Session Title

Joan of Arc and the Law

Sponsoring Organization(s)

International Joan of Arc Society/Société Internationale de l'étude de Jeanne d'Arc

Organizer Name

Gail Orgelfinger

Organizer Affiliation

Univ. of Maryland-Baltimore County

Presider Name

Bonnie Wheeler

Presider Affiliation

Southern Methodist Univ.

Paper Title 1

Joan of Arc and the "Laws of War"

Presenter 1 Name

Kelly DeVries

Presenter 1 Affiliation

Loyola Univ. Maryland

Paper Title 2

Joan's Miraculous Code: The Miracle Collection at Sainte Catherine de Fierbois

Presenter 2 Name

Catherine Keene

Presenter 2 Affiliation

Southern Methodist Univ.

Paper Title 3

A Juribus Evangelico: Joan of Arc, the Gospels, and Saint Jerome

Presenter 3 Name

Gail Orgelfinger

Paper Title 4

Playing the Devil's Advocate: D'Aubignac and the Legal Rhetoric of Jeanne d'Arc

Presenter 4 Name

Stephanie L. Coker

Presenter 4 Affiliation

Univ. of North Alabama

Start Date

10-5-2018 10:00 AM

Session Location

Bernhard 209

Description

Although Jean Estivet’s preamble to the original 70 Articles of Accusation against Joan of Arc lists a dozen or more “crimes,” ranging from sorcery to schism, sacrilege, apostasy, blasphemy, transvestism, and heresy, the articles themselves are devoid, for the most part, of references to specific laws. Modern indictments employ such language as “all in violation of Title N, United States Code, Section X.” No such system pertained in the fifteenth century, yet Joan’s judges were adamant that she had violated “Canonical Rules” (Article 13), “laws and sanctions of the church” (Article 60), and most expansively, in Article 66, that she deviated from “divine, evangelical, canon, and civil law, contrary to the statutes of general Councils.” The final Twelve Articles are even less explicit about her violation of any category of law, save only the “article of faith ‘One holy Catholic church.’” Once the assessors referred the articles to “doctors and experts in theology and in canon and civil law, to have their advice on them,” the ensuing deliberations at last specify certain of the laws Joan transgressed. As “precedents,” they cite both the Old and New Testaments, the writings of St. Jerome, and the Nicene Creed. “Joan of Arc and the Law,” seeks to understand to what purpose theologians and philosophers evoked specific categories of law both to her detriment and in her favor during both of her trials, including the University of Paris opinions, and the introductory and closing summations.

Gail Orgelfinger

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
May 10th, 10:00 AM

Joan of Arc and the Law

Bernhard 209

Although Jean Estivet’s preamble to the original 70 Articles of Accusation against Joan of Arc lists a dozen or more “crimes,” ranging from sorcery to schism, sacrilege, apostasy, blasphemy, transvestism, and heresy, the articles themselves are devoid, for the most part, of references to specific laws. Modern indictments employ such language as “all in violation of Title N, United States Code, Section X.” No such system pertained in the fifteenth century, yet Joan’s judges were adamant that she had violated “Canonical Rules” (Article 13), “laws and sanctions of the church” (Article 60), and most expansively, in Article 66, that she deviated from “divine, evangelical, canon, and civil law, contrary to the statutes of general Councils.” The final Twelve Articles are even less explicit about her violation of any category of law, save only the “article of faith ‘One holy Catholic church.’” Once the assessors referred the articles to “doctors and experts in theology and in canon and civil law, to have their advice on them,” the ensuing deliberations at last specify certain of the laws Joan transgressed. As “precedents,” they cite both the Old and New Testaments, the writings of St. Jerome, and the Nicene Creed. “Joan of Arc and the Law,” seeks to understand to what purpose theologians and philosophers evoked specific categories of law both to her detriment and in her favor during both of her trials, including the University of Paris opinions, and the introductory and closing summations.

Gail Orgelfinger