The trial of Joan of Arc, a French military leader under Charles VII during the Hundred Years' War, began on 9 January 1431 and ended with her execution on 30 May. The trial is one of the most famous in history, becoming the subject of many books and films.
Joan was captured during the siege of Compiègne in 1430 by Burgundian forces and subsequently sold to their English allies. She was prosecuted by a pro-English ecclesiastical court at Rouen in 1431. The court found her guilty of heresy and she was burned at the stake. The verdict was later nullified at a rehabilitation trial, which was overseen by the inquisitor general Jean Bréhal in 1456. Considered a French national heroine, Joan was declared a saint by the Catholic Church in 1920.
Background and context
In the spring of 1429, acting in obedience to what she said was the command of God, Joan of Arc inspired the Dauphin's armies in a series of military victories which included the lifting of the siege of Orléans and defeat of a large English army at the Battle of Patay, reversing the course of the Hundred Years' War. The Dauphin was crowned a few months later at Reims as Charles VII of France.
Joan, having completed her mission, prepared to return home to Domremy. Before she could go, she was asked by the newly crowned king to continue fighting for France, and she agreed. What was a string of victories before became a series of military setbacks that eventually led to her capture. First, there was a reversal before the gates of Paris in September of that same year. Then, she was captured in May 1430 in the siege of Compiègne by the Burgundian faction led by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, who was allied with the English.
The Burgundians delivered her to the English in exchange for 10,000 francs. King Charles did not attempt to retrieve her. In December of that same year, she was transferred to Rouen, the military headquarters and administrative capital in France of Henry VI of England, and placed on trial for heresy before a Church court headed by pro-English Bishop Pierre Cauchon, in efforts to illegitimize King Charles's crowning.
Documentary record
During the trial in 1431, three notaries headed by Guillaume Manchon independently recorded the proceedings and collated them each day following the trial session. These records were originally written in Middle French but were translated into Latin by Manchon and University of Paris master Thomas de Courcelles about four years after the trial. Five copies were produced, three of which are still in existence.
The lengthy investigations and appellate trial during the 1450s produced additional information about the details and behind-the-scenes activity during the process, since the 115 witnesses questioned during these investigations included many of the clergymen who had served during the trial in 1431. They gave vivid memories of many incidents that are not recorded in the trial transcript, and described how the English government had manipulated the affair.
Jules Quicherat published the first unabridged version of the trial record in the first volume of his five-volume series Procès de condamnation et de réhabilitation de Jeanne d'Arc in Paris in the 1840s. But it was not until 1932 that the first unabridged English translation became available when W.P. Barrett published his Trial of Joan of Arc in New York City.
In prison
The procedures of an Inquisitorial trial called for a preliminary investigation into the life of the suspect. This investigation consisted of the collection of any evidence about the character of the subject, including witness testimony. This could then be followed by an interrogation of the accused, in which they were compelled to provide testimony which could then be used against them in a subsequent trial.
Preliminary inquiry
With the words "Here begin the proceedings in matters of faith against a deceased woman, Joan, commonly known as the Maid", the trial transcript announces the start, on January 9, 1431, of the judicial inquiry into the case of Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc as her name appears at the head of said records).
The first order of business was a preliminary inquiry into Joan's character and habits. An examination as to Joan's virginity was conducted some time prior to January 13, overseen by the Duchess of Bedford (the wife of John, Duke of Bedford, regent in France of the boy-king Henry II of France, VI of England). The Duchess announced that Joan had been found to be a virgin. At the same time, representatives of the judge were sent to Joan's home village of Domrémy and vicinity to inquire further into Joan's life, her habits, and virtue, with several witnesses being interviewed.
The result of these inquiries was that nothing could be found against Joan to support any charges against her. The man who was commissioned to collect testimony, Nicolas Bailly, said that he "had found nothing concerning Joan that he would not have liked to find about his own sister". This angered Cauchon, who was hoping for something he could use against her. He accused Bailly of being "a traitor and a bad man" and refused to pay him his promised salary.
Interrogation
In a letter dated 20 February 1431 sent to the assessors and others summoning them to appear the morning of the following day for the first public interrogation session of Joan, Pierre Cauchon cited the grant of jurisdiction within the city of Rouen by the chapter of the cathedral of Rouen for the purpose of conducting the trial against Joan. Without such a grant, he would have been unable to conduct the hearings as he was not in his native diocese. He also stated that Joan was "vehemently suspected of heresy" and that "rumors of her acts and sayings wounding our faith had notoriously spread." This was the basis for the diffamatio, a necessary requirement for bringing charges against a suspect. He also alluded to the expected absence of the Vice-Inquisitor for Rouen, Jean Le Maistre, whose presence was required by canon law in order to validate the proceedings. One witness in the rehabilitation trial, which was held over 20 years later, stated that Le Maistre had to be threatened to ensure his attendance at the trial. The inquisitor at the rehabilitation trial later declared these points to be violations of the Church's rules.
