The relics and swords of Joan of Arc
In 1867, in the attic of one of the Parisian drugstores, several cans of bones were found. The inscriptions on the vessels said: “Remains found on the site of the execution of Joan of Arc, Orleans Virgin.” Yes Yes! The very same Maid of Orleans, who became the head of the French army during the Hundred Years War, won several important victories, crowned the Dauphin of Charles VII, but was captured by Burgundian traitors and burned by the British at the stake in Rouen on May 30, 1431. In any case, this is the official version of the life and death of this most famous French hero.
According to legend, the remains were found at the site of the burning of Joan, accused of heresy and witchcraft. Until recently, there was a version that they were picked up by a certain admirer of Joan of Arc in the place of her execution. Later, Jeanne was rehabilitated, and in 1920 the Catholic Church ranked her as a saint.
The remains were composed of a burned human rib, pieces of blackened wood, a fifteen centimeter piece of cloth and a cat’s thigh bone. The latter should not cause questions: in the Middle Ages in Europe it was customary to throw a black cat into a fire, on which the victim declared a witch was burned.
In the same year, 1867, the remains were transferred to the Archbishop of Tours. The Church recognized them as true, and therefore sacred. In 1909, scientists confirmed that the remains “are highly likely” belong to Jeanne, and until recently they were kept in the museum of Joan of Arc in the Chinon Castle.
The Catholic Church only in 2006 agreed to a scientific study of the remains.
The work was entrusted to the physicians of the University Hospital named after Raymond Poincare in the Parisian suburb of Garsh. The head of the project was Philippe Charlier, a forensic expert, keen on unraveling various historical mysteries.
Jeanne d’Arc had no children, so comparing her DNA with one of her relatives is impossible, – Philippe Charlier immediately noted. “But if we can prove that the bones belong to a nineteen-year-old girl who was burned at the stake, then we can say that we won the jackpot.”
Thus, it was immediately agreed that scientists can not say exactly: “Yes, this is Jeanne.”
A group of eighteen scientists worked for six months. At the same time, some experts have long talked about the fabric of Jeanne’s relics. The main argument of the supporters of this version was: “The remains were not burned; they seem to have been embalmed. ” Philip Group research results
Charlier, who discovered in the remains some anomalies incompatible with the fact of cremation of the human body, only confirmed this hypothesis.
Scientists have used numerous methods of scientific analysis, including spectrometry, electron microscopy and pollen research.
According to Philippe Charlier, the experiments showed that the bones belong to the period between the VI and III centuries BC. e. Radiocarbon analysis also proved the non-authenticity of the relics. His results fully confirmed the presence of embalming products. In addition, it turned out that the relics can be dated between the years 700 and 230 BC. E., which is far enough from the XV century …
The spectrometric picture of the bones turned out to be analogous to that characteristic of the remains of ancient mummies. The cat’s bone was dated by the same length of time and also mummified. Scientists also found in the remains of pine pollen, most likely contained in the resin used by the ancient Egyptians when embalming mummies. In Normandy, in the 15th century, pines did not grow …
The analysis under a microscope showed that the matter, which was wrapped in relics, was made of Egyptian flax. This fabric did not get burnt at all.
I would never have thought that it could be a mummy, “said Philippe Charlier, impressed with the results of his own research. – Some particles were checked using a mass spectrometer, an infrared spectrometer and an optical spectrometer. They confirm that a blackish substance, enveloping bones, is not a product of combustion. Bones are impregnated with an embalming composition containing resins, products of vegetable and mineral origin. In the process of work, I constantly come across burnt human remains. These have nothing to do with them.
Two leading experts-perfumers from the companies Guerlain and Jean Patou – Sylvain Delacourt and Jean-Michel Durieux were also involved in the study. Thanks to their exceptional sense of smell, they had to “identify the smells coming from the mummy, determine which plants could make the balsam, and give a definite direction to our research.”
Experts were asked to sniff relics along with other samples of bones and hair, without naming their origin. As a result, they both distinguished two specific smells in the tank with the so-called “Joan of Arc’s remains”: the smell of “burnt plaster” (gypsum) and vanilla. The smell of plaster could also testify for the authenticity of the remains, since the written testimonies contain information that the victims were placed on high plaster pedestals to be seen from afar. But the smell of vanilla was clearly incompatible with the idea of cremation, as it stands out from the decomposition and decay of tissues, that is, in processes that can not go after burning.
Analysis of the black plaque on the rib and cat’s bone showed that it was formed not as a result of fire, but in the process of embalming using wood tar, bitumen and other chemicals.
But, it would seem, what does the Egyptian mummy have to do with it? And the whole point is that since the Middle Ages to Europe, the mummified remains have been plentifully imported, which the pharmacists used to make medicines.
