Gone Medieval - Trial of Joan of Arc

Episode Date: November 25, 2025

How did a teenage girl stand up to armies, theologians, and kings?Dr. Eleanor Janega is joined by Professor Anne Curry to trace Joan of Arc’s astonishing rise and tragic fall. From leading French forces to facing a ruthless 1431 heresy trial, they uncover the politics, pressure, and defiance that shaped her fate. Joan's defiance, the relentless efforts of her captors to discredit her, and the intricate political machinations at play have all fed into her enduring legacy as a symbol of faith and courage.MOREThe Real Joan of ArcListen on AppleListen on SpotifyJoan of Arc's Signature & Other Medieval MarvelsListen on AppleListen on SpotifyGone Medieval is presented by Dr Eleanor Janega. Audio editor is Amy Haddow, the producer is Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History to watch Eleanor's latest documentary all about Joan of Arc, as well as full access to our library of history documentaries, including Eleanor exploring the medieval apocalypse, medieval winter, the Normans and so much more.Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Dr. Eleanorianica and welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We uncover the greatest mysteries, the gobsmacking details, and the latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the Normans, from kings to popes, to the Crusades. We delve into the rebellions, plots, and murders that tell us who we really were.

And how we got here. The 30th of May 1431. In the marketplace, the crowd gathers early. Merchants and soldiers, priests and peasants, drawn by equal parts of duty, curiosity, and fear. At the center, bound to a wood. stake stands a 19-year-old girl, weeping. Escorted by 800 English soldiers, she has been driven through Rouen streets to the old Market Square. Her feet rest on kindling. Her white linen dress trembles in the wind. This is no ordinary prisoner. She has commanded armies,

crowned a king, defied the English, and claimed to hear the voices of saints. To her captors, she's a heretic, possibly a witch, a dangerous figurehead. To her followers, she is something closer to divine. A compassionate English soldier hastily makes her a wooden cross, which she kisses and places against her heart. The executioner hesitates. Perhaps even he feels the weight of the moment. that what is about to happen will echo far beyond the square, beyond France, into the centuries ahead. The bishop raises his hand.

A prayer is muttered. Joan of Arc lifts her eyes to the sky, her voice rising above the roar. Jesus, Jesus, the flames take. Within moments, the smoke swallows her whole. It's reported that Joan's heart remains intact amid the flames before her ashes are collected and thrown into the sen to prevent the gathering of relics.

Even some of the English soldiers who had mocked her weep at her death, returning from the execution beating their breasts. How did it come to this? How did a teenage peasant girl from Don't Wriman become both savior and sacrifice? Haled as God's message. one year, condemned as his enemy the next. I'm exploring the story of Joan of Arc in an exciting new documentary film, which you can find if you subscribe at history hit.com.

One of my special guests in the film is Professor Anne Currie, the Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at the University of Southampton, and she's joining me today to trace the turbulent path that led Joan of Arc from the battlefield to the pyre. Because the trial of Joan of Arc stands as one of the most important, extraordinary judicial proceedings of the medieval period, meticulously documented in a way that allows us to hear the voice of a peasant girl, facing down the combined might of the English occupation government, the pro-English Church hierarchy,

and the theologians of the University of Paris. What unfolded between January and May 1431 in Rouen was ostensibly a heresy trial, but in reality, it was a calculation. political prosecution designed to discredit both Joan herself and King Charles the 7th, whose coronation she had secured. Yet, despite the outcome, Joan's performance during her interrogation revealed a sharp wit, unwavering courage, and a faith that even her executioners would later struggle to reconcile with their verdict. Professor Curry, welcome to gone medieval. Good morning. It's lovely to have you.

here and talking about, I think, a particularly complex facet of the life of Joan of Arc. I think that this is the sort of thing that everyone sort of thinks that they understand what happens to Joan of Arc after she is captured. But, you know, as historians never tire of saying, it's actually more complex than that. Well, definitely. And of course, the point is that here Joan is meeting not only the might of the Catholic Church, but the intellectual caliber of the Catholic Church, which was considerable. We've got lots of doctors of theology, masters of theology, doctors of canon law, that kind of thing. And there she is up against, if you like, all of these people and very much kind of a lone, a lone voice against them. Exactly. And I mean, it's, I think that it is very, obviously, there's no, there's no getting around it.

It's quite dramatic. But I suppose as good a place as any to start. with something like the trial, is asking why it is that the English and the Burgundians are so interested in sign-lining Joan, because, you know, to a certain extent at this point in time, she's lost a little bit of favor at the court of the French king. You know, she's not exactly in the inner circle in the way that she had been. So what is to be gained by taking her off the playing field? Yeah, well, you've got to look earlier than that. When all of those amazing things happened in the summer of 1429, she managed to get Charles I's 7th crowned as king

and the English and Burgundians lost lots of places. The people who supported the Treaty of Tro and Henry VI, this king of France, was saying, how could this have happened? It can't be God's will, because after all, you know, we've got the kingdom of France. So it must be the will of the devil. It must be by devilish practices. So already in the summer of 1429,

there were things being said about Joan by her enemies essentially, and that didn't go away. That continues really right through 1429. And into 1413, when she's captured, they have the opportunity to follow up all of those things they've been thinking about her as being a heretic and misleading, seducing the people and getting Charles. the seventh crowned by diabolic intervention rather than divine intervention.

