So you want to know about Joan of Arc? Well......I'm rather afraid that you've gone to the wrong place. The Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain is not in any way a work of history. It may be reasonably well researched, but it isn't an accurate or scholarly history, and it's not trying to be. It's probably best thought of as historical fiction (though one could debate the applicability of the term in the 1890s).

The central conceit of Twain's work is that it is a translation, by "Jean Francois Alden" of the memoirs of Louis de Conte, Joan's servant. There was a Louis de Coutes associated with Joan, but he was in the service of Raoul de Gaucourt, not a servant of Joan, and did not meet her until she journeyed to Chinon to meet the Dauphin in March 1429. He was with her army until they marched on Paris (September 1429), and after that has no contact or connection with her. He is one of the witnesses at her Nullification Trial, giving his deposition on 3rd April 1456, which is very positive about Joan - unsurprisingly, given his affiliation and the context of the trial.

Confession time: I've never fully read Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc. Partly it's because I'm just not a Twain person, partly it's because as a scholar of Joan I don't learn anything new, and I don't find it a particularly interesting take on what is in fact a very interesting story. I'm not going to run through Recollections point-by-point and critique it here, partly as that would be difficult not having fully read it, and partly because it would take waaaay too long. However, two brief examples should illustrate why, whatever you think of it as a work of literature, it's certainly lacking as a work of history.

In Book 1, Chapter 3, Twain gives us a long and detailed discussion of the "Tree of Fairies", a large beech tree that grew near the village of Domremy. In Twain's account, there is a whole folklore surrounding the tree to do with visions that it grants of impending death, as well as visions to frighten sinners, which Joan (in Twain's narrative - or rather, in the meta narrative related by de Conte) believes. There's also a fantastical episode in which a woman witnesses the fairies dancing around the tree, and they desert the place. The villagers try to enlist Joan's help to placate them, but she is ill, so the fairies are never seen again.

So that's the Twain/de Conte tree. What does the real historical Joan have to say about it? The subject comes up (incredibly predictably) in her 1436 Trial, and she has this to say about it:

"Item, she was questioned about a tree to be found near her village. To which she answered that there was a certain tree fairly near to Domremy called the Arbre des Dames [Tree of the Ladies], known as the Arbre des Fees [Tree of the Fairies] by others, and nearby was a spring. And she heard it said that those sick with fever drank of this spring and went there to find its water to restore their health. And she had seen this herself, but did not know if they were cured in this way or not. Item, she said that she heard that the sick, when they could get up, went to the tree to walk round it...

Item, she said that sometimes she went to run around with the other young girls and made crowns of flowers for the image of Our Lady of Domremy. And often she heard it said by the old people, that were not from her family, that the Fairy Ladies lived there...but she herself did no know if this was true or not.

There's a bit more, but that sums up the gist of it. Joan knew of the tree, and of the belief that it was the home of Fairies, but that's about it. She danced around it once or twice, but there's no close involvement that she gives in her testimony. Understandably, she's not about to cop to a fevent belief in fairies in her heresy trial (might as well just pop on the pointed hat and have done with it), but it's clearly not a significant subject for her - just a childhood fancy that she had no involvement in beyond that which was normal for children of her village.

Following the capture of Orleans, Twain/de Conte gives us a narrative of Joan sparing the life of a deserter (called "the Dwarf") who becomes one of her staunchest companions. This, as far as I can ascertain from the sources, is total invention. One might see something of "Little John" in him, as he's apparently "a good seven feet high, and built for business!"

This is a interesting narrative invention, and it's used to display various aspects of Joan's personality, but it's not a historical event.

So if the Recollections is not a good way of learning about Joan, what is? Well, I'd be inclined to suggest two approaches. You can either start with a general overview, and follow the footnotes and references from there, or you can start with the primary sources themselves. Which route is best probably depends on how confident you are dealing with historical sources, and what kind of information you're looking to learn. If you want a detailed narrative of Joan's life, I'd recommend starting with a good overview. If you want to get right into the nitty-gritty of historical work, you can't go wrong with the sources.

Some good texts:

For a general overview:

H. Castor, Joan of Arc: A History, (London: Faber and Faber, 2014) - I think if you want a straightforward, well-researched and critically aware introduction to Joan, this is the one to go for.

D. Frailoi, Joan of Arc: The Early Debate, (Woodbridge, 2000) - This one is more scholarly, and focused more on what historians have said about Joan, and how they've approached her.

M. Warner, Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism, (London: 1981) - I confess to not loving this one. It's pretty important historigraphically, as it's quite representative of the feminist turn in the study of Joan in the late 20th century, but something about it is a bit too.....uncomplicated for my taste, though that's very much a personal take. It's an excellent piece of work, nonetheless.

The primary sources:

The primary sources on Joan are extensive, and somewhat complex to work with. They are primarily the documentary products of the process of inqusition and trial, and this means that have a lot of layers and filters, and require trained processing to fully make use of. That said, they're very interesting even for a layperson, as I'd recommend having a look at them at some point, even if you do decide to begin with one of the above works. There are two recent editions and translation of the sources:

D. Hobbins (ed), The Trial of Joan of Arc, (London: Harvard University Press, 2005)

C. Taylor (ed), Joan of Arc: La Pucelle, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006)

I'm partial to the Taylor work myself, primarily as he taught me at university, so I'm familiar with his approach. I've spoken a little bit about the differences between the two translations here. Whichever you go for, they're both very solid translations by brilliant scholars, so you can't go too far wrong there.