Proving Woman (59 page)

Even after weaving this elaborate safety net, Gerson still demurs, instead proceeding to outline certain conditions for establishing
the merit of an object of devotion: that the cult leads to greater piety; that probability is established on the basis of
reliable eyewitnesses; and that the matter is screened by a theologian.
⁸⁰
In other words, his criteria for whether or not Joan’s deed is worthy of veneration closely track those used for the canonization
of saints.
⁸¹
At this juncture, he takes a second opportunity to point to the disagreement among experts regarding matters of piety—vexed
questions such as the conception of the Virgin Mary.

Only now is Gerson prepared to undertake his assessment of Joan’s claims. In brief, he argues that belief in the deed of the
Maid can be maintained by its excellent outcome: the restitution of the kingdom and the repulsion of France’s enemies. Certain
attendant circumstances weigh in her favor: she does not use witchcraft and she takes risks on behalf of a worthy cause.

At this point, Gerson momentarily breaks off his defense to address the many malicious rumors circulating against Joan, answering
with a line from Cato’s
Distichs
to the effect that he need not concern himself with judging what everyone else says.
⁸²
“But,” Gerson continues, “we do have to judge what ought to be believed or upheld, maintaining prudence and pushing contention
and sedition far away for, as the Apostle says, a servant of God does not litigate.” Thus, underlining his function as disinterested
judge, he posits that either these discussions must be tolerated, or the matter should be referred to religious superiors,
as is the case with the canonization of saints. He again takes the opportunity to note that while veneration of particular
cults is not a requirement of the faith, still they ought not to be derided. Indeed, a canonized saint warrants more respect
than his or her popular but unauthorized counterpart.

The apology is again resumed: the Maid has the faith of the king and his council, creates exultation in the people, increases
their piety, and inspires fear in the enemy.
⁸³
Neither she nor her followers are imprudent, willful, or stubborn. They are not tempting God; in fact, the Maid takes her
directions and warnings from God. He likens her to other religious heroines such as Deborah, Saint Catherine, or Judith. Even
if there is no sequel to her initial miraculous success, this does not signify that her achievements were wrought by an evil
spirit: it could well be that France’s own sinfulness aborted God’s goodness. Finally, he concludes with four “civil and theological”
considerations in her favor: the king and his relatives, the French army, the clergy and the laity, and the Maid herself—the
purpose of each being to live well and piously for God. Neither the Maid nor her followers exploit God’s grace through focusing
on “vain curiosities,” worldly gain, or glory. Rather, she displays the grace of God in her selflessness and piety, and her
work for peace in France. He concludes simply: “This deed was done by God.”
⁸⁴

Appended to the treatise proper is an additional threefold defense of Joan’s assumption of masculine garb, the conclusion
of which is especially germane.
⁸⁵
Warning that France’s skeptical ingratitude for Joan’s victory may result in the withdrawal of divine assistance, Gerson ends
with this observation: “For God changes his sentence as a result of a change in merit, even if he does not change his counsel.”
⁸⁶
Such a sentiment also leaves room for Gerson to change his sentence on Joan, yet his advice concerning spiritual discernment
would have remained admirably consistent.

THE LAWS OF INERTIA AND THE EVIL TWIN

In no time at all Gerson’s treatise—redolent of his own latent ambivalence and couched in the tacitly reversible language
of scholasticism—spawned a double condemning Joan. The timing was very tight. Gerson’s treatise proper is dated 14 May 1429—that
is, six days after the successful battle of Orléans and a mere two months before Gerson’s own death. By the end of the summer,
the Anglo-Burgundian party would create its own response to Gerson’s defense.
⁸⁷
Originating at the University of Paris, now solidly pro-English, this is the first piece of evidence indicating the university’s
interest in Joan of Arc. This institutional concern should certainly be construed as a frightening confirmation of the success
of Gerson’s former initiative on discernment. His various treatments of the subject, in addition to his university-sponsored
lectures on mysticism, had fostered a generation of discerning protégés. The anonymous treatise’s full command of its tools
is reflected in the title,
On the Goodandthe Evil Spirit
.
⁸⁸

This tract is a veritable evil twin of Gerson’s work in every sense of the word, not merely of the treatise defending Joan,
but of all his former endeavors on spiritual discernment. Even its most basic strategy, the simple inversion of a defense
into an attack, was one that we have witnessed Gerson employing in his negative recasting of Alphonse of Pecha’s defense
of Bridget of Sweden. The Anglo-Burgundian treatise existed in similar parasitical relation to Gerson’s originary host.