Philippe Charlier explained that in the Middle Ages and even a little later, powdered mummified remains were used as medical drugs “for the treatment of stomach diseases, prolonged pains and blood diseases.”
According to the scientist, a fake is the work of some nineteenth century pharmacist who gave pieces of the Egyptian mummy for a sacred relic. Why did he need this? This is still a mystery. Most likely, he did it not for the sake of money, but “for religious reasons.”
Perhaps it was necessary in order to speed up the procedure of canonization of Jeanne, – believes Philip Charlier.
First of all, it was struck that Jeanne was sent to the fire with surprising haste, neglecting the strict rules of procedure, usually adopted in the processes of the Inquisition, without seeking the decisions of the secular court. A certain violation was later pointed out by a representative of the Ruan Bailly (head of the judicial administrative district), a certain Laurent Gedon. He was a man who was very authoritative in procedural matters, and he noted:
“The verdict was pronounced, as if Jeanne had been transferred to a secular court. Immediately after the sentencing, she was transferred to the hands of the baili, and although neither the bali nor I, who were right to pronounce the verdict, pronounced it, the executioner immediately took Jeanne and took her to the place where the firewood had already been prepared, there her and burned. ”
Further, Laurent Gedon recalled that in all other cases the perpetrators sentenced by the church court were then forwarded to the court of the baila, so that at the court session he was sentenced by all the rules (the Church itself never pronounced sentences).
Local residents who came to see the execution could not really see the victim, for a powerful cordon of eight hundred soldiers did not admit spectators to the scaffold, and even windows of the nearest houses of power of Rouen were ordered to be closed with wooden shutters.
Eight hundred soldiers in the cordon! Even if this figure is overstated (and court secretary Jean Massie, who leads her, was not always accurate in her assessments), it’s still very much. And the whole soldier acted with an unaccountable moment of rudeness and fussiness.
But even if the soldier were not so numerous, numerous spectators still could not accurately identify the person of the convict, since during the execution it was covered with a hood. At the same time, usually the convicts went to a fire with an open face and a naked head, except for a paper cap smeared with sulphurous composition. This time, the person sentenced to death was completely closed.
Was this only a precautionary measure, connected with fears that at the last moment an attempt will be made to free Zhanna? This is unlikely, because the population of Rouen was on the side of the British. Consequently, the authorities could be only afraid of exposing the fact that the fire was not taken to Jeanne, but some other woman.
Another very strange moment: on the eve of the execution, the convict was not sobor, and in the 14th and 15th centuries no one was released from this, and criminals first of all.
Let us also explain this fact. Sacrament, or anointing, is the sacrament, in which, when anointed with severe pain or condemned by consecrated oil, Divine Grace is called upon him to save him from bodily and spiritual ills. The sacrament is called a sobor, because several priests gather for it, although it can be done by one priest if necessary.
Soborovanie was mandatory for criminals convicted to execution, for before death, a person had to get rid of the burden of sins. If anyone escaped from the unction, they are innocent children and those who led a righteous life, although the latter could also have had some “minor” sins, which they simply forgot about in confession.
When the execution was completed, the crowd was asked to make sure that the heretic Jeanne was dead. Those who really wanted could see the charred corpse, but whose it was, Jeanne or someone else, it was absolutely impossible to say.
As we see, there was a seal of mystery and some strange indistinction at this execution: the procedures were carried out with obvious violations, nobody was seen executed, everything was done hastily, one might even say, clumsily. When, twenty-five years after the execution, Jeanne’s rehabilitation began, it turned out that none of the representatives of the judiciary could bear any verdict against the Orleans. In addition, none of the participants in the court could accurately describe how the trial and execution took place: some reported that they had seen nothing, others that they did not remember anything, and still others that they had left Rouen long before the execution. And even the date of the execution was not quite accurate: contemporaries and historians called not only on May 30, but also on June 14, and in July, and sometimes in February, 1432 (in any case, the English chroniclers Willly Caxton and Polidor Virgilius assert) .
From all that has been said, we can draw only one conclusion: in the Old Market Square, it was not Jeanne d’Arc that was executed, but a frontman who had nothing to do with her. And this should not be noticed not only by the numerous spectators, but also by the participants in the execution.
“Jeanne’s appearance in La Grange-os-Orm, which is near Metz, did not pass unnoticed. In Orleans, this news produced the effect of a bomb that exploded. ”
Eventually, in July 1439, that is, eight years after her “execution”, Jeanne appeared in Orleans. This appearance was preceded by some events, which I would like to dwell on in greater detail, for they undoubtedly confirm the fact of its “miraculous salvation”.
