St.Joan ~ Bernard Shaw ~ 5/05 ~ Great Books
jane
March 30, 2005 - 04:43 pm




Everyone is invited to join our discussion of Bernard Shaw's St. Joan. The author has been called a futurist, a man ahead of his time, a defender of women's rights, a master of satire and Shavian wit. The fact that his Pygmalion and St. Joan continue to delight theater-goers today as they did in the early 1900's attests to the timelessness of his work. This should be fun!

There are so many ways to consider this play, from the dramatic, the historic, the religious, the social aspects. Let's do it all!
For Your Consideration - This Week

May 27 - 31 ~ Epilogue
Epilogue

1. Did Shaw's introduction of comic elements at tragic moments dramatically lessen the impact of the play?

2. What did Shaw accomplish by ending the play with the dream scene? Does the epilogue provide a happy ending?

3. Would you classify this play as a tragedy? A comedy?
Related Links: St. Joan - The Complete Play // Shaw's Preface to St. Joan// Original Trial Records of 1431 trial // Historical Setting // Musée Jeanne d'Arc, Rouen // Song of Joan of Arc, Pizan 1429 // "Mother of all Web links to Joan of Arc" // Childhood Influences in Ireland // Shaw and Women //Shaw/Religion // Sculpture - believed to be Joan's likeness // Pygmalion - The Complete Play// Our favorite Shavian quotes
Discussion Leader ~ Joan P



B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please contact
Books

Joan Pearson
March 31, 2005 - 03:51 am
Good morning! Welcome! You are here in plenty of time to read the playbill before curtain time. So happy you have joined us!

Have you ever read or seen one of Shaw's plays? Movie versions of his plays? Isn't it remarkable that the man wrote in the early 1900's and his plays are still staged today? Last month in the Washington DC area, three of his plays were performed - "St. Joan", "Pygmalion" and a comedy, "You Never Can Tell". The Shavian satiric wit comes out even in his tragedies.

First question of the day - which play would you like to read/discuss first - the familiar story of Eliza - or the more controversial and perhaps more challenging Joan?

I have a second question, but it can wait...we have a month to get ready for some theatre!

Mrs Sherlock
March 31, 2005 - 06:39 am
Since Eliza is more familiar to me, I'd like to start with Joan. There is so much mystery there. I'm not Catholic, nor am I mystically inclined, so the very foundations of her story are misty.

ALF
March 31, 2005 - 07:11 am
After all, our leader is named Joan, my husband had a sister named Joan and my best friend since childhood is named Joan. There! Does that entitle me to a "Joan" vote?

Éloïse De Pelteau
March 31, 2005 - 10:57 am
I don't want to cause trouble but if you started with Pygmalion it is a lighter story than St. Joan and after finishing with The Razor's Edge I could just fall into it head first. Oui? I know both stories and G.B.Shaw is a master storyteller. I'm in Joan.

ALF
March 31, 2005 - 12:17 pm
Today in the local paper the rules of bridge/strategy was introduced with a comment by George Bernard Shaw.
"A life spent in making mistakes is not only more honorable but more useful than a life spent doing nothing."

It's all about learning from your mistakes and avoiding them in the future.

Has anyone heard this before?


The alphabet-challenged athletes remind me of playwright George Bernard Shaw and the great dancer Isadora Duncan. She proposed they have a child together. "Think of it!" she said. "With your brains and my body, what a wonder it would be." To which GBS replied, "Yes, but what if it had my body and your brains?"

Joan Pearson
March 31, 2005 - 05:36 pm
Andy, thanks for those quotes. The second one on beauty/brains is the one about which you were referring in Razor's Edge, Eloise! I've an idea. Let's keep a running list of Shavian quotes - the man is so quotable - we quote him all the time without knowing it. Did you know that he wrote - "He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." - I don't know how many times I heard that in my teaching days, but never knew where it came from. (Edit: the link to the quotes is in the heading now.)

Mrs. Sherlock, I have a funny comment from a Catholic about Shaw's St. Joan to share with you. Maybe she won't be so "misty" after all. I wrote to the webmaster of a Jeanne d'Arc site, asking why Shaw's St. Joan wasn't included on the rather comprehensive - lengthy list of reviewed books on the subject. I received this answer yesterday
"I never did the review of Shaw's play because I did not care for it. As far as I am concerned he turned her into a PROTESTANT."
I dunno folks, the image of our Eloise diving into Pygmalion at the conclusion of Razor's Edge - headfirst, I think she said, is something to be considered when deciding which to do first...So far then, the vote is 2 to 1 to start with Joan.

Andy, yes, you get to vote, but you get the box seat only if you bring your Joan with you. (I didn't know you had a Sister Joan - how long have you had her?)

Jonathan
March 31, 2005 - 09:50 pm
This makes no sense to me. What poor loser soothed his troubled soul with this nonsense? What's honorable about an idiotic refusal to stop making mistakes. Never to do anything right and feel good about it. And castigate the guy who does nothing. Just think of the many people who have succeeded so well with doing nothing.

Use it for an epitaph on his tombstone as a warning to others. If you can't do it right, do nothing. Much more prudent.

ALF
April 1, 2005 - 06:33 am
I do not have a sister. My husband had a sister Joan who passed away with Leukemia at age 19. No sister would have lived with me, I just had a best friend JOAN. She still lives in New York and denies the 21st century- sans computer.

JoanK
April 1, 2005 - 01:14 pm
Well you clearly need more Joans, so here I am. Voting for Joan, of coarse. Since I'm named for her, I need to know all about her.

Did you know that Joan comes from the Hebrew word Yona (יונהmeaning "dove"). This is the dove of peace; it is also the pidgeons in the park.

ALF
April 1, 2005 - 03:19 pm
No, I did not know that Joan is dervied from the word dove. That is interesting.

Oh that I had wings like a dove for then I would fly away to be at rest. Psalms 55:6

KleoP
April 1, 2005 - 04:11 pm
I have to go with Eliza first, as the timing for a light book in May would be rather good for me. HAve you done much drama in SeniorNet?

Kleo

bmcinnis
April 1, 2005 - 04:30 pm
ALF, I vote for Joan too. My reason is probably just as "valid" as yours is.

I have read and studied and discussed the play long ago with my students but now my motivation to take another look is renewed. Being a Catholic myself, I want to find out how Shaw was able to turn Joan into a "Protestant." I think the author was up to his old work tricks again.

Joan Pearson
April 1, 2005 - 04:42 pm
- "Joan" K, step right up for your box seat tix...will you bring your sister, she asked hopefully? Gee, I didn't know the Joan/dove meaning. Thought "Joan" was derived from "John and that John meant "God's mercy". Jonathan...are you with us? In the box seats? Joan/John/Jonathan? Would love to listen in on a conversation between you and Shaw -

While on the names, in an early scene in the play, Joan says that she was called "Jenny" when she was growing up. Don't know whether that's fact - it sounds like Shaw's creation to me.

Oh good, Bern...happy to have you join us with whatever you can dust off from your memory bank from your teaching days. And aren't we lucky to have you with us! Another vote for Joan first. I hope you all stick around for "Pygmalion" if we do it after Joan. Yes, we are all familiar with the story from the movies - but don't you want to read the original "script" before the screen writers got their hands on it?

Andy, since your husband had a sister named Joan, there are box seats for him. Wouldn't that be a kick if you could get Bill to participate?!

Kleo, welcome! I'm trying to remember SN drama discussions other than the greatest dramatist of all...we have done Shakespeare's "Othello" eight years ago and more recently, his "Julius Caesar" I was thinking just yesterday that I prefer watching Shakespeare (though I usually read the plays first to familiarize self with the word play.)

Not so shaw how I feel about reading/viewing Shaw's. I have to confess not having seen a single one of his plays...a boyfriend ages ago was in a production in New York - used to invite me all the time to rehearsals, never went and then we broke up before the play opened. Missed my chance. I promise after this discussion to make a point of seeing one. Last month there were three of Shaw's plays on stage in Washington. Unfortunately Joan and Eliza have finished, but "You Never Can Tell" is still playing.

But you miss all his delicious character discriptions with the stage productions, don't you? I think Shaw's plays beg to be read for that readon alone. Also, St Joan was originally a four hour production, wasn't it? You miss all that is on the edit floor unless you read it.

Am keeping an informal tally - it seems we now have two votes to begin with Pygmalion...

KleoP
April 1, 2005 - 06:11 pm
Joan, who doesn't prefer watching Shakespeare?!

I was in the bookstore the other day and found a whole shelf of Shakespeare translated into, you ought to be sitting down when you read this, translated into ENGLISH! I thought that couldn't be what it seemed to be, side-by-side modern English and modern English, but indeed it is. You simply but must see it to believe it. It was very very funny, and I was laughing so hard my sides hurt. A man came over to see what I was laughing at, picked up a copy of one of the plays, and started laughing along with me. We both read and laughed for a few more minutes, then walked off shaking our heads. There were not words to describe it, so we exchanged none.

I took drama, so I am used to reading plays, out loud, though, and like it quite a bit. When I am in school, and reading too much from textbooks to enjoy much literature, I read poetry or drama. I wish I belonged to a group that read plays out loud, I like it so much.

I have not read Joan of Arc, though. Still would like to tackle the easier one first. ELIZA! ELIZA!

Kleo

Mrs Sherlock
April 1, 2005 - 06:37 pm
All this talk about names, my middle name is Elizabeth, so maybe I should change my vote from Joan to Eliza. I'm so glad that we will read both. The Penguin editions are very handsome, Pygmalion arrived yesterday.

ALF
April 2, 2005 - 08:15 am
The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain."

I prefer to head to France. Spain being the second choice.

Oh and Joan, Bill would rather take a sharp stick in the eye than read a play.

Harold Arnold
April 2, 2005 - 10:27 am
I'll be with you for any Shaw discussion you choose to do . I am neutral regarding the one that comes first; either schedule is fine with me.

Here are a few quotes from Shaw included in "The Revolutionist's Handbook" that Shaw authored under the pen name, Jack Tanner (A fictional lead character in his play, "Man and Superman").
Polygamy when tried under modern democratic conditions, as by the Mormons, is wrecked by the revolt of the mass of inferior men who are condemed to celibacy by it; for the maternal instincts leads a woman to prefer a tenth share of a first rate man to the exclusive possession of a third rate one.


The assassin Czolgosz made President McKinley a hero by assassinating him. The United States of America made Czolgosz a hero by the same process.

Scamper
April 4, 2005 - 01:47 am
I'm in The Razor's Edge reading on seniornet right now and would love a little break with the lighter Pygmalian first. Kleo and I are also reading Brave New World in another group, so you can see we'd love some levity. Also, I think we'd zip right through Pygmalian and then have the rest of the time for St. Joan. If we start with St. Joan we may not get to Pygmalian. I've read both of them - many years ago - and am looking forward to reading the comments in this group.

Joan Pearson
April 4, 2005 - 04:20 am
Good Monday morning!

Pamela, so happy to have you with us. Will record your preference for "Pygmalion" along with Kleo and Eloise. If it is "Joan" first, have no fear, we will get to "Pygmalion"...

Harold, I've added the two Shavian quotes to the list in the heading - am eager to learn more about the man. He was so much more than a playwright. We are delighted to have you with us!

Jackie, the "Eliza" in the middle gets you a box seat. Have you changed your vote?

Andy, eyes are so precious - tell Bill to stay home and take care of them...

Mrs Sherlock
April 4, 2005 - 05:49 am
If my Name's Elizabeth but i vote for Joan, do I still get a box seat? Regardless, I'll stick with Joan first. My memory of Eliza is that it is deeper than it appears, more bittersweet, not quite the romp some may expect. The movie, as I recall, was faithful to the book, but it featured Wendy Hiller and what's his name, played up the "romance" between them. (Gotta go cxheck IMDB to see his name.)

Mrs Sherlock
April 4, 2005 - 05:51 am
Well, Leslie Howard was co-director as well as star. Enough said.

Scamper
April 4, 2005 - 08:02 pm
I just gotta ask: why is it Shavian and not Shawian?

Joan Pearson
April 4, 2005 - 08:44 pm
Jackie...yes, your middle name earned you the box seat ticket, no matter how you vote.

Pamela...why not Shawian wit? My first guess would be because "Shavian" is easier to say. I looked it up and could only find this:
"Shavian 1903, "in the style or manner of George Bernard Shaw" (1856-1950). An earlier form was Shawian (1894)."
Not quite shaw what that means except that if the you want to use "Shawian" you could get away with it...

KleoP
April 5, 2005 - 07:50 am

"Shavian" is Latinized, from "Shavius." If a proper names comes into high usage as an adjective and can be Latinized, it's often done. When I learned this I had a list of examples. Can't think of a single one, outside of botany.



Kleo

Mrs Sherlock
April 11, 2005 - 06:55 am
Well, I guess its time to start reading, May 1 will be here before we know it. I'm going with Joan first, I believe there were more votes for Joan that Eliza. Will we be looking specifically at Shaw's treatment of women? That is certainly one of Eliza's points, but what about Joan? Not typical of women of her age, or any age, for that matter. Class differences are obvious in the lives of each of these women. I wonder what other treasures we'll find.

Joan Pearson
April 11, 2005 - 12:46 pm
Right now it does look as if the Joans have it, Jackie - but we have a few more weeks before we shut poor Eliza out in the cold.

Second question - how many of you have Shaw's long, and I mean long preface to St. Joan in the edition you are reading? I found it on the web and will include it here in case you don't have it. He wrote this preface FOLLOWING the first performances of the play - defending himself to his critics and explaining some of Joan's background not included in the play. Somewhere in the long preface he tells the reader that everything s/he needs to know about Joan is in the play, so I wouldn't worry about it if you don't have it. We can refer to the preface during the discussion if/when questions do arise.

It might be interesting to find out a bit more about the man. He was noted as a defender of the underdog - the workers, women - a staunch defender of women's rights. Not sure how much that will enter into this story, but I'll bet it's an undercurrant.

I'm interested in knowing why he became interested in Joan's story in the first place. Can't figure out Samuel Clemens/Mark Twain's interest in her either in his Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc, which he considered his finest work. (his critics don't agree with this.) If you are moved to read his account, you might have better luck looking under yet another Clemens' pen name - Sieur Louis de Conte.

Twain wrote his account in 1895 - Shaw four years after Joan was cannonized a saint in 1925. I suppose there was interest in her when that happened - she probably caught his attention then. I'd be willing to bet that one reason he found her interesting was because she was not burned at the stake in Rouen by the English for military or political reasons, but by her own Church. It is satire - and satire needs a target.

Lots of avenues to explore, as Jackie says...

hegeso
April 12, 2005 - 03:57 pm
Scamper, would you please tell me where to find the group presently discussing "Brave New World"? I am an inveterate Huxley fan.

Scamper
April 12, 2005 - 07:09 pm
The Brave New World site is an Oprah bookclub which concentrates on Lost Generation authors. It's been going on for a year now. Anyone can join this group. We are half through the month discussing BNW. This URL will take you to Oprah's online clubs, then click on the one called Lost Generation. We'd love you have you there!

http://boards.oprah.com/WebX?14@@.efb862b!DYNID=QTEDDBVCB2WP3LARAYHB3KQ

hegeso
April 13, 2005 - 03:01 pm
Scamper, thank you so much!

Philosopher
April 14, 2005 - 07:43 pm
I have just discovered your website and would like very much to join in the discussion of St.Joan. What do I have to do?

I am a 74 year old retired lawyer who lives in Newton, MA and Truro, MA. I am a graduate of the University of Chicago and learned about the Great Books there.

Joan Pearson
April 14, 2005 - 08:01 pm
Dear Philosopher - You are so Welcome! This should prove to be an interesting discussion as folks with such varied intersts and backgrounds are assembling here. What do you have to do? First, look through your pile of books for Shaw's "St. Joan" - and let us know if you have the author's own Preface in the pages preceding the play. Though the discussion of the play doesn't officially open until May 1, we will begin looking into the author's biography a bit - beginning next week. There are so many facets to the play - am tempted to examine them all! We'll be in touch with you.

Hegeso...shall we reserve seats for you on May 1? We'd love to have you join us...

Éloïse De Pelteau
April 18, 2005 - 04:05 pm
Joan, Jonathan told me that we will have Joan of Arc next Wednesday on television. I will certainly watch it. I have seen it in several versions, but I don't know which one that will be yet. Will let you know.

Mrs Sherlock
April 18, 2005 - 04:47 pm
Eloise, How exciting!

KleoP
April 18, 2005 - 07:52 pm
Ah, well, I'll start reading and quit whining.

Pamela--so glad to see you in here!

Kleo

Joan Pearson
April 19, 2005 - 12:23 am
Canada..only a train-ride away! Eloise, I gather this is a Canadian broadcast? We'll be interested to hear how the history is treated. Pay close attention to the "trial", okay?

kiwi lady
April 19, 2005 - 09:34 pm
Our library system does not hold St Joan so I will join you for Pygmalion.They have the Penguin publication in 2 branches. Are you doing them one a month or what is the schedule for the discussion?

Carolyn

GingerWright
April 20, 2005 - 12:02 am
Carol (Kiwi Lady) in the header is this St. Joan- The complete Play that might help.

Joan Pearson
April 20, 2005 - 07:55 am
Thanks, Ginger. Yes, Carolyn, the whole play is linked in the heading...it doesn't include Shaw's 65 page preface though. I know I saw it somewhere - electronic text. Will find it for you later this afternoon and put the link in the heading.

Joan Grimes
April 20, 2005 - 03:33 pm
Joan P,

Just to let you know that I received my copy of St Joan today and will be following along and at least reading the discussion as it progresses. Guess that I am doing this beacuse I have always been interested in Joan of Arc. I was in Rouen in April last year. as a matter of fact I have been there several times. Theron and I enjoyed looking at the beautiful church that has been built there in memory of Joan of Arc. I probably will not be saying much in the discussion but I will be here reading the discussion and reading the play along with you.

I also bought Pygmalion on CD. So I will read that too when you discuss it.

Just checked and I do not have preface by Shaw in my book.

Joan Grimes

Joan Pearson
April 21, 2005 - 07:58 am
Joan, so pleased to have you with us. You may not know this, but all "Joans" have specially reserved box seats for this performance. Your tickets are in the mail! Welcome! My voices whispered to us that today is your birthday too - More happy wishes are sent your way!

I did manage to find a copy of Shaw's sixty-five page Preface for all of you who do not have it in your edition. It is interesting reading, though not mandatory. I think we can refer to parts of it as we read the play, but will not spend time discussing it in its entirety before we begin the play on May 1. Anyone may refer to it, quote from it while we are discussing the play, of course.

I'm afraid my visit to Rouen was not as "successful" as yours, Joan. I count a visit to a place successful if I am satisfied that I have seem what I had hoped to see on the trip. It was a wonderful little city - narrow streets, ancient buildings - looking much as they would have looked when Joan (of Arc) saw it. I was just looking at my photos and don't see any from my digital camera - Bruce doesn't use one. Of course I could scan his, but now that Joan (of Alabama) is with us, that won't be necessary.

To my disappointment, we visited on a Monday when most of the indoor "attractions" were closed. I had hoped to make some contact with the saint by visiting the tower in which she was held during her trial. Closed.

The spot where she died is commemorated with a flag or some other marker, but I felt nothing. It was beautifully tended though.

It began to pour and we made a run for the train station to catch an earlier train - rather than wait for the shops to reopen in the afternoon - I had hoped to pick up some books, pamphlets describing the old Church and what parts of it and the town were there during Joan's time...but they were closed and Bruce was anxious to get going. Not a very satisfying visit. Return trip on the list of places to see. (Not on a Monday!) So happy you are with us, Joan. In case you all don't know this, Joan is a digital photographer extraordinaire!

Harold Arnold
April 21, 2005 - 08:11 pm
The book of Shaw plays that I will be reading from is “Bernard Shaw, Selected Plays With Prefaces,” Dodd, Mead & Company New York (no date). I purchased it about 1950 at the Book Department in the old Joskies Department store in San Antonio.

The preface to ST Joan is printed in 53 pages. At the end there is no signature but there is printed: Ayot ST Lawrence and on the next line May, 1924. Some of the section Heading highlighted in all caps type include: JOAN AND SOCRATES, CONTRAST WITH NAPOLEON, WAS JOAN INNOCENT OR GUILTY, JOAN’S SOCIAL POSITION, JOAN’S VOICES AND VISIONS, and many more. Joan P is this the Preface you are referring to?

The following is a brief introductory commentary from my book on the early history of this Play:

“St Joan was performed for the first time by the Theater Guild in the Garrick Theater, New York City, on 28th December 1923, with Winifred Lenihan in the title-part. Its first performance in London took place on 26th March, 1924 in the New Theater in St Martin’s Lane, with Sybil Thorndike as the Saint.”

I am sure I saw a movie of the Shaw drama because I clearly remember the scene with the English Soldier on the one day/year liberty from Hell granted to him for his tying 2 sticks together as a cross for the dying Joan.

KleoP
April 21, 2005 - 08:46 pm
Well, I know when I am out-Joaned. I tell you.

Kleo

Scamper
April 21, 2005 - 09:54 pm
I have a Franklin Library 1979 edition which contains both Pygmalian and St. Joan - and the St. Joan preface is there. There is also a much shorter (less than 10 page) preface for Pygmalian.

Joan Pearson
April 22, 2005 - 02:12 pm
Ah, Kleo, I'm so sorry you feel left out of the Joan club. Be assured that once the lights go down, we'll all be quiet - over here in our box seats.

Harold, you are describing Shaw's own Preface - this link is now in the heading here - for those of you with some other introduction.

Ayot ST Lawrence is where Shaw lived (and died) in England. May 24 must be the date he wrote the Preface. He wrote the Preface AFTER the play was staged, in part to respond to his critics. Apparently, from what I've read, the play ran 4 to 41/2 hours. It was suggested that he cut off the "Cannonization" at the end, but he defends it as being a necessary part of the story.

Whoops - I'm sorry - don't intend to get into discussion of the play itself until next week when everyone is here.

Joan Pearson
April 25, 2005 - 05:54 am
Good morning!

The curtain rises in another week - dress rehearsal time. There are so many ways to view this play - it's too hard to decide on just one approach. We've got the influences of Shaw's religious beliefs, his stance on women's rights, his childhood experiences in Ireland that created his own particular view of human nature in his biting satire.

Some of this audience is interested in the historical background, the allegations that Shaw turned Joan into a "Protestant" saint. Some are interested in women's rights - both in Joan's time and in Shaw's writing - others in the drama itself - and the resaons for its longevity.

It might be a good idea to talk about some of the biographical influences that attracted the author to the subject before curtain time, so that next week we can focus entirely on the play. If we do that, we can save the information in to link in the heading for easy reference.

Please include your sources of information - this will be helpful for participants and a valuable resource for all of us.

And not to worry if you can't get here until May 1. Your seats are reserved, and the background information will all be in one place at your fingertips in the heading. We'll start with a clean slate - an empty stage.

I am so excited about this adventure, can you tell? I'll start to post some of my notes that may be of interest to you.

Joan Pearson
April 26, 2005 - 12:37 pm
More often than not, I see Bernard Shaw's name appear without the "George". Thought I'd read somewhere that he didn't like the name "George", but learned in reading biographies that there was more to it than that.

His father's name was George Carr Shaw.
"The Shaw family belonged to the Irish gentry....there was a streak of snobbery in Shaw. (same snobbery in Shaw's younger contemporaries, Yeats, Wilde and Joyce.) Ireland is still a poor country...like all poor countries a sharp dividing line between the gentry and the peasantry." Bernard Shaw: A Reassessment, Collin Wilson 1969
On our recent trip to Ireland (our first), I was determined to see whatever I could of the author. I knew his birthplace is a landmark in Dublin, so that was a must. Don't know what I was expecting. I knew that Ireland was poor at this time...didn't expect much of a childhood home. Was quite surprised to find a neat little house on a pleasant side street.
Shaw's boyhood home ~ commemorative plaque

From the same source above, I learned two more things...his father had a small pension, and then some sort of business that went bankrupt - the family was bad off financially. They emigrated to London, but dad didn't go. Bernard didn't go until he was in his twenties. Once George Sr.'s family went to England, he never contacted them again. Biographers disagree whether George Shaw Sr was a hopeless drunk or not but he did drink and young Shaw became a teetotaler for his entire life. Was this the key to his longevity? He lived to the age of 94! Supposedly he was quite healthy, clearheaded - died from some sort of accident. I think he feel off a ladder, but will have to check that if you think it important.

Oh! Did I mention the other "George" in Shaw's life? George John Lee, his mother's voice instructor moved in with the family when the boy was seven. A ménage à trois, it was. It is with this instructor that Mrs. Shaw left Ireland and her husband and son. George Lee was a dominant force in Shaw's childhood - a father figure according to Colin Wilson, a biographer cited above.

Joan Grimes
April 26, 2005 - 03:38 pm
Wonderful photos and very interesting information, Joan P. I missed Shaw's home when I was in Dublin. We were there for such a short time that I did not get to hunt it. I will do that when I go there again. I hope that I will go there again.

Joan Grimes

Joan Pearson
April 26, 2005 - 06:01 pm
Joan, you'll get there, I'm sure. Unless of course Ireland is on your long list and not your short one. Maybe we'll go together some day - only Not on St. Patrick's day!

It's strange - every source I've come across lists Shaw as an Irish playwright...but just how Irish was he? He went off to England when in his early twenties and stayed there until he died. Unlike Joyce who wrote of little else than his childhood in Ireland after he left, Shaw seems to have become totally anglo-sized. (is there such a word?) It seems that Ireland was like Appalachia, a place to leave. It's not like that today though.

The Irish proudly claim Shaw as one of their favorite sons. His picture appears on postcards, tea towels - all the souvenirs along with Joyce, Yeats, Swift... I went to the Writers' Museum in Dublin. Portraits, busts...Shaw is honored as one of Ireland's finest -
Shaw Exhibit in Dublin's Writers' Museum

The only writers showcased more prominently in Dublin were Joyce - and Jonathan Swift. I remember making a note to read "Gulliver's Travels" when I got home. Would you like to discuss that here? If I ever read it, I've long forgotten it. It's so much more fun doing it together. Remember "Canterbury Tales"? I must go post that idea in Great Books Upcoming.

I wanted to find Shaw's gravesite in Ireland - Swift and other prominent writers are buried in St. Patrick's Cathedral. No, James Joyce isn't buried there - he's buried in Zurich, Switzerland. Not Shaw either. These boys didn't come home again. It seems that there was competition between Westminster in London and St. Patrick's in Dublin for Shaw's remains, but he had left directions in his will to be cremated and have his ashes co-mingled with his wife's -
"By the time of his death in 1950 he had out-lived all his closest relationships. Long a proponent of cremation, he willed that his ashes be scattered with Charlotte's over his garden at Ayot Saint Lawrence, which conveniently resolved the rival demands of Westminster Abbey and Dublin's St Patrick's Cathedral." Cremated, Remains buried in his garden in England

Deems
April 27, 2005 - 04:16 am
Hi, Joan. I'm here auditing. Once the end of the semester comes in another week, I'll be here more frequently. I taught St. Joan last year and will be interested to read everyone's comments.