With a view to exploitation, the anonymous author was also quick to comprehend where Gerson had left himself most vulnerable:
the constant recourse to the cult of saints. Throughout his treatise, Gerson had relied on contemporary criteria for canonization
to assess Joan’s achievement, making perceptions of sanctity central to his defense of Joan. While the often reiterated reminder
of the noncompulsory nature of veneration simultaneously softened his claims on her behalf, this position was largely sustained
by his contrasting pious but optional devotion with compulsory adherence to church doctrine. Dissent in the latter category
was inexcusable and “ought finally to be exterminated by iron and fire, according to the ecclesiastical sentences carried
out against heretics. This point can be made with a useful proverb: Fame, faith, and the eye do not suffer tricks.”
⁸⁹

The appeal to contemporary criteria of sanctity and heresy, and the common set of procedures intended to separate the two
poles, were on a continuum with Gerson’s earlier insistence that living teachers be subjected to a “great inquisition.” Even
so, it was a false step. Credence in the divinely inspired nature of Joan’s mission was seemingly inseparable from claims
on behalf of her divine inspiration. By likening faith in Joan’s mission to the pious veneration of saints, Gerson had sprung
the trap that had been anticipated and skirted by canny hagiographers like James of Vitry or Thomas of Cantimpréwho, despite
their intention of creating a category of living saint, dared only to eulogize such women after their demise. Gerson, however,
was leaving Joan insufficiently insulated from charges that she was or believed herself to be worthy of veneration—a level
of hubris that would immediately point to her unworthiness.

The anonymous
On the Good and Evil Spirit
eagerly took up the gauntlet from where Gerson had unfortunately let it drop, at once beginning with an avowed citation of
Gregory IX’s
Decretals
, affirming the solidarity of orthodoxy and condemning superstitious novelties.
⁹⁰
Those who give credence to the claims that the Maid and her mission are divinely inspired are acting without the evidence
of miracles or the testimony of the Scripture, thus willfully contravening canon law, even as the Maid’s claims should lay
her open to suspicions of heresy.
⁹¹
Had she truly been sent by God, she would hardly wear male clothing. Indeed, her defenders’ claims that her male clothing
is dictated by her mission are not only guilty of attempting to defend a sin; they even fail in their exculpatory function,
since many evil things are done under the guise of good. A woman’s assumption of male dress is described as “an unrestrained
opportunity for fornicating and performing manly acts.”
⁹²
Moreover, the true faith would never be party to such a scandal, even if it meant the loss of France to the English.
⁹³

In turning to the alleged benefits produced by the Maid’s deed, the counterattack quickens. The anonymous author claims that
Joan is hardly an agent of peace; hostilities have in fact increased since her appearance, while Joan herself is bellicose
and immoral. God would never have incited her to undertake a battle on the Assumption and the Nativity of the Virgin Mary,
proof that her inspiration was diabolical. More damning still is the allegation that Joan has permitted children to offer
her candles on bended knee, thereby encouraging the sin of idolatry.
⁹⁴
Indeed, the anonymous cleric goes on to argue that already in many regions, actual images of Joan are being venerated as if
she were dead and canonized—an outrage against the faith since no one may be honored as a saint while still living. Nor should
an individual be publicly venerated after death unless already canonized.
⁹⁵
He thus argues that Joan’s position is contrary to the faith, and then proceeds to invoke, by inversion, Gerson’s words twice
in quick succession, pointing to the dire consequences of Joan’s behavior. First, the proverb “Fame, faith, and the eye do
not suffer tricks” is cited. In this instance, however, it is no longer intended to accentuate the distance between noncompulsory
veneration and compulsory articles of the faith, thus removing all necessity from belief in Joan’s mission. Rather, it is
used to demonstrate that Joan, in permitting herself to be worshiped, has crossed a line and become a danger to the faith.
He then reverses Gerson’s contention that the deed of the Maid can be supported, as Gerson put it, “with the piety of the
Catholic faith and sincere devotion,” instead using the same phrase to argue that she moves the simple to disrepect of God,
imperiling their souls and subverting the faith.
⁹⁶
This contention is but-tressed by the demonstration of a link between idolatry and witchcraft:

