On the topic of Joan’s execution, many articles floating around report that, at the time, it was common practice for the condemned to be “mercifully” strangled before the fire was even started, and that for various reasons this was not the case with Joan. Different articles will paint slightly different variations of the same scenario: sometimes they'll have the executioner tie Joan to the stake so high up that he could no longer strangle her even if he wanted to, other times the fire will be started too early, thus preventing the executioner from strangling Joan in time. Sometimes both. In some versions Joan isn’t even denied a merciful strangulation, but rather a merciful stab through the heart, in what is perhaps a nod to what the Roman centurion Longinus did to Jesus on the cross. There is no doubt all these circumstances have occurred on more than one occasion throughout history, however let’s take a look at the primary sources and find out what exactly is factual and what isn’t.
The Trial records
Here’s what the original Condemnation Trial records say about the executioner and how he interacted with Joan right before she was put to death (the English translation of the original records can be found here):
[...]
She was placed upon a scaffold or platform.
[...]
That’s it. Nothing else is mentioned in regards to how the deed was carried out, which honestly isn’t all that surprising. The registrars, the clergymen tasked with penning the records, acknowledged Joan was placed on the pyre, and after that they focused on recording the sentencing in all its formulaic parts.
No luck with the Condemnation Trial, let’s take a look into other primary sources, the next most important one being the Rehabilitation Trial. From the witness examination records of the first inquiry, which took place in 1449, right out of the gates we get testimonies from seven clergymen, all with various degrees of involvement in the Condemnation Trial. Two of them, one Ysambard de la Pierre and one Martin Ladvenu, both actual eye witnesses, give us the first break in this case. Here’s the relevant bit from de la Pierre’s testimony:
Immediately after the execution, the executioner came to me and to my companion, Brother Martin Ladvenu, stricken and moved with a marvelous repentance and terrible contrition, quite desperate and fearing never to obtain pardon and indulgence from God for what he had done to this holy woman. And the executioner said and affirmed that, notwithstanding the oil, the sulfur, and the charcoal which he had applied to the entrails and heart of the said Jeanne, in no way had he been able to burn them up, nor reduce to cinders either the entrails or the heart, at which he was much astonished, as a most evident miracle.
And here’s Ladvenu’ testimony:
The executioner, about four hours after the burning, said that he had never been so afraid in executing any criminal as in the burning of the Maid, and for many reasons: first, for her great fame and renown; secondly, for the cruel manner of fastening her to the stake for the English had caused a high scaffold to be made of plaster, and, as the said executioner reported, he could not well or easily hasten matters nor reach her, at which he was much vexed and had great compassion for the cruel manner in which she was put to death.
They both explain how the executioner talked to them about how he felt after the execution, and their testimonies match to a tee. Clearly the man was in a great deal of distress, but besides his fear of divine judgement, he specifically criticizes the manner in which the English had set things up: a high scaffold made of plaster, which, as he himself explains, meant he could no longer reach Joan to “hasten matters” once she was up there. While the records don’t clarify any further, in the context of execution by burning at the stake, hastening matters meant killing the condemned before the pyre was lit, usually by strangulation, as an act of mercy.
This is the full extent of what can be found within the transcript of the two trials in regards to this matter. What these accounts tell us is that the executioner did indeed contemplate the possibility of “mercifully” ending Joan’s life in a slightly less horrific way, but ultimately couldn’t. He lamented the way the English made sure Joan had to suffer as much as possible by denying him the chance to “hasten matters”, whatever that implied. This, coupled with the heavy feelings the executioner confessed to the two clergymen, makes it very tempting to imagine this to be the beginning of this man’s redemption arc, but since life is not a movie, nothing could be further from the truth. Geoffroy Thérage, that's the name of the man who lit the pyre beneath Joan’s feet, we know this from eight bills of payment produced for various execution jobs Thérage carried out between 1407 and 1432. These incredible 15th Century documents are preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, the National Library of France, in Paris. We don’t have the receipt for Joan’s execution, but we know by 1431 Thérage had been executing people in and around Rouen for 25 years, and he would keep doing his job after Joan’s death, as proven by the bill dated March 25, 1432, in which Thérage is paid for carrying out a mass execution of 104 French men-at-arms. Chronologically this is also the last time Thérage is mentioned in any document, so either there were more bills that haven’t survived, or he died around that time, or maybe he changed line of work entirely later on. We may never know.
In conclusion, on the day of her execution Joan was placed on a scaffold specifically built “too high”, something the executioner himself, a Frenchman named Geoffroy Thérage, lamented as it had prevented him from granting Joan a merciful death. Thérage went to see two of the clergymen who attended the execution and confessed his remorse. This is the extent of what the primary sources tell us, everything else is conjecture or inference at best. It’s still plenty, as these accounts are both incredibly fascinating and monumentally important.
I wish we had more information on Geoffroy Thérage and what became of him after 1432. Besides being the one who lit the pyre beneath Joan of Arc, the man served as executioner under three different kings: Charles VII of France, Henry V of England, and his son Henry VI. The handful of bills we still have give us such a unique perspective on his life as he executed his merry way through the early 15th Century. Setting all moral judgments aside, Geoffroy Thérage was a man making an honest living by doing his job day in day out, and had no control over who his employers were sending up the scaffold. We don't know what became of him after 1432, but six centuries later all I can say is I hope he got to live the full extent of whatever an executioner from the 15th Century considered to be a happy and peaceful life.
Comentarios