In response to the summons of Bishop Cauchon on this same date, priest and bailiff Jean Massieu reported that Joan had agreed to appear in court, but she requested that ecclesiastics of the French side be summoned equal in number to those of the English party (as required by the Church's rules), and she asked that she should be allowed to hear Mass. In response, promoter (prosecutor) Jean d'Estivet forbade Joan to attend, citing "especially the impropriety of the garments to which she clung" according to the Trial transcript (Barrett translation). Her soldier's clothing increasingly became an issue as the trial progressed and the tribunal failed to find other grounds for a conviction.
First session: Wednesday, February 21, 1431
After being brought before the court, the proceedings were explained to Joan and an exhortation was delivered to her by Bishop Cauchon, following which she was required to take an oath concerning her testimony.
The court returned to the matter of the oath in subsequent sessions.
She was then asked concerning matters such as her name, her birth, her parents and godparents, her baptism, and her religious upbringing. When she reported that her mother had taught her the standard Catholic prayers—the Pater Noster ("Our Father" or "Lord's Prayer"), Ave Maria ("Hail Mary"), and the Credo ("Apostles' Creed")—Cauchon asked her to recite the Pater Noster. She replied that she would do so only if she were allowed to be heard in Confession.
Finally, reminding her of her previous escape attempts, Joan was admonished against escaping, being told that if she were to do so, she would automatically be convicted of heresy. She rejected this, saying that she had given no oath regarding this matter to anyone and adding, "It is true that I wished and still wish to escape, as is lawful for any captive or prisoner."
Second session: Thursday, February 22, 1431
At this session Jean Lemaitre the Vice-Inquisitor was finally present, after having tried to avoid attendance. He was not present at the following sessions until March 13, and he subsequently spent virtually no time on the case throughout the course of the trial.
After some further sparring over the oath, Joan was questioned about her youth and activities in Domrémy. She replied that she had learned to "spin [wool] and to sew", that she "confessed her sins once a year", sometimes more often, and "received the sacrament of the Eucharist at Easter". The questioning then took a more serious turn as the issue of her visions was taken up.
She stated that at the age of twelve or thirteen, she "had a voice from God to help and guide me", but that at first she "was much afraid". She added that the voice was "seldom heard without a light" and that she "often heard the voice" when she came to France. She then related details of her journey from Domrémy, to Chinon, first applying to Robert de Baudricourt in Vaucouleurs for an escort and leaving that city wearing soldier's attire and equipped with a sword supplied by Baudricourt.
Third session: Saturday, February 24, 1431
Again the session began with skirmishing over the oath, after which Jean Beaupere began with extensive questioning concerning Joan's voices. She was asked, among other things, what she was doing when the voice came to her, where the voice was, if there was any tactile interaction, what it said, etc. Joan reported that she asked the voice for counsel regarding the questioning and was told to "answer boldly and God would comfort [her]". She further stated that she "never found [the voice] to utter two contrary opinions" and she affirmed her belief that "this voice comes from God, and by His command".
Several questions of a theological nature followed, including this one:
The question was a deliberate attempt to entrap her, since the Church's doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace; and yet answering 'no' could also be used against her because the judge could claim she had admitted to being in a state of sin. According to the eyewitnesses, this question elicited a protest from one of the assessors, Jean Lefèvre, who said it was a "grave question" that Joan wasn't required to answer. Cauchon retorted: "It would have been better for you if you had kept your mouth shut!" Joan's response, neatly avoiding the theological trap, left the court "stupefied" according to one of the notaries, Boisguillaume.
She added that if she were in a state of sin, she didn't think these saints would come to her; and she wished everyone could hear them as well as she did. She thought she was about thirteen years old when they came to her for the first time.
From there, the questioning turned again to Joan's childhood in Domremy, with questions about the "Ladies Tree" and the customs surrounding it. The session ended with Joan being asked whether she would wear women's clothing if such were supplied her. She replied: "Give me [a dress] and I will take it and go; otherwise, I am content with this [her male clothes], since it pleases God that I wear it."
Fourth session: Tuesday, February 27, 1431
Again Joan took a limited form of the oath and again Beaupere took the principal lead in the questioning, first turning to the subject of her voices. Joan stated that she had heard the voices many times since the previous session and that they were St. Catherine and St. Margaret, whose voices had guided her for seven years, but that the first time she heard voices (when she was about 13), it was that of St. Michael. She said St. Catherine and St. Margaret appeared to her with "beautiful crowns" on their heads. She refused to answer some of the questions, and referred others to the record of the Poitiers investigation.
There was further questioning about her assumption of soldier's attire to which she responded: "Everything I have done is at God's command." As to her first meeting with Charles VII, she referred the most substantive questions to the records of the Poitiers investigation but did state that the "King had a sign touching on my mission before he believed in me" and that "the clergy of my party [i.e., the Armagnac faction] held that there was nothing but good in my mission".