So once she's captured on the 23rd of May 1430, they have their big opportunity. And immediately you see letters written by the University of Paris and actually by the Inquisitor of France as well to bring her to or to investigate her, I should say. Now you've brought us to an important point here. Can we talk a little bit about who was at Jones Trout? We've got, poor, poor Joni, you know, we've got a teenage girl. She's kind of dragged in front of some of the highest up members of the church in the region. She's imprisoned at Rouen and sort of brought out, who's she's standing in front of at the time? A very large number of people, and that's what's quite amazing about this. Now, got to be said, of course, why is it in Rouen? Well, it's in Rouen because that's where the young king, Henry VI is. It's also there because although the man who has the right to charge her, to charge her, to try her. That's Pierre Couchon, the Bishop of Beauvais. He hasn't got his diocese of Beauvais anymore. The Chelsea 7th's got it. So he's gone into exile in Normandy and at the end of December he's given by the cathedral chapter at Rouen, a property in Rouen that makes it possible for him to exercise justice, if you

like, as Bishop of Beauvais, the one where she was captured, in Rouen. So that's why he's got authority to have this trial in Rouen. But the bishop is always the most important person in these sorts of heresy trials. Then they have to have alongside him a representative of the inquisitor of France. This is the system set up in the 13th century. And there is Jean Graveron, who in fact is conducting another case in Normandy at this point. So it's his deputy, Jean Lemitra, who is the co-judge with Colchon. And it's interesting because initially Jean-Lameter isn't too sure he's got the right authority. The Middle Ages were just full of debates on this kind of thing. So there's quite a lot of discussion about whether he had the right authority. He was delegated to try in Rouen, because he was

deputy inquisitive for that area, if you like. However, it was the Bishop of Bovae who was conducting a trial. Didn't he have authority alongside the Bishop of Boeuvre? Anyway, that got sorted out with lots of letters and extension. All of these are in the trial records, incidentally, because they wanted to make it absolutely squeaky clean. So we got two judges. Pierre Couchon, the bishop of the diocese where she was captured, and Jean Le Maitre, the deputy inquisitor of France. So technically, they are the judges. But they call on support and advice for a vast number of other people, many of whom are graduates of the University of Paris, most of whom are clergy within Normandy. And that can be, you know, the abbot of Fecon,

for instance, a great religious house on the coast of Upper Normandy. and also cannons of Ruan Cathedral, even a doctor of medicine, who is based at Ruan Cathedral. So there's a vast number of them. In fact, I'm making a database of them at present. And so far, I've got to about 106. So we have a very large number of people involved in this trial. Technically, as I say, they're not the judges, but they're there to give advice. Some of them only pop up once, but some of them are there on several occasions. and on some occasions, Joan was facing then over 60 people in the room.

So I find this incredibly interesting because the University of Paris pretty closely aligned with the English cause in France. And, you know, obviously via the Burgundians. And this is the thing that I think people forget is that it's difficult for us to get our head around the idea that Burgundy is not necessarily French in the way that we think about it in, the modern sense. And you do have this incredible rivalry between the Dukes of Burgundy, who are some of the most wealthy and incredibly powerful people in Europe, and the theoretical French throne and Charles the 7th. And so we tend to say, oh, it's the English when we talk about these things. And it is. I'm not saying that it isn't, but it's sort of the English via the Burgundians. We often, as historians, use the term Anglo-Bagundians. And really what we're saying is anybody who recognizes the Treaty of Troyes of May 1420 that recognized the English as kings of France. All they had to do was wait for Charles X's the 6th. The mad Charles 6th to die, then Henry V would become King of France as he was King of England. And the Treaty said, thence forward, the King of England will always be King of France. So actually we've got Henry the 6th, of course. So,

because Henry the 5th dies too soon. So from 1422, Henry the 6th is king of England after his father's death on the 31st of August 1422, and he's king of France after the death of his grandfather, Charles 6th, on the 14th of October. So by the time of the trial of Joan, Henry the 6th is King of England and France, and he's actually in the castle at Rouen because he's come over. He landed in Calais on the 23rd of October, St. George's Day 1430. So he's in Rua. He's in the same castle as Joan. And of course, that's an aim to give extra authority, if you like, to this. So I think the Burgundians, there of them said to be the Allies, but really they are French. The Duke of Burgundy is a descendant of one of the sons of John the second, king in the middle of the 14th century. So they're really French peers, if you like. However, they, by various means, marriages and that can, and they've got hold of other territories that are not French, including Flanders, for instance,

and otherwise eventually they're going to get hold of Luxembourg, for instance, Brabant, all these sorts of areas in the low countries. So that gives them a kind of extra element in addition to the huge lands they have on the eastern frontier of France as well, in Burgundy, French-Conte, those sorts of areas there. But I think we shouldn't see there was too separate. think they are peers of France who have agreed to accept the Treaty of Troyes and therefore who recognise Henry VI as King of France. I find the entire makeup quite interesting. In my academic research,

I spend a lot of time looking at Bohemians behaving badly and being accused of being accused of heresy, some of whom are let off and some of whom are not. But within that, there is always a lot of talk back and forth about whether or not an unbiased trial can be made within the sphere that they're in. So there's rather a lot of back and forth to the papacy. And whether that is the papacy in Avignon when things are settled or whether or not that's being sent down to Constance. But there is a lot of discussion about whether or not a fair trial can be actually got under particularized circumstances. And that works both ways. Sometimes the people complaining about who they think our heretics think that they're going to get special favor in Prague and then they send them off to Avignon and vice versa, right? So I find it

interesting here and I think not unnotable is all I would say that. I am not saying that the Bishop of Beauvais doesn't have the right to try Joan. But also I think that there is something here where, you know, Joan is just a teenage girl. You know, she doesn't really understand that she can perhaps make a fuss about these sorts of things. I mean, it would be within the realm of possibility to flag these things up because I've seen it done. But, you know, she's just a peasant girl. Yeah, I'll come back to that in a minute,

but it was a legal trial. I mean, there were many other heresy trials in this period. It's just that we know about this one more than anything else. We know so much about it, yeah. Part of because it's overturned in 1456. She's tried again when she's dead. And indeed, she did, towards the end of the trial, say, you know, send to the Pope. Well, of course she did because it's a political trial. She's

supported Charles the 7th. So she's thinking of every possible way of showing that this is a political trial. And but because it's fascinating that Charles has made no effort whatsoever to save her. And that is partly because he's now getting pretty embarrassed by her. And she has said some pretty outrageous things, you know. I mean, the main thing is she hasn't submitted to the church militant, really, and that's really what the colonel of the trial is. Now, is she then the hapless victim, and I've said already about, you know,

more than 100 people involved in the trial, sometimes a wound with 60 or people in it. You just need to read the trial records to say that she put up a pretty good fight. Even on the first day, when they bring her in the 21st of February, you know, they've spent about a month and a half preparing

the ground, and well, then finally she's brought in, and everything was with exhortations to her to accept the church and all of that. And she immediately comes up with, well, I want to say, I want to hear mass before I go. And they say, no, you can't do that because you're in immense clothing. Yeah. She also comes out with, she wants judges assembled from England and France. So she realizes that it's likely that the judges who all support the Treaty of Trout are going to be a tad biased against somebody who's just got Charles the 7th Grand King of