First and foremost, it is an indisputable fact that in the counting book of the Orleans Fortress (and this is a very serious, as it were now said, “expense document”, where all the expenditures made by the city authorities were recorded), an entry was found for the issuance on August 9, 1436, of forty-eight sous (that is, about one hundred and twenty francs) to a certain Jean du Lis. As we know, Jean du Lis is one of Jeanne’s “brothers” from Domremi. And these one hundred and twenty francs were paid to him for the delivery of letters from Jeanne.
In the book “The Truth About Joan of Arc” it is noted:
“Jean du Lis, brother of the Virgin, went to the Loire to inform the king who was in Losch, about the return of his sister.”
Incidentally, this very interesting phrase “apopseg le retour de sa sécur” in it may also mean “the return of his sister (in the sense of Jean-du-Lis)”, or maybe “the return of his sister (in the sense of King Charles VII)” .
In addition, a record was found that the same Jean Malysh from Domremi arrived in Orléans with letters from Jeanne. He was given a formal reception, after which he went to King Charles VII in Losch, a small town about a hundred and twenty kilometers southwest of Orleans. On August 21, he returned from Los to Orleans and began to complain that he had not been given a hundred livres, which the king ordered him to give. Heartbreaking Orleans, grateful for the wonderful news about their heroine, collected and handed him twelve livres.
Let’s notice, in many modern sources the above sums are given in francs. This is completely wrong. One so-called Tournaire livre was equal to forty francs. Thus, Jean Malysh received not twelve, but four hundred and eighty francs.
All these events date from August 1436. The authenticity of the entries in the Orleans account book is unquestionable, and they once again prove that Zhanna, allegedly burned on May 30, 1431, was at that moment alive and unharmed.
An interesting fact confirming the rescue of Joan from the bonfire is given by the historian Robert Ambelain: after her visit to Orléans, that is, from August 1439, the city ceased annual mass for the repose of the soul of the one who was believed to have died in Rouen.
If you do not know that Jeanne has escaped execution, then this, of course, may seem incredible. But public opinion, which is said to be formed not by the most wise but by the most talkative, willingly allowed the new life of the French heroine right after the trial and execution, which received the widest publicity. However, such reactions easily fit into the framework of traditional superstition. The people do not perceive the death of their idols and willingly create legends about their new life already on the very day of their death. Is it necessary to enumerate numerous cases when people’s rumor revived even those whose death was reliably ascertained, as well as impostors who used this faith and declared themselves miraculously saved? Some examples of Napoleon, allegedly fleeing St. Helena on a miniature submarine “Nautilus”, and a certain Karl-Wilhelm Naundorf, unsuccessfully posing as a miracle survivor from the prison of Louis XVII, son of the executed Louis XVI, is enough.
Yes, public opinion is, as Napoleon said, a public wench. But, even being tuned in this way, one can not help admitting even more extraordinary the following fact: in July 1439, that is, more than eight years after the official death of Jeanne, she personally went to Orleans.
Jeanne, and she was now called Madame de Armoise, was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of citizens, among whom were many people who knew their heroine well since the time of the famous siege. Historical chronicles leave no doubt that Jeanne de Armaise Orleans unconditionally took for the Orleans Virgin. Moreover, the account book clearly states that on August 1, 1439, Jeanne was presented with a large sum of money (two hundred and ten livres, or eight thousand four hundred francs) with the formulation “for the good that she rendered to the city during the siege.”
In the counting book of Orleans, a ceremonial dinner was also reflected, to which Jeanne was invited by two wealthy townspeople Jean Luillier and Tevannon de Bourges. There she was given all the honors, signs of attention and respect.
As in Metz, in Orleans, Jeanne was recognized not only by ordinary citizens, but also by noblemen who knew the Virgin well since the siege.
In 1439 a certain impostor used it. Well, there were plenty of impostors in history. Besides, how in those distant times was it possible to distinguish a true Virgo from a false Virgin? After all, no press, no television, no photos then, and the appearance of the real Jeanne in France really no one knew …
With France – it is clear, but what about Orleans, where Jeanne in the face remembered literally every inhabitant, not to mention her immediate associates? After all, they would immediately notice the substitution, especially since Zhanna was not at all hiding, but, on the contrary, took an active part in numerous social gatherings arranged in her honor.
Do we have the right, having such evidence, to call into question the conclusion that the Jeanne de Armoise who arrived in Orléans was a true Orleans
A virgin? Do we have the right to challenge this conclusion without giving any reasons explaining what prompted all these people to participate in collective hoaxes or why and how they were misled?
The French historian and academician Gerard Pem claims that he found very important evidence. Until now, it was believed that Jeanne’s adopted mother Izabella Roma came to Orleans only in July 1440, that is, a year after the appearance of a woman allegedly pretending to be her daughter. However, in the list of city expenses from March 6, 1440, there is a note on the payment of two persons for the maintenance and treatment of Isabella from July 7 to August 31. Here speech obviously can go only about 1439 year.
