Before there were transcripts, seals, and verdicts, there was a girl who laughed easily.

Those who knew Joan did not begin with theology. They began with motion. She walked quickly, as if time were a thing one could misplace. In Domrémy, a village small enough that everyone’s business belonged to everyone else, she was known first as dependable—someone who finished tasks without complaint. She spun wool. She tended animals. She went to church more often than most, but without the stiffness that makes devotion look like ambition. If you asked her neighbors what set her apart, they hesitated. Nothing, they might say at first. And then, after a pause, well—there was something.

They remembered how she listened. Not in the polite way children are taught, but with an intensity that made adults recalibrate their sentences. When she spoke, she did not hedge. This was unsettling, because certainty is usually purchased with education or rank, and Joan had neither. Her parents loved her in the practical way peasants love their children: by worrying constantly. Jacques d’Arc, her father, dreamed of her running away with soldiers and woke in fear. Isabelle Romée, her mother, taught her prayers and later carried those prayers all the way to Rome, as if distance itself might be persuaded.

To the soldiers who followed her, Joan was not a symbol at first. She was inconveniently real. She asked them to confess. She sent prostitutes away from camp. She refused coarse jokes and worse behavior, not with sermons, but with a look that made men feel briefly smaller than their better selves. They admired her because she made demands without humiliating them. Courage, they noticed, did not always raise its voice.

She rode badly at first. This detail survives because it mattered to those who watched her learn. Knights noticed that she held the reins too tightly, that she sat like someone bracing against a fall. And then, a little later, they noticed she no longer did. Learning, in her case, was fast and unapologetic. She did not pretend she had always known how. That honesty bred loyalty more effectively than bravado ever could.

To Charles VII, she was both relief and embarrassment. He tested her, of course—men in power always do. He hid among courtiers, changed clothing, set traps of protocol. She passed them without triumph. Those present later recalled not her certainty, but her lack of interest in impressing anyone. She spoke to him as if the crown were heavy and needed setting straight. Some loved her for that. Others never forgave her.

The towns she passed through remembered her hands—how she touched walls, banners, armor, as if confirming they were real. In Orléans, people said she prayed before battle not for victory, but for right order, a phrase that lingered oddly in memory. When she was wounded, she cried, then returned. This mattered. It told those watching that bravery was not the absence of fear, but the refusal to enthrone it.

Those who loved her noticed how young she remained. At night, she asked questions. She worried aloud about whether she had done enough, whether she had misunderstood. This did not make her followers doubt her. It made them recognize her. Authority that admits uncertainty feels closer, more inhabitable. You can live inside it.

And then she was taken.

What is striking in the testimonies that follow is not outrage, but grief. Grief is quieter. Isambart de la Pierre remembered her voice at the end, steady enough to frighten him. Soldiers remembered the absence she left in rooms, the way plans seemed suddenly overcomplicated without her. Her mother remembered a child who had promised to come home.

They did not call her a saint then. They called her la Pucelle, the Maid—a name that carried youth, vulnerability, and trust all at once. It was not a title of power. It was a recognition of presence.

This is who she was to those who admired and loved her: not an abstraction, not a verdict waiting to be overturned, but a person whose clarity made other people clearer to themselves. When she was killed, something else died with her—not faith, not courage, but the comforting belief that goodness will always be protected by those appointed to guard it.

We bring her presence here not to sanctify her, but to remember her whole. She lived among people who saw her breathe, doubt, persist, and hope. They carried her forward in memory long before institutions caught up. If we listen closely, that memory still speaks—not loudly, not commandingly, but with the calm insistence of someone who once believed that being truthful might be enough.

I keep returning to a small, uncomfortable question. If everyone in the room knew something was wrong, why did the room remain so orderly? The benches stayed aligned, the clerics kept their robes neat, the scribes dipped their pens with care. It looked like justice. That, perhaps, was the first deception.

