38–9 (Isambard de la Pierre), 44–5 (Martin Lavenu), 51 (Guillaume Manchon), 56 (Jean Massieu).

11: THOSE WHO CALLED THEMSELVES FRENCHMEN

For Bedford’s move to Paris and the convoy of supplies, see Journal, pp. 261–2 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 255–6); J. Stevenson (ed.), Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Wars of the English in France, II, part II (London, 1864), pp. 424–6.

For Bedford on campaign, see Ramsay, Lancaster and York, p. 431.

For Henry VI’s letters to the emperor and to the lords and cities of France, see Tisset, Condamnation, I, pp. 423–30 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 368–76; English in Hobbins, Trial, pp. 209–11, and second letter in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 225–8). Griffiths suggests (Reign of King Henry VI, p. 220) that the duke of Bedford wrote the text, but that seems unlikely given how little he had to do with the process of the trial, and that he was not in Rouen in June, where the letters were dated.

For Jean Graverent’s sermon in Paris, and the account of Joan’s execution, see Journal, pp. 266–72 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 260–5).

For the writing up of the Latin transcript of the trial, see Hobbins, Trial, pp. 5–6, 8–13. Cauchon addressed the transcript ‘to all who will read the present letters or public instrument’: Tisset, Condamnation, I, p. 1 (trans. French in Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 1; English in Hobbins, Trial, p. 33).

For the letter from Bruges to Venice reporting St Catherine’s words, see Morosini, Chronique, III, pp. 348–57.

For the letter of the archbishop of Reims, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 168–9, and above, p. 160.

For comment and information about William the Shepherd collected from the Parisian journal and the chronicles of Jean Le Févre, Monstrelet, the Berry herald and Jean Chartier, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 169–73.

For the fall of Louviers and Château Gaillard to the English, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 151, 169–70.

For King Henry’s entry into Paris, see Journal, pp. 274–6 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 268–71); F. W. D. Brie (ed.), The Brut, or the Chronicles of England, I (London, 1906), pp. 459–60; Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 2–4; G. L. Thompson, Paris and Its People under English Rule: The Anglo-Burgundian Regime, 1420–1436 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 199–205, 244–6; Curry, ‘“Coronation Expedition”’, p. 49.

For the death of William the Shepherd, as reported by Jean Le Févre, see Quicherat, Procès, V, p. 171.

For the coronation and feast, see Journal, pp. 277–8 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 271–2); Brie (ed.), The Brut, I, pp. 460–1; Monstrelet, Chronique, V pp. 5–6.

For tension at the coronation, and arguments afterwards, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, p. 5; Journal, pp. 277–9 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 271–3).

For decreasing English familiarity with the French language, and the divergence between English pronunciation of French and that of the Parisians, see Thompson, Paris, pp. 214–16.

For Henry VI leaving Paris, and the wintry weather, see Journal, pp. 279–80 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 273–4); Curry, ‘“Coronation Expedition”’, pp. 50–1.

For Philip of Burgundy’s angry letter on the subject of Compiègne, written in November 1430, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 24–5. The duke blamed inadequate funding despite the large sums he had already received and his generous monthly pension from the English king: see pp. 17–18.

Philip was welcomed into Brussels as the new duke of Brabant on 8 October 1430: Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 52.

For Burgundy’s absence from the coronation, see Armstrong, ‘Double Monarchie’, pp. 105–6.

For Burgundian–Armagnac truces sealed in September and December 1431, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 26; Plancher, Histoire générale et particulière de Bourgogne, IV, documents 79, 90, 93; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 442.

For the conspiracies of 1432 and Bedford’s failure at Lagny, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 180–6.

For the death of Anne of Burgundy, see Journal, pp. 289–90 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 282); also Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 44–5. The polyphonic singing – which was ‘most moving’, according to the journal-writer – was a particular skill perfected by English musicians in the early fifteenth century: Harriss, Shaping the Nation, pp. 328–9.

For Albergati as an ‘angel of peace’, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 440.

For English concerns about treaties made during Henry’s minority, see Griffiths, Reign of King Henry VI, p. 192.

For details of the Auxerre conference, and the preceding diplomacy, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 443–52.

‘and they had done nothing …’: Journal, p. 290 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 282–3).

For the marriage of Bedford to Jacquetta de Luxembourg, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 55–6; Armstrong, ‘Double Monarchie’, pp. 108–9; Barker, Conquest, pp. 189–90.