Likewise . . . she seems to use sorcery . . . when the aforesaid innocents offered the wax candles to her with the aforesaid
veneration, she occasioned three drops of wax from that burning candle to be dropped over the heads of those making the offering,
predicting to them that good would come to them from the virtue of that act, and thus the aforesaid offering is deemed idolatrous
and such a dropping is heresy with sorcery involved. And for that reason it concerns the inquisitor for the faith, by reason
of his office, to inquire about the crime of heresy and punish.
⁹⁷

With this blatant accusation of heresy, the author enjoins the university, bishop, and inquisitor to unite in suppressing
the error. The legalistic momentum is briefly interrupted by a quotation from
The Remedies for
Love
: “resist beginnings; too late is the medicine prepared.” But there is a bizarre appropriateness to this Ovidian interlude.
This violently misogynistic work, a favorite in university circles, professed to teach men how best to resist the wiles of
female seduction.
⁹⁸
Moreover, Ovid’s pseudomedicinal strain sets up the canonistic climax to the treatise, which urges that “the putrid flesh
should be cut off, and the scabby beasts repelled from the sheepfold”—an explicit citation from Gratian’s
Decretum
.
⁹⁹
This conclusion, and the authority invoked, are in keeping with a central strategy of the treatise, which was to move the
entire discourse more solidly into the orbit of canon law. And indeed, every one of its harsh contentions was buttressed by
recourse to canonical procedure with heretics.

FALSE GERSON, FALSE JOAN

A question mark has traditionally hung over the authenticity of Gerson’s treatise, complementing the saturation of the entire
discussion with anxieties about forgery and counterfeit.
¹⁰⁰
His legacy in spiritual discernment definitely helped to foster these doubts, since his resistance to female mysticism made
him an unlikely advocate for Joan.
¹⁰¹
Indeed, the cautious tenor of Gerson’s defense (though, as I have implied, one of the signs of its authenticity) was sufficiently
disappointing that Dorothy Wayman posited that the treatise in question was not the work of Gerson at all but a literal “bad
copy” written from memory by an Anglo-Burgundian spy so that his side could refute Gerson’s original.
¹⁰²
It is further discredited, in her eyes, by the fact that it “picks out for mention and argument the very points on which the
Paris theologians at the Rouen Trial would find her guilty of heresy and witchcraft.”
¹⁰³
Ironically, it was the twentieth-century discovery of its anonymous evil twin—
On the Good and Evil
Spirit
—and its antiphonal connection with Gerson’s work that did much toward vindicating the authenticity of Gerson’s treatise.
¹⁰⁴

The antiphonal relationship of the two treatises is indicative of Gerson’s mixed legacy in spiritual discernment, generally,
and female spirituality in particular. Not only was Gerson’s scholastic-inquisitorial approach a methodological triumph, but
his additional recourse to the misogynistic tradition had sufficiently undermined the validity of female spirituality that
“authentic” female spirituality could no longer exist without being subjected to this procedure. Thus Gerson had attempted
to formalize the ad hoc inquiries periodically practiced on women with miraculous claims to sainthood, like the stigmatic
Elisabeth of Spalbeek, and extend their application. Many more living women, ostensibly orthodox, were to be judged by the
same inquisitional standard that was largely the domain of church criminals, heretics, or dead candidates for sainthood. The
anonymous cleric thus capitalized on Gerson’s earlier spadework, additionally reversing his argument and realizing its potential
for self-entrapment.