By the way, I think it's best to read Joan first and then Eliza for reasons that I will withhold until later.

Maryal/Deems

Harold Arnold
April 27, 2005 - 06:30 am
During the early post WW II years prior to his death on his birthday GBS was always good for what today might be called a "sound byte" or two. Each year 1947 - 1950 on his birthday there were always interesting press interviews. His intent was to live to 100. I don't remember details of his death in 1950 and surprisingly details were not readily available from the web.

I remember Shaw in this period also for his radical (evolutionary) socialism. His socialism was then the policy of the Atlee Labor Party Government an interesting social experiment that failed to restore economic prosperity to an UK bankrupted by the War..

I bought the three volume set of his plays (previously mentioned here) after seing the movie version of "Major Barbara" This is still one om my top 20 all time movies.

Joan Pearson
April 28, 2005 - 03:46 am
Oh yes! Just when you think it can't get any better, our Prof comes in to "audit" - not only that, she taught St. Joan last year! You are MORE than Welcome, Maryal!

Harold, I am reading a biography, Colin Wilson's Bernard Shaw, A Reassessment, which provides perhaps his last "sound bite" :
"On September 10th, 1950, he tripped and broke a leg while pruning a tree, and in hospital, the will to live became a will to die...He hated the hospital and the constant washings and attention and was glad to be back home. In October he was back at Ayot St. Lawrence, now failing. He slept a great deal, and died in his sleep on the morning of November 2, 1950.
Perhaps the loneliness of being a man who had outlived all his friends was the decisive factor in destroying his will to live."

"Towards the end of his life, when asked if he missed any of his old friends, Shaw answered, 'I don't miss anyone but myself.' "Yourself?' "The man I used to be.' "

Harold, I'm really interested in tracing the path of the Irish school boy who emigrated to England, became a participant (a force?) in the social experiment you mention and then went on to write plays - plays such as St. Joan. Are his socialistic views evident in St. Joan? I've heard you speak elsewhere of Major Barbara - in glowing terms. Let's see how this goes - perhaps we will be of a mind to read this one too!

Joan Pearson
April 28, 2005 - 05:38 am
Just opened up today's Washington Post and had to come back in to add a post script to Harold's mention of the movie version of Shaw's Major Barbara. Shaw apparently worked closely with the screenwriters of his plays - but in the obituary notice of British Actrice, Kay Walsh:

"A deft writer, she also contributed lines to a filmed version of George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmalion" (1938) and was so fluid in her style that the writer thought the script had been entirely faithful to his play."

Harold Arnold
April 28, 2005 - 09:14 am
In Major Barbara Shaw’s description of the munitions cartel run by Barbara’s father, Undershaft turned out to be closer to the Capitalist “Paradise” (sometimes pictured as Ford in the 1920’s, and GE, Microsoft, MMM, etc today) than to the Socialist Model as developed in the Soviet Union, or under the 1940’ through 1980 UK Labor and me too Tory governments. The Undershaft Munitions Cartel described in the play was characterized with generous fair wages paid to the labor force with all the benefits of health care, modern housing, education, free religion, and amusement selling its munitions to all buyers (monarchist, republican, etc) who had the money to pay for them. .

Another very socially significant Shaw play is "Man and Superman."

Joan Pearson
April 28, 2005 - 06:45 pm
Then I guess our question is - is St. Joan one of Shaw's socially significant plays? We shall soon find out.

It wasn't until he went off to England that Shaw became interested in - or active in Socialism. Will try to read up on that in some of these biographies.

There is much in Wilson's biography already cited here about Shaw's religious beliefs. Though financially strapped, the Shaw's were Irish gentry - that meant they were Protestants. The music teacher, remember him? George Lee was a strong influence in young Shaw's life. He was a Roman Catholic, a regular church-goer and his voice students, including Shaw's mother and sister sang in Catholic churches. "Shaw was sent to a Catholic school at Lee's suggestion." Somewhere else I read that this was something Shaw was ashamed of...never told anyone in England, not even his wife, to whom he was married for 47 years. She died in 1944, Shaw in 1950,

Joan Pearson
April 30, 2005 - 07:37 am
More on Shaw's religion. He publically renounced his Protestant background, announcing to the world that he was an atheist. Shaw, Atheist or Mystic. What I found most interesting was that he later espoused "mysticism" - though those who knew him said he remained an atheist at heart until he died.)

I found this interesting because his contemporary, Somerset Maugham held similar views. Do you think this concept was widely held at this time? Scrawler, one of the participants in the discussion of Maugham's The Razor's Edge, posted the following description -

"Mysticism" is defined as the doctrines or beliefs that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation and love without the medium of human reason.Mysticism can also be defined as any doctrine that asserts the possibility of attaining knowledge of spiritual truths through intuition acquired by fixed meditation. This second definition, I think, is what Maugham accomplishes. That you can gain a spiritual connection through meditation."

I think we'll find that Shaw's mysticism helped him to understand our Joan's "voices". I find it very relevant. We'll be talking more of this...in the coming week. Can't wait!

Harold Arnold
April 30, 2005 - 01:47 pm
Another interesting Shaw quirk is his vegetarianism. During the 1970’s I remember reading an analysis in a Vegetarian Magazine of his diet from vegetarian recipe books from the Shaw kitchen. The conclusion was that his diet included much too much sugars with lesser emphasis on sufficient proteins and proper balance of the different proteins. Nonetheless he did live to 94 and even then his death resulted from an unfortunate accident. I doubt that his diet can be judged the cause of his failure to reach his goal of the completion of his 100th year.

Pat H
April 30, 2005 - 02:42 pm
I've bought my book, complete with preface,and will be with you,although probably a minor contributor. I often seem to have a bone to pick with Shaw, but that isn't bad in a discussion.

About his vegetarianism, I remember reading somewhere, unfortunately can't remember where, that his doctors made him take liver extract, and he rationalized it by calling it "those chemicals".

Mrs Sherlock
April 30, 2005 - 06:06 pm
This is really going to be interesting. Shaw was a protestant from Ireland whose mother wnet to London with the music teacher, a Catholic. Shaw was educated in Catholic schools. While Victoria was on the throne. He is writing about a French virgin (is it true that Shaw was celibate?) bourgoisie who has visions from two saints; this girl is attempting to defend Catholic France from the Protestant British (who rule Ireland). In addition he was a socialist and a vegetarian?

Scamper
April 30, 2005 - 07:37 pm
I'm sneaking in an hour or so early before our May 1st start date, and I'd like to know what was behind Joan's cannonization. I've heard that it was somewhat of a payoff by Pope Benedict for his lack of support to France and other allies during WWI. Can anyone point me to web resources or fill me in on these details? A very interesting subject! I just finished the play, and it will make for some fascinating discussion...

bmcinnis
May 1, 2005 - 02:49 am

bmcinnis
May 1, 2005 - 02:52 am
I'm ready to go! JBS is "my kind of guy!"

I am looking forward, as always, to lively discussion and new insights into the life and works of an author I know and love as a writer. Bern

Joan Pearson
May 1, 2005 - 04:45 am
Oh, look at all the earlybirds! I thought I was up early to make curtain time and find you already assembling. Good morning Scamper, Bern! Just delighted to find you as excited as I am about getting into this play - and into the world of Bernard Shaw.

PatH! Welcome! So happy you have joined our little theater party. Delighted to have you - especially because you are familiar with Shaw's work (even if you've picked on some of his bones in the past.) Welcome!

Harold, Jackie - yes, yes an oft-proclaimed vegetarian - and don't forget that he was a teetotaler too - especially unusual among his circle of acquaintances.

Jackie, there were plenty of women in his life and though his marriage of 47 years was unconsummated, no children by mutual agreement - "a marriage blanc", as it has been described, he did have a long lasting "great passion" for Mrs Patrick Campbell, which lasted until wife Charlotte's death and a number of sexual relationships with women, including the actress Florence Farr, but seems to have left these with feelings of self-disgust."Shaw's relationships with women When I read this, I thought of how a vegetarian must feel after deviating from his usual diet and eating a hamburger.

In a biography by Colin Wilson - Bernard Shaw, A Reassessment, the author emphasizes the importance and influence of his mother in Shaw's life. He admired strong, self-sufficient women. That describes Charlotte - and Mrs. Campbell - and Joan. This play, St. Joan, was written for the very famous actrice, Dame Sybil Thorndyke - another strong woman and friend whose opinion Shaw valued highly.

Pamela - an interesting question. My first response was "no" - but would have to go into a lengthy description of the whole canonization process - beginning with "beatification" and then four required miracles. Joan was beatified in 1909 - before the war, under a different Pope - Pius X. I'd prefer not to get into the canonization yet - t'is the end of the play and we haven't even considered those "voices" in Scene I yet. (If you really want the sources before the end, stamp your little foot and I'll email them to you.) Your question is a good one - we need to make a big decision before we get started. I need some coffee - it's still early for me. Tell them to hold the curtain until I get back?

Joan Pearson
May 1, 2005 - 05:23 am
Good morning, shall we begin? One quick question before the curtain rises on Scene I. It's an important question, I think. Here it is. I'm a Gemini, (May 30 birthday), so that when considering the many ways to approach this play - the dramatic, the historic, the religious, the social aspects, my first response was - "Let's do it all!"

Now I'm having second thoughts. Shaw states in his Preface that ALL one needs to know about his Joan can be found in the play. I'm concerned that if we consider St. Joan beyond the character and circumstances he has presented to us, we might somehow compromise the dramatic impact of the play. Do you know what I mean?

Then I put myself into the shoes of the 1924 British audience. Since Joan was canonized in 1920 with much fanfare and festival, especially in France, they would have been much more aware of the details of the Hundred Years War and Joan's martyrdom and canonization - than we are.

So, here's the first question for you this morning - Quick, your answer before the curtain goes up!

Though Shaw states in his Preface that all one needs to know about his Joan can be found in the play, are you curious to learn more of this period in French/English history and the recorded background of Jeanne d'Arc?

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 1, 2005 - 05:57 am
Good morning to you too Joan. Yes, I want to learn more about this period in history in France and England and this why I bought the ticket. I am very unfamiliar with the whole story as it was taught to us so briefly in school, so it will be a double pleasure, Shaw's play and the events that preceded Jeanne d'Arc's burning at the stake. The reason I write Jeanne d'Arc is because I have never heard speak of her as St. Joan before now. I have to get used to the name.

I look forward to a lively discussion.

Éloïse

Mrs Sherlock
May 1, 2005 - 07:32 am
I vote yes because I always like to know more, more, more. More important than knowledge of Joan and her milieu, I want to know more about Shaw and his social and political milieu. What was the stimulus for the creation of the play? I shall attempt to find answers for some of my questions. The links above enrich the process of incorporating the play; I will do my best to further the process.

Harold Arnold
May 1, 2005 - 08:04 am
The historical stage on which the Joan of arc drama was played was the “100 Years War” (1337-1453). Click Here for a short history. (note the many good linksto associated sites avilable from this page including Joan og Arc, Henry V, Agincourt,etc) This war involved the attempt by a several English Kings to claim the Crown of France, a claim going back to the first Norman King of England William I who prior to the successful 1066 invasion of England had been Duke of Normandy.

Remember just prior to Joan, Henry V (see the Shakespeare play) had successfully invaded France and in 1415 beat the French knights at Agincourt with English archers. Henry V died in 1422 and the Joan story was the restoration of the French Crown to more Native French Princes. Joan was successful in this effort when she saw the Dolphin crowned at Reims in 1429. Unfortunately for Joan she fell into the hands of elements sympatric to the English and was tried and executed.

I note that it took 500 years after Joan’s death before she was declared a Saint. In fact the process did not officially begin until her beatification in 1909, which was followed by the final canonization in 1920. Aside from the fact that it took 500 years for the process to officially begin and was completed rather quickly in only 11 years, it does not necessarily point to a 20th century political motive in the process. Perhaps further research might show otherwise?

Scamper
May 1, 2005 - 08:05 am
I too am interested in the history of Joan of Arc. Shaw makes some references to historical figures, and I don't see why we should go on in ignorance! Your point, Joan, about the history being well known when the play was produced in 1924 is the answer. We wouldn't need background either if there had been great fanfare just 4 years earlier. (Granted, fanfare today dwarfs fanfare before global television and the web...).

I am very interested in the canonization as indicated above, but I can be patient and wait until the end. Somehow I haven't been able to find out more about the motives behind canonization, if there were any political ones.

Deems
May 1, 2005 - 08:12 am
Good morning--Ah, to know it all--all of Joan, all of Shaw, all of theater at the time, all of the time period. Riiiiight. What a wonderful response so early in the reading. I've been dealing with students who, ever since Spring hit, have been desperately wanting to NOT learn more, to rest, to sleep, to fall in love, to throw open the windows. So nice to be here among you where Spring has not undone your wits.

I didn't realize until I read the introduction to this play that Joan wasn't canonized until 1914, long time after her presence here on earth. Later, when we have finished the play, as Joan suggests, we can wonder about canonization and the time it takes and how come some saints are sainted earlier than others and even the speculation about some of those early saints if Joan's strength holds up.

As for Shaw and his peculiarities, I found one sentence in Joan's link that for me helps to understand him, "His father, George Carr Shaw, was an unsuccessful mill-owner and an alcoholic." Shaw's mother takes her daughter to England, but Shaw stays in Ireland until he is twenty at which point he joins his mother and sister in England. The adult children of alcoholics are often a troubled and insecure lot, especially when one is a son and the father is an alcoholic. It looks to me as if Shaw's mother saw a way to get her daughter and herself out of the situation, but young George stayed for three more years with his father. His father's name was George and Shaw refused to use his first name--that's significant. His friends called him Bernard.

As for Shaw's relations with women, it seems he was also troubled with his sexuality. Imagine marrying without consumating. Imagine feeling disturbed with oneself after engaging in intercourse. The man had problems. If I were setting out to do a psychological assessment of GBS, I'd want to know more about his childhood which sounds, from the brief facts in the link in Joan's post above, to have been pretty miserable.

Maryal/Deems

Scamper
May 1, 2005 - 08:15 am
I think Joan was made a saint in 1920, not 1914...

Deems
May 1, 2005 - 08:18 am
Scamper--Sorry for the confusion. I was thinking about the Pope, Benedict XV, who was Pope when WWI broke out so that date slipped in. You are correct. 1920 was the year of canonization.

Maryal

Harold Arnold
May 1, 2005 - 08:23 am
Click here for further detailed information on the 500 year process of Joan's canonization.

Joan Pearson
May 1, 2005 - 09:50 am
Dear Know-it-alls,
Let's go for it! All of it! Sit here in the dark of ignorance, INDEED!

Jackie - in your search for Shaw's motivation in writing of Joan, you might want to start with his socialism and anti-clerical views at the time of the Beatification - 1909..

Thank you for the historical background to set SCENE I, Harold. Will add it to the links in the heading. (While the translation is correct - dauphin/dolphin, can we agree to refer to Charles as the "Dauphin" - Eloise is having a hard enough time with Jeanne/Joan)

Let's concentrate on the Historical background, the 100 Years' War - and hold off on discussion of the canonization process for a few weeks. I need to sneak in JUST one little comment on the chronology of events - you might find this of interest.
In 1455, Joan’s family petitioned Pope Callistus III to reconsider the charges against Joan. Although Charles had made no effort to save her some 24 years earlier, he did help her family’s appeal to the Pope.

CURTAIN UP - SCENE I ~ Your thoughts? Does Robert Baudricourt live and breathe? Or is he a caricature?

Scamper
May 1, 2005 - 12:47 pm
In thinking about whether or not Robert is a caricature, it is good to remember that Shaw in his preface said that of course Joan didn't convince him in just a few minutes to send her to the Daulphin - but that the play was already 3.5 hours long, and dramatic license dictated a quick persuasion!

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 1, 2005 - 02:17 pm
The Dauphin is the heir apparent to throne of France, usually the eldest son of the King, but it is also the name of a fish. In journalism today, a Dauphin would be the heir apparent to the highest position in a corporation, in a government. It is sometimes used in a pejorative manner.

I take Beaudricourt very seriously, he would have been exactly like described by Shaw in my opinion. It was the norm in those times to treat servants that way and young women, of low birth?, worse. She seems to me to be the first feminist.

Deems
May 1, 2005 - 02:49 pm
Question 2 above: I don't think that the theater-goer would miss the stage directions that follow the introduction of signigicant characters IF the play is well cast. These directions, fully spelled out by Shaw, are really for the director of the play. If the director pays attention, the visual appearance of the character on stage will convince.

My favorite is the one of Joan wherein we discover that she is a girl with very wide apart eyes even somewhat bulging. Her voice is convincing. She is an "ablebodied country girl." She is not beautiful or even pretty. Thus when she comes to be a leader, we know that the men who follow her are following because she is so convincing and not because she is beautiful.

I like Eloise's comment that Joan is a feminist. Perhaps the first feminist.

What do the rest of you think about these descriptions?

Maryal/Deems

KleoP
May 1, 2005 - 03:28 pm
I think that the word dauphin is also French for dolphin, maybe spelled differently in French, but I couldn't find anything about a fish called 'dauphin.' In English, there is, of course, the tropical dolphin fish, Coryphaena hippurus, or mahi-mahi, and there is another fish with the same common name. What fish for dauphin, Eloise?

Was Joan the first feminist? I don't know enough about her, yet, to judge her as a feminist, especially I don't know about her championing women's causes. I think that historically the impression of Joan that I have is colored by her legend to the detriment of actual knowledge. I can't wait to know more.

Kleo

Joan Grimes
May 1, 2005 - 03:35 pm
I am here and I always want to know more about history. I have studied the 100 Years War and taught about it but always want to learn more about it. Always want to learn more French/English History.

Joan Grimes

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 1, 2005 - 03:37 pm
I was just joking about St. Joan being the first feminist Kleo. My Larousse says: "Dauphin" the heir apparent to the throne of France, and also the fish 'dauphin' in French is a 'dolphin' in English.

Pat H
May 1, 2005 - 04:12 pm
I don't think Joan was a feminist in the sense of advancing women's causes. Gender was irrelevant to what she was doing, which was effecting God's will according to her instructions. In a deeper sense, this is the ultimate feminism. Gender shouldn't be relevant compared to purpose.

KleoP
May 1, 2005 - 05:53 pm
Sadly, Eloise, my lack of knowledge of Joan will become even more evident than not being able to tell that you are joking about her being a feminist. I simply don't know enough to eliminate the remark. I am reading the lengthy forward in my book, don't know the author. He talks about a famous sculpture that was inspired, possibly, by Joan of Arc, with a mask of a woman, not handsome or ugly, but with remarkably wide-set eyes. This will be a good reason for reading Joan first.

Good comments, though, from Maryal and Pat. What is a feminist? Maybe Joan is one.

'Dolphin' in English is a mammal, not a fish--the French word is describing the marine mammals, 3 dolphins, on the crest of the French location for the original user of the title Dauphine before it was ceded to the heir-apparent of the French throne in 1349 or so. I was hoping that this was one of the places where a common name is translated the same in two languages. For example, one of the skunk cabbages in English, also translates, in its common name, to 'stinky cabbage-looking plant' in at least one other language. So the question in my mind was, did the French call Coryphaena hipparus 'daufine?'

Kleo

Deems
May 1, 2005 - 05:53 pm
PatH--I agree. My definition of a feminist is a woman who acts instead of reacting, who leads, who makes decisions, who thinks for herself, who sometimes acts against the role any given society has in mind for her. And on and on. A feminist, by her very existence, "forwards the goals of women."

Maryal

Deems
May 1, 2005 - 05:57 pm
Kleo--The Preface you are reading was written by Shaw himself. I'm assuming you have the Penguin Classics edition.

Maryal

Pat H
May 1, 2005 - 06:12 pm
In his preface (under "Joan's good Looks"), Shaw mentions "A sculptor of her time in Orleans made a statue of a helmeted young woman with a face that is unique in art in point of being evidently not an ideal face but a portrait, and yet so uncommon as to be unlike any real woman one has ever seen. It is surmised that Joan served unconsciously as the sculptor's model. There is no proof of this; but those extraordinately spaced eyes raise so powerfully the question 'If this woman be not Joan, who is she?' that I dispense with further evidence, and challenge those who disagree with me to prove a negative."

Is it known what statue this is? If so, it would be worth having a look at it, since it obviously affected Shaw. Sometimes one vision can open up into a whole world.

Pat H
May 1, 2005 - 07:06 pm
I was surprised at how funny the first scene is. My favorite line is the description of de Baudricourt's steward as "the sort of man whom age cannot wither because he has never bloomed". But poor de Baudricourt--he doesn't know what's hit him. He has mostly been able to get by with bluster and his important position, and Joan just sits there saying "yes, sir, you are going to do what I want because it's God's will", and he can't handle it.

In answer to one of the questions, no, I don't think deB is a caricature. He is broadly drawn, but very realistic.

Joan Pearson
May 1, 2005 - 08:42 pm
Scamper, thanks for reminding us that the original play was nearly four hours long. In his Preface, Shaw defends the length explaining that he has written a "classical play" - the well-established classical limit is three and a half hours. He refers to his "pseudo-critics and the fashionable people whose playgoing is a hypocrisy." He refused edit the length - insisting that the Canonization at the end is crucial to the whole. I have to wonder how long the play was staged at 3 1/2 hours? It is performed today. No one would sit through 3 1/2 hours today. Does anyone know how long the play runs now? Who edited it? We need a modern, edited script!

JoanG, we're fortunate to have you with us! You've studied and taught the 100 Years War! The idea of any war going on for 100 Years has always boggled my mind. It's important that we remember that this is the 15th century - two "countries" like modern Britain and modern France were not all out fighting one another. Can you give a little background on medieval France to help us understand conditions when Joan showed up on the battlefield?

Don't you wonder what sort of a woman Joan would have become? She never made it out of her teens! I can't see her putting her armor down and becoming a conventional housewife. In his Preface, Shaw tells the reader of her "peculiarity, her craze for soldiering and the masculine life. He writes of "the vigor and scope of her mind and character, and the intensity of her vital energy." I guess, like Kleo, we need a good definition of a "feminist" - Maryal and Pat make a good point. Joan wasn't fighting to advance women's goals or causes. And she was following directions - believed she was doing God's will. Certainly she was independent, focusing on a goal. So what would YOU call her?

Kleo, as Maryal says, it sounds as if you are reading Shaw's own lengthy Preface to the play. It's signed Ayot St. Lawrence, May, 1924, right? That's where he lived - and died in England. The sculpture referred to in the Preface is the head of St. Maurice -
It is believed to have been sculpted shortly after Joan's death by someone who saw her during her time in Orleans. Today it is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Orléans, France. (Will put it in the heading for reference.)

Maryal, I agree the introductions to the scenes in the play would be a casting director's dream. But I think there is so much good reading there! Pat has already referred to the description of Baudricourt - "the sort of man whom age cannot wither because he has never bloomed." Let's watch for more examples as each scene is introduced.

Pat, Eloise, I'm glad you find Robert de Baudricourt's character believable. I did too but sometimes my imagination takes over and I'm not sure about my judgment. I know men like him - insecure underneath, but a big booming - all show, disguising a lack of confidence, incompetence. "Thirty thousand thunders!" "Fifty thousand devils!" I think it is important to look at the believable in this scene - as there is so much that is far-fetched.
Which do you want to talk about first - those eggs or the voices?

ALF
May 2, 2005 - 05:31 am
Do you think the theater-goer would miss the delicious character descriptions found in reading the stage directions before each scene? Your favorites?

I love the question Joan because it made me pause and consider who indeed I did like best. SO-o I played all three of the characters aloud in my bedroom with the door closed last eveing. Shaw did such a good job with these descriptions that I found myself bursting with egotism and grandious speech as I became the crowing Captain de Baudricourt. (Having a very strong will of my own this was easily accomplished.) I would love to have seen this play. If it lasted 4 - 4 1/2 hours these characters must have taken a great deal of time convincing the audience with the mannerisms Shaw depicted. To return this AM after MD. visit as the fearful and jittery steward.

Mrs Sherlock
May 2, 2005 - 07:15 am
The stage directions are so delicious in Shaw's plays, I fell in love with his writing when I read Pygmalion the first time. Around that time I read Cyranno, and cried and cried. JoanG, I am puzzled as to the disctincions between peasant and bourgeoisie; were any women literate at this time? I haven't finished the play yet, but are there any other women characters? So much would be part of the cultural foundation of Britain in 1924 that we cannot imagine, but class distinctions were very strong then. I'll do more reading about the political situation. In other words, what was Shaw's fundamental purpose in writing the play? I've always seen him as holding up a mirror to London society, revelaing the twists and turns hidden behind the public acts of important people. Not quite ridicule, but definitely hoist on their own petards! So, who is he tweaking here? Men? The French? The Catholics? The English? The nobility? Lots of good stuff to chew on.

Harold Arnold
May 2, 2005 - 08:32 am
Let me say that there exists a fish commonly called the Dolphin. It is a beaufull game fish taken through out the offshore Gulf of Mexico and south Atlantic. I think I remember the same fish from Kon Tiki in the South Pacific. In the Gulf we refer to the small marine mammal as a porpus. In the Mediterranean I understand that a similar small marine mammal is also called a dolphin.

The heir apparent to the old French throne was called the Dauphine a position that in England is "The Prince of Wales. I misspelled dauphine word as dolphin in an earlier post.

Deems
May 2, 2005 - 10:04 am
JoanP--Saint Joan was produced at USNA two years ago. I can check with Christy, but if memory serves, the play took a little over three hours. I know that Christy cut down a number of the long speeches that occur later in the play. The three hours I am remembering included a fifteen minute intermission.

Maryal/Deems

JoanK
May 2, 2005 - 10:20 am
I went through a "phase" of reading Shaw in my twenties, and haven't looked at him since. I am surprised and delighted at how GOOD he is.

I was also surprised at his explanation for the voices. I haven't finished his introduction, but so far he says:

First: "There are people in the world with imaginations so vivid that when they have an idea, it comes to them as an audible voice, sometimes uttered by a visual figure" He gives many historical examples, including Newton. Hmmm. Wonder if he's talking about himself. You can tell that Joan's voices were this and not insanity because "they never gave her any advice that might not have come from her mother wit".

Next: he postulates an "appetite for evolution": "there are forces at work which use individuals for purposes far transcending the purpose of keeping these individuals alive..."giving as proof that people will often undergo great personal sacrifice "in the pursuit of knowledge or social readjustments".

Finally then he says "..the figure Joan recognized as St. Catherine was not really St. Catherine, but the dramatization by Joan's imagination of that pressure upon her of the driving force that is behind evolution ... the evolutionary appetite".