For events at Saint-Omer, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 57–8; Armstrong, ‘Double Monarchie’, p. 109; Barker, Conquest, p. 190.

For Yolande, the treaty with Brittany and rapprochement with Richemont, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 279–84; Cosneau, Connétable, pp. 189–91; Vale, Charles VII, p. 71.

For the coup against La Trémoille, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 297–8; Cosneau, Connétable, pp. 200–1; Chartier, Chronique, I, pp. 170–1.

For the fighting in 1433–4, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 191–2, 196–209.

‘The war grew worse and worse …’ and ‘they might as well have been dead’: Journal, pp. 299–300 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 289–90).

For Bedford’s memorandum of 1434, see H. Nicolas (ed.), Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council of England, IV (London, 1835), pp. 223–4; excerpt in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 239.

For the dreadful winter of 1434–5, see Journal, pp. 302–3 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 292–3); Brie (ed.), The Brut, I, p. 571.

For snow sculptures in Arras, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 67; for ‘la grande Pucelle’ and Joan passing through Arras in 1430, see J. van Herwaarden, ‘The appearance of Joan of Arc’, in J. van Herwaarden (ed.), Joan of Arc: Reality and Myth (Hilversum, 1994), pp. 22–3 and nn.

For the conference at Nevers: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 514–17; Vaughan, Philip the Good, p. 67; Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 107–9.

For the hostility of the Holy Roman Emperor, and his declaration of war on the duke of Burgundy in December 1434, see Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 67–72.

For the congress of Arras, see J. G. Dickinson, The Congress of Arras, 1435 (Oxford, 1955), chs 6 and 7; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, pp. 523–59; Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, pp. 247–52; Vaughan, Philip the Good, pp. 98–101.

For the hangings in the hall of the abbey, see A. de la Taverne, Journal de la paix d’Arras (Paris, 1651), p. 6.

For attendance at the congress, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 132–8 (with Monstrelet’s brave attempts at spelling difficult English surnames and place-names), 150–1; Chartier, Chronique, I, pp. 185–92.

For the warmth of interaction between the Burgundians and Armagnacs, and the unhappiness of the English, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 143–4.

For Suffolk’s release and ransom, see J. Watts, ‘Pole, William de la, first duke of Suffolk (1396–1450)’, ODNB.

For Beaufort’s efforts, including his sweaty conversation, see Taverne, Journal de la paix, p. 71; Harriss, Cardinal Beaufort, p. 251.

For torrential rain when the English left, see Taverne, Journal de la paix, p. 79; for the embroidery on the sleeves of the cardinal’s men, see ‘Le Livre des trahisons de France’ in Chroniques relatives à l’histoire de la Belgique, ed. K. de Lettenhove (Brussels, 1872), p. 210.

For Burgundian justifications for abrogating the treaty of Troyes, see Dickinson, Congress of Arras, pp. 174–7.

Requiem mass for John the Fearless: Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 544.

For Bedford’s death on 14 September, and news reaching Arras, see J. Stratford, ‘John, duke of Bedford (1389–1435)’, ODNB; Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 546.

For the ceremony at Saint-Vaast on 21 September, see Dickinson, Congress of Arras, pp. 179–85; Monstrelet, Chronique, V, p. 183.

For the court at Bourges waiting for news from Arras, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, II, p. 308; for the birth of baby Philip at Tours on 4 February 1436, and the identity of his godfather, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, p. 33.

For the Armagnac campaigns in Normandy and around Paris in late 1435 and early 1436, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 231–8.

For the attempt at defending Paris by the three bishops, see Journal, pp. 312–13 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 300–1); Thompson, Paris, pp. 228–34.

For the entry of the Armagnac forces into Paris, see Journal, pp. 314–18 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 302–6); Thompson, Paris, pp. 235–6.

For Parisian disenchantment by the autumn, see Journal, p. 327 (trans. Parisian Journal, p. 312).

For the king’s entry into Paris, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, pp. 301–7; T. Godefroy (ed.), Le Cérémonial françois (Paris, 1649), pp. 654–8; Journal, pp. 334–6 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 319–20); Vale, Charles VII, pp. 198–201.

For the exhumation of the count of Armagnac, see Monstrelet, Chronique, V, p. 307.

For King Charles’s court remaining in the castles of the Loire, see, for example, Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, pp. 56–7.

For fading English hopes, and new English leaders, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 235, 246–9.