There is also a record of the payment of the pension established by the city of Isabella Roma in September, October and November 1439. If the authenticity of these records is not questioned, they testify that since birth, the woman who raised Jeanne was in Orleans at the time when Jeanne de Armois was solemnly received there. It is difficult to imagine the reasons why Isabella Roma would need to participate in the deception.
Gerard Pem also gives a number of indirect evidence that during the stay of Joan of Armuaz in Orleans, the city itself was visited by King Charles VII himself. The highest state person could not but know personally the legendary heroine of his country and also his sister. Would it have wasted time to meet with some adventurer or impostor?
According to the testimony of the chamberlain of King Guillaume Gouffier, during this meeting Charles VII said:
“Virgin, my dear, welcome, you have successfully returned, in the name of the Lord, who knows the secret that is between you and me.”
During this meeting, Jean Bastard, Jean Rabato, Archbishop of Vienne (he had Zhanna lived during the “check-up” in Poitiers), and many other people who knew Jeanne well, and jhhkto of them did not doubt that it was she.
It should be noted that Jeanne’s appearance was described. In particular, specific signs were known which at that time (in the absence of plastic surgery) it was extremely difficult to copy: the dark birthmark behind the ear, the scars – the traces of wounds – in certain places of the body (the Virgin was several times wounded in the neck and shoulder, later – in the thigh, this should have left scars, which are hardly possible to forge).
Hospitality offered by Jeanne de Armoise in Orleans allows only three interpretations: it could be an involuntary mistake or the result of a collective hallucination, it could be a conscious collective complicity in falsification, and, finally, Jeanne de Armoise could indeed be saved from execution by Jeanne.
The mistake of Jeanne’s adoptive brothers is unlikely. The conclusion to Pernu that they expected “to use this adventurer to solicit money from the king and try to enrich himself at her expense” is just a simple assumption. The argument that, for example, Brother Pierre, seized together with Jeanne in Compiègne and for a long time held captive by the English, received a reward from the Duke of Orleans, does not say anything at all, except that the former prisoner was compensated for the moral and material damage.
Another important thing: immediately after her appearance in Lorraine, Jeanne hurried to contact people who knew her from birth. On the part of the impostor, this would be an unnecessarily bold step, unless one assumes that it was not made as a result of a preliminary agreement, which, however, there is no evidence. As for the numerous inhabitants of Orleans, it is generally difficult for them to find motives for complicity in deception.
In his book “Was Joan of Arc Burned?” Jean Grimaud concludes:
“The attitude of Robert de Armoise and all his relatives, well known in Lorraine, the gifts given to the brothers du Lys, the high honors they were awarded, and the impossibility of mass hallucination among the inhabitants of Orleans – all these indisputable facts completely refute the point of view of those who believe Jeanne de Armoise is an impostor. Chronicle of the Rector of the Church of Saint-Thibault, archives of the Orleans Fortress, notarized papers – all this is a single and unbreakable proof of the authenticity of her personality; all this more than outweighs any assumptions based on probability. ”
But, as you know, for every hypothesis there is always a counter-hypothesis. Against the book of Jean Grimaud and his followers, newspapers and magazines immediately began to appear articles of numerous supporters of the official version of the story of Joan of Arc. Most actively protested Maurice Garson, Philip Erlange, Charles Samaran and, of course, the acknowledged leader of the traditionalists, Rezhin Pernu.
Probably, all those whose opinion differs from the generally accepted one …
it was an attempt to complete, it might be said, a nationwide “restoration” of Joan of Arc.
A number of documents have now been found, the authenticity of which is indisputable, through which, according to a number of indirect evidence, it is possible to calculate Jeanne’s life after
The relics and swords of Joan of Arc
The Bronze Orleans Virgin, standing on a cathedral square near the famous Reims cathedral, is not accustomed to losing its weapons. Prior to this Jeanne was disarmed four more times, for some reason, always in June. Before, the authorities reconciled themselves to the arbitrariness of the vandals and melted a new sword. Incidentally, the form for sword smashing cost the local mayor’s office almost 12 Euros, and all subsequent bronze copies – at 5,000-6,500 euros each.
Any relics, even imaginary, always cause to themselves an inadequate attitude of the people. The sword of Joan of Arc, even made at the end of the XIX century, in this sense is not an exception.
Famous historians Regin Pernou and Marie Veronique Clén claim:
“Are there really any relics of Joan of Arc?” Often mentioned sword, located in Dijon, which engraved the name of Charles VII, the name of the city of Vaucouleur, as well as the arms of France and Orleans. Careful research led to the conclusion that this sword was made in the XVI century by members of the league, in which the real cult of Jeanne reigned. ”