France. Can we talk a little bit about what her state of mind may have been at the time? Because she is in this, you know, really interesting and incredibly precarious position because very much she was dependent on Charles the 7th for her cachet at the very least, you know. And as you say, you know, she comes in, she's wearing her men's clothing still. And I think that there is this tendency, you know, one of the big things that people tend to talk about. in her capture is mistreatment as a part of this. But to me, her showing up still in her men's clothing is kind of evidence of the opposite, actually. Absolutely. Well, also, she's got a haircut short. Now, she was captured in May 1430. We're now in February 1431. There's a lot of haircuts

needed in that time. And so they're actually, you know, the English, before when she's in the hands of the Burgundians, are accepting her. And she must have some servants, if you like, she's not kept in terrible conditions, really. Okay, there is a debate about whether she should be in an ecclesiastical prison guarded by women. But, you know, remember, she tried to escape. And so that's why they could justify keeping her in the castle. And the cell must be big enough to allow, sometimes about 60 people into it to interview her. So she's not kept in very bad conditions, although there's some suggestion being chained up at night, and that again is all to do with the escape. But they do allow her to wear men's clothing. She must have some baggage with her

that would be captured with her. Clearly, she's not got her horses anymore, and she says her brothers have got her treasure and that money. But she is well enough looked after it, because after all, You don't want a dead, Joan. You want a Joan you can try. So I think we've got to sort of bear that in mind. She's seated, for instance, during the trial, and that's explicitly mentioned. So I don't think she is badly treated. And you could say, well, what about the chance of physical assault by her guards? Yes.

And that's claimed towards the end of the whole thing after she's made a confession. But I think that's why they name three guards their. So in a way, they're wanting them to report on each other if anything naughty goes on. So I think we have to assume that she's been very carefully treated by the church, because she's in the hands of the church, remember? She's handed over on the 3rd January to the church. And although this is a trial that can lead to death because if she's found guilty, she should be handed over for execution, The church is keener to save the soul, and there are many, I think there are five exultations, little sermons given to Joan during the trial, in order to try to persuade her to see her the folly of her ways. So it's not like a criminal trial. It's a very different kind of trial.

So when we begin the trial, what's the first things that happen to Joan? Is it the oath taking? Is that how we begin? Yeah, and she's a bit reluctant about that. I mean, she's just difficult, you know, and initially she's a bit reluctant to answer questions. But as time goes on, she gets freer in this. You know, at first she says, I'll only tell you about my home in Dom Rémy and also my journey to France and that. But she does. She won't talk about her voices now, but she does. She can.

In fact, you can almost see that she quite likes talking about. talking about these things because there are matters of great importance and pride to her as well. Now, these trials were a set procedure. They, somebody could be brought to trial by what's called popular repute. It just needed somebody to say, I think that Joan of Arc is a heretic that she's brought to trial. There's plenty of popular repute. You know, they've heard things about what she's done. I mean, you get all that text in 1429.

So she's brought to trial because of popular repute. repute about what she's been doing. So they've first of all got to collect loads of information and so the first two months of the process if you like is actually the collecting of information and that involves sending people to Dom Ramey and Vaucule. So there is evidence that they did get, try to get information whether they got much. Not all that much is said about home life so to speak there. There is some concern about a tree that They all danced around in Dom Ramey, and there were some efforts to feature that as a sort of, you know, a part of sorcery and that kind of. It was not a very, very big element in it.

They're more interested in her voices and her interactions, the supposed angel that brought Charles the Seventhys Crown, that kind of. They're more interested in the political elements of it rather than her home life. Anyway, so they've got the information from Dom Ramey. They then must have collected other information, and then they start to interview. her. So on the 21st of February, you have the first of six public sessions where essentially she's asked questions and then they collect all of that together and then they visit her in her cell and she has another six interrogations in the cells. We've got 12 interrogations and we're now on the 17th of March. So we spent two months collecting information and interviewing

Joan, if you like. So now the trial proper can begin because you are now got all the information you need, and therefore technically she's shown or read a text with all of the charges against her and her replies and things of this sort. So the ordinary trial begins on the 26th of March, as how they decide on that day they're going to proceed to a trial. So in other words, it's right, the director of public prosecutions. He's weighed up the evidence against Joan, and he's decided there is a case to answer, so let's now proceed to a trial. So that's when the trial starts. So we've got the evidence and now Joan is sort of going to be questioned and presented with it. Do you think that asking her to to take oaths before this is kind of an attempt

to force her hand, as it were? No, odds were a very standard procedure in the middle ages when you took up office. You paid an oath as well. Indeed, the offices in this trial pay owes as well. It's really the I should tell the truth The whole truth And love and not the truth That's what the oath is So it's a fundamental element

In a trial I think that that is again Something that people kind of forgot It's like yes this is a religious trial But the church Has trials all the time You know that's what the church is Especially at this point in time

It's a legal body As much as anything else Definitely Definitely And you know They've got experts in civil law there As well as as canon law. Yeah, I mean, these people had conducted trials before. Gautchon had, and certainly the

deputy inquisitor had. Yeah, so, and other people had been involved in heresy trials before. The difference to this one is it is a big political status. But then, so was the trial of the Templars back in the early 14th century that the French king was very keen on in order to get all of their resources. So it's not unique in terms of being a big political trial. So what are the kind of things that they question her about? You know, you've mentioned already there's some questioning about what's happening in Domrami and, you know, the tree and things of this nature. But there's also rather a lot about her visions, is there not? Yes, because there were certain, I mean, the fundamental thing was that the clergy were very special people. Remember, they are anointed, they're made into to clergy or they're tonsured if they monk, things of this. They are set apart, and they're often very well educated as well.