Problems at the French court, including the resistance of 1437 and connections between the écorcheurs and the duke of Bourbon: Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, pp. 41–8.

For the military reforms of November 1439, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, pp. 384–416.

For the revolt of 1440, known as the Praguerie, see Beaucourt, Charles VII, III, pp. 115–42 (‘humility and obedience’, quotation from royal letters patent, pp. 133–4); Vale, Charles VII, pp. 76–82.

For the death of Yolande and the rise of Agnès Sorel, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 91–3.

For Henry VI, see J. Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1996), chs 4 and 5.

For negotiations led by the earl of Suffolk in 1444–5, see Watts, ‘Pole, William de la’, ODNB; Harriss, Shaping the Nation, pp. 576–7; Barker, Conquest, pp. 316–19, 323–37.

For the collapse of the English position and the French advance, see Harriss, Shaping the Nation, pp. 577–83; Barker, Conquest, chs 22–5.

For Cherbourg, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 398–9.

For the text of the letter from the council at Rouen in 1441, see Stevenson (ed.), Letters and Papers, II, part II, pp. 603–7.

For the surrender of the town of Rouen on 16 October, and the surrender of Beaufort in the castle on 29 October, see Barker, Conquest, pp. 390–1.

For the king’s entry into Rouen, see Godefroy (ed.), Le Cérémonial françois, pp. 659–63.

For Joan’s ashes being thrown into the river, see the ‘Chronicle of the Cordeliers’ in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 238.

12: SHE WAS ALL INNOCENCE

‘It seemed to the Greeks an impossible thing’: see Bertrandon de la Broquière, Le Voyage d’outremer, ed. C. Schefer (Paris, 1892) p. 165.

For celebrations on 8 May at Orléans, and the Mystère du siège d’Orléans, see, for example, Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 79–82, 285–99.

For Gilles de Rais and his extravagant expenditure on the play, see E. Bossard, Gilles de Rais, maréchal de France, dit Barbe-Bleue (1404–1440) (Paris, 1886), pp. 94–116; J. Benedetti, Gilles de Rais (London, 1971), pp. 128, 132–3; E. Odio, ‘Gilles de Rais: Hero, Spendthrift, and Psychopathic Child Murderer of the Later Hundred Years War’, in L. J. A. Villalon and D. J. Kagay (eds), The Hundred Years War (Part III): Further Considerations (Leiden/Boston, 2013), pp. 167–8, and, for de Rais’s later career, 170–85.

For all documents relating to the career of ‘Claude des Armoises’, see Quicherat, Procès, V, pp. 321–36 (quotation from the accounts of the town of Orléans, p. 331); Journal, pp. 354–5 (trans. Parisian Journal, pp. 337–8). See also V. de Viriville (trans. and ed.), Procès de condamnation de Jeanne d’Arc (Paris, 1867), pp. lxix–lxxi; and Pernoud,Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, pp. 242–7.

For the king’s letter to Guillaume Bouillé, 15 February 1450, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 33, 35, and English translation in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 259–60.

For Bouillé, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, p. 58.

De la Pierre said ‘the English’ threatened to throw him into the Seine, while Duval named the earl of Warwick: Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 36–7, 46–7.

For testimony concerning English pressure on the trial process, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 36–7 (de la Pierre), 40–1 (Jean Toutmouillé), 42–5 (Lavenu), 46-7 (Duval), 48 (Manchon), 54 (Massieu).

For Manchon’s testimony concerning Loiseleur the spy, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, p. 48. Note that Loiseleur was present among the clerics in many of the hearings at which Joan appeared (see Hobbins, Trial, pp. 57, 63, 70, 77, 178), so that, unless he was in deep disguise when he visited her cell (as was later, rather implausibly, suggested, for which, see pp. 241, 303–4), she must have known that he was involved in the trial process.

‘Farewell! It is done’: Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 42–3. De la Pierre (pp. 36–7) also mentioned this comment, but gave Cauchon’s words as ‘Farewell! Farewell! Be of good cheer. It is done.’

For testimony concerning Joan’s resumption of male clothing, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 36–7 (de la Pierre), 40–1 (Toutmouillé), 44–5 (Lavenu), 54 (Massieu).

For testimony concerning Joan’s death, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 38–9 (de la Pierre), 51 (Manchon), 55–6 (Massieu).

For testimony concerning the executioner, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 38–9 (de la Pierre), 44–5 (Lavenu).

