The Visions of Joan of Arc

[Quid est Veritas?]

A peasant girl being led by God to free France from English rule. It is a powerful narrative.

But how trustworthy is it?

She claimed to have received visions from Catherine of Alexandria, Margaret of Antioch and Michael the Archangel.

Margaret is supposed to have died under Diocletian after tortures, during which Satan as a dragon swallowed her whole and her crucifix irritated his entrails causing him to vomit her out, amongst other phenomena.
Hers is a highly colourful and fantastic account, which appears very fanciful. To such an extent that Pope Gelasius I declared her apocrychal in 494 and forbade her veneration. Her popularity in the west was only revived by the Crusades.

Now Catherine is first mentioned in the menologium of Basil II, about 600 years after her supposed death. She was supposed to have been a noted scholar and died under Maxentius when she rebuked him for his persecutions after defeating in debate 50 pagan philosophers, while still a young woman.
There is no evidence outside of her hagiographic accounts for her existence and she would appear to be a conflation of a few martyrs with a counterpoint to Hypatia of Alexandria from a christian perspective thrown in. Her historicity is seriously questionable.

So 2 of the three saints are probably fictitious. Not looking good for her visions as such.

Next, what of hallucination? It has been posited that Joan of Arc suffered Temporal Lobe Epilepsy or Tuberculoma or Schizophrenia or Bovine Tuberculoma.

Now Charles VI was very much mad, believing he was made of glass. So the court of his son, the Dauphine Charles (VII) was very wary of madness, yet they accepted Joan. This might just be realpolitik, but I doubt this.
She was very astute, to such an extent that during her heresy trial they closed it off from the public due to her gaining their sympathy. This probably excludes therefore Schizophrenia as she was too high functioning for that.

Tuberculoma is also excluded as such a serious manifestation of tuberculous disease would not be amenable to her active and healthy life. The bovine form is less serious and fits her history as a milkmaid, but even here it is unlikely.

So that leaves temporal lobe epilepsy. This is the strongest medical case, but her narrative doesn't fit this exactly either. Notably Dr J Hughes rejected this diagnosis in a study published in Epilepsy and Behaviour.

So medically, we have come up short as well.

There is no denying her success. Shortly thereafter the English kingdom of France died and Henry VI lost his throne with Burgundian support going over to Charles. But where did her visions come from? From fictitious Saints? Epilepsy? Are they made-up by an intelligent and ambitious young woman as the only way she could raise herself off her station in the mediaeval world with England occupying half her country?
Or are they from God, using the medium of saints she was familiar with, even if of doubtful historicity?

 

[Resha Caner]

We shall never know for sure. All I can say is I have not found good reason to rule out the possibility her visions were real.

 

[ripple the car]

Have wondered about this, too. I have no doubt that she saw and heard something, and from all accounts was calmly firm about what she had seen and heard. Isn't it also kind of true that she was tried as a witch and burned as such by Catholics whose Church would later declare her a Saint and venerate her?

 

[JackRT]

We shall never know for sure. All I can say is I have not found good reason to suggest the possibility her visions were real.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Have wondered about this, too. I have no doubt that she saw and heard something, and from all accounts was calmly firm about what she had seen and heard. Isn't it also kind of true that she was tried as a witch and burned as such by Catholics whose Church would later declare her a Saint and venerate her?

She was tried for heresy, not witchcraft.

The Burgundian faction handed her over to the English, who of course claimed Henry VI to be the lawful king of France, and she was tried by a French court in Rouen under the English 'Kingdom of France'.

She abjured her visions towards the end of the trial and signed a document to this effect. This was just prior to her execution. She recanted her abjuration four days later and was burned as an unrepentant heretic. Because she had abjured and then recanted, she could be tried as a relapsed heretic and burnt as usually heretics had to have returned to their heresy before they could be executed. She had essentially played into her captors' hands.

The verdict of heresy was reversed in 1456, about 25 years later, on appeal by the French Inquisitor General after they had expelled the English, but was widely considered a legitimate trial at the time.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't find Joan of Arc particularly saintly.
She was a warmonger who tried to drive the English out of France and was intent on making war on the Hussites in Bohemia, saying she would see them be Catholic or dead.

The Hundred years war was a perfectly secular affair until she added religion into the mix, a peculiarity seeing that all participants were Catholic and all had legitimate reasons for considering their candidate the King of France.

She doesn't seem to be concerned with things of God like charity or mercy, but sounded a warcry accross France and busied herself with titles, sieges and the Court.
While she supposedly never had a weapon except her banner (doubted in English accounts), she very much tried to be a soldier. She was intent on war and militarism.

She was only sainted in 1920 after she became an icon in the trenches of WWI, in spite of centuries of patronage of the jingoist Catholic league in France. This shows her very nationalistic and militarist bent, with clear religious ideas taking a backseat to the mailed fist.

The visions of Francis of Assisi (or other mystics) I am willing to give a lot of leeway to, but I am very sceptical of Joan's. As the Bible says: You shall know them from their fruits.