drama

What has most stuck in my mind, many years after having read Shaw's book, is the fact that it's more logical to think of Joan as a protestant saint, instead of Catholic, when one considers how she rejected the Catholic Church's authority and was, naturally, rejected in turn.

He makes a very good point when he says that, right as that Church was to ban her on those grounds, nothing could give it the moral right (or any other right, for that matter) to condemn a woman who disagreed with it on matters of faith. In all fairness, they should have simply excommunicated her and said: "If you think you have a better idea, then you go ahead and create your own Church".

It may be a thoroughly idealistic point of view of course, too democratic for that age (perhaps any age), but nonetheless it strikes me as completely fair.
If you like a club but object to some of its rules, and that club isn't willing to change for your sake, they may have the right to throw you out, just as you may have the right to start a new one on your own - but they shouldn't be given the right to take away your life for having dared to challenge their concepts.

This lesson has stayed with me and I recommend this book for the wisdom it contains.

In one surviving account, Joan of Arc was quoted as saying that her judges were merely putting her on trial because they were members of the pro-English faction and therefore her "capital enemies"; unfortunately, this play tries to claim otherwise. One of Shaw's primary themes is the notion that Pierre Cauchon and Joan's other judges were acting as "sincere" defenders of the Church in their prosecution of her, a view which is contradicted by document after document as well as the above quote from Joan herself. Cauchon and his cronies are well known to historians as having been long-term supporters of the English and Burgundian factions, and the eyewitnesses said repeatedly that they prosecuted Joan out of revenge for the defeats that their side had suffered at the hands of her army, rather than out of any genuine belief that she was guilty of heresy. Cauchon even allowed her to take final communion (which was never done in the case of heretics), indicating that even he didn't truly believe the charges against her. As Shaw was aware, these charges were soundly debunked when the case was appealed after the English were finally driven from Rouen in 1449; and the arguments put forward in this ruling have been confirmed as accurate by experts in medieval theology and canon law, whereas Cauchon's arguments can easily be refuted by consulting medieval theological works - his arguments are, at best, merely distortions of what the medieval Church actually taught. Here are some specific examples which factored prominently in Shaw's play:
- Shaw, like Cauchon, claimed that Joan was guilty of heresy for wearing male clothing allegedly as a personal preference, despite the fact that both of these men were aware of her own statements to the contrary. She was quoted as saying that she wore soldiers' clothing (of a type which had "laces and points" by which the pants and tunic could be securely tied together) primarily to protect herself, as her guards had tried to rape her on several occasions; this reason is also given in some of the 15th century chronicles, along with similar quotes from Joan herself on the need to protect her chastity while surrounded by the men in her army. The medieval Church allowed an exemption in such cases of necessity (read St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", or St. Hildegard's "Scivias", for example): the practice of so-called "cross-dressing" was only condemned if it was done as a preference. Shaw rejects all of the above based on the specious argument that the "other women" who accompanied armies in that era didn't wear such clothing, ignoring the fact that these "other women" were: 1) prostitutes, who wore provocative dresses because they were trying to encourage sexual encounters rather than the opposite; and 2) aristocratic women sometimes were given command of their family's armies in the absence of their husband or son, but these women did not bed down at night among the troops in the field, as Joan often did. Shaw chooses to ignore these circumstances.
- On a somewhat related subject, Shaw tries to portray her as a rebel against "gender norms", again ignoring her own statements and the circumstances of the era. She was quoted by one eyewitness as saying that, quote, "I would rather stay home with my poor mother and spin wool [rather than lead an army]", which hardly sounds like someone who is trying to reject traditional gender roles. When another woman, Catherine de la Rochelle, wanted to get involved, Joan told her to "go home to your husband and tend your household". At no point do we find her making any 'feminist' statements. She was given titular command of an army for the same reason other religious visionaries sometimes were given such a role in that era, not as part of a "feminist crusade".
- Shaw admits that Joan was a devout Catholic and yet claims her as "the first Protestant martyr" - in the same sentence. This seems to be a rather willful contradiction, and the claim of "Protestant tendencies" is merely based, once again, on the old business of accepting Cauchon's claims about her at face value while ignoring the circumstances. If you read the documents you will find that Joan never opposed the Church as a whole: she merely stated her objection to being tried by a panel of pro-English clergy, and repeatedly asked to be given a non-partisan group instead or to be brought before the Pope. It was a violation of Inquisitorial procedure to stack the panel of assessors with people who were pursuing a secular vendetta against the accused: what Cauchon and his cohorts were doing, as Inquisitor Brehal later pointed out during the appeal, was itself an act of heresy. The notion that the medieval Church viewed all Inquisitorial panels as "infallible" and therefore not open to question is just a stereotype, bluntly contradicted by actual medieval theological writings: St. Hildegard, in her 12th century book "Scivias", warns the clergy against judging someone in error or out of anger, as it would be the offending clergy who would be punished for it by God. Joan was perfectly within her rights, even under the rules of the medieval Church, to question her biased judges, and was declared a martyr for Catholicism by Inquisitor Brehal when her execution was declared invalid in 1456. Shaw ignores this. The claim that his play is somehow vindicated by the fact that it was "vetted" by one Catholic (out of the hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide) is a pointless argument: there are "Catholics" who claim that Joan was having adulterous sex, and all sorts of defamatory allegations. The bottom line is: this play does little more than repeat the slander leveled at Joan by the men who cruelly put her to death, despite the work of generations of scholars to bring a more accurate picture of the issue to light.

when i read this play for my junior AP english class, i truly enjoyed it and thought that while joan is rather naive and intolerant, she is a feminist icon--rebellious and unconventional. she is portrayed as being brave, unlike the romantic fluff-chick that various publications make her out to be. while i did enjoy the informative preface, there were sections in which shaw sounded like a typical elitist male and that disappointed me very much.
all in all, i'd like to think that it was a decent play, and definitely worth reading.