For the testimony of Jean Beaupère, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 56–7.

For Bouillé’s treatise, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 65–119, and, for his keenness to exonerate Joan, pp. 66–9.

For Raoul Roussel, see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, p. 11; Vale, Charles VII, p. 61; Godefroy (ed.), Le Cérémonial françois, pp. 661–3.

For d’Estouteville, his commission from the pope, and reopening the inquiry, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 62–3; Pernoud and Clin, Joan of Arc: Her Story, p. 151.

‘greatly concerns your honour and estate’: Vale, Charles VII, p. 63; Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 260–1.

For Jean Bréhal, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 63–4.

For the articles of accusation drafted in 1452 (first twelve, then twenty-seven), see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 177–9, 191–6 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 167–9, 181–5; the twenty-seven articles trans. English in Pernoud and Clin, Joan of Arc: Her Story, pp. 152–5).

For the witness statements of 1452, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 181–90, 196–244 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 170–9, 185–232).

For de la Pierre’s story of the English soldier, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 224–5 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, p. 212).

For testimony defending the reliability of the trial transcript, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 197, 199 (Nicolas Taquel), 207 (Massieu), 215, 217 (Manchon), 223 (de la Pierre), 228 (Richard de Grouchet), 232–3 (Pierre Miget), 234 (Lavenu), 243 (Jean Fave) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 187–8, 196, 203, 205, 211, 216, 219–20, 222, 231).

For testimony that Joan answered well, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 198 (Taquel), 208 (Massieu), 213 (Guillaume du Désert), 216 (Manchon), 229 (Grouchet), 239 (Thomas Marie), 241 (Riquier) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 187, 197, 201, 204, 217, 227, 229).

For testimony that Cauchon was of the English party (though note that explicit statements to this effect came in response to one of the twelve articles which asked the question explicitly in that form; the twenty-seven articles were worded differently, asking about English threats and pressure, and therefore received more nuanced answers), see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 181 (Manchon), 184 (Miget), 185 (de la Pierre), 189 (Lavenu), 203 (Nicolas de Houppeville), 214 (Manchon again), 221 (de la Pierre again) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 171, 173, 175–6, 178, 192, 203, 209).

For Cauchon standing up to the English cleric at Saint-Ouen, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 200 (Pierre Bouchier), 227 (André Marguerie), 231 (Miget) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 189, 215, 219).

For Nicolas Caval remembering very little, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 211–12 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 199–200).

For Bréhal gathering expert opinions, see Duparc, Nullité, II, ch. 8 (a collection of texts which includes Gerson’s De mirabili victoria and Bouillé’s treatise of 1450).

For Talbot, Castillon, and the English loss of Gascony, see A. J. Pollard, ‘Talbot, John, first earl of Shrewsbury and first earl of Waterford (c.1387–1453)’, ODNB; Harriss, Shaping the Nation, pp. 584–5.

For Roussel’s death, see Tisset, Condamnation, II, p. 422; for d’Estouteville’s appointment as archbishop of Rouen, see Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 263.

Charles as le roi très-victorieux: see Doncoeur and Lanhers (eds), L’Enquête ordonnée par Charles VII, pp. 68–9, for Guillaume Bouillé addressing the king in 1450 as ‘rex victoriosissimus’. See also the inscription on his portrait, plate section.

For the sack of Constantinople, see E. Zachariadou, ‘The Ottoman World’, in Allmand (ed.), New Cambridge Medieval History VII, pp. 824–5.

For Bréhal’s journey to Rome and the papal letter of 1455, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 18–20 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 16–18; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 262–4); Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 264. For the advice of Jean de Montigny that Joan’s family should act as plaintiffs, see Duparc, Nullité, II, p. 312.

For the ceremony of 7 November 1455, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 8–11 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 7–10; Isabelle’s petition in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 264–5).

For Isabelle living at Orléans, see Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 264.

For the crowd gathering, and the family’s discussion with the commissioners, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 11–16 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 10–14).

For the hearing in the episcopal court on 17 November and the commissioners’ decision to proceed, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 16–41 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 14–36).

Appointment of promoter and notaries: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 64–6 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 58–9).

Scrutiny of Manchon’s French minute of the trial and the investigation of 1452: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 67–70 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 61–3).

For the 101 articles, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 111–50 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 103–44).

Most of the articles of inquiry on which the witnesses were to be examined do not survive, apart from those for the investigation in Joan’s home region, for which see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 250–1 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 238–9; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 255–6).