Wow!! What do you think of that!!

KleoP
May 2, 2005 - 10:21 am

The script for Saint Joan is the Penguin classic edition according to the one community theater play service I use. It's modern enough that if there were an edited version we could probably find it on Barnes and Noble or Amazon, because it would have been authorized under the copyright owned by Shaw's heirs--I hope this doesn't sound too impressive, as if I know what I am talking about here. For community theater Saint Joan is usually cut by the director or the producer to about 2 1/2 hours, which is still rather long for theater for modern audiences.



I think that the question of what a feminist is, and whether Joan was one, just gets more interesting as I read. Whether anyone else does, I will be referring back to it!



Thanks, all, for pointing out that I am reading Shaw's preface. Yes, I want to know more. Isn't that what any good read does, lead us on the quest for more reads?



I don't miss not having stage directions on the stage while watching a play. Sometimes an author will include them in the play as part of the script. I will have to think of a play that does this. Shakespeare does this a bit in, oh, the one about the winds, ... I suspect it is best not done in the hands of amateurs. Certainly Shaw's production is lengthy enough without adding the stage directions. I don't think with a great play the theater goer ever misses them, as they are not part of what the playwright intends to go on the stage. With a poor play, would more from a second rate writer be missed?



Harold, my question was whether or not the French call Coryphaena hippurus 'daufine' in French. A common name for an organism in one language is not always translated. The French may have a common name for the dolphin fish that is completely unrelated to our word 'dolphin.' 'I did mention the tropical fish, Coryphaena hippurus, in my earlier posts. A porpoise is, like the dolphin, a type of toothed whale. And, yes, it is also a popular, but incorrect name, for a dolphin, as it technically refers to members of the family Phocaenidae, while dolphin should be used for members of the family Delphinidae. While studying marine mammals we used dolphin in the vernacular to refer to all small toothed whales, including dolphins and porpoises. This is not, however, common among laymen.



Kleo

Mrs Sherlock
May 2, 2005 - 11:36 am
I think that the French for prince is Dauphin and for princess is Dauphine.

Harold Arnold
May 2, 2005 - 11:47 am
From the Shaw Preface I think Shaw makes it perfectly clear that Joan’s voices and visions were not from madness, but neither did he accept them as an actual communication with God. Joan, herself in a later scene describes them as what I would call intense imagination that has the nature of a hypnotic state. In a later scene Shaw has Joan’s saying (something like) ‘that is the way God talks to humans.’

Shaw seems to have seen this psychological state that in his words constituted ‘superpersonal forces that must be left to the psychologist for explanation rather than the historian.’ I take this to mean that Shaw like the character Robert de Baudricourt was enough of a pragmatist to believe that if others like Poulengey, the steward and the French rank-and-file believed the voices came from God, that was good enough for him. This Maid for whatever reason was the only hope for France and that was reason enough, he would send her on to the Dauphine’s court and let the issue be decided there. It is only after Robert announces this decision that the steward announces the welcome news that the here-to-fore egg less hens were again productive.

I find Shaw’s plays extremely easy to read and understand. Yes I think most English speaking audiences would have understood the play after watching it in early 20th century London or N.Y. Yet I believe Shaw’s preface and his character descriptions and stage directions would have helped. And also a prior review of the history of the 100 Years War would have furthered the viewers understanding.

I think the 100 years War is particularly important. This was the time of immense social change with the Medieval Ages yielding to the coming renaissance. Already the English archers had beat the noble French Knights with a barrage of arrows at Agincourt; this was an event that tolled the end of an era. As we read this play we hear the characters read dialog suggesting the coming of a new order changing the basic social institutions of the past, including such now common concepts as Nationalism and even words like gun powder, artillery and Protestantism.

ALF
May 2, 2005 - 03:03 pm
I loved the response the steward gave when called "a pack of curs: you are afraid of her," Robert accused. His answer was "No sir: we are afraid of you; but she puts courage into us. She really doesn't seem to be afraid of anything. Perhaps you could frighten her sir. That cracked me up. Here is this slip of a girl bringing these warriors to their knees, spurred on by nothing but her belief in God and her conviction that she has been chosen to free France.

Shaw tells us that she is an ablebodied country girl of 17 or 18. She must have been more than ablebodied, I'd venture to say. She must have been very athletic and energetic as well as she persuades Robet to help her in her mission.

Kathleen Zobel
May 2, 2005 - 04:58 pm
WEll I'm up to "Joan not Tried as a political offender," in 'Bernard Shaw''Saint Joan'. It is a brilliant History of France in the MIddle Ages The analyses of Joan's voices and visions, The comparison of Joan and Newton is breath taking as well as hilarious. The idea that Joan found marriage acceptable,but not what precedes it was very interesting. I'm enjoying all the insights of the Church and the Roman Empire as much as seeing a Joan very different from the one I knew way back when I was introduced to her by a sixth grade nun. To me then she was a Saint before she died, and succeeded conquering the French by sheer intelligence. She died because all Saints died horrific deaths. Whomever put the Preface together is to be congradulated. I don't think I could appreciate what Shaw does in the play without reading some background. I'm really looking forward to reading how he portrays her especially after reading what Shakespeare, Voltaire, Schiller,etc came up with.

Joan Pearson
May 2, 2005 - 05:57 pm
EVERYBODY, the lengthy Preface before the play was written by Shaw himself. It's his own work! He signed it "Ayot St. Lawrence, May 1924"...this is the place where he lived in England - and died. And the year that he wrote it.

Kathleen, this is Shaw's version of what you learned in 6th grade. Not gospel. Shaw's own! But really, all saints died horrifically? I must have been absent that day, hahaha...I wonder what effect that had on you and your classmates?

Will be back in a few minutes - you've all been busy today!

KleoP
May 2, 2005 - 07:37 pm

I don't think a horrific death is necessary for sainthood. Martyrdom is, however, one way of getting noticed for the process.



The concept of Nationalism is interesting for the timing of the play, also. It is the founding of the country free from England for the French in the 15th century, but the destruction of the world and hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century--something that continues to this day, some think. And, when Shaw wrote this, it was already dawning on people how dangerous the forces of nationalism could and would be to ordinary people, the peasantry, and the bourgeoisie. I don't know any more about Shaw than about Joan of Arc--I look forward to finding out so much more about him, also.



Kleo

Joan Pearson
May 2, 2005 - 07:55 pm
Andy, you can still see St. Joan today - in some places the uncut version! Maryal, really, USNA performed it uncut - 3 1/2 hours? (With one 15 minute intermission. Can't you see the line in the ladies' room?) Kleo - au contraire, I am impressed, you do sound as if you know what you are talking about. I'm confused though. If the play is under copyright held by Shaw's heirs (who are his heirs if he had no children) - how can a director or producer cut the script for modern audiences who can only sit still for 2 1/2 hours? An aside - In early March the Olney Theatre in Maryland did St. Joan - modern abbreviated version. Joan was played by - Julie Nixon Eisenhower's daughter.

Jackie's got questions about women and literacy in the 15th century. Anyone? We know that Joan was not able to read or write. She was a country girl - more than a peasant, but not quite the bourgeoisie. Anyone? And then the question - who is Shaw "tweaking here"? Of the groups you mention, MEN, FRENCH, CATHOLICS, ENGLISH, the NOBILITY - I really can't say. If pressed, I'd say - the CLERGY, without distinguishing any particular religion.

Men, do you see him tweaking men? Somewhere else, (not in St. Joan), he wrote:
" Women are the same as men: but different. But of the two, he calculated, women were fractionally less idiotic than men"

I look forward to hearing what you and Kleo come up with regarding Joan and feminism.
There are a number of elements at work in the play that resulted in Joan's downfall and conviction. Was the fact that she was a woman one of them? Nationalism, Kleo mentions, Harold brings up Protestantism. Both feared by her judges and captors. Poor girl, her timing was all off.

KleoP
May 2, 2005 - 08:04 pm
Ah, sadly, I know nothing about his heirs. I assume he had some. You can cut with permission. It's long, involved process, I would assume, by the way it is avoided like the plague.

Fifteenth century literacy was limited to the clergy and a few noblemen, generally not noblewomen, but some women in convents also learned. Very, very limited literacy.

My thought is Shaw is tweaking the upper classes and the snobby, whoever they should be.

I agree with Harold that Shaw is wonderful to read. He is so easy to read, also, that I got lost in his book, sitting in the Oakland Hills with a view of the Golden Gate, and was late for work. I find his introduction very different in style from his plays, but so incredibly insightful into both Shaw and the play and the characters in the play.

Kleo

Joan Grimes
May 2, 2005 - 08:05 pm
Mrs Sherlock,

You asked me about the distinction between Bourgeoisie and peasant. Bourgeoisie means middle class. Peasant, according to Merriam Webster means " 1 : a member of a European class of persons tilling the soil as small landowners or as laborers; also : a member of a similar class elsewhere 2 : a usually uneducated person of low social status."

It seems to me that if we go back to the feudal system the peasant would be the serf. Probably the bourgoisie would be a member of the merchant class. That has always been my understanding of the difference between the two.

Joan P. you asked for run down of French History at the time of the 100 years War. That is a tall order. I am not sure that I can do that without writing a book. I will say that the English, as a result of Eleanor of Acquitaine's marriage into the English Plantagenêt dynasty in the 12th century gave a broad area of land which stretched from the Channel to the Pyrénées to the English. That was in the 12th century. Phillipe-Auguste of France was able to get much of it back in that same century but in the 14th century England's EdwardIII tried to claim the throne. Philippe de Valois of France was very angry over this and trespassed on Acquitaine. The response to this was an invasion of Normandy by Edward III of England. This set off the 100 years war in 1328. 90 years later the English crowned their Henry VI king of France. That was when the 17 year old peasant girl, Joan of Arc,came on the scene. She was able to lead the French army to several victories over the English before she was captured by the Burgundians who were allies of the English.

I am not sure that little sketch helps any but it is very difficult to condense the events of that time into a post here. Here is a link to aTimeline of the Hundred Years War that might be helpful. Timeline of Hundred Years War

Here is another link that you might find interesting if you want background material. The French

I really don't want to load down the discussion with links but if you are interested you can find many things on the time that all this happened by just entering Medieval France in Google.

Joan Grimes

Joan Pearson
May 2, 2005 - 08:29 pm
Joan, it really does help. And the fact that you are with us as a resource helps. When you say that the English crowned their Henry VI king of France - what area was thought of as France? Was he King of Bourgogne? br>
Can you answer Jackie's question about women and literacy in Joan's time? Were there any women who could read and write in the upper class? In religious orders?

I'm beginning to see how important it is to understand this period in history in order to understand what really happened in 1431. It takes some understanding of Catholicism to understand the voices too, I think. Shaw explains them in a way that makes them acceptable to his readers - Harold calls them the result of "intense imagination that has the nature of a hypnotic state." I think this is an area where there are differing viewpoints. What we have before us is Shaw's interpretation - and of course this IS Shaw's story, his play, so that's what we are discussing. But for those who want to know all, there other, different ways of explaining what she is hearing.

Joan K - what a thought - is Shaw talking about himself when he describes people in the world with imaginations so vivid that when they have an idea it comes to them as an audible voice." Shaw was deeply involved in "mysticism" - quite popular among the intelligentia at this time. I can see where he would have an understanding of Joan's voices that others find hard to understand.

I'm not sure what Shaw is saying about the figure Joan recognized as St. Catherine not being St. Catherine but the dramatization by Joan's imagination of the 'evolutionary appetite'. I'm trying, but it is alluding me. Am listening if you are understanding...

I can give you some information about the three saints Joan with whom Joan is in communication though. Back in a few minutes. Need coffee.

Deems
May 2, 2005 - 08:32 pm
Joan Grimes--I for one thank you for the brief history. I think that the Black Prince referred to in the play was Edward, the Black Prince, so called because he wore black armor. I think he was the son (and heir apparent) of Edward III, but he predeceased his father.

another way we can be sure that Shaw wrote the Preface is by looking at the table of contents in the Penguin edition. There you will see a brief essay by Imogen Stubbs, an actress who recently played Joan. Then an Introduction which is by Joley Wood (you have to look on the title page to discover the author of the Introduction). Then, where the pages begin to be numbered in Arabic, you have the Preface and the Play--all by Shaw.

I'm going to go look up Edward III and get him straight again. If I had ten dollars for every time I've looked up various kings and lines of descent I could retire on a private island somewhere.

You mention "Shaw's heirs," Kleo, and I will have to check out that as well. Shaw had no children. I know that he left a rather large amount of money in his will especially designated for the person who could come design an alphabet for English that would represent all the sounds and be no more than 40 letters. If you type "Shavian alphabet" into Google, you can see what the winner came up with. It's kind of fun to play with the various characters.

Maryal/Deems

Deems
May 2, 2005 - 08:38 pm
GBS believed that English really needed a sensible and logical alphabet. Here's a link to the one that was finally created.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/shavian.htm

Maryal/Deems

Joan Pearson
May 2, 2005 - 09:16 pm
Oh great - another word game! This is why I never get to bed. I'll pay for this in the morning. Did you show your students the Shavian alphabet, Maryal?

I'm determined to clear my desktop before midnight. Probably won't make it, but I MUST go to work tomorrow!

I've heard the story of Joan's voices all my life...St. Michael, St. Margaret and St. Catherine. Sometimes I'd wonder about the names of these saints - who were they? How did that information come to us? This week I found a translation of the transcript of the official Inquisition, Joan's trial - in which she names the saints. Today I found out where the names came from. There were three statues in Joan's little church in Domremy, the Church of St. Rémy, where Joan used to pray as a young girl. One of the statues remains in the church today - the one of Saint Margaret -
Joan prayed before the statues of these three saints, asking them to intercede for her people who were besieged by the English. She and her family had had to leave Domrémy earlier that year - they moved to Neufchatel - and now feared another attack. The answer to her prayer? Enter the fray yourself, but with God and right on your side, you will overcome. With quiet meditation, a request for intercession and the answer "comes" to you if you listen closely enough.

Andy, tell about your five year old granddaughter who has this all figured out?

Joan Pearson
May 2, 2005 - 09:27 pm
What of the miracles...the egg-laying? Of course we know this is Shaw's invention. I can just see you reading Captain Robert Baudricourt's role out loud, Andy. Wasn't he sadly funny - an ineffective leader with little self-esteem, booming orders at his helpless servant. He can't even get him to bring him his breakfast! After he agrees to send the girl to the Court, (with his recommendation, no less), the hens are laying eggs just like they used to! Shaw inserts this miracle to counter the phenomenom of the voices - one miracle for another. Doesn't he leave you to wonder just WHY Robert really agreed to send this little girl to the Dauphin? Why DID he? Why WOULD he? What convinced him to send her with a horse, an escort, armor? I think if we can articulate the answer to this, we might get closer to understanding Joan, the real person...

Scamper
May 2, 2005 - 10:39 pm
Wouldn't the copyrights on Shaw's plays have run out by now?

Scamper
May 2, 2005 - 10:40 pm
I think the play answers this question. Joan was so inspirational, so sure of herself, that she caused many to believe she was from God. Robert didn't necessarily believe she was from God, but she was the last of the French bag of tricks - maybe if the soldiers believed, they could turn the war around.

ALF
May 3, 2005 - 04:00 am
My grandduaghter Hope while discussing how "boring" sitting in church could be, told her cousin with eyed-awe, "If you just sit quietly, very quietly you can hear Jesus talk to you!" Hello! This is an alert 5 yr. old, blissfully ignorant of saints and sinners, telling us to consider santity. Can you imagine how persuasive a 17 yr. old could be? The men did not see her as a woman. When Robert cast aspersions on her character, Polly said he'd as soon "think of her as the Blessed Virgin herself, in that way." I remember reading that she did not mensturate either, which was another reason they believed in her santicty.

Robert had no choice but to relent. His men already had fallen under Joan's animated character, not quite understanding her devotion, but none-the-less surrendering to her whims, ready to lay down their lives to accompany her to the Dauphin. Robert had to save face! What did he have to lose ?

Deems
May 3, 2005 - 05:09 am
I agree with the comments on Robert. He gave in for the same reason so many men "gave in" to Joan. She was persuasive. I think he also gave in in order to get rid of her, make her someone else's problem as has been suggested. And then too. . .there was that longstanding problem with England. Maybe this very persuasive girl who had an answer for everything and absolute faith that she knew what God wanted her to do, what God wanted for France, well, just maybe she could make a difference.

JoanP--My students never saw the Shavian alphabet. I only recently found it though I knew there was one. I can't take them that far off track when there is so much in the play that needs discussion.

Maryal/Deems

bmcinnis
May 3, 2005 - 05:33 am
Each time I read this play, I ask myself why Shaw, with his wit and irony, would have ever picked Joan of Arc as a subject for a play. And then as his life unfolded, I began to understand. I believe he himself is a martyr of sorts. Here I go again...

Joan is one of the persons I can honestly say "changed" my life. Remember the film version that came out in the '50's. I was a freshman in high shcool and in those days the film showings were continuous and in the middle of my third viewing in a row, my dear mother suddenly appeared to take me home.

Joan stirred in me not only my decision to become a religious but in the days with lots of male heroes and relatively few women, her courage, her spirit, her conviction are attributes I still admire today. I am sure I will be rejuvenated again. Bern

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 3, 2005 - 07:01 am
Europe had suffered a great famine (1315/16) and the Black Plague (1348) and now in the 15th century, France was under English domination. I am tempted to compare the strength of French nationalism to that of Americans and Joan, at 13 when she started to hear voices, could very well understand from conversations within her family and her entourage that they wanted nothing more than to drive the English out of the country.

If God wanted her to become instrumental in doing that she was even more convinced that this was what was expected of her and she was prepared to go all the way. Nothing inspires more passion than religion and nationalism.

To me her voices reflected the emotions of this sensitive girl about both France and about God. It was easy for her to combine the two and she was finally compelled to act upon it. I have no doubt that she was not only sane but extremely intelligent and determined.

What we see today in the world proves that a strong faith will move nations to drive out oppressors risking their lives in the name of God.

For Joan the voices were her Instruction Manual perhaps also they were nothing else but passing on her message to those who would understand her intentions and the army was only too happy to follow a strong leader, albeit a woman, because they had no other leader in sight to achieve what they all wanted in their hearts, driving the enemy out.

The French believed that she liberated France thus the cult of Joan of Arc was born.

In the link below from the Musée Jeanne d’Arc in Rouen France her history is told from a French point-of-view.

JEANNE D'ARC

Harold Arnold
May 3, 2005 - 08:55 am
I seem to be experiencing computer trouble or a DSL problem. In any case my system responds dreadfully slow. Hopefully it will straighten itself out this afternoon while I am away. Mean while here are two comments relative to recent posts. Let’s see if they transmit?

who is Shaw "tweaking here"? Of the groups you mention, MEN, FRENCH, CATHOLICS, ENGLISH, the NOBILITY - I really can't say. If pressed, I'd say - the CLERGY, without distinguishing any particular religion


I’d say all of the above. Somewhere in his writings I remember him particularly suspicious of clergy. I thought it was in one of the two prologues to “Caesar and Cleopatra,” but in checking the only two social institutions he denounced there was in the Alternate Prologue, “Below them are two notable drawbacks to civilization: a palace and soldiers.” Both of these groups certainly are present in both the English and French elements of our subject play.

Doesn't he leave you to wonder just WHY Robert really agreed to send this little girl to the Dauphin? Why DID he? Why WOULD he? What convinced him to send her with a horse, an escort, armor? I think if we can articulate the answer to this, we might get closer to understanding Joan, the real person...


Joan I would give Robert a bit more credit than you. At first it was his intent to send her to her father for required paternal discipline. But as Scene 1 proceeds he began to see the affect Joan was having on the other players such as Poulengey, the steward, and the French rank-and-file in general, leading him to he realization that she might useful in riding France of the English. Hence, his decision was to pass her on to the Dauphin Court with his favorable recommendation.

JoanK
May 3, 2005 - 09:48 am
The only reading I have done about the Hundred Years War is a book I highly enjoyed: "A Distant Mirror" by the historian Barbara Tuchman.Unfortunately, I've returned it to the friend I borrowed it from; I wish I had it hear to see what it says about Joan. My memory is that Tuchman points out that Joan's acheivements, while psychologicallly very important, were actually only a minor incident in the war. What do you historians say?

JoanK
May 3, 2005 - 10:29 am
One place in the introduction where I'll bet Shaw is talking about himself: in the comparison between Joan and Socrates where he said that they both had to be killed because their brilliance was so annoying to everyone that even their friends couldn't wait to be rid of them. Doesn't that sound like Shaw?

I sorta-kinda understand what Shaw is saying about the "evolutionary appetite" (although I don't buy it). He says there is an urge in humans which is just as real, and as strong in those who have it as the urge to survive -- in some cases stronger, because people regularly give their lives (as Joan did) to satisfy it.

This is undeniable -- we can all think of dozens of examples of people who suffered and/or died for a "cause". But Shaw tries to explain this urge further. He explains it as the urge to extend knowledge, our power over nature, or make some "social re-arrangement. But he goes further, and talks about an "evolutionary appetite" due, apparently to "forces at work which use individuals for purposes far transcending keeping these individuals alive". He seems to be saying that there is a force driving humans to evolve, and this acts through urges in individuals toward evolution.

What substituting a French King for an English one has to do with evolution, I'm not clear (I don't think Shaw was either).

KleoP
May 3, 2005 - 11:26 am
I don't think anyone has questioned that Shaw wrote the preface. Some of us, though, did not notice that he wrote the preface, that's all.

Kleo

Mrs Sherlock
May 3, 2005 - 11:54 am
Substituting a French king for an Englich one... might have been all the difference in the world, if Shaw was adding the English to the other villains in this. Shaw does not seem to have been someone to jump on a bandwagon just because it is passing by. What made him pick Joan?

KleoP
May 3, 2005 - 11:56 am
Would the copyrights to Shaw's plays have run out by now? Probably the earliest they would have run our would have been December 31, 2002. Copyright law is beyond my ability, way way beyond. However, generally copyrights for current works are 70 years, and for works published before 1978 either 70 or 75 years, but can be renewed for an additional 20 years, if 70 years, or something like that, and works published before the current law and/or registered or something like that cannot have their copyrights expire prior to 2002 or something like that or 70 or 75 or 90 years from their date of publication whichever is later or something like that.

It seems likely that if Shaw's heirs (heir does not mean child, although it can, it means, in this instance, the person(s) who inherit his estate) held the copyright on his works they renewed it, and it may have run out only in 2002, anyway.

So, has the copyright run out? Not necessarily. Most major literary works of the 20th century with extant heirs have copyrights--it's money for the heirs, protection for the person of the author, and no reason not to gain. Any lawyers in here who actually know any facts on the issue?

Kleo

KleoP
May 3, 2005 - 12:01 pm
I also think that making Joan someone else's problem was a big part of giving in to her. What was there to lose by doing so? Not much, as the situation was already dire and the French were certain to lose. One more dead Frenchman or young woman, whose village had already been destroyed would not matter. Better, though, than no loss from using Joan, were all the possibilities of blame by throwing her into the morass. Joan lost, the men were bewitched by her, the men are to blame, they allowed this madwomen to bewitch them.

Kleo

KleoP
May 3, 2005 - 12:12 pm
Hating the clergy, though, was rather popular in the 20s, as was hating the royalty and the army. All 3 players had strong roles in the violence in Spain prior to WWII, also. All 3 were contributors to the murderous rampage of nationalism that swept Europe in the 20th century. Shaw was not the least bit culturally unawares.

The final frontier and the human quest for knowledge for advancement for evolution? These, again, were all powerful ideas in the 20s. Scamper and I just finished Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Huxley comes from a family lineage of evolutionary theorists, world class scientists and the like. It's easy to see when Huxley mentions evolutionary advancement, where he is coming from.

For Shaw, I know very little about him. However, it is clear from his preface that this man is an intellectual of extreme appetite. The 20s was an amazing time for the advancement of evolutionary ideas, and for questioning the role of the human intellect in evolutionary theory and the animal world. That Shaw would bring these modern ideas and the culture of his times, nationalism, into his play is not so unusual. I really like Shaw, can't believe I've never really read him, other than doing readings in theater.

Kleo

KleoP
May 3, 2005 - 12:19 pm
I wonder what Shaw's politics are, now. "What substituting a French King for an English one has to do with evolution, I'm not clear (I don't think Shaw was either)." Shaw was born in Dublin, although his parents were Protestants. One other of the classic battles of Shaw's times, that eventually led to WWI, was the initial attempts at expansion of empire, and the subsequent loss of empire in response, at times, to natiolism. This would have been of major political and cultural interest in the 20s while Shaw was writing this play. Who better than the French at the hands of the English to bring this into the public spotlight?

This is the first time in ages, while reading a book, that I have felt the need to find many many more details about the author to understand the work. Easy read my ....!

Is Shaw initiating a study of the evolution of human cultures, human political structures, nations, civilizations?

Kleo

Deems
May 3, 2005 - 03:51 pm
Bern--I was really struck by your post. You said, "Joan stirred in me not only my decision to become a religious but in the days with lots of male heroes and relatively few women, her courage, her spirit, her conviction are attributes I still admire today."

I was taken back to my junior year in high school when my father was interim minister at the church our family attended. I was a critical teenager, always telling Dad whether his voice was loud enough, whether he rocked too much in the pulpit and so forth, but one Sunday morning he preached a sermon I have never forgotten. It was titled "Full Courage Now As Always," and one of the central figures he used for illustrative purposes was Joan of Arc.

I was moved by this sermon (which was later published) and struck by the living person, Joan. I had heard of her before, but somehow she came alive for me in that sermon. I too wanted to be like her but I had no thought of the religious life (remember my father was a minister so I was going to stay well away from all of that). I wanted to be brave and a leader. I couldn't quite imagine leading an army but I thought maybe I could find something else to lead.

Isn't it interesting how two people could be influenced in such different ways?

JoanK--I read A Distant Mirror some years ago and loved it. It was enough years ago that it would probably seem completely new to me now. I must hunt around and see if I still have it.

I'm currently reading--when I have a spare few minutes--The Great Mortality about the Black Death. Perfectly fascinating book. Soon I will have more time to read it. Final exam tomorrow, then lots of grading and then I can read for enjoyment.

Maryal/Deems

KleoP
May 3, 2005 - 05:31 pm
Yes, A Distant Mirror would be a great reread right now. I am currently reading Geraldine Brooks' Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague. A woman I work with is reading this. While discussing it Tuchman's book came up. Her book on the proximate machinations of WWI, The Guns of August, was essential to my understanding anything about it, eventually.

Joan is one of the historical characters who never came alive for me. I guess because I read most history of her age from a British perspective, and most about the 100 Years War on British soil and the intrigues of her royals.