And therefore, they knew the teachings of the church. There were great canonists, canon law existed. There was also a lot of theology about the saints and things of this sort. So what they were checking was whether she followed in her beliefs, the right and proper catechism, if you like, of the Catholic Church. And there were some areas where it looked as though she didn't. For instance, did saints have bought? bodies. And of course, the Canlorn views know they didn't. So there were lots of questions about

what they looked like and kind of could she touch them and things of this sort. But also, there was this central thing about a mission. They believed, you know, that God inspired things. So it wasn't incredible that somebody should be inspired by God to do something. But they didn't, they wanted to test whether Joe really was sent by God because really they didn't like the idea, and this is where the politics comes in, that apparently her God supported Charles the 7th, whereas they're gone supported Henry the 6th. So, you know, I have to say, it gets pretty tricky, but I always say that God wants particular outcomes one way or another, you know. Yeah. See, trial records are fascinating because they kept them in a French minute. She spoke in

French, probably with a kind of Lorraine accent. And you can see in that how, rather like a modern day court case, they would ask her a question and she'd give answers and that sort of thing. And then a couple of days later, they'd sort of seem to ask the same question. Well, that's because every night they checked the transcripts. So two scribed writing it down. They talked to each other and they checked with the judge. They were happy with the record of the trial. And then they sort of had these advisors and the advisor said, oh, I think you could have pushed her a little bit more on, St. Michael. Yeah. And so therefore they asked questions. again about St. Michael. So using the records is problematic or it's time consuming because you've got

to read them all and think, hasn't you already said that? How does she do under questioning? Is she able to kind of sidestep theological traps at all, or is she kind of, you know, at the mercy of these scholars? I think she's quite confident and cheeky. I mean, she is very much inspired by her mission and her own belief. She's constant, really, and I think you've got to praise her for that, but they were a lot cleverer than her in matters of canon law and theology. And so you could say they were laying traps for her. But then, you know, she was quite forthright about the voices and all of that. So I don't think she, she didn't know enough theology to say, well, I shouldn't say that. But then the churchmen are trying to bring her into a realisation

and therefore exhorting her to drop some of these things that are contrary to the matters of faith. And so it's not like a criminal trial today because all the time they are trying to bring her back into right beliefs. Yeah, so okay, they're going to try her, but the whole point really was then to get her to confess that yes, she'd been wrong and she would submit to the judgment of the church. That's what these trials are arraigned at. we it's a quite different goal I suppose you know we're used to the idea

of a prosecution as being that the thing that people wish to achieve is said prosecution whereas even with a heresy trial with the worst possible heretic when you find them guilty of heresy you then hope that they will

then say oh yeah that I shouldn't have said that sorry and I recant you know correct and yeah well And Joan did, of course. I mean, just to take you back to this formal trial and opening at the end of March, by then they'd got a very long, I think there's 70 or so accusations against her. Yeah.

And so she's asked to sort of comment on them. And she, in a way, she sort of confirmed, yes, she'd said that. And then in others, it's not entirely, she said, give me a few days to think about it. So anyway, and eventually they get them down to 12 articles against it. her. And she, again, she knows what those are and she responds to them. Then what they do is send them out for people to comment on them. It's like a public consultation. Well, the University of Paris gets to look at the charges against her and the other clergy and nuance. So there's quite a lot of experts brought into this. And that takes a long time to get the information. But eventually the conclusion is that, yes, this is heresy. You know, people have told us this, and therefore she's brought back in and they start to do the exhortations and say, well, Joan, I'm afraid we found you guilty, yeah, although the formal sentence, I think, isn't till the 24th of May, but essentially April, May, spent refining the articles, getting this external opinion on it from other lawyers and that kind of thing,

and then telling Joan, and she has got the opportunity to say things, but there are many sermons. It must have been a very interesting time for Joan. There she was in her cell often, and somebody comes in and gives her quite a long sermon, you know. You know, you do mention this either. She's in her cell quite often. And at first, when she is put on trial, it's very public, you know, she's out and about. But there is this kind of shift at a point in time isn't there to doing more questioning within her cell. itself. Yeah, well, I think this again is standard practice. They have the six public sessions and the six detailed sessions,

the small group of people asking a more specific questions. There are fewer questions in the cell, and more of them are public. And then later on, there are public sessions. I mean, calculating this is what was interesting. There are 12 private consultations, if you like, in the cell, and 11 public appearances. of Joan. I mean, to me, that's, it's the way they were, they were conducted. Everything was written down. So, you know, we have a full record. As I say, Koshan wanted to have a Bupusay,

a very good process. He didn't want anything to be wrong. And that's why there was a hoo-hara over whether the Deputy Inquisitor had the right to operate, etc., etc. He was coming along to things, but it wasn't formally confirmed for a few weeks that he actually did have the power. They had to check with the Inquisitor of France that he was happy with all of it. So it's as if they're kind of making sure there's going to be no judicial review afterwards because of dodgy practice. What's happening in this particular phase of the questioning? Because it seems to me that it kind of focuses up at this point in time. We have a lot of discussion about whether or not she is.

is submitting to the church militant. And then also, you know, her ongoing desire to wear men's clothing, right? Like, these are two big things for her. And she kind of does some interesting justifications of why she keeps wearing men's clothing. And I know that now, to us, this seems kind of strange because we would sort of say, like, a big deal who really cares about that. But it is an actual pressing matter for medieval people. I think you could say. Yes, because it's banned in the Bible, essentially.

Yeah, she comes out with practical reasons, like when I'm with men and that kind of thing. However, the main problem is she says, my voices told me to do it. Yeah. And so she's doing it because of religious direction, so sweet. And, of course, if they're saying, well, are you sure you've seen these saints, you know, are these really the saints, you're getting bad advice? So, therefore, that becomes, I feel. matter, so to speak, the wearing of the men's clothes. There is a very interesting point to make about this.

I said she was retried after a death 1456 and rehabilitated. Yeah, it's called the trial of nullity conducted by Charles I. They didn't mention the women's clothes at all. So that was a political trial as well. And it's just, you know, yeah, okay, so don't mention the clothes. Don't mention the men's clothes. Yeah, you can see that it's justice. It's a really interesting part of her hagiography, I think, that we see later after she dies.

