Quicherat says that to the Count d'Armagnac who had written to her,whether in good faith or bad,to ask which of the three then existent Popes was the real one,she is reported to have answered that she would tell him as soon as the English left her free to do so.But this is a perverted account of what she really did say,and M.Fabre seems to be,like the rest of us,a little confused in his dates:and the documents themselves on which he builds are not of unquestioned authority.These,however,would be but small speck upon the sunshine of her perfect humility and sobriety;if indeed they are to be depended upon as authentic at all.
The day of Jeanne,her time of glory and success,was but a short one --Orleans was delivered on the 8th of May,the coronation of Charles took place on the 17th of July;before the earliest of these dates she had spent nearly two months in an anxious yet hopeful struggle of preparation,before she was permitted to enter upon her career.The time of her discouragement was longer.It was ten months from the day when she rode out of Rheims,the 25th of July,1429,till the 23d of May,1430,when she was taken.She had said after the deliverance of Orleans that she had but a year in which to accomplish her work,and at a later period,Easter,1430,her "voices"told her that "before the St.Jean"she would be in the power of her enemies.Both these statements came true.She rose quickly but fell more slowly,struggling along upon the downward course,unable to carry out what she would,hampered on every hand,and not apparently followed with the same fervour as of old.It is true that the principal cause of all seems to have been the schemes of the Court and the indolence of Charles;but all these hindrances had existed before,and the King and his treacherous advisers had been unwillingly dragged every mile of the way,though every step made had been to Charles's advantage.But now though the course is still one of victory the Maid no longer seems to be either the chief cause or the immediate leader.Perhaps this may be partly due to the fact that little fighting was necessary,town after town yielding to the King,which reduced the part of Jeanne to that of a spectator;but there is a change of atmosphere and tone which seems to point to something more fundamental than this.The historians are very unwilling to acknowledge,except Michelet who does so without hesitation,that she had herself fixed the term of her commission as ending at Rheims;it is certain that she said many things which bear this meaning,and every fact of her after career seems to us to prove it:but it is also true that her conviction wavered,and other sayings indicate a different belief or hope.She did no wrong in following the profession of arms in which she had made so glorious a beginning;she had many gifts and aptitudes for it of which she was not herself at first aware:but she was no longer the Envoy of God.Enough had been done to arouse the old spirit of France,to break the spell of the English supremacy;it was right and fitting that France should do the rest for herself.Perhaps Jeanne was not herself very clear on this point,and after her first statement of it,became less assured.It is not necessary that the servant should know the designs of the master.It did not after all affect her.Her business was to serve God to the best of her power,not to take the management out of His hands.
The army went forth joyously upon its way,directing itself towards Paris.There was a pilgrimage to make,such as the Kings of France were in the habit of making after their coronation;there were pleasant incidents,the submission of a village,the faint resistance,instantly overcome,of a small town,to make the early days pleasant.
Laon and Soissons both surrendered.Senlis and Beauvais received the King's envoys with joy.The independent captains of the army made little circles about,like parties of pleasure,bringing in another and another little stronghold to the allegiance of the King.When he turned aside,taking as he passed through,without as yet any serious deflection,the road rather to the Loire than to Paris,success still attended him.At Chateau-Thierry resistance was expected to give zest to the movement of the forces,but that too yielded at once as the others had done.The dates are very vague and it seems difficult to find any mode of reconciling them.Almost all the historians while accusing the King of foolish dilatoriness and confusion of plans give us a description of the undefended state of Paris at the moment,which a sudden stroke on the part of Charles might have carried with little difficulty,during the absence of all the chiefs from the city and the great terror of the inhabitants;but a comparison of dates shows that the Duke of Bedford re-entered Paris with strong reinforcements on the very day on which Charles left Rheims three days only after his coronation,so that he scarcely seems so much to blame as appears.But the general delay,inefficiency,and hesitation existing at headquarters,naturally lead to mistakes of this kind.
The great point was that Paris itself was by no means disposed to receive the King.Strange as it seems to say so Paris was bitterly,fiercely English at that extraordinary moment,a fact which ought to be taken into account as the most important in the whole matter.There was no answering enthusiasm in the capital of France to form an auxiliary force behind its ramparts and encourage the besiegers outside.The populace perhaps might be indifferent:at the best it had no feeling on the subject;but there was no welcome awaiting the King.
During the time of Bedford's absence the city felt itself to have "no lord"--/ceux de Paris avoit grand peur car nul seigneur n'y avoit/.