Kleo

BaBi
May 3, 2005 - 06:31 pm
I'm arriving late, with some catching up to do. I was astounded to find my copy of St. Joan includes a 41-pg preface, covering an astounding number of Joan-related topics. If the play doesn't include 'everything you need to know about Joan', the preface should. According to GBS, anyway.

My intitial impression of Shaw's Joan is a young woman of impressive certitude. It goes beyond confidence; she is calmly certain that everything must happen as her guiding 'voices' direct.

Babi

Scamper
May 3, 2005 - 07:00 pm
My first exposure to Shaw was reading his plays in high school. I remember reading about Shaw the man and that he wasn't conventionally religious - rather that he believed the "God within man". That thought and that phrase has stayed with me for 30+ years - it was my first exposure to alternative thoughts on religion...

Joan Pearson
May 3, 2005 - 07:33 pm
Babi! Such a pleasant surprise! Welcome! Welcome!

What a coincidence! You write, "My initial impression of Shaw's Joan is a young woman of impressive certitude. It goes beyond confidence; she is calmly certain that everything must happen as her guiding 'voices' direct." I just came in after reading Harold Bloom for some insights - and hopefully an answer to Jackie's question, "why did he pick Joan?". I should say I was trying to read Harold. He goes over my head far too often in his observations, assuming I understand all of his references. But listen to this and see if it doesn't say much of what you just said. (You and Harold Bloom, Babi!)

Shaw was approaching 70, had exhausted his creative energy, convinced that he'd ended his career as a playwright. (Did you know that St.Joan brought him the Nobel Prize the year after it was published? He went on to write 14 more plays too!) According to Bloom, the canonization of Joan of Arc caught his imagination - "not the Catholic saint, the sentimental maid, the militant martyr, but a Shavian saint - a combination of practical mystic, heretical saint and inspired genius. The certainty and resoution of Joan's faith were central for Shaw...Shaw's religion is a rational irrationalism without the mystery."

Joan Pearson
May 3, 2005 - 07:49 pm
Scamper, I read some Bloom on Shaw's religion too. I hesitate to copy my notes here because I'm afraid your eyes will glaze over, but will try anyway. No, he wasn't conventionally religious, but religious he was. Kleo, Shaw was Irish, but of the gentry, which seemed to automatically make him Protestant. He attended Catholic School in Dublin for a time, but always kept that fact secret. When he emigrated to England, his thinking "evolved" into atheism and then mysticism. I don't know when his evolutionary theory - metabiology came about. JoanK, thank you for attempting to explain Shaw's theory of the evolutionary appetite. He seems to be explaining the evolution of his own thinking on religion, doesn't he?

Harold Bloom in his book on George Bernard Shaw: "As it seemed to Shaw, each age defines God in terms of its own limitations. The God of the OT was once a useful concept. He is no longer serviceable in the age of science and must give way to a more accurate representation of the primal energy...The Will directs the course of its evolution...the Will cannot stop short of the absolute. Shaw:
"I had always known that civilization needs a religion as a matter of life and death, and as the conception of Creative Evolution developed, I saw that we were at least within reach of a faith that complied with the first conditions of all religions that have taken a hold of humanity..."

JoanK - "He explains it as the urge to extend knowledge, our power over nature, or make some "social re-arrangement." - Bloom writes that Shaw's customary role - socialist, economist, statesman EVOLVED. He moved from the service of humanity to the service of God. Kleo, I'm not sure I see Shaw "hating the clergy" - they just seemed to get in the way of the relationship between God and man.

Joan Pearson
May 3, 2005 - 08:09 pm
It's fascinating, the things that were said to you once that stay with you for a lifetime, isn't it? Scamper, Shaw's idea of"God within man" stayed with you all this time. A very personal God. Maryal, can you find your father's sermon, his reference to Joan. You did become a leader! And Bern, what an inspiration! A stunning revelation! I WANT to hear how you see Shaw as a martyr of sorts? An interesting idea!

My mother was moved by the story of Joan of Arc. She was ten years old when Joan was canonized. She decided that if I turned out to be a girl, that's what my name would be. As it turned out, I was born on Joan's feast day, May 30. When I was six years old, my mother gave me a beautifully illustrated book on Joan's life. I wish I could show it to you. The prints are from paintings by O.D.V Guillonnet - Paris. The copyright date is 1933. My mother died the following year but I never forgot the story and have kept the book beside me ever since. It has been my inspiration all these years to have strength in convictions in the face of adversity. I also learned to pray - like Andy's granddaughter. Two-way prayer. To sit quietly and listen for an answer. Joan's voices. This is what got me through a rough childhood.

Scamper _ "Joan was so inspirational, so sure of herself, that she caused many to believe she was from God." That is probably why Robert let her go to Charles. He knew if would take an act of God to turn things around for his beleaguered army. Harold, maybe I am too hard on Robert. He was smart enough to see that "Joan was having an effect on the other players such as Poulengey, the steward, and the French rank-and-file in general, leading him to he realization that she might useful in riding France of the English. Hence, his decision was to pass her on to the Dauphin Court with his favorable recommendation." Andy asks, what did he have to lose.

But take another look at Shaw's Robert in scene I. There's a another "miracle" that finally convinces him that Joan had special powers. It's pretty funny. Not really a miracle among all the other miracles in this scene, but this "perceived miracle" convinces him to send her on to Chinon.

Joan Pearson
May 3, 2005 - 08:15 pm
Eloise - I like that - the voices, Joan's "Instruction Manuel". Where would she have been without them? What did she know of soldiering? Where would she have found such confidence and determination? A great link to the museum in Rouen- musical accompaniment and everything. This museum was closed the day I was there, as was the tower where Joan was imprisoned. Must go back. Will put the link in the heading. Thank you so much.

Maryal, I hope you can find your copy of A Distant Mirror - JoanK's mention of the book has aroused my curiosity to hear what Tuchman has to say about our Joan. A minor role in the war, indeed. I guess I'll have to be happy with psychological importance.

Shaw's not an "easy read", is he Kleo? There's so much going on just below the surface. He says one thing, means another. But always amusing! Judging from the first scene, is this play a comedy, would you say? Or?

ps. What's a "goddam"? Did anyone look it up? It sounds funny coming from Joan's mouth. We're going to see it again in later scenes...

Jonathan
May 3, 2005 - 09:06 pm
Joan, this is a very entertaining discussion.

I believe Joan is referring to the English, the occupation force, those foreign soldiers who were always swearing away in that blasphemous fashion.

If Maryal can't find her Distant Mirror, I'll find mine and supply the information that JoanK first mentioned. For a starter, Tuchman's book is on the 14th century, so that logically Joan the Saint would fall outside of that time frame. But she's still the national hero for France, her historical reward for allowing herself to be used by kings and generals and prelates, and then pushed aside when she became inconvenient.

Wasn't she a fine example of leadership? The rough soldiers recognized that. Does she make a case for feminism? Certainly, if the ladies are prepared to spend a great deal of time on their knees.

Keep it up, gang. Your posts are all so thought-provoking.

Joan Grimes
May 3, 2005 - 10:16 pm
I have a copy of A Distant Mirror some where also but I would not ever be able to find it. I have so many books in this house that I cannot locate anything that I do not use often.

There was a question about literacy among women at the time of Joan of Arc. Woman were not educated. The Church was against any such thing. Women who could read and write would be only the nobility and not man of them. I am sorry for not replying to you before now Joan P. but I was out today most of the day as it was the day that my grief support group meets. We always go to lunch together after the meeting. I was so exhausted after the meeting an lunch that I did not get online.

Joan Grimes

Deems
May 4, 2005 - 04:11 am
Hi Jonathan--You beat me to it. He's right, Joan, the English soldiers who apparently continually say goddam this and goddam that are referred to by their favorite curse. Goddam=English soldier.

I doubt that much of anyone who was a peasant or a member of the petit bourgeoisie was literate at this time. Those in the church would be literate as well as those at court. Certainly girls and women were illiterate. The reading Joan would have done would have taken place in her little church where she could "read" the statues of the saints.

Maryal/Deems

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 4, 2005 - 04:51 am
In this site: Trials you will find at the bottom of the link a reference to the word "godons" and "goddams".

We have to remember that that word is untranslatable as such. Being a derivation of the word "godons" meaning "english", the Medieval French soldiery and peasantry, who didn't speak English, turned it into "goddams" and didn't know the exact meaning of the word in English.

Perhaps, Shaw put it in Joan's mouth just for emphasis of what the French thought of the English in the play. I will look in the French sites if that word was used in French and will come back.

Éloïse

Mrs Sherlock
May 4, 2005 - 05:06 am
I've added Barbara Tuchman's books ( Mirror and Guns) to my list to be re-read. I'm getting farther and farther behind!

Mrs Sherlock
May 4, 2005 - 05:16 am
Here's a neat timeline which helps. (I've lost the template for websites.)

http://www.hyperhistory.com/index.html

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 4, 2005 - 05:48 am
"I know well," she ended by saying, "that the English will do me to death, thinking after my death to gain the kingdom of France; but if they were a hundred thousand more 'godons' ("Godon," or "goddam," a common term for the English in the Middle Ages and to the present day.) than they are at present, they would not have the kingdom." Indignant at these words, the Earl of Stafford half drew his dagger to kill her, but the Earl of Warwick withheld him."

This indicates to me that it was the word "Godons" that was most commonly used to for naming the English in Medieval France, not "Goddams" which Shaw preferred to use to name the enemy.

The French speakers don't use the word "goddam" because it translates as "les damnés de Dieu" much too long for swearing (smile). So when I read Shaw's St. Joan, all those "goddams" seemed to me Shaw's fabrication for emphasis in his play. In the sites I found in French only "Godon" was used.

ALF
May 4, 2005 - 06:11 am
- well, I'll be an "English soldier" -- if you are not correct.

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 06:22 am
Centuries later, the French referred to Englishmen as "rosbifs", referring to the English diet. It's listed in my French dictionary as "pejorative".

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 4, 2005 - 07:18 am
Bataille de Formigny

"Les armées vivant sur le pays causent la lassitude des paysans. L'écart culturel avec les Godons (Anglais en France) suscite un sentiment favorable aux Français. C'est l'essor d'un élan national. La résistance provoque la répression, surtout après la disparition en 1435 du duc de Bedford, régent anglais. La tête d'un rebelle français vaut 6 livres (soit 4 semaines de solde d'un homme d'armes)." Underlining mine.

With this, I know that St. Joan would certainly not swear like that, it would not be in her character to do it.

Andy, I can just picture you as a soldier! and Pat, in Quebec the English used to be called "Les Têtes carrées" and they would call us "French pea soups".

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 07:37 am
Eloise, I agree that Joan would not knowingly use a swear word. If she did, she was innocent of the meaning.

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 07:41 am
I was actually able to find my copy of "A Distsnt Mirror". She has only a page and a half, in an epilogue, but it raises a number of interesting points, so here it is.

With the English occupying the capital, courage had sunk low. Frenchmen did not lack who were ready to accept union under one crown as the only solution to incessant war and economic ruin. In In most, however, resistance to the English tyrants and "Goddams," as they were called, was axiomatic, but it was uncoordinated and leaderless. The Dauphin was weak and spiritless, captive of unscrupulous or passive ministers. Unheralded, the courage came from society’s most unlikely source—a woman of the commoner’s class.

The phenomenon of Jeanne D’Arc—the voices from God who told her she must expel the English and have the Dauphin crowned King, the quality that dominated those who would normally have despised her, the strength that raised the siege of Orleans and carried the Dauphin to Reims—belongs to no category. Perhaps it can only be explained as the answer called forth by an exigent historic need. The moment required her and she rose. Her strength came from the fact that in her were combined for the first time the old religious faith and the new force of patriotism. God spoke to her through the voices of St. Catherine, St. Michael, and St. Margaret, but what he commanded was not chastity nor humility nor the life of the spirit but political action to rescue her country from foreign tyrants.

The flight of her meteor lasted only three years. She appeared in 1428, inspired Dunois, bastard son of Louis d’Orleans, and others of the Dauphin’s circle to attack Orleans, delivered the city in May 1429, and, on the wave of that victory, led Charles to the sacred ceremony of coronation at Reims two months later. Captured by the Burgundians of Compiegne in May 1430, she was sold to the English, tried as a heretic by the church in the service of the English, and burned at the stake at Rouen inMay 1431. Her condemnation was essential to the English because she claimed to have been moved by God, and if the claim were not disallowed, God, the arbiter in the affairs of men, would have been shown to have set His face against the English dominion of France. All the intensity and relentlessness of the inquisitors was pitted against her to prove the invalidity of her voices. Before the trial, neither Charles VII, who owed her his crown, nor any of the French made any effort to ransom or save her, possibly from nobility’s embarrassment at having been led to victory by a village girl.

Jeanne d’Arc’s life and death did not instantly generate a national resistance; nevertheless, the English thereafter were fighting a losing cause, whether they knew it or not. The Burgundians knew it. The installation of Charles as anointed King of France, with a re-inspired army, changed the situation, the more so as the English were distracted by rising factions under an infant King. Recognizing the implications, the Duke of Burgundy gradually went over to the French, came to terms with Charles VII, and sealed an alliance by the Peace of Arras in1435. Within a year, by action of an energetic new Constable, Paris was regained for the King, a signal to the realm of re-unification to come. No one could have said that the spark lit by the Maid of Orleans had become a flame, for her significance is better known to history than it was to contemporaries, but renewed hope and energy was in the air. The war did not end, and in fact grew more brutal as the English, out of the obstinacy that overtakes conquerors when the conquered refuse to succumb, persisted in an effort which the Burgundian defection from their cause had made hopeless.

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 08:11 am
I was particularly struck by Tuchman’s suggestion in the last paragraph that although Joan’s battles were not in themselves decisive, this did in fact represent the turning point of the war.

She also mentions the strength of the new combination or religion and patriotism, and that the English had to convict Joan or it would show that God was not on their side.

KleoP
May 4, 2005 - 09:26 am
Joan, I'm certain I didn't say that Shaw hated the clergy. My take in this play is that Shaw is aware of the passions of the times while he is writing Saint Joan--he is playing to his audience. It is the modern canonization that sends him searching intellectually for more, and it is the modern (early 20th century) world that canonized her, while the ancient world either burned her at the stake or allowed the burning. Canonization is hardly a balanced look at the individual, also. Shaw's preface, which I am still plowing through, does not strike me as the writings of a man who took a shallow look at Joan.

Joan's combination of religious fervor and political zeal in the 15th century may make her the first nationalist, not the first feminist. Does it also make her a terrorist also, as the two, nationalism and terrorism, have become tangled since the former took such strong root to control the course of the last century? Can you admire someone's passions and see the unintended results in a different light?

Kleo

KleoP
May 4, 2005 - 09:35 am
"Shaw's not an "easy read", is he Kleo? There's so much going on just below the surface. He says one thing, means another. But always amusing! Judging from the first scene, is this play a comedy, would you say? Or?"

Joan, if he said one thing and only meant one thing by it what would we be discussing in here?

Yes, the play is a delightful easy read. I read a lot of drama and poetry when I am in school--during the semester I can't do textbooks and novels, only texts and drama and poetry. I also work community theater every once in a while, so reading plays is comfortable for me. In theater we often read through plays, and in drama class in school we read through at least one play a week.

There's plenty of light and fun in Romeo and Juliet, which I am also reading, now, without it being a comedy. I hadn't thought of the genre, but when a 19-year-old is burned at the stake it can't be a comedy, can it?

Kleo

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 4, 2005 - 10:22 am
I've been reading along and what I am reminded of is my grade school experience where Joan d'arc was called -- Jeanne la Pucelle -- and it was explained to us that Pucelle not only meant virgin like the Virgin Mary but could also mean flea - this was during a time when our humble nature was considered more worthy and Joan d'arc epitomized humility, courage and faith in God.

Now these many years later reading Shaw's preface I understand why we were cautioned not to read his play - I could feel myself bristle as he tried to scientifically explain away the voices - with so many religious over the centuries acting on voices from God or other saints his argument, as if he had to justify voices, seemed silly. Shaw would have read of the latest, Bernadette of Lourdes who heard voices. Part of her story is the Virgin gives a message in French that she did not understand, since she spoke a dialect as well as, the priest from the area hadn't heard of the expression the "Immaculate Conception" which Pope Pius IX had only defined as an article of Faith three years earlier.

I remember the story of Joan d'arc included that the trail was illegal and not under the auspices of the Catholic Church but a trail by the English.

Well after a couple of days of looking finally found this site that tells of some of the myths surround the story of Joan d'arc and there it explains what I remember learning at St. Benedict's when I was a kid. Myths about Joan of Arc

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 4, 2005 - 11:01 am
When I read JOAN [simply] Yes, squire: that is what God is sending me to do. Three men will be enough for you to send with me if they are good men and gentle to me. They have promised to come with me. Polly and Jack and-- I laughed outloud and thought she would say "the blessed saints Maggie and Kate told me where to go and what to do."

This first act sounds like something from "Monty Python" or a medieval version of "Mash"

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 05:55 pm
Barbara--I always found the dual meaning of this word confusing. you clarify it a bit for me.

Joan Pearson
May 4, 2005 - 05:57 pm
Barbara...good to have you with us. Welcome! Glad you are enjoying Shaw's humor so much you laughed out loud! "...the blessed saints Maggie and Kate"! Monty Python's kind of humor. Shaw seems to be stripping away all formality with these nicknames - reducing Joan from the saintly icon she had become to a simple country girl.

I've been enjoying the discussion on the meaning of the terms, godon/goddam. After listening to you all, I am inclined to agree with Eloise and Pat on this one - that "goddam" was Shaw's play on the word to point out Joan's gullibility in using the unfamiliar English words. IF the 15th century soldiers really did say, G...D..., then the six centuries that separate us are not quite as long ago as they seem. Do we share the same slangy expression? I tend to think this is an example of the famous Shavian wit. Joan wouldn't have sworn like that - or even repeated it. UNLESS she had no idea what she was saying. The language barrier, you know.

Speaking of language...Does Shaw make Joan sound like a simpleton when she expains to Robert that God gave the English their own country and their own language? It is not His will that they should come into our country and try to speak our language," She reduces the English invasion to a language issue. If it were not God's wish, then it would be murder to kill an Englishman in battle...

Okay, so it's funny - we smirk, we smile, we laugh out loud. Kleo asks a good question - What do you think?
"but when a 19-year-old is burned at the stake it can't be a comedy, can it?"

Joan Pearson
May 4, 2005 - 06:03 pm
Jonathan asks - Does she (Joan) make a case for feminism? The question has come up several times in this discussion. I've got a question - To be considered a feminist, does a woman have to support issues that further strictly women's rights? Or can the term refer to a woman who stands up for the rights of all, men and women? Her country?

Joan G - "There was a question about literacy among women at the time of Joan of Arc. Woman were not educated. The Church was against any such thing. Women who could read and write would be only the nobility and not many of them." I'm wondering, Joan G, if the Church was against education for women, how did the nobility get a dispensation to educate their daughters? Here is an article on Women in the 15th century, to give you an idea of the thinking at the time.
"What obstacles women have had to overcome in order to achieve the right to learn! Even so, today rewarded by better examination results and with more women than men in the universities, women still do not hold their rightful place in society. Stereotypes die hard...

"Education for women should be considered suspect." This principle, which could not be more sexist, stated in the 15th century by Gerson, grand chancellor of the University of Paris, accurately summarised the view that prevailed and long dominated the Renaissance. Even among the wealthy classes, teaching girls was considered inappropriate and even dangerous. While boys took the path to secondary school, their sisters were condemned to remain cloistered in the home or a religious institution, with their only education being the domestic tasks demanded by their future role as wife and mother. Nevertheless, even in Gerson's day, one woman writer, Christine de Pisan, showed the necessity of educating women and giving them access to reading and writing. Thus to thought and speech. Nonetheless it was not until 1574 that one of the first schools for girls was founded in France by the Ursuline religious order." Literacy - Women - 15th century

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 06:06 pm
This is a really picky question, but in my book (the Penguin Classic that many of us have) the apostrophe is left out of words like dont and wont. Was this a peculiarity of Shaw's? (Apostrophes are used in possesives.)

Joan, in answer to an email question of yours, Shaw is referred to as Bernard Shaw everywhere except in the copyright attribution, where he is George Bernard Shaw.

Joan Pearson
May 4, 2005 - 06:35 pm
Hello, Pat. Nice to run into you - the apostrophe question was puzzling to me too. Apparently Shaw had great interest in linguistic reform. He must have driven his publishers crazy.
"Shaw had a great deal of control over the publication of his work, and so was able to indulge some of his literary quirks, including omitting apostrophes in contractions, unconventional spelling ("shew" instead of "show," etc.), and extremely detailed stage directions and character descriptions. He also wrote elaborate prefaces for the published editions of all of his plays, some of which were considerably longer than the plays they accompanied." Bio containing comments on Apostrophe

Deems
May 4, 2005 - 06:47 pm
Apostrophes are used for possession and for contraction.

Words like "don't" and "hasn't" show where the letter, in this case O, has been omitted.

But stop and think about it. What is "won't" a contraction of? It's not a contraction of "will not" or there would be an I where the O is.

I beg forgiveness. This late at night I tend to get philosophical about language. My students essentially don't believe in the possessive apostrophe. They use fewer of them each year having, apparently, always felt shaky about the difference between singular and plural possessives. I predict that in another 100 years the apostrophe will have left the language.

Shaw was a renegade in many areas. Remember that alphabet that he wanted invented so that the many sounds in English could be logically presented by one letter each? I'm too tired to word that sentence better.

Good night.

Maryal/Deems

Joan Pearson
May 4, 2005 - 06:50 pm
Before turning the lights off and putting the cat out, I'd like to comment on Barbara's comment - regarding Joan's trial, although we're not there yet. Barbara remembers the trial as being not under the auspices of the Catholic Church - the link she provided tells us that Joan's was a trial by the English with a small handful of pro-English clergy such as Cauchon and d'Estivet rather than a valid ecclesiastic trial with the backing of the church as a whole.." We'll have to look at Shaw's trial and the transcript - We do have a transcript of the actual trial (isn't that amazing?) We can look at it for ourselves...when we get to the last scenes of the play.

Barbara's point emphasizes the fact that we are dealing with two stories here, the historical event and Shaw's treatment of the facts. You all stated at the start of this discussion that you wanted to consider both. That's what makes this exercise more than an "easy read" of Shaw's play. We are considering 15th century recorded history and 20th century satire. This requires getting into some background information on Joan's France and Shaw's England. Kleo posted that hating the clergy was popular in the 20s, as was hating the royalty and the army. I'd like to know more of this. How did Joan's France look upon the clergy, royalty and army? The passage Pat H typed from Barbara Tuchman's Distant Mirror speaks of "the strength of the new combination of religion and patriotism?" That was a lot of typing, Pat - we appreciate it! How was Shaw's play accepted by his audience?

ps. Thanks for the time line link, Jackie. I admit that I tried it...when in a hurry and couldn't work it properly. Will spend some time on it tonight. You mentioned the html coding for links...it's easy to remember after you copy it the first few times -
<A HREF=“copy/paste URL here”>name or title of URL </A>

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 06:51 pm
She is mentioned in Tuchman's book as quite an interesting figure. She was apparantly the only medieval woman who actually made a living by writing. She was born in 1364. Her father, a physician-astrologer, entered the service of Charles V a year later. He schooled her in latin, philosophy, and science.She married at 15, and 10 years later was left a widow with 3 children, her father and husband both dead.She turned to writing poetry in hopes of getting patrons, hence a livelihood. Most of her poems are in the tradition of courtly love, but there is a strong feminist element--rejection of the satire of women and the blaming of them for mankind's failings.

Tuchman says "At the age of 54 she retired to a convent in grief for the condition of France. She lived for anoer 11 years to write a poem in praise of the figure who, to posterity, stands out above all others of her time--Joan of Arc".

My arithmetic gets us just to the start of Joan's career here, but a half year or so could matter.

I have been trying to track down this poem, so far without success, but can at least say I like her poetry. Anyone with better internet skills than mine, please trump me. I think it would be great to hear what such a woman, and a contemporary, had to say about Joan.

Joan Pearson
May 4, 2005 - 06:58 pm
Christine de Pisan

Le Ditie de Jehanne d'Arc
1. I, Christine, who have wept for eleven years in a closed abbey, where I have lived ever since Charles(what a strange thing!), the king's son, fled, if I dare say it, in haste from Paris, enclosed here because of this treachery, I begin now for the first time to laugh.

2 I begin to laugh frankly with joy because winter is departing when I used to stay sadly in my cage. But now that the good weather is back... I will change my language from weeping into singing. I have well endured my share.

3 In 1429 the sun began to shine again. It brings back the good new season which we had not really seen for a long time, which made many people live in sorrow. But I no longer grieve over anything, for now I see what I desire.

4 But things have changed from great sorrow to new joy since the time I came here to stay, and, thank God, the lovely new season I so desired, the one called spring where everything renews itself, has turned dry land green.

5 All this because the cast out child of the legitimate king of France, who has suffered for a long time great troubles and who now approaches, rose up like one who goes to prime, coming as a crowned king, in wonderful and great power, wearing spurs of gold.

6 Now let us celebrate our king! May he be welcomed on his return! Rejoice at his noble appearance, let us all go, great and small - may no one hold back - and joyfully greet him, praising God who has protected him and loudly shout "Noel."

7 But now I want to tell how God has done all this by His grace. I pray to him to give me guidance so that I won't omit anything. This should be told everywhere, for it is worthy of memory and of being written down - no matter who may be displeased - in chronicles and history books!

8 Now listen, throughout the world, to something more marvelous than anything! See if God, in whom all grace abounds, does not support in the end that which is right. This fact is noteworthy, in view of the case at hand! May it be of value to those who are disappointed, those whom Fortune has beaten down.

9 And note that no one should be dismayed by misfortune, when he sees himself unjustly despised and attacked by everyone! See how Fortune, who has harmed so many people, is always changing. For God, who takes a stand against all wrong deeds, raises up those in whom hope lives on.

10 Who, then, has seen something so extraordinary occur - which should be noted and remembered in all regions - that France, who in everyone's opinion was defeated, has, by divine command, changed from evil to such great good,

11 and truly through such a miracle that, if the matter were not so well-known and obvious in every way, no one would believe it? This is well worth remembering: that God has wished to bestow His grace on France - and this is true - through a tender virgin.

12 Oh, what an honor given to the french crown by this divine proof! For by the grace He gives it it is obvious that he supports it and that more than anywhere else He finds faith in the royal estate of which I read - and there is nothing new in this - that the Lilies of France never erred in the faith.

13 And you Charles, French king, seventh of that noble name, who waged a great war before things changed for the better for you: But now, by God's grace, see how your renown is exalted by the Maid, who has subjugated your enemies under your flag - and this is something new -

14 In a short time; people thought that it was impossible that you would ever get back your country which you were losing. Now it is clearly yours, for against all those who harmed you, you have recovered it! And through the clever Maid, who thank God has done her share!