For the older villagers remembering Joan as dutiful and hardworking ‘Jeannette’, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 252–4 (Jean Morel, her godfather, whose comment is on p. 253), 257–8 (Béatrice, widow of Estellin), 259–60 (Jeannette, wife of Thévenin), 261–2 (Jean Moen), 263–4 (Jeannette, widow of Thiesselin), 266–7 (Thévenin le Royer), 267–8 (Jaquier de Saint-Amant), 269 (Bertrand Lacloppe), 270–2 (Perrin Drappier), 278–9 (Gérardin d’Épinal) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 240–2, 245–6, 247–8, 249–50, 251–2, 254–5, 255–6, 257, 258–9, 266–7; Morel and Béatrice in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 267–9).

Hauviette’s memories of Joan as her friend: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 276 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, p. 264).

For the boys teasing Joan, and her kneeling in the fields when she heard the bells, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 277 (Jean Waterin), 280–1 (Simonin Musnier), 287 (Colin, son of Jean Colin) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 265, 268, 275). Her godfather Jean Morel also said that she was teased: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 253 (trans. French in Duparc,Nullité, III, p. 241; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 268).

For the testimony of Perrin Drappier, see Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 271 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, p. 259).

Those who remembered Laxart saying that he had lied to Joan’s father: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 283 (Isabelle, wife of Gérardin), 285 (Mengette, wife of Jean Joyart), 288 (Colin) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 271, 273, 276).

For the testimony of Durand Laxart, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 295–7 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 282–4; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 273–4).

For Catherine and Henri le Royer, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 298, 299–300 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 285, 286–7; Catherine in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 275).

For the testimony of Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 289–92, 304–7 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 276–9, 291–4; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 271–3, 275–7).

For the lack of carnal impulses, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 325 (Bastard), 378 (La Touroulde), 387 (Alençon), 486 (d’Aulon) (all apart from d’Aulon trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 10, 61, 70; the Bastard, Alençon and d’Aulon in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 284, 309, 347). The royal squire Gobert Thibaut said he had heard soldiers who had fought alongside Joan say that, if they did have carnal desires, the feelings went away when they thought of her: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 370 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 54).

‘the secret malady of women’: see the testimony of d’Aulon in Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 486 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 347).

Simon Charles and the call of nature: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 402 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 84).

Joan as an innocent: see the testimony of Marguerite La Touroulde in Duparc, Nullité, I, 378 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 61–2).

Her confidence on the battlefield: see the testimony of Alençon in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 387–8 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 70; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 310).

For her intolerance of swearing in general, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 327 (Gaucourt), 330 (Ricarville), 339 (André Bordes), 340 (Renaude, widow of Huré), 370 (Thibaut), 373 (Simon Beaucroix), 409 (Pierre Milet) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 12, 15, 23, 25, 54, 57, 90; Beaucroix in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 301). Louis de Coutes said she had reproved the duke of Alençon for swearing, and the theologian Seguin Seguin recalled her chastising La Hire: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 367, 473 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 51, 152; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 298, 338).

For Joan chasing women away from the camp, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 367 (Coutes), 373–4 (Beaucroix), 387 (Alençon), 409 (Milet) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 51, 57, 69–70, 90; Coutes, Beaucroix and Alençon in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 298, 302, 309).

For Joan’s sparing appetite: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 327 (Gaucourt), 329 (Ricarville), 364 (Coutes), 408 (Colette, wife of Pierre Milet) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 12, 15, 49, 89; Coutes in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 296).

For Joan refusing to eat stolen food, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 373 (Beaucroix), 396 (Pasquerel) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 57, 78; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 302, 316).

For Joan forbidding plunder and protecting churches, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 330 (Regnauld Thierry), 373 (Beaucroix), 409 (Milet) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 15, 57, 90; Beaucroix in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 302).

For Joan asking her troops to confess their sins: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 338 (Pierre Compaing), 363 (Coutes), 373 (Beaucroix), 391 (Pasquerel) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 23, 47, 57, 73; Coutes and Pasquerel in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 295, 313).

Joan’s pity for those who died without absolution: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 366 (Coutes), 392 (Pasquerel) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 50, 75; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 297, 314).

‘she did God’s work’: Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 402 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 84).

For the Bastard and the miracle of the wind, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 318–19 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 4–5; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 279–80).

For Pasquerel and the miracle of the water, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 391–2 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 74; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 313).