So, for example, when you see depictions of her in art, they never show her wearing men's clothing. Very rarely. Very rarely. No, I mean, you're right. In the first picture of her, well, a doodle in the edge of the manuscript of the Palermo Paris, recording the siege of Orléon later on her capture, that shows her really. It's very obviously a woman wearing a kind of skirt thing. I think people were a bit scared to, you know, because it was a bad thing, yeah. There wasn't cross-dressing, really, of that occasionally. I think there's some cases in London, but it isn't, and that's all to do with rather kinky prostitution in London.

So it's not a normal thing at all. And the thing about it is it is a permanent manifestation of her sin. to those who are trying, because there she is, dressed in the men's clothes and being interviewed. So they might have thought it was better to let her keep them on, because it's pretty obvious then, you know, from her physical appearance, she was guilty. This is an interesting point too, because, you know, part of her justification for it is that she's saying, well, I'm around men. All right, I'm around men, so I sort of need to dress like a man. And this kind of also plays into, I think, this tension with her being locked up around men. And I do think, as you say, you know, that there is this kind of acknowledgement of this vulnerability,

but it does seem that they're trying to kind of get out in front of it. But there is a vulnerability here to her position. It has some interesting thought, Shana, that, you know, possibly it was better to keep her in men's clothing because then she wouldn't be attracted to the soldiers there and the guards. You know, I mean, actually, there's sort of it's protecting her interest to a certain degree. but the very important thing here is on the 24th of October when the sentence is read to her, she actually confesses and abdures heresy. So she says yes, fair cop, I submit to the church militant,

and she agrees to take off her men's clothes and to put on her women's clothes and to have her head shave because she can't grow it overnight, so she has it shaved at that point. So at that point, therefore the putting on of the women's clothes is sort of in a way the part of the recantation. Can we talk a little bit about the articles of accusation? Because you've mentioned already that initially there are 70. About 70 articles. And, you know, we've got standard sort of heretical things. And we've also got idolatry in there. Well, they threw in everything like, you know, campaigning on saints days and killing a prisoner.

I mean, it's sort of absolutely everything. It's sort of, you know, you know, well, some of those wouldn't stick if you put them in a court case. It seems so trivial, really. So it's not surprising that they reduced them down to 12. And the ones they reduced them down to are very much the theological ones that she claims the saints told her to keep her virginity. Well, how'd think about that? I mean, the church liked people to keep their virginity. It wasn't that. She'd be advised by kind of saints she imagined who were not really the proper saints, if you see what a meaning there. She showed reverence to her voices, again, and bowed down in front of none, all those called sorts of things, which were a bit dodgy, and also one that was kept in, which is quite

interesting, because it's not theological in its own right, is that she tried to commit suicide. That was one of the articles. So when she was in captivity at Boulevard, she had tried to leap from a tower, and of course, suicide was a sin at this time as well. but a lot of it is to do with her prophesying, you know, saying she knew what was going to happen. She knew that Charles was going to, the siege of all the ends would be raised, etc., etc. So this, the church didn't like that kind of thing because that's witchcraft, isn't it, you know, foretelling the future. Yeah, I mean, a very dim view on prophesying that the church takes.

And I see that come up again and again in my work, you know, this desire to prophesy. and the fact that humans can't do that, you know, that's a very important bit. Correct. And also, I mean, you know, whilst you might have an ordained clergyman with a lot of learning who knows certain things, Joe, you know, is a parishioner, if you like, who doesn't. She doesn't have higher knowledge that you need. So a lot of these things, you know, you could say, well, they get out the sort of great book of theology or book of civil law, canon law, rather. and, you know, she couldn't possibly know. I'm sure she knew it was a sin to commit suicide, though. Didn't you ought to try to commit suicide,

and she'd have known it was a sin to wear men's clothing as well. So the were things she kind of would have known. And there were other things they didn't like. She sent out letters in the name of Jesus Mary. You know, she signed Jesus Maria at the top of her letters, and she also put a cross on in the market. So she was almost making them sound as though this is what God had written rather than what Joan had written you like.

So she was assuming powers and rights and things of this sort, which she shouldn't have done. And one in expressions used, particularly in chronicle sources, was that she'd seduce the people by these false, false statements and things have corrupted people by the things she'd said and written. I think these are important and really interesting legal points because there are all of these rules within medieval Christianity. And to be fair, the great majority of them are usually not enforced, you know, things like, you know, working on Saints days, you know, but it sort of takes bringing yourself to the attention of the authorities. You know, there aren't exactly like church police walking around and every, you know, peasant who plows a field.

on some obscure Saints day isn't going to get brought up on it. But, you know, if you come to the attention of the church and you have this sort of prominent position, that's when these things kind of cut the swing in, I suppose. And I think another thing that I'd like to just sort of talk a little bit about is the element of torture, which is a bit of kind of an elephant in the room about this. because when Joan is under the care of the bishops, she is shown the torture chamber in the castle of Ruan. But it doesn't actually get used on her.

No, no. Again, this is set procedure. This, as I say, you wanted a squeaky key process, Couchon, and therefore they go through various stages. And this is in early May. So it's after the shorter articles have been drawn up and they're waiting for the replies from elsewhere. And, you know, she's been exhorted all the time to tell the truth. And they show her the torture.

Is it part of the procedure to sort of emphasize on her the need to tell the truth, really? And there is no torture. As I say, it's a standard procedure. Ditto, the giving of her, you know, she's given a fish, isn't she to eat? by, you know, there's a kind of hard cop, soft cop approach to these people as well. So there's threats, but there's also the sort of trying to inveigle you into trust and that kind of thing. I mean, again, this is nothing specific to Joan. This is how they did it because they wanted to bring this lost soul back into the church, weirdy.