15 I firmly believe that God would not bestow on you this grace if it were not ordained by Him that you should, in the course of time, bring to fruition and a good end a great and solemn task, and if it were not destined for you to be the leader of the greatest events.

Stanzas 1-15 obviously comprise a hymn of praise and thanksgiving for the new king and his long-awaited coronation. Joan wouldn't have a poem about her any other way.

Deems
May 4, 2005 - 07:00 pm
Pat H--Here you go, Christine de Pisan's poem on Joan:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Pantheon/3322/ditie.html

Sorry it's a geocities site (so many popups) but I couldn't find it anywhere else.

Deems
May 4, 2005 - 07:01 pm

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 4, 2005 - 07:03 pm
This site includes links to some of her work Christine de Pisen

and this is a nice site with a nicely written bio Christine de Pisen ~ Sunshine for Women

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 4, 2005 - 07:38 pm
Beatrice Potter a radical thinking Fabian!!! Well I guess I better re-read Squirrel Nutkin and Miss Moppet and listen for the radical ideas suggested...but seriously - sure enough this link tells us all about the lady who gradually added to her estate 14 farms and upon her death in 1943 she deemed no one could live in her cottage or change a thing.

Beatrice Potter Webb -- "Beatrice realized that before she could address social problems she must learn more about what she wanted to correct. She began to realize it was not the individual, which was entirely at fault but the structure...

"It has been suggested that her autobiography,My Apprenticeship, is not only a source for information concerning gender discrimination it is also a source in which one can find information about "women's intellectual journey to a vision of society"."

essay defining Feminism

Joan your question "To be considered a feminist, does a woman have to support issues that further strictly women's rights? Or can the term refer to a woman who stands up for the rights of all, men and women? Her country?" Seems to me if a women has equal rights to stand up for the rights of all then to fight for the rights of men and women as well as a country is an issue of humanity --

The problem comes when women do not have equal access to education, legal protection, health care etc. that she can fight for the rights of others but she is doing it with one hand tied behind her back and according to when in history she may also have tied behind her back her foot as well or, in the case of our Joan of Arc her life was at stake.

The other issue that is not being mentioned - this is the time in history when the Church was eliminating the skills in medicine that were passed down from women to women - the church labeled these women as witches and put them in league with Satan or they were labeled pagan.

Many believed the Black Death was God's punishment and some even thought it was brought to their community by the women healers/witches. The Holy Fathers were embarrassed by these so called pagan women with their allegiance to Satan because they were combating the disease or at least the death pains using hemp [Cannabis] and forest plants.

The Church perceived the success of these women healers as a challenge to its authority. Here is some information on the internet Witches, Midwives, and Nurses by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English.

Some say, and this may also be folklore, - that Joan of Arc used the psychedelic mandrake plant and her burning was as much to do with her being labeled a witch as to her trying to pull off being a powerful women/girl/leader/soldier for the king who heard the voices of saints.

Pat H
May 4, 2005 - 07:58 pm
Wow! All I have to do is hiccup, and everyone will rush in with information. I was impressed with the nationalistic quality of the poem, but she gets in some feminist digs (see 34).

Scamper
May 4, 2005 - 08:12 pm
Joan had to die one way or another because she was a threat to the established order. The Pope was supreme religiously, and the King and his lords were supreme politically. Feudalism was still with us, of course. And here is this girl suggesting that a person can make up his or her own mind about who to listen to, who to be loyal to! Very dangerous, so they threw her away when they no longer needed her.

Harold Arnold
May 4, 2005 - 08:30 pm
Regarding the length of Copyrights that now seem to run the length of a substantial life time, I find it difficult to understand why copyright protection should last so very much longer than for a patent. Does anyone see any justification for the much longer period than for patented inventions that I think is for about 20 years?

In the ST Joan story I think there is a certain evolutionary aspect to the replacement of an Englishman with a French man as King of France. The evolutionary aspect lies in the fact that people began to consider it important. This led people living in France to begin to think of themselves as French and those in England began to consider themselves as English. For better of for worse it was the birth of nationalism.

Shaw truly loved writing prefaces and other assorted support documentation for his plays. Sometimes these took the form of prologues or documents ghost written under the name of a play’s character, In “Caesar and Cleopatra” he wrote two prologs one of which he lectured on the impermanence of Empires primarily I suppose directed to his English audiences with an alternate prolog for others. Instead of a Preface he wrote a document called, “Notes.” That is printed after the play in my edition instead of in front of it.

In “Man and Superman” Shaw wrote “The Revolutionist’s Handbook and Pocket Companion” by John Tanner, M.I.R.C (Member of the Idle Rich Class). Also this play included a strange Act 3 that digressed from the plot of the play. This is really a separate play and is seldom if ever included in a production . About the 1970’s this play within a play made it to Broadway under the title “Don Juan In Hell . Click Here.

KleoP
May 4, 2005 - 09:02 pm
... to all who posted the background on the use of the word 'goddamn' by Joan. This is a perfect example of what we were talking about with dolphin/dauphin. It is, to me, one of the more interesting quirks about languages, how one translates the commonalties and how languages borrow from each other with unusual twists of meaning.

Great digging. I almost read just a few posts before responding, then waited until I got through all of them. I appreciate all the work everyone did.

Kleo

ALF
May 5, 2005 - 06:40 am
I don't think Shaw makes her sound like a simpleton, Joan. She sounds like "what she is," a young, messenger inspired by the "commands" she hears from God. She had to speak with clarity and confidence to assure the "men" that she was capable of leading them on to freedom. I am certain she was seen as a pesty little adolescent fool by many skeptics while attempting to explain her divine mission to them. Imagine what a job that must have been! Shaw tells us in his prologue that ---"obediences must be carefully arranged and maintained." So-- here's this slip of a farm girl with authority over animals and a handful of laborers trying to desperately explain to royalty the reason she can assist- because she has been commanded by the highest of all, her God. She has no fears as she has His support and encouragement. Very touching, me thinks!

George Bernard Shaw said it very nicely: "Some people see the world as it is and ask why. I see the world as it could be and ask, why not?"

You worded that sentence very well Maryal. I love contractions. I had a fourth grade teacher that was a stickler for contractions and it has "stuck" with me ever since.

Joan Pearson
May 5, 2005 - 06:57 am
Good morning, Andy! I'm going to add that quote to the list of favorites in the heading. Isn't it amazing to discover the number of quotes with which we are all so very familiar to have come from Shaw? No, you're right, Joan was not a simpleton, but as you say, she must have appeared that way as she attempted to explain her mission to expel the English-speakers from France.

"The evolutionary aspect lies in the fact that people began to consider it important. This led people living in France to begin to think of themselves as French and those in England began to consider themselves as English. For better of for worse it was the birth of nationalism." Harold, you make the point Shaw made through Joan's rather simplified explanation that those speaking English should stay in England, French in France.

Joan also appeared to many to be a witch, as Barbara writes - she was labeled a witch for her use of a psychedelic mandrake plant. It will be interesting to see if Shaw brings this up in future scenes. Joan was condemned to death on the grounds of "heresy". Did the final verdict find her guilty of witchcraft as well?

Scamper, I see what you mean - there wasn't room in the order of things for a voice like Joan's - "The Pope was supreme religiously, and the King and his lords were supreme politically." Was she born just a bit too early? Is the age of enlightenment just around the corner?

Let me echo Kleo's thanks to all of you who are thinking and delving. You are enriching this discussion beyond expectation with every nugget of information and observation.

Goodness, Cinco de Mayo already! Time to scurry like mice over to Chinon - where Charles is cowering like a cornered rat...

Joan Pearson
May 5, 2005 - 07:19 am

"Shaw had a great deal of control over the publication of his work, and so was able to indulge some of his literary quirks, including omitting apostrophes in contractions, unconventional spelling ("shew" instead of "show," etc.), and extremely detailed stage directions and character descriptions. He also wrote elaborate prefaces for the published editions of all of his plays, some of which were considerably longer than the plays they accompanied." On Shaw's Detailed Stage Directions & Character Description
I so enjoy reading Shaw's character descriptions - the theatre-goer misses them! Of course, his scripts make for good theater, but this play at least, begs to be read! Reading his description in Scene II, I have to believe that Shaw was familiar with this portrait of Charles that hangs in the Louvre...
Aside, from his unhappy, defeatist appearance, why does everyone treat the poor fellow with such disrespect?

Deems
May 5, 2005 - 07:21 am
Everybody--Don't miss the wonderful portrait of Charles VII that greets us this morning in the Heading! Excellent find, JoanP. What an incredibly wimpy looking man, downcast, weak chin, fearful eyes. And I say to myself: remember, self, back in the day portrait painters of royalty generally tried to be as complimentary as possible.

Even a rat when trapped in a corner will fight. But I have my doubts about this one.

Maryal/Deems

ALF
May 5, 2005 - 08:09 am
THAT is one ugly sucker. I agree, weak chin-- weak spirit.

Harold Arnold
May 5, 2005 - 08:33 am
In the picture Charles initially comes across looking more like a 15th century peasant than a Prince. Actually I suspect his attire is much richer than it appears, probably a velvet collar and other premium cloths. I sort of like the hat. I think it might be attractive to some of the hip 20 year olds today.

True he doesn’t appear particularly bright, but somehow I have the impression that this might be a case where looks are deceptive.

I have an interesting book that I am now rereading entitled "Daily Living in the Twelfth Century" by Urban Tigner Holmes. This title is now out of print. It is based on the observations of a twelfth Century monk, Alexander Necham, in London and Paris. Much of the book describes his life as a student (later as an Instructor) in Paris. He tells much about living in the last quarter of the 12th century, traveling (to Canteberry and London and later across the channel to Paris) , daily life, his studies, his associates, visiting a Barron at his Castle in the Country, and the life of the people including Knights, as well as nobles and peasants.

He is describing life during the golden age of the Dark Ages that was ending during the 100 Year War during which our Joan played a part. The truth is Alexander describes an interesting, more open, happier society than the term “Dark Ages” or even “Medieval” would imply. Of course Alexander is describing the more educated, intellectual elements but according to his account even the sons of peasants might rather easily become Knights.. The creation of a Knight then was not the sole prerogative of a King; any Barron would create Knights attached to the defense of his castle. Also many Peasants appear to have enjoyed a measure of prosperity. Quite likely, however, the Serfs and poorer peasants were out of the range of Alexander’s visibility

JoanK
May 5, 2005 - 10:32 am
I expected a rich discussion, but this one is amazing!! We have just started, and look how much we have already learned.

How much attention Shaw pays to his characters!! I assume that the characters from Scene I have been left behind, and won't appear again, but in that short scene we already know them so well. Now here is a new group, already sharply delineated. Amazing. Actors must love to act his plays.

"Her condemnation was essential to the English because she claimed to have been moved by God, and if the claim were not disallowed, God, the arbiter in the affairs of men, would have been shown to have set His face against the English dominion of France."

We shall see how Shaw handles the trial. He protests at length in the introduction that it WAS fair. But the above quote from Tuchman is the nub. The English HAD to find her guilty.

Nationalism -- this is an idea we take so much for granted that we forget that (at least in the West) it is a new idea. Interesting to think that Joan may have been part of the beginning of it's strength. There are, I'm sure, parts of the world where it is still a strange idea (for better or worse) and people's loyalty is to a smaller group -- tribe or family.

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 5, 2005 - 12:28 pm
hmmm the painting of Charles - it is the eyes that said to me I do not want to mess with this guy - and if you take your hand and cover his mouth and chin also his shaved head left are eyes that look beyond, with a wily look about them, as if he knows that he is not safe in the politics of power.

But you have to wonder who was really running England and the war - Henry VI, crowned in 1429 was only nine months old when he became King. While in the same year Charles VII, born 1403 and the uncle of Henry VI, was crowned King of France. [Henry VI father, Henry V, was married to Catherine, daughter of King Charles VI of France.]

Henry VI was crowned King of France, at Saint Denis in December 1431, the same year in which Joan of arc was burned at the stake. French history shows Charles VII, was King during this time. Henry VI eventually lost all the French territories his father had won and was murdered in the Tower of London in the spring of 1471.

This is all taking place before Henry the VIII broke away from the Catholic Church and so why did the English nobility and clergy NEED to get rid of Joan...?

Jonathan
May 5, 2005 - 02:03 pm
Barbara, I would guess that as long as Joan is alive, she's a very serious threat for the English. She's a force to be reckoned with, obviously. She can and will lead men into battle. Joan wants the English out. And what Joan wants, Joan gets.

Pat H
May 5, 2005 - 02:15 pm
And in addition, they need to prove her a heretic in order to prove that God is on their side, not the French side. This would have been taken very seriously.

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 5, 2005 - 06:16 pm
Wheee is this fun or what - first of all the status of the dear king of France with his weak chin - seems his father, Charles VI, who was mad off and on during his adult life, disinherited his son Charles VII and through negotiations Henry V from England was to become King. The treaty was rejected because by the French of the known madness of King Charles VI.

There are several sites that speak to the possibility that Charles VII was illegitimate but the verbiage is exactly the same on each site so that I am not confident how much is folklore where as this information about the treaty and the disinherited story has legs to other characters during the drama of the times. The Saint and the Sinner

As to the two angels that Shaw suggests hover around Charles VII - - the one name is a bon a fide saint in the Catholic Hierarchy of saints Jeanne Marie de Maille whose life includes a blanc marriage - almost too coincidental and the other -- Gasque of Avignon -- no where do I find the name among the list of Saints or Angels.

Aha found it - Marie d'Avignon, (A woman called "la gasque d'Avignon") "Marie d'Avignon, a woman with a reputation as a prophet, had, some years earlier, foretold the arrival of someone like Joan at the dauphin's court. "She spoke of having had frequent visions concerning the desolation of France. In one of them Marie saw pieces of armor that were brought before her, which frightened her. For she was afraid that she would be forced to put this armor on. But she was told to fear nothing, that it was not she who would have to wear this armor, but a Maid who would come after her who would wear it and deliver the kingdom of France from its enemies."

And now the reason why the clergy had to make Joan the villain - I should have remembered having visited Avignon - Joan came on the scene just after the schism was healed - this web site not only goes into the affect the schism had on Joan's fate but also gives the information about Marie d'Avignon. Joan of Arc By MARY GORDON ~ Chapter One

Now I think it would be valuable to know what Pope the various archbishops in the story were supporting. There may be some allegiance left or the need to win to vindicate themselves - I guess I think there is a political reason for everything...

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 5, 2005 - 07:44 pm
Holy Hannah look at the pedigree of Gilles de Rais or BlueBeard...I thought the name was familiar but I was thinking London not a compatriot of Joan of Arc.

JoanK
May 5, 2005 - 08:49 pm
Holy Hannah is right!! I wonder if Shaw knew this. I bet he did.

bmcinnis
May 6, 2005 - 05:45 am
Barbara, what an inspiration it was to read the first chapter and review of Mary Gordan’s biographical meditaion on Joan of Arc, especially since both the subject of the play and Gordan are favorites of mind.

The first chapter of Gordan’s book aptly places Joan in the spirit of a specific historical context and reveals a real person alive and well for a reader of any age. Gordan is an individual who probes the question of how a work of literature can adapt to any and any place.

Gordan says that , Joan is a wonder-full example of how a truth can be revealed as being true – This is indeed experienced through the irony in Shaw’s dialogue where he describes Joan’s visions as “Common Sense”-- for both Joan and for Shaw

What fan of Joan could resist the final words of the reviewer for Gordan’s “meditation” than these: Joan is ''the patroness of the vivid life, prized . . . for the gift of passionate action taken against ridiculous odds, for the grace of holding nothing back.'' Joan is a saint for all of us”.

My earlier entry which alludes to Shaw as being a kind of martyr could have been one of those Freudian slips after I had just read about the author’s own latent homosexuality. In my own opinion, I believe the trial of having to live a “double life” must indeed relate to that term.

Joan Pearson
May 6, 2005 - 06:07 am
Good morning! So many good posts and information, where to start???

Let's begin today with Shaw - and his play. Then we can move on to what is known of the historic characters. (Bluebeard, Barbara, who knew! I thought women were his weakness!!! Shaw hints at this in this scene, doesn't he? I have to go read that part again, now!)

JoanK - we do have a new "sharply-delineated group" in Scene II...you've got me wondering whether the actors in Scene I aren't called upon to play new roles in Scene II. Can't pay them all just for one scene!

Some of you looked very closely at the Louvre portrait of Charles. Andy noted his "weak chin - weak spirit", Harold, you like his hat (!) but notice his rather plain attire - and the less than intelligent look in his eyes. Barb, you see fear in his eyes - the feeling that he is not safe. I see a man not comfortable in his postion - a combination of fear and unhappiness, sadness. I don't see anything formidable about him. Here's how Shaw describes him (probably from the same portrait)

",,,narrow eyes, near together, a long pendulous nose that droops over his thick short upper lip, and the expression of a young dog accustomed to being kicked, yet incorrigible and irrepressible."

The poor boy. He doesn't want to be king at all, does he? I think it is nothing short of a miracle that Joan persuades him to let her try to put him on the throne.

Does he have any love in his life? Any raison d'être? Who are his friends, his allies?

The Archbishop of Rheims is a piece of work, representing the Church, (some spokesperson!) and la Trémouille, the "monstrous, arrogant wineskin of a man" - the commander of the army, is he? Why are they in the throne room when Joan arrives? Do you get the feeling that they hang around the throne to "counsel" Charles, to control him, or simply to dun him for money he owes them. Why have they lent Charles money? Shouldn't Charles be supporting the Army? What is Charles' source of income?

In addition, he appears to have a spendthrift wife - did you not cringe when he tells Joan his only son hates him? Apparently Charles' own mother turned on him - and as Barbara and Shaw mention in passing, Charles the VI may not have been his father after all! It was his MOTHER who brought into question his parentage when she disinherited him and passed the throne instead to her daughter's husband - who she had given in marriage to Henry V, King of England. Charles'parentage

Good morning, Bern! We were posting together - Joan's double life as a chaste maid and a soldier is something to consider...as we shall see.

Joan has miracles to work in that throne room today! But as Jonathan says, we've come to expect "what Joan wants, Joan gets." It's HOW she does it (in Shaw's play) that is so fascinating. Indeed, as you quote Mary Gordon - it will take "passionate action against ridiculous odds, holding nothing back."

Joan Pearson
May 6, 2005 - 06:40 am
A few more thoughts this morning...and then the floor is all yours,,,

~ Joan K pointed out that "Joan was part of the beginning of the strength of Nationalism" that we all take for granted. This is one thing I will definitely take from this discussion. Don't you wonder what would have happened had Joan not arrived on the scene when she did? Such an unlikely pivotal player at this time. A woman!, no, a girl, not a "lady" (did you notice how the "ladies" tittered when she arrived at Charles' court?) She appeared in armor, with no military training - except as Eloise referred to her voices, her "Instruction Manual for Soldiering".

What would have happened had Joan had not been successful in persuading Charles to give her command of his army? I loved Shaw's portrayal of her arguments to his resistance. Better yet, I loved the way she persuaded the skeptical Archbishop to give her his blessing!

Mrs Sherlock
May 6, 2005 - 07:05 am
I am pondering the physical descriptions of Joan which lead me to speculate that she was androgynous, one of those poor souls who are not clearly male or female. Approximately 1% of all births are these unfortunate folks. There were a couple of books written by/about androgenes in recent years, and their lives were horrenduous. The contradiction between the apparent gender and the chromosomal gender created intense psychological trauma. Supposing one had no external male genitalia but was XY... Just something that popped into my brain.

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 6, 2005 - 08:01 am
Joan P. I am giving you the link again to the MUSÉE JEANNE D'ARC because the one in the heading does not open. I hope this one does.

I have read and reread Act 11 and I try to leave behind my preconceived ideas about France's history. In Shaw's play, I see Charles as some sort of a whimp who had never been loved, never been respected by anybody feeling totally unfit for assuming the Monarchy and even more unfit for ridding France of English domination, until Joan masterfully transmitted to him what her voices were telling her on how to proceed about throwing the English out of France once and for all.

If Joan had not done what she did, France might still be under English domination today. France was on the brink of total collapse and subject to a more powerful nation. Her voices might very well have been her own unrelenting determination because in her heart she knew exactly what to do to instill national pride in her countrymen for their own country. For that, they needed an Icon to worship.

Without a strong leader, France was doomed to perpetual domination. Joan, in her extreme wisdom know that first, she had to give France a King they would love and revere, and she knew that a lavish coronation at Rheims Cathedral was a crucial condition for achieving this.

Charles, didn't even care about saving France, he wasn't prepared to face the hardships that it entailed, but when Joan injected in him the indispensable conditions of a strong Monarch that the French needed, whether it was by miracle or something else, then he suddenly found the courage to face and command his recalcitrant subjects to obey Joan's instructions to raise a siege and they all suddenly became docile subjects. Is it a miracle, I don't know.

If Charles became a loved and respected Monarch, Joan could inspire courage and bravery in her soldiers, without it she couldn't. Nationalism needs an Icon and she began her campaign with that in mind.

Flattering Charles Joan instilled in him the courage to speak firmly and with authority to the courtiers who were the real rulers of France in the absence of a proper King and victory ensued.

ALF
May 6, 2005 - 05:43 pm
Mrs. Sherlock- I don't believe that Joan was androgynous. I remember reading of an account given by one of the warriors that fought next to her in battle. He said that when she disrobed at night she "had beautiful breasts to look at" but never once did he consider her in a carnal sense. She had no time for thoughts that most adolescent women experience. Her passion was to follow the words of her God. I'm still curious if we could find out if she did experience amennorhea.

Now I have a question- In the chambers where we now stand we meet Lord Chamberlain, Monseigneur de la Tremouille. What is a Chamberlain? Is it one who tends to the affairs in the chambers of the king? What is a "wineskin" of a man? Does it mean red and ruddy? (Unless one drinks Chardonnay, which is white, that would seem apt.)

In comes Gilles de Rais. Holy smokes that url that Barb provided for us about him is enough to make the Marques de saude blush. This guy was some sick dude! What a shame that he poisoned this earth for 36 long years until they strangled his ugly bluebearded self for being a heretic and a murderer of children. France didn't have much going for it, did it between the clergy and gentry, combined with and a dumb king (wanna be.)

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 6, 2005 - 06:04 pm
Alf you asked the same question I wondered about last night - this is the web site I found that describes an English Lord Chamberlain - the site, although describing the duties in a later period, is quite extensive and therefore I think we can get a pretty good idea of what duties the chamberlain carried out...Lord Chamberlain

Still tracking - so far found that there seems to have been a difference in allegiance to Gregory versus Benedict [the two pseudo popes during the latter years of the schism] by the Archbishop of Reimes and the Archbishop of Beauvais - the archbishop of Beauvais has a reputation for being cruel. Need to do more searching to see if I can come up with something that gives us a better picture of the English inquisitors versus the French.

JoanK
May 6, 2005 - 10:05 pm
"monstrous, arrogant wineskin of a man"

I loved that. It summed him up in only five words.

A wineskin is a bag made of the skin of an animal, to hold wine. I read "wineskin of a man" to mean a man who is nothing but a bag for holding wine.

Here is a site where you can buy one:

BUY A WINESKIN

bmcinnis
May 7, 2005 - 02:34 am
JoanFilm

JoanInfo

bmcinnis
May 7, 2005 - 03:43 am
These two links are the "Mother" of all web links about Joan.

The film clips depict her in film and dance to provide a kind of panoramic view of how her story has evolved over time. I like it because it's as fanciful as my own. In my view she is indeed A "Woman" for all Seasons.

What do you think?

JoanFilm

JoanInfo

Joan Pearson
May 7, 2005 - 05:35 am
Oh dear, oh my, oh my dear Bern!
You have indeed unearthed the Mother of all Web links to Joan! There went my morning! You can get lost in that site for hours! I put a link to the page that contains links to other biographic pages in the heading, along with the "Hymn to Joan of Arc" that Pat H found for us - put them both into the heading for future reference. Two amazing finds! Thank you from all of us!

First observations from reading the Mother-of-them-all site:
There seems to be some contradiction as to the Feast Date of Joan of Arc - May 30 (the date she was executed, my birthday), and May 8. That's tomorrow! May 8 is not her birth date. I'm wondering why that date?

"Charles required her to be examined by Catholic theologians, who finally approved her in late March of 1429. She was then given titular command of an army - as was sometimes done with accepted religious visionaries - and allowed to try to lift the siege of Orleans, which she said was the first mission ordered of her."

I thought that was helpful in understanding why Joan would have been given command of Charles' army.
I did look through the link for mention of Shaw's play - saw the many references to films (are they available in video anywhere?) - but no Shaw. Perhaps because it is satire and not an historical representation.

"I have read and reread Act 11 and I try to leave behind my preconceived ideas about France's history." Eloise, isn't it easy to forget that we are not just reading another historical account in the play - but rather a bit of historical fiction - and a satirized version at that?

Before turning to the satire of Shaw, Jackie brought up a good question regarding the "real" Joan You aren't the only one who has wondered at the androgeny issue. There have been a number of movie productions in which Joan has been purposely cast in this way. I found an interesting link (yes, another link that may very well be in the "Mother-lode" though I didn't see it there) - which describes much of the women's lot back in the 15th century...explaining that it was not unusual for a woman to choose celibacy over marriage -

"Rules and customs with regard to marriage are often studied by scholars interested in the role of women throughout history. Although Joan of Arc never married, circumstances arising from the vow of celibacy she took reveal some information on the matter.

At the age of sixteen the Maid of Orleans was courted and proposed to by a boy from her town. Citing her celibacy as a defence, she turned down his offer, but faced the retribution of her father for doing so. 34 As we have seen, Joan had a tremendous respect for the opinions of her parents, so the decision not to marry could not have been taken lightly. But what does this reveal about marriage in the Middle Ages?

Firstly, it shows that the marriage of a girl was a family affair. According to Christine de Pizan, a female, medieval author, there is a danger in "entering into any new marriage without the approval and advice of family and friends." 35 Also, the necessity of the bride's family to pay a dowry to her husband meant that the family were given significant sway in choosing the successful suitor. 36

Secondly, it shows that chastity and religion are among the only reasons a woman could remain single. Stuard notes that:

"Women who did not marry were considered appropriately situated only when they were cloistered, an enormous burden on the spiritual nature of the conventual orders and houses which existed." 37

Although Joan did not join the monastic life, the fact that she carried out a spiritual mission would suffice."
Joan of Arc and the Role of Medieval Women
It's interesting to spend time getting to know the historical Joan - so that we can better understand Shaw's satire. Something else I'd like to know more about - Shaw's England and the prevailing attitude of his audiences regarding the clergy.

Coffee break!!!

Joan Pearson
May 7, 2005 - 08:11 am
hahaha, doesn't "wineskin of a man" just describe Charles' Lord Chamberlain to a tee, JoanK? Can't you just picture him from just those few words - "monstrous, arrogant wineskin of a man"

Andy, I see the Lord C. as full of "the red and the ruddy".



