Joan of Arc’s meteoric career. A saint of God as the Armagnacs generally held, or a child of the Devil, a witch, or at best a brazen imposter? Her trial and execution were only the beginning. In the centuries since, the Maid has continued to provoke anger and adoration, skepticism and awe, but has left few indifferent…
In view of this state of opinion, it is not surprising to find that contemporary French chroniclers of Joan’s career, the source upon which all later accounts of her are based, fall as sharply into two camps as did contemporary opinion generally. Joan moves through the chronicles of her own party surrounded from the beginning by a kind of nimbus of miraculous happenings, like the cloud of white butterflies which some thought they saw fluttering about her standard. In the Burgundian accounts, on the other hand, this nimbus becomes a sinister penumbra of suggestion about witchcraft.
The student who approaches these documents for the first time cannot but be immediately struck by their confusions and contradictions. Almost every detail of an event so much discussed in them as the siege of Orleans for instance, is beset with dispute and controversy; in despair, one is tempted to conclude that history, so far from being an exact science, is indeed, as Voltaire called it, “un fable convenue.”
Even when friendly, the chroniclers often give scant details of Joan’s life; to them, she is only one of the actors in a great drama. They were often paid chroniclers, one of them attached to every great baron, as in the case of Perceval de Cagny; so we find one Tringant saying that his master did not spend any money in order to obtain mention in the chronicles and thus was omitted from them.
It wouldd seem that these materials, as dubious as they are copious, must be used with the greatest caution. If we did not have the trial and only these, Joan of Arc would be indeed a vague, half-legendary figure. It is true that even a liar may speak the truth now and then, but its hard to know when he or she does so… ( to be continued) …
(see link at end)…How The Wiccans Try To Hijack Joan of Arc Perhaps the most blatant falsification occurs in the sections on Joan of Arc. They stem from the writings of a quack anthropologist named Margret Murray. Murray lived to be 100 and it is said she claimed to be a witch herself in her final years. She had been initiated into Gerald Gardner’s coven in her final years. It seems claiming to be a Wiccan must have fulfilled some kind of life long fantasy for the old gal. At any rate, it shows she had an axe to grind, which explains why she would falsify her data. Murray’s ridiculous books were published in the 1920′s and became widely read among occultists. Soon, people began forming witch-cults of their own based on Murray’s books. These groups were the forerunners of Gerald Gardner’s Wicca covens. They became a sort of a proto-Wicca.When Murray was finally initiated into Gardner’s nudie (or “skyclad”) coven, it was her delusion coming full circle!
Murray claims Joan of Arc, executed for witchcraft, really was one of these “Dianic witches”. The first problem with this is Joan of Arc wasn’t executed for witchcraft, she was killed for heresy (and even then, it was a trumped up charge). In order to try to link Joan of Arc to witchcraft, Murray made the claim that St. Joan is never recorded as having used the phrase “Our Lord” in the original language of the condemnation trial transcript, and never identified “the King of Heaven” as Jesus Christ. Both of these claims are lies….Read More:http://usminc.org/slanderingjoan.html