That's what it was all about. I think also, if you are them, if you are the members of the clergy on the 24th of May, you think we've done it, lads. Is she correct? Well, they were very surprised. In fact, they set up this huge event in the cemetery of Saint-Douan, brought her in and all of that kind of thing, and found her guilty, you're more exhortations against her. And they blow me. She said, yeah, you're right. I confess. And I think they were to. taken by surprise, because she'd been pretty forthright before that. She hadn't given any sense that was going to come. And that is perhaps quite a puzzle. I mean, you've got to say, well, because she's a genuine person, that she was genuine, that this, she'd gone through this whole process, heard all these sermons, and decided that, yes, she, in order to become loved by God again,

and within the church, she needed to confess and to abjure. I mean, I think that it's one of the things that it really comes out remarkably clearly in the trial documents is because Jones consistent with the things that she says. Yeah, very much so, which is why, you know, torture is never necessary because it's very clear that she's just saying the same thing. So this U-turn and this saying, oh, yeah, okay, yeah, I'll cop to it, I'll sign a document. Yeah, I'm married. You know, it is, it's actually quite shocking that she does it.

Well, it's surprising whether she is being brought face to face with the prospect of death, because had she not done that, she would have been burned. Yeah. So whether she, I mean, I think there is some suggestion. It was the fear of the flames that she did that for. Okay, well, that's probably true, many heretics there. It's not unique. Others have confessed in this way.

She then, of course, the penalty is imprisonment, which, I mean, okay, I mean, technically, and this is very interesting, in the handing over document of the 3rd of January when she's handed over by the king to the church, there is a clause at the end of that letter that says if she's not found guilty of heresy, she could be handed back to us, to be essentially implying she could be tried for treason, and indeed she could be. Now, what else would have happened? We don't know, do we, because it didn't go there. She did abjure. She was taken back to a cell, had a hair cut, and had women's clothes put on. But we don't know whether they would have then prepared a civil case or criminal case against her, because she was guilty of treason. She deposed the Treaty of Tla. And she'd supported Charles the Seventh. Yes, that was treasonable. And there were many people put to death the treason for that kind of act. But within a few days, days, she's put the men's clothes back on. Four days later, essentially. And that's important, right, because that's one of the things that she's promised to do in order to avoid the formal charge of heresy and execution. No? Not specifically. I mean, the abjuration is general, yeah, but she does take on a woman's clothing and all of that. So, you know, it's expunged. You could argue that yes, she'd done bad things, but now she's abjured. But when they visit her cell on the 28th, four days later, she's wearing men's clothes. Now, as you can imagine, historians have

interpreted this in different ways. For the French patriotic historian, it's clear that the English kind of took her women's clothes away and left the men's ones for her to put on. Yeah, okay, but she could have been naked, couldn't she? She could have said, no, I won't put those on? So I think that's not so likely. we're seeing is that she had men's clothes. They were in her cell, well, they should have stuff in the cell. Maybe they hadn't taken it all away. And although she's wearing women's clothing, she had the stuff there, or they could have been deliberately testing her. I think it's likely, isn't it, really, testing her and seeing whether she would lapse, you know. I mean, that would be a natural thing to do without being very threatening and it's unright. Because she didn't need to take her women's

clothing off, she could have left it on, but she chose, in my opinion, to take off her women's clothing and to put on men's clothing. So she herself decided she'd done the wrong, she'd been wrong in abjuring. So she chooses and we're back to consistency and her great faith in herself and in her god. And we've got to sort of credit her for that, really, that she chooses, she chooses what she's going to do at that point. That's a really important point to me. And I really don't like the interpretation that, you know, her other clothes are taken away because that's not what she says.

You know, that's, that is not the thing that she says about it. She says, oh, actually, I was wrong. I did it because I was afraid. I should have stuck to my guns. Correct. Yeah, she does. Yes. And she really says, I shouldn't have endured.

You know, it's a general thing really there. So we've got to credit her with that. You know, if this idea that she had to put them on because the English had left them there and taken away a women's clothes, what's that say? It's a patriotic thing, though, isn't it? It's the English, you know, the English absolutely terrible

and that kind of thing. Well, I'm a bit unfair, really, because the trial has been conducted entirely by Frenchmen. There are some English present on the 24th, but there aren't a single Englishman. involved in that trial really so. And I think that this is an important point here too, right? Because there is, I think, that as we see, you know, a pattern of attempting to get her to admit she's a heretic and, you know, come back to what they perceive to be as the side of the, the bosom of the church.

They love to say come back to the bosom of the church. But I don't know if there could have been a way of avoiding her execution. because if, you know, she's brought back into alignment with the church, I really don't see, you know, Henry letting it go. No, and they, the church couldn't either. I mean, heretics were burnt. There were some burnt, you know, in the Diocese of Norwich around the same time because of being some Lollards and they either, you know, sort of being found guilty and hadn't had judged and that. So, you know, it was happening. She's not unique in that respect.

So you could say she chooses to die. I don't think there's any evidence is because she doesn't want to be in prison forever and she's young and I don't think again. I mean, she's motivated entirely by her faith, really, and that's what's happening all the time. But, of course, this having happened and also by her saying she heard her voices again, it's not just the men's clothes that she's put on. She's, oh, by the way, I heard my voices again. Yeah. So all of that, the previous four months, if you like, of trial are kind of overthrown, aren't they? Because she'd gone back to what the original charges were, if you like against her. So she's brought out for condemnation in the marketplace at Ruan. And she's handed over again, there are exhortations even at the last minute and that's going to, but she's handed over to the secular arm. Now, one of the dodgy bits is there is, no record of that handing over. Normally, apparently, you would have expected some kind of trial or formalised really because the church can't kill anybody, so it has to get the secular arm

to do so. But the secular arm would always do it because it supported the church in its decisions, so to speak. But there isn't anything. We just know that she was handed over to the bay of Ruat and she was burnt at the stake. But the stake would have been prepared. It was in the you a Marche who weren't sort of thinking, oh well, you never know what's going to happen this 30th of May. No, it was there already because she had already been found guilty. She was going to be handed over and you're not going to waste time, are you going to, so fear.