What convinces la Trémouille to approve of Joan? He's important, he controls the army?

Next she has to convince the Archbishop. - Had to smile when reading the historical account of this meeting - "Charles required her to be examined by Catholic theologians". Shaw's "Catholic theologian" is the Archbishop, already stung by Charles insult and challenge to his position - "holy as you are, God didn't send the angel to you, he sent her to me."

Did you see Joan using her feminine wiles, her powers of persuasion to flatter the powerful man into giving her his blessing? What did you think of the man's "theology" represented in this scene?

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 7, 2005 - 08:49 am
bmcinnis wonderful sites - the clips of the films were a treat to watch but the "Mother of all sites" lives up to the reputation you gave it - apt on this Mother's Day weekend - after reading the short bio which was longer and more complete than the bio offered in most sites, to me it read that the Duke of Burgundy was the real culprit here as he used his alliance with the English to further his own aims.

Scene II of the play just did not ring true for me - it sounded like the kind of rant that Shaw may have heard from his own mother - he had Joan speaking to the King as if she was a mother figure rather than a girl under his rule. I could see her gaining his ear but not giving him a tirade on courage. Sounded like the kind of dialogue Shaw may have remembered when as a child he would be wanting attention from his mother, who had emotionally abandoned him, and the mother would have given him a lecture to buck up and act like a responsible man.

As to the wineskin of a man - sounds to me like a pun on the amount of wine the man would drink and therefore, beginning to age like an old wineskin which he could be ironically remembering and putting in words his feelings about his own father.

For me this scene does not do the story of Joan much justice but rather it shows the personality of Shaw in which this writing shows him to be filled with the characteristic anger, hid in the guise of satire, of a man living with childhood abandonment issues and the biting memories of a child whose father drank.

I did think the bit about the miracle a wonderfully worded bit of truth. Reminded me of the story in the news today, how the image of the Virgin Mary on the Chicago overpass was painted over - because someone who did not believe defaced the stain or image - even I could feel something go out of my insides as I thought of the hope and faith that stain had brought to so many -- the play suggests a miracle is more often a coincidence - Yep the image could have easily been a salt stain on the overpass - but it brought folks closer to faith in God and themselves. Looks like we still fall for miracles.
"A miracle, my friend, is an event which creates faith. That is the purpose and nature of miracles. They may seem very wonderful to the people who witness them, and very simple to those who perform them. That does not matter: if they confirm or create faith they are true miracles.

LA TREMOUILLE. Even when they are frauds, do you mean?

THE ARCHBISHOP. Frauds deceive. An event which creates faith does not deceive: therefore it is not a fraud, but a miracle.

LA TREMOUILLE [scratching his neck in his perplexity] Well, I suppose as you are an archbishop you must be right. It seems a bit fishy to me. But I am no churchman, and dont understand these matters.

THE ARCHBISHOP. You are not a churchman; but you are a diplomatist and a soldier. Could you make our citizens pay war taxes, or our soldiers sacrifice their lives, if they knew what is really happening instead of what seems to them to be happening?"
Shaw gets in all the symbols doesn't he - fishy - Catholics and their fish...

I thought the play would be along the lines of the various movies about Joan but to me the play is more on the level of Monty Python wit.

Harold Arnold
May 7, 2005 - 08:58 am
In the modern movies the part of Joan is always played by a 5' 4 " somewhat tom-boyish actress. Whatever the historical Joan looked like physi8cally, I have to wonder if she clad in her fine armor could have survived even a few minutes in the hack-em-up confusion of a medieval battle. Yet the Legend tells us she did participate.

I find such actual hand-to-hand combat situations difficult to believe. Even if Joan was a 160-pound Amazon, she who had no previous long training through here childhood, could not have prevailed against the many well trained male knights. I see Joan in either case at best clad in her armor, parading before the troops, but retiring to watch the battle from a nearby hill

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 7, 2005 - 09:17 am
Harold the bio in that grand site that bmcinnis shared along with a few other web sites indicate, like you are suggesting, that she did not weld a sword fighting the enemies of France. Seems the most use she had for the sword was to slap the backsides of the women she chased out of the camps. What it appears she did was rally the troops and lead them forward while in the thick of things. She most often carried her standard or raised her symbolic sword that she associates with St. Catherine. Almost like a drummer boy in later wars but with the nerve and verve of a leader - leading rather than urging from behind.

I have a feeling if she had led from a safe hill the nobles wouldn't have allowed her to direct the soldiers - she would not have been a threat to them if she were watching with them where they could more easily control her -

I wonder - the tom boy ways and body type - there is a rough look that still some of the girls in the French country side have about them - they stand straight, head straight on, dark hair and eyes, with legs apart and often hands on their hip - sturdy and sure of themselves - I am always amazed to realize that it does not take what I would consider an attractive women to be coupled and have a family as so many of these sturdy, almost plain looking women of the French countryside, can be described.

Deems
May 7, 2005 - 09:36 am
The Archbishop's line which Barbara has quoted above, "Frauds deceive. An event which creates faith does not deceive: therefore it is not a fraud, but a miracle" is a good example of a logical fallacy.

It's a syllogism if you break it down.

Remember the famous syllogism:


All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal


This is a logical syllogism.


The archbishop's looks like this:


Frauds deceive
An event which creates faith does not deceive
Therefore, the event that creates faith does not deceive.


The problem here is the first line, "Frauds deceive"
and the second line which changes the ground of the syllogism, "An event which creates faith does not deceive."

The archbishop's conclusion does not follow from the first two statements. The switch from a positive statement to a negative one in the second line also undermines the syllogism.

I've just realized how difficult it is to explain why this syllogism doesn't work. But it doesn't. The conclusion cannot be drawn thus proving once again that miracles cannot be explained, even by logic.

Maryal/Deems

JoanK
May 7, 2005 - 11:12 am
Deems: I see you love to play with syllogisms too. Your analysis needs tweaking. Bear with me while I play some more.

Another correct syllogism:

All fish can swim 
Archie is a fish 
Therefore, Archie can swim.


A syllogism which would be more analogous to Shaw's and is also correct would be:

All fish can swim 
Archie cannot swim 
Therefore Archie is not a fish.


This is a correct syllogism, but it doesn't tell you whether Archie is a fish or not. It only tells you that IF all fish can swim and IF Archie can't swim, than Archie is not a fish. The syllogism can never tell you that. You have to go to your knowledge of fish and what a fish is, what swimming is, and your knowledge of Archie to decide. Here, not in the syllogism, is where you really have to get into the heart of the matter (That's why I chose a simpler syllogism than "All men are mortal" -- it's hard enough to decide what a fish is, much less what a man is).

Back in a minute with the rest.

KleoP
May 7, 2005 - 11:30 am
All fish can swim Archie cannot swim Therefore Archie is not a fish.

This is a correct syllogism, but it doesn't tell you whether Archie is a fish or not. It only tells you that IF all fish can swim and IF Archie can't swim, than Archie is not a fish.

Huh? Actually, if ALL fish can swim, and something CANNOT swim, it ain't a fish! by this! It indeed tells you whether Archie is a fish or not, in fact, that is what your next line says, that IF all fish can swim and IF Archie can't swim, then Archie is not a fish. How does this not tell you that Archie is a fish or not while it tells you that Archie is NOT a fish?

Kleo

JoanK
May 7, 2005 - 11:31 am
Am I boring everyone to tears? Sorry -- you can always skip this.

Now to Shaw. His syllogism is:

All frauds deceive 
Something that increases faith does not deceive 
Therefore something that increases faith is not a fraud.


This syllogism is correct!! The problem lies not in the syllogism, but in the truth of the first two statements: "all frauds deceive" and "Something which increases faith does not deceive."

It is the second statement that is misleading. It is saying "I know my faith to be correct, so if I tell a lie to get someone to agree with me, I'm not lying." It comes down to the basic definition of lying and deceit. This is getting too deep for me, but I hope you can see that it is that view of morality, not a failure of deductive logic, that is the basic problem here.

KleoP
May 7, 2005 - 11:34 am
Joan--

Not boring me. It seems logically correct to me when I look at it, but something about it bothers me when I think about its implications.

The problem, I think, is that 'something that increases faith' is ahead of and outside of the bounds of 'all frauds deceive.' The only thing that can lead to the conclusion is whether or not 'something' is deceptive, not what it does WITH the deception.

Kleo

JoanK
May 7, 2005 - 11:43 am
Kleo: you were posting while I was. The first two statements in the syllogism are assumptions. you don't know whether the third statement is true or not until you know whether the assumptions are true.

What if I said:

All birds can fly 
I am a bird 
Therefore I can fly


That is a correct syllogism. But I'd better not jump off my roof just yet (If I keep on babbling like this, you're going to wish that I would). The problem is that the second statement isn't true. I'm not a bird. but there is nothing in the formal logic that tells you this. you have to know me. (The first statement isn't true either -- there are birds that can't fly, but never mind)

The point is, that deductive logic, by itself, can never tell you that something is true. It can only tell you that If you know certain things to be true, other things follow.

Archie could be my pet goldfish who injured his fins, and so can't swim anymore. He is still a fish. My statement "All fish can swim" was false. Or maybe I don't like the way he swims. and say "You call that swimming? You can't swim!!) Then the statement "Archie can't swim" is false.

It comes down to the definition of "swim", just as Shaw's statement comes down to the definition of "deceit".

JoanK
May 7, 2005 - 11:44 am
Kleo: we were posting together again. You are absolutely right!

JoanK
May 7, 2005 - 12:41 pm
OK -- you got me on my hobby horse. Here's one more:

I always thought that using deductive logic was a lot like doing the income tax!

When you do the income tax, there are three things you worry about: following the instructions correctly, getting the correct information, and understanding the meanings of the terms.

If you add lines 57 and 59 when you should have subtracted, that is a mistake in the form. It is just like making a mistake in deductive logic, which is just a set of formal rules to follow.

But if you put in the wrong number for your income, the result is wrong, even if you follow the rules exactly.

And it is no accident that for every line of the form there are paragraphs written on the meaning of the terms: what is a medical expense etc.

So, too, with logic. It's not enough to get the form correct. Your information must be correct. And often, you come down to the meaning of the terms: what does it mean to swim? to be mortal? to deceive? This is why logic is so much easier to use in Mathematics, where the terms are relatively concrete and well defined.

The next logical question, I can't answer. We know where the income tax forms come from. They are made by the IRS as an expression of the tax laws created by Congress. But where do the forms of deductive logic come from? What laws do they express and how created?

Joan Pearson
May 7, 2005 - 04:20 pm
Oh, you are having such wicked fun being "sylly" today - at the Archbishop's expense. Aren't you daring, wasn't Shaw daring to criticize this icon (idol) of the Church - pointing out his very, very flawed logic. As Kleo describes it, he has given a definition of "deceit" - along with his stamp of approval. Frauds, if they increase belief and faith are indeed miracles in Archbishop-speak. Miracles are his business after all. (So is the business of saint-making.) Shaw is showing his teeth with his biting satire of the Church hierarchy. The Archbishop tells Joan that she is "in love with religion". What did he mean when he told her this was a "danger"? What is the danger of loving one's religion?

Barbara, you aren't the only one who feels that Shaw doesn't do Joan justice in the play. Harold, do you include Ingrid Bergman in your description of the actresses who have played Joan? You both might enjoy this:

"Then there was George Bernard Shaw, whose play, St. Joan, you've probably all seen. He directed that, at his death, his ashes be strewn at the base of her statue erected in his garden. He got in touch with another rabid fan, Ingrid Bergman, and asked her why she hadn't played HIS St. Joan. Never one to mince words, Ingrid told him she didn't like it. He laughed. "Why is that?" "Your work isn't true to the real Joan. She was a good and simple farm girl not insolent smart-aleck who called the King 'Charlie' and referred to a bishop as a 'rare noodle.'" Her candor delighted Shaw and he invited Ingrid to come back and visit with him again." Ingrid Bergman on Shaw's St. Joan

I'm not sure what Shaw is saying with his portrayal of Joan at this point in the play. He does seem to be intent at reducing her voices and the accompanying miracles swirling around her to explainable phenomena. I don't see anger directed at Joan. Or even disrespect.

JoanK, aren't you glad you don't have to deal with those taxes for another year? Oh dear! You aren't still wrestling with 2005?

KleoP
May 7, 2005 - 05:46 pm
The logic and the syllogism are sound, haven't we concluded? Isn't that all one can deduce from a syllogism, that within the confines of the premises, it's true?

"All birds can fly I am a bird Therefore I can fly

That is a correct syllogism. But I'd better not jump off my roof just yet (If I keep on babbling like this, you're going to wish that I would). The problem is that the second statement isn't true. I'm not a bird. but there is nothing in the formal logic that tells you this. you have to know me. (The first statement isn't true either -- there are birds that can't fly, but never mind)."

I don't follow this. If the second statement isn't true then is it a syllogism? The conclusion only follows if the second statement is true. If it isn't true, it's not a syllogism. So this example, Joan, can't work. It's essentially saying, "Given this and given that, something follows, but you really can't be given this and given that because they're not true!"

Frauds deceive An event which creates faith does not deceive Therefore, the event that creates faith does not deceive.

Mathematically a syllogism works like this, according to Wikipedia:

B leads to A C leads to B Therefore C leads directly to A

The Archbishop's says:

B leads to A C does not lead to A Therefore C does not lead directly to A

This is fine, because this is what the Archbishop has given as his premise (line 2). Saying, in essence, "If you assume this is true, then it's true!"

What's flawed about that? It's not a syllogism, but the logic is sound!

The Archbishop is not giving his stamp of approval to deceit. This is an act of Faith on his part.

I don't at all think that this is the location of Shaw's satire. He is, after all, merely showing that the Archbishop is no less human than others, and that the Archbishop sees his own humanity. To show the underlying humanity of another is hardly the purpose of satire. To use the word's of another Irishman, the Archbishop is clearly putting his own face in the glass with that of the human race:

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own." Jonathan Swift

Clearly, I think, in this case, the Archbishop sees his own face in the glass.

I don't know about Shaw's take on Joan. He's making her out to be a bit silly, although those around her seem sillier.

I'm off on vacation for a week. I haven't read about the last 20 posts, other than the logic ones.

Kleo

ALF
May 8, 2005 - 05:36 am
I agree Joan, I don't think that Shaw showed any disrespect as he merely "shewed" a different facet of Joan de arc. It's like a new rendition of a familiar song, by a different artist. The portrayal is diverse.

Deems
May 8, 2005 - 07:30 am
The fish one won't swim, JoanK. The problem is that the first line doesn't say ONLY fish can swim. Incorrect syllogism. Boooo. The bird one is OK, but as Kleo points out, the second statement depends upon you're knowing who "I" is. Ah, we could go on and on with this one, but I won't. (JoanP sighs loudly in background with relief.)

The error is called the "fallacy of the undistributed middle," I think.

Nothing like a little refresher course in logic to keep Alzheimer's at bay, is there? Heh.

IF you have this week's copy of TIME magazine--China on the cover--by all means find the article on Putin. There's a face photo of him and he looks just like Charles! Really! Take a look. Reincarnation??

Maryal/Deems

Deems
May 8, 2005 - 07:55 am
OK, I have the article from Time archive. I hope that the link works.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,238570,00.html

Yep, it works. Do they look alike or what? OK, the nose is a little different. But I swear they're related.

Maryal

Jonathan
May 8, 2005 - 08:57 am
Startling, but not surprising.

In all likelihood Napoleon's soldiers sewed many wild oats on their march across Russia. It may well be that one of them had aristocratic French blood coursing through his veins and was himself having a royal fling along the way across the fruitful steppes.

Harold Arnold
May 8, 2005 - 09:19 am
Joan thank you for the link you included in your post #199, Ingrid Bergman on Shaw's St. Joan. That is an interesting concise summary of Joan’s life. I had not realized how well the contemporary church trial records document the events. I urge everyone to read this report in its entirety.

The truth is my memory of the Joan of Arc films that I saw during or before the 1950s is unclear, but it must have been the Ingrid Bergman version. Click Here

Regarding Shaw’s inclusion of dialog having Joan call Charles Vii to his face “Charlie” does not surprise me. It is typically Shavian in writing dialog that included typical contemporary English slang. In other plays also he has characters call one another by an informal diminutive version of their formal name.

Pat H
May 8, 2005 - 10:12 am
In "Androcles and the Lion", Shaw has Androcles talk baby talk to the lion too keep him under control while removing the thorn. This scene reminded me a little of that.

Pat H
May 8, 2005 - 10:16 am
There is quite a resemblance, but there is one important difference--the eyes. I've always felt that Putin had the most icily merciless eyes I've ever seen (not as bad in this picture as some). Charles's eyes lack this quality, being more worried and defensive.

ALF
May 8, 2005 - 12:25 pm
Hey why not? Charlie was royalty from French/English lineage. Why not throwing in a dab of Russian heritage for good measure- toss it up and mark with V. Political and economic disaster still prevails even after all of these years and all of this ancestry.

Joan Pearson
May 8, 2005 - 03:45 pm
I hope you are all having a lovely day wherever you are. I spent the middle of the day with the five grandchildren (ate in a restaurant to save me the cooking and the mess only two two-year olds can make.) Stayed off the line this afternoon waiting for the California sons to call - didn't want them to get the dreaded answering machine telling them I was on the other line....they still haven't called, so this will be really fast!

Harold, there ARE so many records of the 15th century Joan - the original transcript of her trial and the hundreds of investigative reports taken some 20 years after her death when the validity of her sentence was questioned. Some of Joan's schoolmates were 40 years old at the time, with memories of Joan as a girl. Of course her family was interviewed as were so many of those she met in her Army days. These records were translated and made public during the canonization process five hundred years later....which is great for us.

I read today that the play was first performed, not in England, but at the Garrick Theater in New york in 1923. What would the audience have been like back then? Some of Shaw's contemporaries - Proust, Joyce, Eliot, Kafka, Freud... It's been noted here and elsewhere that Shaw's Joan does not do justice to the real Joan. I'm not sure that he meant to do her an injustice. Was he just using her character to create good theater? He wrote his preface AFTER the first run of the play to explain himself, to defend it. Don't you wonder why he felt this was necessary? What must the early reviews have been like? This is the play that brought him the Nobel Prize. It couldn't have been that badly received.

I've been reading (trying to read) Harold Bloom's book, George Bernard Shaw and came across this -
"Each of the first three scenes of Saint Joan ends with a similar high-point, as the miracles of the Maid create faith in those around her. The audience is surely intended to share this excitement. And yet at some level we must be affected by Shaw's partial scepticism, his awareness that what he is writing is a "romance." Sybil Thorndike recounts how when Shaw first read the play to her, after she had listened spell-bound to the opening three scenes, he remarked, "That's all flapdoodle up to there, just 'theatre' to get you interested - now the play begins."

What does Bloom mean by "romance"? We have one more scene of "romance" before the play begins. according to Shaw. Each of these three scenes ends with "a high point, a faith-creating miracle"...On what high point, what miracle, does Shaw end Scene II?

A very happy Mother's Day to every mom, to every mother's child out there. Happy memories!

Pat H
May 8, 2005 - 06:21 pm
Joan’s speech contains a number of expressions characteristic of the British farming class of Shaw's time. In scene 1, when de Baudricourt first calls her from the window, she says "be you captain?", and he says "yes, damn your impudence, I be Captain". In scene 2, when she comes into the court, she asks "Where be Dauphin? ", then says to Bluebeard, "Coom, Bluebeard, thou canst not fool me, where be Dauphin?" There are other instances. The first exchange is actually pretty funny, and the others serve to flesh out the characterization. Shaw’s audience would have caught this, I’m not sure about most current American audiences.

Pat H
May 8, 2005 - 06:48 pm
The Archbishop explains why miracles are necessary and not deceit, but that he will not be impressed because he knows how they are done. Then Joan comes in, finds Charles, convinces him to fight, and wins over the Archbishop by extreme deference, which he must know is not altogether deserved. What did he think of her miracle? Did he think it was a trick or something more?

bmcinnis
May 9, 2005 - 02:33 am
A study of Faces

I was intrigued by the conversation about the likeness of Charles with Putin, but for me, it is what is “behind the face" that counts. Charles is undoubtedly a dolt but Putin? I don’t think so???

But this study of faces prompted me to go back and study these film clips in chronological order. ( http://www.smu.edu/IJAS/movielis.html ) Now here is where we see unfold the “romance” (a narrative telling of the adventures of a “chivalric” hero or a tale of extraordinary or mysterious events) about Joan as it evolves in the minds of individuals of any Age.

From my perspective Shaw is developing a tongue-in-cheek romance drama. What do you think?

And now about miracles—Let’s consider these miracles of Joan’s voices not a miracle but a myth about Joan. A myth evolves because there is some real truth hidden beneath the story. Then, doesn’t her belief (and ours too) in this miracle of the voices become an act of faith not fraud?

The historical fact that there was a real Joan is not disputed but the truth of what lies beneath requires faith, not deceit or fraud?

Bern

Joan Pearson
May 9, 2005 - 07:20 am
Thought-provoking posts this morning!

Bern, you see the play (the early scenes, the "romance" as Shaw describes them) as "tongue in cheek romance drama." Is this another way of calling it "satire"? I follow your logic...(tempted to try for a syllogism, but it's too early in the morning) ...miracle, myth based on truth, belief in truth = belief in the myth, in the miracles. I think the use of the word and concept of "fraud" is pure Shaw here, indicating his underlying hostility towards organized religion, perhaps. Fraud would indicate a desire to deceive in order to gain, to profit. I don't see where Joan had anything to gain here, except the dubious reward of going into battle.

I'm thinking of Shaw's 1923 audience. Would Joan's story have been received with skepticism? Would they have caught Shaw's indictment of the clergy of organized religion? How about today's audience? How is the play received? Maryal, can you tell us the reaction of the USNA audience when the play was performed there? How did your class react?

PatH - a super, duper question - Did the Archbishop think that Joan's "miracles" were tricks - or something more? I went back and reread the passages. All of his comments on "miracles/fraud" were made before he met and heard Joan. Though he was flattered by the deference she extended to him, to his office, I see him completely convinced of Joan's faith and belief in the voices - and that she was sent by God. "In love with her religion" - is how he described it. He sends her to Charles with his blessing. That should say it all.

I'm wondering if the film productions give Joan the exaggerated farm-girl dialect that Shaw does. (I doubt it.) As you say, Pat, it makes the audience laugh. I think any audience would do the same - it is contrary to the image of the pious, courageous leader of the French army they have read about. The device "de-mystifies" her, doesn't it? Makes her more accessible. But does it make her "miracles" more believable?

ps. Did you notice la Trémouille at the end of this scene after Charles and the Archbishop decide to send Joan on to Orleans in command of the army? HIS command has been given to the girl! He "collapses, cursing" - A collapsed wineskin - what an image!

Joan Pearson
May 9, 2005 - 07:38 am
Joan is off on her first mission - to join Dunois, to lift the siege of Orleans. How will she convince him of her ability to fight in battle? I'm really interested in your first reaction to the opening passages describing the army camp on the wrong side of the Loire. Surprised? The preoccupation with the Kingfisher? Those of you who were convinced that Joan would not have used the term "goddam" - what do you make of her addressing Dunois as "bastard"?

Shaw has tucked a lot into this rather short scene...

First, let's consider Shaw's version and then look at the historical meeting with Dunois. okay?

JoanK
May 9, 2005 - 11:12 am
I have to admit as a bird lover I loved the bit about the kingfisher, and it immediately made me like and be sympathetic to Dunois and his page. Did Shaw put it in for this reason? These are people who are not just concerned with themselves and their own importance (like those we have met up to now) but care about the beauty around them and, by implication, really care about the land around them, about France. (Never mind that there are kingfishers in England too -- it still works for me).

Joan works much better in this scene. Part of the trouble with the peasant expressions in the last one (good catch, Pat!!) is that he hadn't used them before, so it feels like a different Joan in Scene II than in Scene I. It's confusing, disconcerting, and distracts from the rest. Here we are back to the Joan of Scene I.

Kathleen Zobel
May 9, 2005 - 02:14 pm
I can understnd Shaw's analysis on Joan's voices and their instructions...we all imagine a lot throughout our lives. He sees this as the voices and it is possible. After listening to the French troops about their battles and what could be done to bring the Dauphin to the throne at the Rheims Cathedral,and send the British home. her intelligence enables her to envision herself leading the French forces. Between listening and questioning the French officers about battles and the way to Orleans and Rheims, she is able to decide on the how, when, and where she will lead the French to victory.

It is her attitude, her poise, her self confidence that puzzles me. Was she like this as a child? what influence did her parents have on her/ What were the circumstances of her first use of the 'voices.?

It is her attitude , her poise, her self confidence that puzzles me...was she like this as a child growing up? what influence did her parents have on her? What were the circumstances of her first use ofthe voices?

It is her attitude, her poise, her self confidence that puzzles me...was she like this as a child? What influence did her parents have on her? What were the circumstances of her first use of the "voices'? What were the circumstances of her first use of the voices?

Harold Arnold
May 9, 2005 - 03:10 pm
Kathleen, Joan's attitude, her poise or her self confidance does not seem puzzling to me. No, she truely believed her orders conveyed by three saints came direct from God, Joan never for a moment questioned her orders; she never for a monent considered the possibility of defeat.

I too wonder about her upbringing and her homelife with her parents. I wonder if she had brothers and sisters or if maybe she was an only child?

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 9, 2005 - 03:42 pm
Joan was obedient to her parents except when it came to obeying her voices. She spun wool, did the chores and otherwise went to church to pray according to this: JOAN OF ARC'S LETTER TO HER PARENTS

Two of her brothers served under her to fight the war.

Pat H
May 9, 2005 - 04:19 pm
I thought I remembered something about it being thought to be good luck to see a kingfisher. It took me a while to find it, but it turns out that the kingfisher was thought by the Greeks to have the power to control the wind and waves--just what Dunois needs. It's apparantly exciting to see, being such a brilliant blue. (I've never seen one, unfortunately.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/birds/guide/k/kingfisher/did_you_know.asp

Joan Pearson
May 9, 2005 - 05:10 pm
Isn't it amazing what you can find on the Internet! Even more remarkable that the 15th century letter from Joan is available to us! I seem to remember some testimony taken 20 years after her death from friends in Domrémy ...and even from her sister, Kathleen. Will look through saved sites after dinner. I remember two brothers and a sister, or two sisters and a brother...So, not an only child. I also remember that she was about 13 when she heard the voices.

Harold, the only explanation I can think of for the poise and confidence - Joan really believes that her voices will guide her.

Something else caught my eye in the link you provided, Eloise..."Although she doesn't state when this letter was dictated or where it was sent from, it's assumed that it must have been either during her stop at Ste-Catherine-de-Fierbois or after her arrival at Chinon." Imagine that! Ste. Catherine de Fierbois Church is noted here in scene III for a totally different reason!!!