For Alençon’s memory of Joan saving his life, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 384–5 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 67–8; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 307). For the duke’s illness and bitterness by the 1450s, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 159–60.

For Jean Barbin’s memory of the comments of Jean Érault, see Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 375 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, p. 59; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, p. 303). In the surviving text that records Marie Robine’s visions, there is one that speaks of a burning wheel with weapons (for which, see above, p. 72), but no mention of a Maid to come. In other words, the only mention of this version of the prophecy is here, in Barbin’s memory of what Érault had said twenty-five years earlier.

For the Bastard’s memory of Joan asking for the bells to be rung, and her description of her voice, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 323–4 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 8–9; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 283–4).

For Jean d’Aulon’s conversation with Joan about her revelations, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 486–7 (trans. English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 347–8).

For Joan’s conversation with Seguin Seguin, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 471–2 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 150–1; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 337–8).

For Nicolas Caval’s even briefer statement, see Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 451 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 130–1).

For the statement of Jean de Mailly, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 353–5 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 37–9). De Mailly had been a counsellor to King Henry, represented the duke of Burgundy at Arras in 1435 and received King Charles into Noyon in 1443: Tisset, Condamnation, II, pp. 414–15.

For the testimony of Thomas de Courcelles, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 355–9 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 40–4; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 292–4).

For the testimony of Guillaume Manchon, see Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 415–28 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 96–109; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 321–31).

For Loiseleur disguising himself as St Catherine, see the testimony of Pierre Cusquel in Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 451–4 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 131–3). Cusquel was a townsman of Rouen, now in his fifties, who claimed that as a young man he had been brought to meet Joan in her cell twice by the man it seems he then worked for, the master of works at Rouen Castle – visits which, if they took place as he claimed, must have been unsanctioned, and reinforce the sense of Joan’s vulnerability to those who had access to her in the castle. Cusquel’s statement is mostly hearsay, including the far-fetched story about Loiseleur, and gives a sense that he (unlike many of the other witnesses) was thrilled to find himself involved in such significant events, both Joan’s captivity and, now, her rehabilitation. He himself had talked to Joan, he declared, and advised her to speak carefully, since her life was at stake. It is Cusquel who reports that, on the day of Joan’s death – an execution he could not bear to witness, he said, because his heart was so overcome with pity for a woman unjustly condemned – he encountered the king of England’s secretary on his way back from the execution and heard him say ‘We are all undone, for a saint has been burned!’ This is one of the most often cited comments concerning the immediate reaction to Joan’s death, but, in the context of the rest of Cusquel’s testimony, it needs to be treated with caution; certainly, it had grown in the telling since Cusquel testified at the earlier hearing of 1452: Duparc, Nullité, I, pp. 187–8 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, III, pp. 176–9).

For the sentence of nullification of 7 July 1456, see Duparc, Nullité, II, pp. 602–12 (quotations from pp. 608–9) (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 221–30; extract in English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 348–9).

For Charles in the Loire valley, and his health, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 134, 172–3.

For the dauphin’s rebellion and the arrest of the duke of Alençon, see Vale, Charles VII, pp. 154–62, 166–70.

EPILOGUE

For the process of Joan’s canonisation, see H. A. Kelly, ‘Joan of Arc’s Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil’s Advocates’, in Wheeler and Wood (eds), Fresh Verdicts, pp. 205–36; T. Wilson-Smith, Joan of Arc: Maid, Myth and History (Stroud, 2006), pp. 183–4, 196–9; report of Joan’s beatification by F. M. Wyndham in the Tablet, 10 April 1909, http://archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/10th-april-1909/7/the-beatification-of-joan-of-arc-its-history-with-; Warner, Joan of Arc, pp. 259–60.

‘She is a saint’: Wilson-Smith, Joan of Arc, p. 184.

‘Joan of Arc has shone like a new star …’: Wilson-Smith, Joan of Arc, p. 198.

For the comments of Pope Benedict XVI in 2011, captured on film, see http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/multimedia/2011/01/26/st-joan-of-arc-an-inspiration-for-public-service/.

For Joan’s letter to the English, see above, p. 98.

‘Joan is above all the saint of reconciliation …’: Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 277.

For the testimony of Aimon de Macy, see Duparc, Nullité, I, p. 404–6 (trans. French in Duparc, Nullité, IV, pp. 86–8; English in Taylor, Joan of Arc, pp. 319–21).