And that's the first time she's appeared in public in Rouen, incidentally. She's otherwise in the castle all the time. And I think that's another point to bear in mind as to why they'd never consider an ecclesiastical prison for her. that is that they don't then they keep her in the castle all the time the big sessions are in the the roguing room next to the great hall

or that kind of thing and then she's in her cell they never need to show her in Rouen because they would be a little bit worried that there were people who would support John the 7th therefore her so she's not allowed out and she's not processed through

until the 30th of October when she's already been found guilty essentially and they're already preparing her execution I think this is an interesting point because, you know, that possibly there are supporters of Charles the 7th around. But Charles didn't do anything to attempt to rescue her. You know, at this point in time, you know, he very, I think, almost ostentatiously doesn't do anything when she is captured. And, you know, ordinarily someone who is, you know, quite important to the court when you capture them in battle, then you go to the court and you say, ha, ha, have your girl. do you give me money and then and you ransomed them and the entire time Charles declined you know he seems to have no interest in getting her back yeah it doesn't there's no negotiations at all really I think this is quite interesting here because when she's first

captured there are documents that call her prisoner of war so there could technically have been some opportunity however both the Duke of Burgundy and John of Luxembourg who held her were lobbied by the church to hand her over that's what I say you've got got to look before the trial, there's already pressure. There's pressure really in 1429 that she should be investigated by the church. And because the princes at this time and kings were supposed to support the church and the documents, the church kept reminding them about, they were lobbying for her to be handed over to the church already. So I think Charles might have felt that even he couldn't intervene in that. And if the Burgundians weren't prepared to negotiate a

ransom handover there, because the Burgundians, John Luxembourg and others, were trying to get as much money out of this as possible. So I suppose in theory if Charles had come up with a very, very large ransom, maybe, but they did haggle. That's why it took quite a long time. She wasn't handed over to the English till November, so she'd been in Burgundian captivity from the end of 8 November, and they did get quite a decent amount of money out of it. The English had to pay. And what's fascinating there is that the English raise the money by a tax in Normandy. They have to call the estates in Normandy in September, October of 1430, and they raise a tax, part of which is for the Russia, the purchase of the train of Argos.

And she's actually called Pizonia de Gaer, because she's still technically in that category. And she's brought to Rouen, arrived just before Christmas, and then she's handed over to the church in response to another spater letters to hand her over. She's handed over on the 3rd of January. So she's still, if you like, a state prisoner or muttered to the state till the 3rd of January. and that document of 3rd of January is the one that says we hand her over to the church because we're good princes, we support the church, and we want the best for the faith, and then it has the codicil. Oh, by the way, if she's not found guilty, then, you know, we may also try her.

But she would have been guilty of treason, you know, and she would have accepted that as well. So Charles, I think, couldn't do anything. He wasn't approached to do anything, but also he didn't want to do anything because he was realizing there was quite a lot of dirt on Joan. by this time and maybe what would be the advantage to him of getting her back? None, not at all.

He was already, she was already not one of his company anymore. She'd gone off and done her own thing. She hadn't seen him for quite a while. So I think there was no advantage to him in, even if he could have done and I think you've got to look at the practicalities. The Anglo-Bugundians are getting back

some of the land they've lost. There's a big army's being assembled, a big one come from England with the king. So militarily speaking, Charles would have had a greater difficulty in, you know, campaigning. If he'd gone with troops to try to get her, I think that wouldn't have been feasible. So he couldn't help her. And I think he was in two months as to whether he should or not. I think eventually we can argue that Charles does help Joan if you consider the 1456 rehabilitation trial.

So what is it that's brought up that casts doubt on the initial trial at this phase? Yeah. Well, there's several interesting things happen after Jones burning in 1431. There are actually some Anglo-French negotiations and the Burgundians defect to Charles in 1435. There's actually also a false pussel as an imposter. Imposter Joan turns up who is recognized by her brothers. Yeah, and by few other people. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And so it's rather the fashion in the late medieval period. I fear it is. And the war starts to go badly for the English, really, and by the mid-1440s, they decide they've got to come to truth. Yeah. So they're showing they're not going to win. And Charles just waits, and there's supposed to be a meeting between the two kings, but it never happens.

He just waits, and then in 1449, he invades Normandy and gets it back very, very quickly. A couple of years later, he gets back Gaskney very quickly. So, therefore, by 1450, he's in control of Normandy. Very important in this is his reconquest of Ruean, which happens in October, November 1449. Yeah. Because what's in Ruan, well, the trial records are in Ruan, yeah. And he is subject to pressure to do something.

Her mother's still alive, and the town of Orleans has given her mother a place to live and one of her brothers is living in Orleans. So there's a sort of Orleans lobby on Charles to do something about this. Because it's not a trial of rehabilitation. It's what's called a trial of nullity. It's a nullification technically. Anyway, Charles initially kind of says, oh yeah, well, I'll tell you what, let's investigate. Let's find the documents. Let's have the biblical look. And so they start to do this, but he then doesn't do anything, yeah? And they think again in 1452, and there's more pressure on him. So, yeah, let's investigate a bit more.

So it takes quite a long time for him to be persuaded that there should be a, at either pay because he gets consulted on this. I don't think he's under pressure there. But finally, in 1455, they set it up. And it is conducted in a similar way, except they haven't got to interview this time. But they collect a lot of stuff, yeah? They have set questions done,

and they get the answers and they write them down. They sent people off to Orleans to interview folks. They send a few to Paris. They send interviews in Rouen, interviews in Dom Rémy and Volcula. So they collect together a vast amount. There's about 113 people interviewed about this. And they look at all the evidence. So they come to the conclusion based on this evidence that the trial has to be annulled.