Joan was nineteen. That number matters, because nineteen is old enough to argue and young enough to believe argument matters. She asked questions that courts were not designed to answer. When Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, presided over her trial, he did not behave like a man unsure of the law. He behaved like someone who knew it very well—and also knew exactly how to step around it. How could he judge her at all, when she had been captured outside his diocese? Because the English army stood nearby, boots and steel doing what canon law was supposed to prevent. The law did not vanish; it bent. It always does, under weight.

There is a temptation to imagine medieval trials as crude affairs—shouting monks, crude threats, ignorance everywhere. But the record is meticulous. Names are signed. Dates are precise. Jean Le Maître, the Vice-Inquisitor of France, hesitated at first. That hesitation is important. It tells us that resistance existed. Why did it dissolve? Because hesitation is expensive. Careers end that way. Bodies sometimes follow. So he stayed, and the trial acquired its needed veneer of legitimacy. Not truth—legitimacy. The difference is subtle, but lethal.

Joan kept appealing to the Pope. This should have stopped everything. In theory, an appeal to Rome suspended local judgment immediately. In practice, the appeal was noted, then ignored, like a letter placed carefully into a drawer that will never be opened. Why did this not provoke outrage? Because outrage requires consensus, and consensus requires safety. The clerics present—Jean Beaupère, Thomas de Courcelles, Nicolas Midi—were scholars, not soldiers. They knew when silence was the more scholarly response.

The most revealing moment comes later, when Joan briefly recants. This is often presented as weakness. It is not. It is exhaustion. She was threatened with torture—shown the instruments, promised their use. She signed what they wanted. Then, days later, she was found again in men’s clothing. This, they said, proved relapse. Relapse, in canon law, meant willful defiance after correction. But Joan explained that guards had taken her dress, that the clothing was a matter of survival in a cell full of men. Survival, however, is not a category courts handle well. Pierre Cauchon declared relapse anyway. The logic is chillingly neat: the conditions that forced her choice were treated as evidence of guilt.

At the execution in Rouen, the preacher Guillaume Erard spoke carefully. He needed to. A public killing requires a public story. Heretic. Relapsed. Justice. Geoffroy Thérage, the executioner, later said he feared for his soul. That fear does not make him innocent. The system depended on humans doing their part and then carrying the weight privately. This is how institutions endure.

What followed was not thunder, not fire from heaven. It was something quieter. The English lost France anyway—by 1453, almost entirely. Henry VI, for whom this trial was staged, descended into mental collapse and was murdered in the Tower of London in 1471. John of Bedford died in 1435, his alliances unraveling. Philip the Good of Burgundy changed sides and prospered. And Pierre Cauchon? He died peacefully in 1442, promoted, unpunished, his conscience unrecorded. Justice, it seems, does not distribute consequences evenly.

Twenty-five years later, the Church reopened the case. This is where the record begins to whisper. Witnesses suddenly remembered pressure, guards, threats. The verdict was annulled. The trial was declared corrupt. Notice what did not happen: no punishments, no dramatic penance. The institution corrected the paperwork, not the people. It looked upward, toward its own continuity, even as it admitted error. One learns a great deal from what an institution is willing to confess—and what it quietly forgives.

Joan’s crime was never witchcraft. That was a word, a tool, a costume put on violence. Her real offense was structural. Her existence exposed the fragility of political theology. A peasant girl hearing God disrupted the idea that authority flows neatly from crown to altar. Her appeals threatened ecclesiastical procedure. She treated the Church as something higher than its local representatives, which is doctrinally correct and politically intolerable. Her symbolism outpaced institutional control. Armies can be beaten; symbols cannot be imprisoned for long.

It is tempting to look back and say we would have acted differently. I am not sure. The trial worked because it felt reasonable to those inside it. It had forms, citations, footnotes. Evil rarely announces itself; it drafts memoranda. The men involved—Pierre Cauchon, Jean Le Maître, Guillaume Erard—did not see themselves as villains. That may be the most instructive detail of all.

Her judges tried to make her an error to be corrected. History refused. The record remains, names attached, actions preserved. A woman was killed by men who believed procedure could outrun truth.

It did not. And it never quite does.