IV

THE FALSE JEANNE D'ARC.

WHO that ever saw Jeanne d'Arc could mistake her for another woman? No portrait of the Maid was painted from the life, but we know the light perfect figure, the black hair cut short like a soldier's, and we can imagine the face of her, who, says young Laval, writing to his mother after his first meeting with the deliverer of France, seemed a thing all divine.' Yet even two of her own brothers certainly recognised another girl as the Maid, five years after her death by fire. It is equally certain that, eight years after the martyrdom of Jeanne, an impostor dwelt for several days in Orleans, and was there publicly regarded as the heroine who raised the siege in 1429. Her family accepted the impostor for sixteen years. These facts rest on undoubted evidence.

To unravel the threads of the story is a task very difficult. My table is strewn with pamphlets, papers, genealogies, essays; the authors taking opposite sides as to the question, Was Jeanne d'Arc burned at Rouen on May 30, 1431? Unluckily

even the most exact historians (yea, even M. Quicherat, the editor of the five volumes of documents and notices about the Maid) (1841-1849) make slips in dates, where dates are all important. It would add confusion if we dwelt on these errors, or on the bias of the various disputants.

Not a word was said at the Trial of Rehabilitation in 1452-1456 about the supposed survival of the Maid. But there are indications of the inevitable popular belief that she was not burned. Long after the fall of Khartoum, rumours of the escape of Charles Gordon were current; even in our own day people are loth to believe that their hero has perished. Like Arthur he will come again, and from Arthur to James IV. of Scotland, from James IV. to the Duke of Monmouth, or the son of Louis XVI., the populace believes and hopes that its darling has not perished. We destroyed the Mahdi's body to nullify such a belief, or to prevent worship at his tomb. In the same way, at Rouen, when the Maid was dead, as the English feared that she might be said to have escaped, they bade the executioner rake back the fire somewhat that the bystanders might see her dead.' An account of a similar precaution, the fire drawn back after the Maid's robes were burned away, is given in brutal detail by the contemporary

ן

1 Quicherat, iii. p. 191. These lines are not in MS. 5970. M. Save, in Jehanne des Armoises, Pucelle d'Orléans, p. 6 (Nancy, 1893), interpolates, in italics, words of his own into his translation of this text, which improve the force of his argument!

wener

diarist (who was not present), the Bourgeois de Paris.1

In spite of all this, the populace, as reflected in several chronicles, was uncertain that Jeanne had died. A manuscript in the British Museum says: At last they burned her, or another woman like her, on which point many persons are, and have been, of different opinions.''

This hopeful rumour of the Maid's escape was certain to arise, populus vult decipi.

Now we reach a point at which we may well doubt how to array the evidence. But probably the best plan is first to give the testimony of undoubted public documents from the Treasury Accounts of the town of Orleans. In that loyal city the day of the Maid's death had been duly celebrated by religious services; the Orleanese had indulged in no illusions. None the less on August 9, 1436, the good town pays its pursuivant, Fleurde-lys, because he had brought letters to the town from Jehanne la Pucelle'! On August 21 money is paid to 'Jehan du Lys, brother of Jehanne la Pucelle,' because he has visited the King, Charles VII., is returning to his sister, the Maid, and is in want of cash, as the King's order given to him was not fully honoured. On October 18 another pursuivant is paid for a mission

6

1 Quicherat, iv. P. 471.

2 Save, p. 7, citing Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, ii., Second Series.

occupying six weeks. He has visited the Maid at Arlon in Luxembourg, and carried letters from her to the King at Loches on the Loire. Earlier, in August, a messenger brought letters from the Maid, and went on to Guillaume Belier, bailiff of Troyes, in whose house the real Maid had lodged, at Chinon, in the dawn of her mission, March 1429. Thus the impostor was dealing, by letters, with some of the people who knew the Maid best, and was freely accepted by her brother Jehan.1

For three years the account-books of Orleans are silent about this strange Pucelle. Orleans has not seen her, but has had Jeanne's brother's word for her reappearance, and the word, probably, of the pursuivants sent to her. Jeanne's annual funeral services are therefore discontinued.

Mention of her in the accounts again appears on July 18, 1439. Money is now paid to Jaquet Leprestre for ten pints and a chopine of wine given to Dame Jehanne des Armoises. On the 29th, 30th, and on August 1, when she left the town, entries of payments for quantities of wine and food for Jehanne des Armoises occur, and she is given 210 livres after deliberation with the town council,' for the good that she did to the said town during the siege of 1429.'

6

6

The only Jehanne who served Orleans in the siege was Jehanne d'Arc. Here, then, she is, as Jehanne des Armoises, in Orleans for several days 1 Quicherat, v. pp. 326-327.

in 1439, feasted and presented with money by command of the town council. Again she returns and receives 'propine' on September 4.1 The Leprestre who is paid for the wine was he who furnished wine to the real Maid in 1429.

It is undeniable that the people of Orleans must have seen the impostor in 1439, and they ceased to celebrate service on the day of the true Maid's death. Really it seems as if better evidence could not be that Jeanne des Armoises, née Jeanne d'Arc, was alive in 1439. All Orleans knew the Maid, and yet the town council recognised the impostor.

She is again heard of on September 27, 1439, when the town of Tours pays a messenger for carrying to Orleans letters which Jeanne wrote to the King, and also letters from the bailli of Touraine to the King, concerning Jeanne. The real Jeanne could not write, but the impostor, too, may have employed a secretary.2

In June 1441 Charles VII. pardoned, for an escape from prison, one de Siquemville, who, 'two years ago or thereabouts' (1439), was sent by the late Gilles de Raiz, Maréchal de France, to take over the leadership of a commando at Mans, which had hitherto been under une appelée Jehanne, qui se disoit Pucelle.' The phrase 'one styled Jehanne who called herself Pucelle' does

6

2 Quicherat, v. p. 332.