That's essentially what happens. It's not, she isn't technically in a way she's not declared she wasn't a herald. She wasn't a heretic. It just said the trial that made her, gave that charge against her, is now annulled. Yeah. So it leaves her in a way in a bit of limbo. And I think that contributes to the fact that it wasn't until 1920 that she was canonized. And I think that it's quite moving that, you know, I like that her mom is still pushing this thing. Correct. You know, and it actually shows us rather a lot about belief at the time. I think that we have a hard time. in, you know, the year of our Lord 2025, getting our heads around the way medieval people really feel about faith. You know, this is something that would be pressing for Joan's mum. She would really feel as though, you know, her daughter had been done a disservice and that her daughter wasn't how. You know, this is something, you know, like legal proceedings from the church have weight, you know. yeah definitely

oh definitely and also I mean you know the point is that the Ark family were God-fearing that comes out in the testimony given by their friends in 1456

455-6 okay you could say well yeah all their friends in Dom Raby are going to say oh Joan yeah yeah she was a real a really pure virtuous girl and very god-fearing but they go further than that

because some of them say one one says some said she was too pious. So actually they're being cheeky about her. They said, oh, that, Joan, well, yeah, what a straight lace woman she was. You could never have it off with her. These are men who are teenagers with her. And they're pretty honest about, you mean that religious nutter who lived in our village, yeah, and went off. And there's a sort of feeling all the time that, yeah, of course they're impressed because they've got to be. But there is a sort of sense that, you know,

when they're talking about the fairy tree, you know, is the courtship tree and that's the thing, and they're dancing around it, and that's the thing. And they say, yeah, I'm not sure Joan ever did dance around it. She sang, though. So, you know, you're getting a picture of Joan as a real God person. She'd found religion. But her mother had as well. Her mother was very influential. In fact, that's thought her mother went off on a big pilgrimage just before Joan set off on her mission. So it's her mother who helps a lot, I think. That's how we understand Jones' religiosity there. So this evidence is all collected together. Incidentally, it should have said that the reason why Charles the 7th was a bit

miffy about the whole thing is that he didn't want it to be seen a political retrial. And so, in fact, the church was telling him, hang on a minute, sire. You know, we can't do this. It'll just look at the you're trying to get one back on the English. So it's her mother who actually petitions the church for, and a brother who petitions the church for a reopening of the case. Yeah, that has to be. And we read from the sources, that was all deliberate.

That was because Charles was told he hadn't to interfere in it. So it's her mother kneeling in Notre Dame, I think it is, and her brother, you know, asking, that the case should be reopened. I find the entire trial so incredibly interesting because since it's so well documented, we're really able to get a picture of Joan as a person. You know, we have so much out of her mouth

about the way that she sees the world. We have so much about, you know, from the teenage boys in her village. You know, we have so much in a way that we really, really don't have about, about most people in the middle ages. You get a real sense of her as a person, I think. I agree. And of course, these trial records for heresy are a very valuable source for the historian. There was Le Hale-Ladoury's work on Montaigneur that was very famous. So, you know, with the heresies in the south of France, the Cathars and all that kind of thing. Because when these people were interviewed and the testimony written down and all that kind of thing, it wasn't just things about the faith that they said. that were interesting, but it was about everyday life.

For instance, in the nullification, her cousin, Duran Laksat, who'd helped her quite a lot, sort of said that, well, she'd come to help my wife who was having a baby. So you get some idea there, don't you, of the teenage Joan. There's another one where I think it's a priest who says that Joan said if I did something, she would bring me some galette. So Joan in the Bake-off, you know, that kind of thing. We're getting a reconstruction of her life. And also, I think quite a bit about her time on campaign, things of this sort.

I mean, when things were going badly in the end of 1430-31, when she wasn't doing terribly well and the King had really cast her off, She was still involved in a few sieges And one of the people Gives testimony saying that He was going very badly But Joan said, oh no, it'll be all right It'll be all right in our pray

And thousands of men will come So it was our eternal optimism I'm about and chowd Because it didn't Nothing again And of course they had to withdraw Yeah Right

Yeah but all the way She thought God would help the French That's the point Or good would help the Valwa The Valois French There's all these little vignettes that you get in these narratives. It's like you would get if you read lots of court cases.

It's like the old Bailey Online project. You've got a lot of really interesting things on crime, but actually there's a lot of sort of circumstantial detail that people give. It was hot that day or that kind of stuff, yeah? So that's what's fascinating about it. I think Jona is just this perpetually interesting figure for all of us, because obviously she loses her life. But, I mean, ultimately, at this point in time, in the 21st century, I think we have to say that she's won the day.

You know, she's triumphed. She's one of the patron saints of France. She's, she is one of the very few household medieval names, you know, and especially a woman from the, I mean, fundamentally, yes, she dies, but she's won. You know, this is a cultural phenomenon at this point. Correct. I mean, the afterlife. of Joan are even fuller than the life. That's what's, uh, and it's what I'm working on putting it all all together there. She's been, and she's a, she's an international heroine. She's known much more

beyond France. She's even a heroine in England as well, inspiring the suffragettes, uh, the, obviously Catholic churches to, to Joan here. There's a manga Joan of Arc. There's, uh, you know, she's inspired modern fashion and all, I, I mean, everything anywhere. is Joan related. The Museum Historial de Jandark in Mouin has a lot of collections of commemorative mugs with Joan on them or paper poems of key rings and or I bought, I bought for my granddaughter a little cuddly toy Joan.

But of course when I looked at the label, it wasn't really her. It was meant to be a male knight, but it has pink bits on it so it looks feminine enough. There we are. So the Joan of Arc industry is huge. I cannot thank you enough, Professor Curry, for coming to chat to me about this. I find the subject endlessly fascinating. It tells us so much not just about Joan, but about the way medieval society ticks, the way that power is handed down.

And there's just so much work still to be done. and I'm so glad that you're doing it. That's right. But I also think it shows that, you know, Jones's a woman and she's a peasant or not, that the idea of the downtrodden, ignorant, silent peasant isn't true. She actually redeems the common person, doesn't she, and shows that someone, you could say,

for a girl from a sort of farming community, not a significant one on the borders of France, she did pretty well. She got a coat of arms. Her family were all ennobled down to the end of the 18th century. She is still claiming that. She did well. She's a good example of social mobility and a career girl in their 15th century, you know.

So I think... I can't say fairer than that. Thank you so, so much for joining us today. It's been an absolute delight. It's a pleasure. Always good to talk about it. Thanks very much, Helena. Bye-bye.

My thanks to Professor Anne Currie and to you for listening to Gone Medieval from History Hit. Remember, you can enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original TV documentaries, including my new film, Joan of Arc, as well as ad-free podcasts by signing up at historyhit.com forward slash subscription. You can follow Gone Medieval on Spotify, where you can leave us comments and suggestions or wherever you get your podcasts. And tell all your friends and family that you've Gone Medieval.

Until next time.