Here it is...it seems to be from the same master-site that Eloise found -

"Historians have long commented about the surprising amount of detailed information available about Jehanne's childhood, information which was somewhat paradoxically provided for us by an event which took place over 20 years after her death: when the English were finally driven from the site of her trial (Rouen) in November of 1449, steps were taken to launch an appeal of her case, generally referred to as the Rehabilitation Trial. During the long course of this appeal 115 witnesses were questioned by the Inquisition, including 22 of the villagers who had known her during her early years; movingly, some of them still referred to her by her childhood nickname, "Jhenette" ("little Joan"). According to these witnesses, she had been a dutiful child who helped her parents with the chores along with her other siblings: her three older brothers Jacquemin, Jean, and Pierre, and her sister Catherine"...."Childhood

Next page...the voices:

"I heard the voice on my right, in the direction of the Church [i.e., the little Church of St. Rémy near her house], and rarely do I hear it without a light. This light comes from the same side as the voice.... It seemed to me a worthy voice, and I believed it was sent to me by God; after I had heard this voice the third time, I knew that it was the voice of an angel."

"It taught me to be good, to go regularly to church. It told me that I should come into France [i.e., territory loyal to the Dauphin]... This voice told me, two or three times a week, that I must go away and that I must come to France; and my father knew nothing of my leaving.

The voice told me that I should go to France and I could no longer stay where I was. It told me that I should raise the siege laid to the city of Orléans. ...And I replied that I was a poor girl who knew neither how to ride nor lead in war."

She said the first of these visions was Saint Michael the Archangel:mn1 "It was Saint Michael, who I saw before my eyes; he was not alone, but was accompanied by many angels from Heaven... I saw them with my bodily eyes, as well as I am seeing you; and when they left, I wept and greatly wished that they should have taken me with them." "Saint Michael, when he came to me, told me that Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret;mn2 would come to me and that I should act on their advice; that they were instructed to lead and advise me in what I had to do; and that I should believe in what they would say to me, for it was by God's order." Visions

Joan Pearson
May 9, 2005 - 06:50 pm
Thank you, Pat - and Joan K too! Joan, you found yourself liking Dunois from the start, because he loved the Kingfisher. his country, France. Shaw paints a gentle man, a poet who loved the land. Is this peaceful scene on the silver Loire supposed to be a battlefield? Pat, no wonder they were looking for this particular bird - with luck, he would shift the wind. This of course is all Shaw's "flapdoodle". But isn't it fun?

Here's another view...

Kingfisher - Loire, France...now a protected species

Shall I tell you why I thought Shaw brought in the "kingfisher"? I'm so "word-oriented" - thought it had something to do with searching, fishing the Loire for a king. I like Pat's - and Joan's explanations much better.

Why is Dunois so laid back? Has he given up? Is he waiting for something to happen and biding his time? What is Shaw saying with this portrayal of a peaceful campground?

JoanK
May 9, 2005 - 07:13 pm
PAT: amazing. I assume Shaw must have known that. Our US kingfisher (the belted kingfisher) is about the same blue as a blue jay -- the European one you showed looks similiar. You know if it's around because if you get near its nest, it gives a maniacal laugh, and flies away in a zigzag pattern.

But it's laugh is nothing to that of the Australian kingfisher, the kookaberra. Press the green lights to hear it. Maybe it is the sound of Shaw laughing at us from his grave:

AUSTRALIAN KINGFISHER LAUGHING

Harold Arnold
May 10, 2005 - 08:29 am
The Bastard of Orleans character (nothing wrong with that) is an interesting player in the Joan drama. He was commander of the French Army at the tender age of 26. He does seem to have carried his illegitimacy rather well as indeed did many of the other royal bastards of the age. (I guess a notable exception to this generality would be the Duke of Monmouth some 200 years later who was beheaded by Charles II for treason). The second link, given below notes, that he testified favorably on behalf of Joan at the Nullification Trial. But he, like others of Joan's French associates, was not available when she really needed him!

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jean-claude.colrat/2dunois.htm Those of you who read French click the Man of the month link on this page for more bio information on this interesting figure.. This site has him living to the ripe old age of 66, which would be old for his time.

http://www.saintjoanofarc.org/persons_involved_in_her_work.htm This short sketch gives his date of death as Jan 11 1442 that I think is early and contradicts its statement that he testified at the Nullification trial. Also his picture from the miniature is dated 1450 shows him rather healthy for a 15th century 48 year old senior.

Kathleen Zobel
May 10, 2005 - 11:33 am
Scene 111 sets what is to come...Joan talked about the plans to beat the English and have Orleans just as readily as Dunois They make a good pair. Let's not forget she is still only 17 Her understanding of what Dunois tells her about the plan for battle once again shows her intellligence. She asked good questions, accepted Dunois when he corrrected her, and pointed out more than once how she can lead this battle.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KINGFISHER? Why did Dunois turn back to see it,when the page wanted him to know the wind had changed? would bet it had something to do with wars...good luck, bad luck

I was intriqued by Dunois' comparison of his having two wives, one being a soldier to Joan being told by the Archbishop she loved religion and Dunois seeing she loves being a soldier, Joan agrees to both, but goes into more detail about being a woman as opposed to how she enjoys being a soldier. Shaw is planting what went down in History as why she is condemned...she did not keep an agreement to marry. I wonder how long she and Dunois will be together.

This is a charming scene...Shaw at his best?

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 10, 2005 - 01:22 pm
I like to follow the story from two sources. Shaw's Joan seems to have been written for children in the first three chapters, it is not only satirical, but it is somewhat out of character. In Mark Twain's version Joan of Arc is like the saint that she became later on.

In the Preface we read "that the character of Joan of Arc is unique. It can be measured by the standards of all times without misgiving or apprehension as to the result. Judged by any of them, judged by all of them, it is flawless, it is still ideally perfect; it still occupies the loftiest place possible to human attainment, a loftier one than has been reached by any other mere mortal."

The only teenager, a girl at that, to have been a general of an army and succeeded in driving invaders out of the country.

Page 202 Chapter X1V of Mark Twain's Joan of Arc:

"Next Morning, Saturday April 30, 1420, she set about inquiring after the messenger who carried her proclamation to the English from Blois, the one which she had dictated at Poitiers. Here is a copy of it. It is a remarkable document, for several reasons: for its mater-of-fact directness, for its high spirit and forcibl diction and for its naive confidence in her ability to achieve the prodigious task which she had laid upon herse,...

This untaught country-damsel, unused to dictating anything at all to anybody, much less documents of state to kings and generals, poured out this procession of vigorous sentences as fluently as if this sort of work had been her trade from childhood:

JESUS MARIA. King of England, and you Duke of Bedford who call yourself Regent of French; William de la Pole, Earl of Suffold, and you Thomas Lord Scales, who style yourselves lieutenants of the said Bedford do right to the King of Heaven. Render to the Maid who is sent by God the keys of all the good towns you have taken and violated in France. She is sent hether by God, to restore the blood royal. She is very ready to make peace if you will do her right by giving up France and paying for what you have held..."


This is hardly a uneducated girl's vocabulary as it seems to be dictated from divine intervention.

In the next chapters of Shaw's play, the tone changes completely. It is no longer the words of unlettered country folks we read, but that of high government and church officiels deliberating between themselves on how to do away with this young girl who had dared to fight against foreign kings, not for her own glory and rewards but for as an unselfish goal as to make France great again.

Now to try and understand how her 'voices' could lead her is very hard to do and I don't think that anybody could ever offer an unrefuted explanation.

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 10, 2005 - 01:34 pm
To continue with this letter to the King of England that she wrote in Blois:

"And you archers, companions of war, noble and otherwise, who are before the good city of Orleans, begone into your own land in God's name or expect news from the Maid who will shortly go to see you to your very great hurt, King of England, if you do not so, I am chief of war, and wherever I shall find your people in France I will drive them out, willing or not willing; and if they do not obey I will slay them all, but if they obey I will have them to mercy. I am come hither by God, the King of Heaven, body for body, to put you out of France, in spite of those who would work treason and mischief against the kingdom..."

Words of a warrior, a Minister of Defense, of a President, but not words of a young farm girl not yet out of her teens. If she could think like this, it is not surprising that she could persuade soldiers and kings to obey her. She had the power of persuasion given to her by her 'voices'.

Joan Pearson
May 10, 2005 - 08:01 pm
Harold, I was wondering whether it was Shaw who dubbed Dunois the "Bastard of Orleans" - or if that was how he was known at the time. I see in the link you provided, that the "Bastard" title is included there too.

Eloise, I tried to read the Mark Twain story of Joan...had seached my library shelves for it - found it under a pseudonym - Sieur Luis de Conte. It was so gushing, so sentimental, I couldn't stay with it. Clearly Twain was fascinated (obsessessed?) by the story following her canonization. He often said he regarded Recollections as his finest work. (His critics did not agree with him.)

Have you ever read Shakespeare's account of Joan's story? You really ought to read this scene, Henry VI, Part I Act I. Her story has always captured the imagination of writers through the ages.

I've also wondered at the fact that Joan has cut her hair short and wears men's clothing because she doesn't want to be considered a woman...then why did she go by "The Maid"? I guess if Dunois didn't mind "Bastard" how could Joan have protested "Maid?"

Kathleen brings up Dunois' observation that Joan loves war. I 'm not sure she does, at this point. I think she's confident she has God on her side, and a lofty purpose to put Charles on the throne. But love the combat? Not sure. She never killed, or even wounded another. Does she actually fight, or is she a figurehead? She did put herself in harm's way.

bmcinnis
May 11, 2005 - 05:46 am
I believe that Shaw’s posturing about being an “atheist” is more a discussion about the inadequacy of language and logic rather than an individual’s bottom-line “belief.”

Shaw, because his gift of satire and irony—both language activities—uses language as a means of “showing up” the limitations of language and challenges us with satire--arriving at truth through the “back door.”

Shaw’s words are “common sense logic:” By your leave,” Shaw replied, “it is as easy for me to believe that the universe made itself as that the maker of the universe made himself, in fact much easier; for the universe visibly exists and makes itself as it goes along, whereas a maker for it is a hypothesis.”

Shaw’s style of atheism is belief “ that clears the soul of superstitions and terrors and servilities and base compliances and hypocrisies, and lets in the light of heaven.” The web site entitled Shaw Atheist or Mystic reveals a great deal about both Shaw and God.

Is Shaw’s a rebellion against God or against dogma and human’s inability to capture literally those truths for which language is not equipped to articulate satisfactorily?

Bern

Joan Pearson
May 11, 2005 - 09:12 am
Good morning, Bern. You obviously have given this much thought - Shaw's atheism. I'm not sure. He believed that God was a work in progress. He didn't exist - yet, but evolving. Not quite an atheist. I can see where Church doctine would be unacceptable to Shaw. But his belief in God? Will be interested to hear what the rest of you can do with this question. I've just reread that article,Shaw, Atheist or Mystic by Gary Sloan.

Some interesting comments in the article give us an idea of the Shaw's audience in 1923 when Joan first appeared on stage.

"At a time when the English stage trafficked in romantic fripperies, he awakened complacent audiences to a host of social ills abetted by conventional morality, bourgeois respectability, and ossified institutions. “I was a social reformer and doctrinaire first, last, and all the time,” he wrote."

"Shaw scoffed at superstition, churches, ecclesiastics, rituals, ceremonies, and creeds."

"In Shawianity, God was a work in progress, not a fait accompli."

" In truth, Shaw didn’t believe in an existing God at all. What he believed was that evolution, eons hence, will produce a godlike race in which the life force will consummate its quest for godhead. If, as theologians and philosophers have traditionally maintained, current existence is a necessary attribute of god, Shaw qualifies as an atheist, albeit an involuntary one"
" Until he was thirty or so, Shaw called himself an atheist. He became one, he later quipped, before he could think" - until he espoused "mysticism" - defined as the doctrines or beliefs that it is possible to achieve communion with God through contemplation and love without the medium of human reason. Using this definition, I can see where he understood and accepted Joan's voices as her means of communicating directly through prayer, contemplation. "Reason" didn't seem to be part of her acceptance of these voices.

Those who knew him claimed that he remained an atheist until his death. It was interesting to read that he had his cremated remains mixed with those of his wife and buried in their garden - at the base of a statue of Joan of Arc.

Joan Pearson
May 11, 2005 - 09:51 am
>The peaceful scene on the Loire...(definitely not a battle camp.) Dunois appears to have given up the fight, given up his prayers for the wind to change. He's expecting Joan - news of her ability to create miracles have reached him. I'm not so sure Joan, the real Joan went around working such miracles - like changing the wind. This seems to be Shaw's "romance" - Do you see "miracles"?

I'm wondering why he writes that she refused to go into the church until the king is crowned. Is he saying that Joan doesn't need the Church, that this is all between herself and God? She never did get into the church, did you notice that?

Harold Arnold
May 11, 2005 - 07:30 pm
Harold, I was wondering whether it was Shaw who dubbed Dunois the "Bastard of Orleans" - or if that was how he was known at the time. I see in the link you provided, that the "Bastard" title is included there too.


Joan I would suspect it was "history,” not Shaw that dubbed Dunois,"the bastard of Orleans." Illegitimate Royals frequently appear in history, particularly during this period when the word was openly used through out their life to describe their status. Perhaps in my earlier post I did give too much emphasis on their success during their life career. By the nature of their birth they did not stand for succession to thrones of other family titles but some title was always created for them. In the case of Dunois the links indicated he held several high feudal titles including Count. He certainly seems to have enjoyed a long successful career.

The English example 200 years later was an illegitimate son of Charles II. He was created Duke of Monmouth, Click Here , He participated in colonial wars with the Dutch in New York. He was a Protestant and when James II died his legitimate heir was his brother James II who was a Catholic. Monmouth began a rebellion but was defeated and beheaded, the last high profile beheading in England.

I suspect Monmouth, NJ and other North American towns and counties got their names from this source.

Éloïse De Pelteau
May 12, 2005 - 04:59 am
Here is an interesting biography of LE BÂTARD D'ORLÉANS he had quite a military career and participated in several battles in France against English invasions.

ALF
May 12, 2005 - 06:42 am
I don't know if I copied this from a source or where the heck I found it but I have a notation that reads:"The theme for Shaw-- conflict between man and a spiritual creator and women as the guardian of the biolgical continuity of the human race." I know not from whence that came but I sure didn't make it up.

Harold Arnold
May 12, 2005 - 08:07 am
The link Eloise gave above in messagd #232 does appear to be a good summary of the Dunois long career. It is in English with the title in French.

Joan Pearson
May 12, 2005 - 02:05 pm
Andy - where does Joan fit into Shaw's quote? I don't see her as "the man conflict with her creator." Is she "the guardian of the continuity of the human race? She is certainly at home in her own skin, in her role as commander of the French army. Shaw did his best to portray her as a simple-speaking country girl - but look what he has done with Dunois!!! AS Harold tells us, Dunois holds "several high feudal titles including Count" - Eloise, that's a great link to Dunois..." who went proudly by the title "The Bastard of Orléans" - He went on to a distinguished career on the battlefield, long after Joan's death, I see. I wonder where he was when she was burned. You'd think he would have been there to defend her. I guess it wasn't that sort of a trial.

In Shaw's play, Dunois and the country girl portrayed as equals. Joan is not at all intimidated by the "noble." Such casual dialogue between them -
Bâtard: "Are you Joan the Maid?
Joan: "Sure."
Shaw doesn't spend much time on Scene III. Ten minutes...if that? You wonder how much work went into the scenery for this scene. I've wondered too if the miracle of the wind change in Scene III was created by Shaw, but do see the shift in the wind mentioned in other accounts. More often than not, this "faith-creating miracle" is attributed to Joan - though she herself makes no comment on it.

Thursday, the 28th – ... The Bastard succeeds in calming Jehanne down. He tells her of the plan to ferry the supplies across the river at Checy, about five miles from Orleans and come into the city from the lightly guarded east side. "

The plan seems to go awry as the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for the boats to cross. Jehanne tells them to wait a little while; all would be well as the wind would change. And suddenly, the wind changes! All are amazed by this prophecy and faith in Jehanne’s mission grows. The supplies are ferried across the river. The army, too numerous to risk an extended crossing by boat, return to Blois to cross the bridge there and return to Orleans via the north bank of the Loire. Jehanne is reluctant to have them leave, but the captains say, "Jehanne, go in surety, for we promise to return to you before long."
No where but in Shaw is exchange between Joan and Dunois about going into the Church to pray for the wind change. Joan finally consents to go with him when he tells her that his prayers don't work, hers will. Did you notice that as soon as she agrees, the wind changes. They never did go into the Church. Was this supposed to indicate that Joan had no need to pray in the Church? She had a direct line to heaven through her voices? That's how I "translated" the scene. How did you understand it?

Joan Pearson
May 12, 2005 - 02:22 pm
From the Joan of Arc Center - information, paintings Do you remember my telling you of the "ancient" book from my childhood? Copyright 1933? This glorious painting of Joan and the Bâtard entering Orleans is before me now. I see in the teeny print beneath the picture, that it was painted in 1912 - before the canonization. I wonder if Shaw saw it?
"And so she entered Orleans, with the Bastard of Orleans at her left, very richly armed and mounted; afterward came other noble and valiant lords; squires, captains, and men-at-arms, as well as some from the garrison and bourgeoisie of Orleans who had gone ahead of her. From the city, other men-at-arms came to receive her, along with bourgeois of Orleans, carrying many torches and making such joy as if they had seen God himself descend among them; and not without reason, for they had endured much difficulty, labor, pain, and fear of not being rescued and of losing all their bodies and goods. But they felt already comforted, as though freed of the siege by the divine virtue that they were told resided in that simple Maid, whom they regarded with strong affection, men as much as women and little children."

Any more comments on the short, short Scene III? The sword found in St. Catherine's Church? Joan will take it to battle with her. Was finding it serendipitous, or in the "miracle" category? (She will testify that her voices told her where to find it...)

Joan Pearson
May 13, 2005 - 05:32 am
Shaw's play moves at a faster pace than we do. We cover a hundred years, he covers a month...in ten minutes! We just left Joan and Dunois talking over strategy for the taking of Orleans - Scene IV opens AFTER the French army has overtaken the English at Orleans...and Jargeau, Meung, Beaugency, Patay. Wouldn't you expect a different mood in the English camp? Were you surprised at the complacency of the English nobleman, Warwick, as we find him enjoying an illuminated manuscript - in the battle camp? It reminds me of the opening of Scene III in the French camp before Orleans - the poetry writing, the bird watching. What do you think Shaw was conveying at the beginning of Scene IV? He must have had a reason.
I share Warwick's love and appreciation for the Book of Hours...

Off to work today - Hi ho. Enjoy your day!

Kathleen Zobel
May 13, 2005 - 06:08 pm
Well Shaw certainly heard voices in this scene, but I think his eminated from some of the most recent well researchd books of his day when he started to write the dialogues between the men we have met before. In and of itself these dialogues could be discussed on any number of historical issues...religion, who is british and who is french, when,and how should Joan be killed More than once I thought os what I would say to a topic it I were there.

Somehow, Joan changed since we last read her...now she is in charge, very sure of herself,and determined to have Paris. Has she really become a soldier, forgetting her past, thinking only of battle...there isn't even any evidence of the voices...have they told her take Paris?

Deems
May 13, 2005 - 06:24 pm
JoanP--A while back there you asked me how my students reacted to seeing the play. It was three years ago so my memory isn't as clear as it might be (a number of plays inbetween it and now), but I do remember that both classes enjoyed reading the play more than I thought they would.

The production had all sorts of special effects including a wind machine that made the banner held by the page blow in the opposite direction and video of Joan in the flames. BUT it was three hours long as I think I mentioned before and a number of my students said they thought it was even longer. They are really tired after a long day and a number fell asleep. One of my better students really enjoyed the production but said that he found Shaw awfully wordy. And he was referring to seeing the play. Apparently when he read the play he didn't find it anywhere near so wordy.

And this despite the fact that Christy did cut some of the longer speeches in order to keep it to three hours.

The young woman who played Joan was a little difficult (for me) to hear. She just wasn't commanding enough. As I remember, "Charlie" was a hit.

By the way, the movie version of Joan that stars Jean Seberg is based on Shaw's play. I watched it to prepare to teach the play. I thought it was quite good. Somewhere ages ago I saw the Ingrid Bergman one but I really don't remember it. The one thing that sticks in my head is that I liked Joan's hair!

Maryal/Deems

Deems
May 13, 2005 - 06:25 pm
Kathleen has put her finger on an important aspect of this play. The Joan we meet in the beginning does not seem to match up with the Joan of later in the play. One actress who played the part said it was a nearly impossible role. I can see why.

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 13, 2005 - 08:35 pm
OK in response to Joan's e-mail - I am so turned off by Shaw because of the subject matter he chose to satire - I have to think real hard since a ticket to a Broadway show is probably over $100 but I think I would have walked out after the first scene.

To me regardless if this women is called a Saint by some or that her death is given the status of a martyr by others - she is a young women who was killed in a political act in the most painful way they could devise as she was placed so high she could not be suffocated but felt the flames that killed her -

Satire to me in this case is being less then flippant - disrespect is too mild a word -

Can you imagine a satire written about Ann Frank - even the TV shows and books we have read describing the politics that reduced her and others to their painful deaths is chilling - not a play that reduces the actions of those who planned the camps as death machines and who took the life of the young women Ann Frank to cartoon characters.

How about, could you imagine a satire being written and performed about Nancy Morgenstern, whose family had to wait 3 years for confirmation of her death after an "official" identification of her DNA from a piece of her found at the world trade center. She was a single young woman with a career as an administrative assistant to Cantor Fitzgerald, an athlete, an avid cyclist, with an active social network, a committed Jewish Upper West Sider who was finally memorialized 3 years after her death.

I am sure one day we will learn the political motivation of Bin Laden but the idea of writing a satirical play about the politics that led to the event where Nancy died and the play would include a slice of this young women's life and what her contribution was to her community, seems abhorrent to me.

A serious play about the plight of Joan of Arc and the politics of the time may not have sold tickets and may have been too serious but then, I think of Jesus Christ Superstar and realize how well it sold. Not only did Lloyd Weber create a winner, his play had the power to influence us using modern metaphors.

The best I can say for this read is that I've been giving myself a history lesson as I look up the lives of the Saints mentioned and the individuals. However the playwriter I have little respect for... if he thought he wanted to write a satire about the political scene than why include Joan, a young women who was a victim in all this, as a subject of his satire...

bmcinnis
May 14, 2005 - 03:32 am
The events in this scene brought this to mind:

Joan’s “fatal flaw” in the play as Shaw and many of his contemporaries claimed, was her “common sense” approach which challenges the very integrity about where authority and truth resides? For Medieval society, the claim she makes is that her authority comes directly from God and this was a threat that those individuals who held sway over life and death could not ignore.

What irritated them most is her style of seeming to “order them about,” from her family right up to the would-be king himself. What was most “insufferable” to them was that she bypassed their authority and went right to the Source,her voices and God himself/herself.

An early 20th century play describes Joan in this way.



What do you think?

Was this play really a serious play "about Joan" or Shaw's usual satirical bombast against where legitimate "authority" ultimately resides?

Bern

Deems
May 14, 2005 - 07:17 am
I think it's a difficult play in more than one way. It certainly seems that Shaw is satirizing some of the characters and the positions they fill. I don't see this satire as directed at Joan at all. Shaw seems to me to admire/be in awe of her. What I find difficult to do is to "take this play's pulse." It's like a mixed bag of comedy, tragedy, misinformation, misjudgment, muddling and at the center is this remarkable woman who rose from the unlikeliest of places and led an army. Joan is at its center, but she herself seems inconsistent to me.

I wonder if Shaw had attempted to tell a smaller part of the story we wouldn't have a more successful play. This one does start out as a romantic farce or a comedy and then a heroic play and finally a tragedy, or maybe not depending on the strength you give the epilogue.

All of this just to say that I don't know. Erratic pulse.

BaBi
May 14, 2005 - 07:25 am
Hi, JOAN. I'll give this another whirl, tho' the site still seems quite active tome.

One of the questions listed is whether Bishop Beauvais was sympathetic to the English. This may have been discussed thoroughly in earlier posts, but I'll comment anyway.

I don't think Beauvais is sympathetic to the English. It seems more of a case of being antipathetic the way the French church authorities are acting. He is oppsed to the current views re. Joan, and sees this as a way to go around them and do what he feels should be done. He is nevertheless, I believe, quite sincere in saying that he wants to save Joan's soul first and foremost.

It's the English chaplain who really astonishes me. Can any Englishman be so convinced of English superiority as to accuse a French churchman of being a traitor to England?

Is Joan's conviction a done deal? Absolutely!

Joan Pearson
May 14, 2005 - 07:31 am
Good morning!

Some very good posts to ponder this morning as the curtain opens on Scene IV. Talking heads - not much action. The Earl of Warwick, the Archbishop of Rheims and for comic relief (?), the Chaplin de Stogumber. Since the scene takes place in the English camp, is it safe to assume that all three are sympathetic to the English?

_ Kathleen brings up the fact that all three want to see Joan killed. Which of these men do you consider British - or English? Does this affect their reasons for wanting to get her out of the way? It sounds as if you were into this scene, Kathleen - thinking of how you would respond to each of these three. Joan isn't on the stage at all in Scene IV, she's resting up for her big scenes ahead.

- Maryal, interesting - your students found Shaw wordy on stage, but were more interested in the reading of the play. Not sure, but I think I'd feel the same way. I almost rented Ingrid Bergman's St. Joan, but when I realized that this wasn't Shaw's play, I'm on the lookout for the one with Jean Seberg. Thanks, Maryal! (I wonder how long it is!)

- Bern asks an important question - "Was this play really a serious play "about Joan" or Shaw's usual satirical bombast against where legitimate "authority" ultimately resides? I enjoyed reading the link you provided, Bern - and this - "As her actual condition was pure upstart, there were only two opinions about her. One was that she was miraculous: the other that she was unbearable." She may well have been executed for both!

- Barbara, thank you for expressing your feelings about Shaw and the subject for his satire. You bring up two very good questions, I think. One we've been asking since the start - what motivated him to write about Joan? And then - what motivated the differing factions to execute her. I think we get close to the answer to the second question in Scene IV - why Joan must be burned. Why burning? Were there other ways to politically execute or was this the common one? Why wasn't she hanged when found guilty of the charges against her? Thank you, Barbara. Clearly this subject is difficult for you.

Maryal and Babi, I just now see your posts...

BaBi
May 14, 2005 - 07:42 am
I believe it was customary,on those days of the Inquisition, for the authorities to burn those found guilty of heresy or witchcraft. Why I don't know. Maybe fire was supposed to have a 'cleansing' effect; maybe they thought it appropriate for someone presumably going to hell. 'Witches' were hanged or drowned in Massachusetts.

