Scientists may be on the verge of at last solving one of the great mysteries of the last half century. Using advanced genetic scientific testing, they may be able to prove conclusively that the remains of Saint Joan of Arc- the peasant girl who, disguised as a man, lead the French to numerous victories over the English during the One Hundred Years War before being finally captured and burned at the stake as a heretic-may actually be her remains.
Huh? Yeah, that's right, it all depends on whether the few remaining pieces of skin and bone fragments, faithfully preserved for all these centuries, can be shown to come from the right period of time, and, in addition, whether it can be proven that they are, indeed, the remains of a female.
If either one of these two conditions are not met, then this would prove conclusively they do not belong to the late cannonized Saint. But, if these conditions are met, then again, it proves that they might, indeed,have belonged to the late Joan of Arc.
And after all that trouble the British went to to destroy her. First, they burned her, but she only died by way of smoke inhalation. Being a superstitous lot,they buned her again. However, this did not destory her internal organs. And so, they burned her a third time, leaving nothing but the aforementioned bones and some skins, which were later dutifuly collected and preserved.
Again, if they are really hers. The first test-do they belong to the right period of time-should be easy to prove or to disprove, since carbon dating has advanced to the point it should be able to narrow down the span of time in which the person, whoever it is, lived to within a half century. I guess.
The second part of the test, however, may present a problem. What if the remains can be demonstrated to having belonged to a male? Well, so much for that, right?
Not exactly. You see, there is a theory which hasn't really been considered, let alone accepted, which makes a great deal of sense, and that is, Joan D'Arc may have, in fact, actually been a man. A hermaphrodite, in fact, whose penis may have been all but invisible, hidden within the folds of her-or his-labia. Yet, the vagina, according to this theory, while visible, may have been of no more a contributing factor to her physiology than what it added to her appearrance, that is, that of a woman, while the penis,hidden from view,may have been the truly functional sexual organ, albeit small though it was.
To those whose heads are now spinninng, I understand enough to know that a clitoris is little more than an extremely small penis hidden inside the folds of the vagina, so what I am describing here may sound at first glance to be simply an ordinary, every day, garden variety female. But it's more complicated than that. There may have been a small though likewise functional set of testacles involved, likewise hidden from view.
In other words, Joan Of Arc, for all intents and purposes, may have been, in all but physical appearrance-a young teenaged boy.
This would certainly explain the onset of voices which she heard after what must have been a partcularly traumatic experience going through puberty. One can certainly imagine the implications .
I saw this theory expounded years ago, but it was quickly discounted by the Catholic Church, and by the legions of followers of the Saint,who was cannonized, finally, early in the last century.
The idea was never repeated, though to be sure, there was never any scientific evidence presented to dispute what seemed to me to be a very sensible theory, unprovable though it seemed to have been.
Yet, it seems ironic that,should these scant few remains be demonstrated to have belonged to a male, this may indeed point to the possibility that it was the truth after all. Yet, doubtless the Church, in all it's wisdom, will declare the remains to be a fraud if proven to be male, while, if shown to have belonged to a female, they will be proclaimed as possibly and probably being legitimate-though in fact they may well not be.