Interesting question, JOAN. Perhaps someone else can tell us why burning was the method chosen.

Babi

Joan Pearson
May 14, 2005 - 07:45 am
Maryal and Babi, I just now see your posts... "A mixed bag" you describe it, Maryal. Maybe Shaw felt that way too as he approached Sybil Thorndyke to play the part of Joan. She loved it! He was embarrassed at the first three scenes...told her it was just "flapdoodle" - before the trial started. I had a hard time reconciling the light dialogue in these early scenes to the tragedy we all know is coming. Will you give us a definition of "satire," Prof?

- Babi, no we haven't discussed any of this cast of characters in Scene IV yet...let's!
Archbishop of Beauvais - Cauchon, you see as truly interested in "saving Joan's soul first and foremost." And yet you see her conviction as a done deal..."absolutely". Does this mean that you sense from this scene that Cauchon doesn't really believe that his attempt to save Joan's soul will succeed? A question occurs - what will save her soul and prevent her execution?

hahaha, Babi, we need a definition of "traitor" here - what is Shaw really writing about the French and English?

BaBi
May 14, 2005 - 07:53 am
I believe Cauchon truly wanted Joan's repentance and salvation. But once she was in the hands of the English, Warrick was going to see to it that she died at the stake, irregardless of the outcome of the Church trial.

What Shaw was writing about the English,IMO, is the arrogance of a facet of that society in supposing that English interests and goals supercede all others, and the English are naturally superior and should be deferred to. Nowadays, you could find many in American society who take a similar view re.American interests and goals.

Did Shaw ever write a play set in the USA? I'm sure he would have had a fine time aiming his eharp wit at us.

Babi

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 14, 2005 - 09:36 am
I think where the superiority comes in is that by this time in history Britain had a working system of law - granted it was Common Law but it was based on court decisions. Law was an accumulation of the King and his judges determining if an act was an offense and then, once that act was considered an offense it was subsequently included as an offense in further trails. Law was still not written at this stage but a "national" system that was less dependent on the whims of the knights and kings had been established.

During this time in History France was still a composite of regions, each with their own customary law. The Royal Parliament used a legal system based in both Cannon Law (Catholic Church Law) and Roman Law. It was not till after the death of Joan that Charles issued a decree that restricted the Pope's powers in France.

And so like today we have prisoners shipped out of the country so they can be tortured for information during Joan's time in history she was shipped into the hands of the English who had laws independent of the church.

The Church was coupled with England's legal system in that a member of the clergy would accompany those subject to death on the way to their death.

Most crimes were tried under the heading of Treason - either High Treason or Low Treason - there was no such thing as a felony. For instance it was High Treason to steal cattle in Wales or, to extort money or, commit arson, or to counterfeit the seal of the King or, to declare war on the King [this did not include pirates] or, to rape or even have sexual relations with any of the Kings family and of course later we know it was High Treason to practice any other religion than the Church of England.

Death for men was different than death for women. Death for women was burning at the stake even if she was convicted of the same crime that a man would receive a sentence of being hung, drawn and quartered.

While we read and watched the PBS series on Shakespeare we learned what that entailed. To be drawn is to be tied to four horses all going in different directions.

To be hung involved a noose would be tied around the neck, but there would be no "drop" to ensure the neck was broken. While alive, the offender would be cut down, stripped of his clothes and his genitals cut off. His bowels were pulled out and burnt before his own eyes. The offender's heart and other organs would then be torn out of his body. Then probably dead he would be decapitated, and his body cut into four quarters to be put on display.

Only in the early part of the nineteenth century was a convict hung till dead before the above ritual continued. It wasn't till late in the nineteenth century that drawing and quartering was stopped.

Men of noble birth were beheaded and women, regardless of status, were burnt at the stake for all crimes of Treason until the sixteenth century when noble women were allowed to be beheaded. The one way that someone could escape all this was by the clergy stepping in. Clergy in the Middle Ages as well as those who were sanctioned by the church were turned over to them and not subject to Civil Law which was Common Law but were only subject to Cannon Law which during the early fifteenth century punishment was penance or imprisonment.

The crime of the clergy in the case of Joan was that the Clergy did not step up and sanction her to be subject only to Cannon Law. The understanding of the Law at the time would be valuable to understand the political footwork that allowed Joan to be burnt. From what I read the connection between the Pierre Cauchon the Bishop of Beauvais and the English was - he was driven out of France after he was made Bishop of Beauvais. He went to England where he helped the English in their attempt to bring about the fall of Reims. The Bishop of Beauvais would have been subject to the Archbishop of Reims and so you have to consider Couchon's desire for revenge that the Archbishop of Reims did not back him up when the people drove him out of his bishopry.

He only condemned Joan for life imprisonment but the English declared her a heretic which meant she was turned over to the Civil Courts in England.

Couchon was excommunicated posthumously, his body was dug up and thrown into the sewers.

Deems
May 14, 2005 - 04:31 pm
Barbara--Your history of the time period is a little off. England was still a Catholic country when Joan was alive. the Church of England was formally established in 1534 when Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife Katherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn. The pope would not grant his divorce so Henry finally declared himself head of the Church in England.

But Joan died in 1431 some hundred years earlier than the time period you mention. At the time Henry VI was King of England and England was in the midst of the War of the Roses (Lancaster and York--the throne sometimes belonging to one house and sometimes to the other). Anyway, England was Catholic. All the clergymen in this play are Catholic.

And not long before the time of Joan, England had substantial holdings in what is now France. Remember, this was a feudal society. People owed their loyalty more to the liege lord than anyone else and kings were frequently quite weak--true obviously with Charles who can't even get himself crowned. True also in England where powerful Dukes, notably Northumberland, often had more power than the king.

Joan was sentenced to be burned at the stake because she was convicted of heresy. Burning at the stake was a common punishment for this crime. In 1572, John Knox was burned at the stake (charge:heresy).

Joan Pearson
May 14, 2005 - 06:54 pm
So, the "Frenchmen" during Joan's time wouldn't have thought of themselves as "French"? Archbishop of Beauvais, Cauchon wouldn't have thought of himself as "French"? Some of you are finding him sympathetic to Joan, others that his mind is already made up -

The Earl of Warwick, and the the chaplin, John de Strogumber (did I spell that right?) are both English-speaking - but plan to make this area in Burgundy their home. Shaw writes several times in the play - through Joan, that God wants English speakers to go back to their own country. As Shaw's Joan sees it, where should Cauchon go? Did you notice the trouble Cauchon has pronouncing Glasdale's name? "Glass Dells" Is that to emphasize that he is French, French-speaking?

Thanks for the history, Maryal. So. All of these people are wither French or English-speakers. All of these people are Catholic - under the Pope in Rome. Do you remember way back in the beginning of the month when I told you that I wrote to the St. Joan Center in Albuquerque (sp?) and asked why Shaw's St. Joan was not included in the long list of reviewed films and books on Joan? The reply was that Shaw had made Joan into a "Protestant".

Maryal points out that there are no Protestants yet during Joan's time. How can the Archbishop and Warwick be talking about "Protestants" in this play?

ps. There are no "nations" yet either. Has Shaw stepped out of the 15th century in this scene?

Joan Pearson
May 14, 2005 - 07:11 pm
It's still gnawing at me why Shaw opens this scene with Warwick reading the Book of Hours (Très Riche Heures) in the battle camp. It is gorgeous, priceless. Gold illumination. "This was a collection of the text for each liturgical hour of the day - hence the name - which often included other, supplementary, texts. Calendars, prayers, psalms and masses for certain holy days were commonly included." Click any on of the months and you will see the paintings for yourself.

Now I'm wondering if the language and religious content are reason for including the book in this scene. Closer inspection of the book shows that though it was created in Burgundy at this time, the text isn't French, it's Latin...but the paintings are "French" in subject matter.

Deems
May 14, 2005 - 07:21 pm
JoanP--I think the Center in Albuquerque (I can't spell it either) called Joan a "Protestant" in Shaw's play because she kept insisting that the voices from God were speaking directly to her. No clergy necessary, no intermediary, just straight from God to her. So whoever is in charge in Albuquerque must think that Joan is a sort of proto-Protestant. Silly, if you ask me. Didn't quite a few of those early saints think that God was speaking directly to them? Maybe someone at the St. Joan Center mostly objected to Shaw the man.

The moment of Protestantism breaking onto the scene is generally considered to be the day Martin Luther pinned his 95 theses on the church door at Wittenburg (1517--I looked it up to check. Memory sometimes is in error).

Deems
May 14, 2005 - 07:31 pm
JoanP--One other thought that connects my recent posts. It has always been interesting to me that Henry VIII, who had written a book against Luther's teachings (1521) and had thus been given the title "Defender of the Faith" was the one who established Protestantism in England by declaring himself Head of the Church in England. His declaration meant (to Henry) that no one on earth stood higher than he did since he was both King and Head of the Church.

Maryal

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 14, 2005 - 08:10 pm
My history is not off - I know that England was a Catholic country but they were proud of having a law that was not exclusively either Roman Law or Cannon Law which is the law practiced by French Royalty. I also know about Henry the VIII having broken away from the church nearly 100 years later...!!!

Since that period in history was paramount to our study of Shakespeare that was a four week series we learned much about the period and how Shakespeare's own family was persecuted...!!!

If you read my post I am not referring to the time period of Shakespeare but to the time period after the Great Schism and after the greatest go-round of the Black Plague but during a time when Couchon was chased out of Beauvais followed by his prosecuting Joan of Arc...!!!

If you need further information I have googled some sites for you - here are a couple of web sites that give further information:

Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc

Joan of Arc

Medieval Center

Joan of Arc

History of Medieval Law

Beauvais

Reims

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 14, 2005 - 08:46 pm
the Great Schism

Lollardism Under Henry V. and Henry VI

King, Queens, Archbishops & Bishops

Do not know any longer the name of the text we used in both grade School and in High School where I learned much of all this...!!

JoanK
May 15, 2005 - 12:28 am
I think we have to remember that Shaw was an author, not an historian. I don't think his purpose here is primarily historical accuracy. Rather, he is showing some of what he sees as Joan's historical relevance.

Remember, too, that Shaw is an atheist/mystic whose major beliefs seem to lie in the area of human evolution, and that he is using Joan as a vehicle to express these ideas. It looks like we are going to learn a lot more about Shaw than about St. Joan from this play. (which is fine, as long as we realize that that is what we are doing.)

First, he talks about her "nationalism", and that that was an unusual idea at the time, when loyalty was to the feudal lord, rather than a nation. Thus, she pre-figures what, indeed, will be an important historical development. He shows the chaplain, the character who is simplest and closest to the people, starting to embrace this idea already. This may not be historically accurate, but perhaps is meant to show that there will be a trend of the people becoming more and more nationalistic.

Then he talks about Joan as a "protestant". He has Warwick or Couchon making up that term, which is, ridiculous, but Shaw needs it to show the relationship of what he is saying to the Protestant Reformation. Here he is saying that Joan foreshadows Martin Luther in claiming that individuals can relate directly to God, without the need of an intervening church.

You are right in pointing out that many Catholics have done the same. remember, this is Shaw's picture of what Joan means to him, not necessarily what Joan actually was historically.

Then he points out that (through Warwick) these two ideas are "the same idea at bottom...It is the protest of the individual soul against the interference of priest or peer between the private man and his God. I should call it Protestantism if I had to find a name for it."

This is clearly Shaw speaking, not Joan, and we begin to see why he was so fascinated with her-- not perhaps as a real historical character, but as someone on whom Shaw could hang his version of the evolution of human ideas.

more

JoanK
May 15, 2005 - 12:38 am
continuing. These two ideas: Nationalism and direct communion with God are alike in that they eliminate the necessity for dependence on what Shaw might have called(but didn't) "the middleman": the noble and the bishop.

This is the way the nobleman and bishop are portrayed here: as people with a little power who find their power threatened. they both HAVE TO get rid of Joan, to preserve their power base. The Bishop is half ashamed of it: he's willing to get rid of her by talking her out of her dangerous ideas if he can (at least the one about the Church: he sees that nationalism might be used to increase the church's power), but if not, she has to go.

bmcinnis
May 15, 2005 - 03:57 am
Even though I find the play itself worth reading and pondering over, I cannot help but being plagued by the question: “Why was this play selected as the focus for Shaw’s being awarded a Nobel Prize?”

This excerpt related to Joan's and Shaw's beliefs from a Literary Encyclopedia provides enough food for thought to allow me to go back and enter the world of the play itself.

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 15, 2005 - 08:51 am
The problem that I see is there are bits of history that do not explain the politics behind those bits - for instance Couchon was actually a forward thinking Bishop that represented a group that after the Schism was trying to bring the Church into a new era - I forget now the name of his group - the people wanted things as they were and they chased him out of Beauvais - as to Joan representing Nationalism - could be, but look at her actions, all she did was exactly what some of the Popes and others did when a new Crusade was drummed up -

Being satirical here explaining the Crusades - They were an issue of: All for one and One for all in the name of the Holy Catholic Church we will storm the Muslim strongholds and take back Jerusalem - a new banner is created - an army is asembled that is blessed by the Pope with all sorts of indulgences so they leave Europe pure and forgiven of all past deeds. Off they go raping the countryside with the full blessings as they understand it from the Pope.

Joan - All for One and One for all in the name of France and Charles we will storm the English strongholds and take back France - a new banner is created - an army is brought back to a fighting force by blessings from God and Joan who whips them into a force of purity as they no longer act out the sins of their past...

And so all Joan is doing is the same thing - I also think if she was a Jean-Pierre she would not have been persecuted. If you have ever read "Down the Common : A Year in the Life of a Medieval Woman" you will see the brutal hardship that was life but especially for a women who had NO power.

Also what comes into play here is the jockeying for power that became part of the Church since the wealthy and successful Templers were reduced to ashes by Rome and ever since, various factions within the church had been viaing for the power that vacume created.

This play may not be history but again Why? And yes bmcinnis, Why the Nobel Prize...?

Joan Pearson
May 15, 2005 - 09:13 am
Good Sunday morning!

-Bern you start us off with an interesting quesion - "Why was this play selected as the focus for Shaw’s being awarded a Nobel Prize?" I think the fact that it was selected for the prestigious prize is an indication of the interest of the 1925 audience in EVERYTHING relating to JOAN and to NATIONALISM. I guess it's hard for us in 2005 to fully understand what it is like to live in the shadow of occupation...and the euphoria that follows when the siege is lifted. The French and English let out a collective breath and the relief was felt across the ocean at the end of the German attempt to expand the empire. Joan's role was again recognized as important in inspiring the French army. The link that Bern provides tells us:
"Joan of Arc had been a subject of particular interest around 1920. During the First World War she had been represented fighting alongside French soldiers against the Germans and it is likely that this was a factor that influenced her canonization by the Roman Catholic Church in 1920.

A translation of documentation relating to her trial had been brought to Shaw's notice by a friend and his wife also enthusiastically promoted it as a subject for a play."

I did some more digging into World War II and find the Germans occupying Joan's birthplace - Lorraine since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 - imposing language and German ways.
Joan of Arc was invoked by the French army - here is a popular anthemn ifrom 1917 to give you an idea of the fervor involved -
Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,
Do your eyes, from the skies, see the foe?
Don't you see the drooping Fleur-de-lis?
Can't you hear the tears of Normandy?
Joan of Arc, Joan of Arc,
Let your spirit guide us through;
Come lead your France to victory;
Joan of Arc, they are calling you. (cont.)
Joan of Arc - World War II

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 15, 2005 - 09:17 am
Joan I think that shows what we know, that France was and still is the most Catholic country in Europe - even more Catholic than Italy or Spain because of France's historical ruling power's close alliance with the Vatican - even Napoleon made sure he was put on the thrown by virtue of Rome.

This WWI connection may explain why there was so much time given to the study of Joan of Arc when I was in school - WWII was being fought but the mystique of WWI was rampant among the priests and nuns especially during my primary school years...each Christmas the story of the hour without the Huns and the French fighting was shared as an example of how soldiers were really wanting peace.

Joan Pearson
May 15, 2005 - 09:54 am
- Barbara, can you imagine the emphasis given to Joan in the Catholic schools ten years before your time? Your teachers probably spent much more time learning about her than you did! Did you know that the name "Joan" was in the top ten list of girls'names between 1930 and 1938? (No wonder we find so many SeniorNetters with the name!). Think of all the young mothers, our mothers' age, who named their daughters, "Joan"! What is interesting - beginning 1939 to the present, "Joan" never made the top ten list again.

More from the link Bern provided this morning:
"One would expect Shaw to manipulate historical fact, however, as clearly it wasn't the documentary aspect of Joan's life that interested him. The play is not written from an orthodox religious point of view but neither does it adopt a debunking attitude to her performance of miracles or her hearing of saints' voices, though it is implied that these could be accounted for in rationalist terms."
-JoanK - you make the point - "I think we have to remember that Shaw was an author, not an historian. I don't think his purpose here is primarily historical accuracy. Rather, he is showing some of what he sees as Joan's historical relevance. This, (the play), is clearly Shaw speaking, not Joan, and we begin to see why he was so fascinated with her-- not perhaps as a real historical character, but as someone on whom Shaw could hang his version of the evolution of human ideas."

I'm really interested in Shaw's basic stated premise for classifying Joan as the proto-Protestant. From the play, JoanK brings this - "It is the protest of the individual soul against the interference of priest or peer between the private man and his God. I should call it Protestantism if I had to find a name for it." And yet, so far in the play at least, we find no instance in which Joan denies her priests, or her Church. She simply indulges in prayer and finds her answers in return. Is this her only "sin"? Is this reason enough for a charge of heresy? The chaplain's suggestion that she be tried as a "witch" is dismissed in this scene - it seems that both Warwick and Cauchon will charge her with being a traitor and a heretic?

OK, Cauchon is going to try to get Joan to recant, to publicly confess her "sin" - but what is it? Where is the "heresy"? (In Shaw's version of the story? In reality?)

Deems
May 15, 2005 - 10:07 am
Bern--I know a little about the Nobel Prize in relation to two authors I have studied in some depth, Faulkner and Hemingway.

I don't know all the ins and outs and political moves that must be rampant in the committee that chooses the person to be awarded the Nobel for Literature, but I do know that the prize is given for the body of work and almost always after the best work has been done.

For example, Faulkner received the Nobel Prize in 1949. However, although he continued to write and publish, the great novels were all behind him. The "miraculous decade" in his writing begins with The Sound and the Fury in 1929 and includes As I Lay Dying (1930), Light in August (1932), Absalom, Absalom! (1936) and Go Down, Moses (1942).

Notice the Faulkner doesn't receive the Nobel until 1949.

Same thing with Ernest Hemingway, awarded the Nobel in 1954. That was the year The Old Man and the Sea was published, but all his great work was behind him: The Sun Also Rises (1926), A Farewell to Arms (1929) and For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940) plus the wonderful Nick Adams short stories which I think are his very best work.

Anyway, the pattern for the Nobel seems to be that you have already established a body of work when your name is brought forward. The Prize is not awarded for a single work and for the most part the work published closest in time to the awarding of the prize is not the writer's best.

The same would be true for Shaw who was already an established playwright with some really good plays behind him when he received the award.

Maryal/Deems

Joan Pearson
May 15, 2005 - 10:19 am
Thanks, Maryal, that makes sense...and answers Bern's question. The wording that came with Shaw's Nobel Award -
The Nobel Prize in Literature 1925
"for his work which is marked by both idealism and humanity, its stimulating satire often being infused with a singular poetic beauty"
St. Joan was not mentioned, though it was generally agreed that the play brought the spotlight on Shaw following its 1923-24 production. Interesting note, he accepted the award, turned down the prize.

Let's concentrate on his "stimulating satire" in Scene IV today!

BaBi
May 15, 2005 - 12:58 pm
I am probably oversimplifying, but it seems to me that Joan's primary 'heresy' is that she refused to accept the Church as the authority over all things religious, including her claim of hearing voices of Saints and being directed by God. If the Church said she was in error, she was supposed to submit to its decision and renounce her 'error'...which of course she flatly refused to do.

The authority of the Church, it's right to excommunicate and thereby condemn a soul, was the source of its power. I think I can safely say that no human organization on earth has ever reacted casually to a threat to its power.

Babi

Deems
May 15, 2005 - 04:13 pm
Babi--That's certainly not too simple. I think that is the Church's problem with Joan. In Scene 4, Warwick as representative of the rights of the peers, wants to get rid of Joan because he sees her as fostering Nationalism. Cauchon, representative of the Church, wants to get rid of her (although he wants to save her soul) because she seems to be "PROTESTING" the Church's authority. Both men want her out of the way but for different reasons. This was the hardest scene for my students who found it interminably long, not to mention full of long speeches.

At the very end of the scene, the so far seemingly gentle chaplain is the only one really willing to burn Joan himself.

Poor Joan--she has found herself the enemy of both the religious and the political powers of her day. She doesn't stand a chance.

Maryal

bmcinnis
May 16, 2005 - 05:42 am
Deems, I agree that Joan was an enemy of the religious power of her day but I would place an emphasis upon the word “power” not “religious” as such. The statement that power corrupts is certainly true and in this case it is a power held in sway by us “poor” humans in any age.

The Source, the message of love and the sharing of that love with a capital “S” remains constant because this real Power reveals who we are and who “God” is.

If Joan were to be resurrected in our own day, I am sure her unmitigated and direct revelation of her voices etc would raise some opposition and perhaps some consternation. She would, however, I hope, have more individuals on “her side” or at least those who can make a distinction between a “heretic” and a human person guided by a “power” we cannot explain. Bern

Joan Pearson
May 16, 2005 - 08:10 am
Good morning, Bern! I was thinking of you last might while watching the 1948 production of "Joan of Arc" starring Ingrid Bergman. I'll bet this is the one that had the great impact on you when you were in school. No wonder Ingrid didn't like Shaw's satire!

I looked for a good definition of "satire" that I could work with -
SATIRE: An attack on or criticism of any stupidity or vice in the form of scathing humor, or a critique of what the author sees as dangerous religious, political, moral, or social standards. Satire became an especially popular technique used during the Enlightenment, in which it was believed that an artist could correct folly by using art as a mirror to reflect society. When people viewed the satire and saw their faults magnified in a distorted reflection, they could see how ridiculous their behavior was and then correct that tendency in themselves.definition of satire

In looking closely for examples of Shaw's satire in Scene IV, I'm stricken by the portrayal of Cauchon as a man with a conscience, interested primarily in saving Joan's soul. I can't tell whether Shaw is telling this as he believes was the case, or if this is a tongue-in-cheek condemnation of the man, who had anything but Joan's salvation in mind. Someone please explain this to me - I'm the literal one who always need jokes explained, who misses sarcasm - and in this case, the butt of the satire. Shaw's portrayal of this Caucon, Bishop of Beauvais is contrary to anything I've ever read about him. Is Cauchon and his stated fear of the power of heresy what Shaw is poking at?

Admittedly, heresy was a big threat to the Church at this time.

"In 1409 the Council of Pisa attempted to end the Schism that occurred in the latter part of the 14th century. The two popes - Benedict XIII and Gregory XII - were asked to attend the Council but both refused. Therefore, the Council elected another pope, Alexander V. Christendom now had three popes. The Schism finally came to an end at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). The Council requested the resignation of all three popes, and elected Pope Martin V (1417-1431) to be the rightful successor of St. Peter."Three Popes

It's understandable that the Church is finally breathing easier with the new Pope, but on the watch for any upset. Does Joan represent such a threat to the Church in Rome? Isn't Cauchon using the threat for his own personal gain at this time? After reading the play, some of us here have been convinced that Cauchon is really interested in saving Joan. If that is the case, then where is Shaw's satire?

The second half of the definition - "Satire became an especially popular technique used during the Enlightenment, in which it was believed that an artist could correct folly by using art as a mirror to reflect society." Is there folly in Shaw's time to which he is holding his mirror?

Joan Pearson
May 16, 2005 - 08:30 am
Just a thought - do you think that we will have to wrestle with so many issues in Pygmalion? At least we'll know Shaw a bit better by then!

Harold Arnold
May 16, 2005 - 08:59 am
I’ve been out of pocket this weekend to spend some time at my Guadalupe County place. cutting grass and bass fishing in the long neglected pond where the bass had forgotten the danger of those plastic lures. I see you have been active here with over 30 long posts. Here are a few quick observations.

BaBi to my knowledge Shaw never wrote a play set in the USA or in which Americans were prominent. In “Pygmalion” we will see an Americium peripherally involved. Who was he? Oh yes, the head of the pre-digested cheese trust who de-classed Elisa’s Dustman father with a large annuity.

Joan asked in meassagd #250?
How can the Archbishop and Warwick be talking about "Protestants" in this play?


Shaw was using the word “protestant” in its usual usual small “l” sense meaning “one who Protests.” As Deems and other points out Joan was a century before Martin Luther and Henry VIII, Did Shaw Capitalize the “P”, I can’t locate it now and am out of time.

I think Shaw used Scene IV very well to show how the point had come where Joan was really friendless. Everyone either hated her like the English and elements of the Church who were determined to kill her or at best like the French to whom she was no longer useful and in fact had become a liability.

In such an environment her trial, conviction and death was a certainty.

Joan: I think “St Joan” is is the most difficult of all Shaw’s plays to interpret and understand. In some respects his ending is a bit weird, but it is typically Shaw and typical late 19th/early 20th Century English. In his ending Shaw has effectively made ST Joan who was martyred a full century before the Reformation began into a Protestant Saint rather than a Roman Catholic one. Obviously the Roman Church would not be enthused.

Deems
May 16, 2005 - 09:00 am
Joan--That Council of Constance (1414-1418) was one long-running council. Makes my head spin thinking of the commute many must have had and then having to stay there and solve an extremely difficult problem of too many popes.

I take most things literally too. Your definition of satire is a good one. Mostly Shaw uses satire as a tool, to criticize one character or another, or a part of one character. The entire play is not satire as it might have been in the 18th century. Pure satire just doesn't exist much any more. Thank heaven.

The bit about Cauchon wanting to "save Joan's soul" while also wanting to have her condemned (and thus killed) strikes me more as irony than satire. Does that help? I think, and don't quote me on this, that sometimes the adjectives ironic and satiric are used interchangeably.

Maryal

Deems
May 16, 2005 - 09:03 am
Harold--I agree that of all Shaw's plays (that I've read, and that's not all of them) this is the most difficult to put together and to understand. It keeps shifting perspectives and the portrait of Joan is not consistent and Shaw mixes comic scenes with tragedy and then there's that epilogue. . . .

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 16, 2005 - 10:12 am
When I Googled last night I learned that Schiller had a version of Joan of Arc - he took the story and turned it into a myth like play focusing in on her being scapegoated - looks like many have used her story to further their view of the times and the Power struggles that bmcinnis reminds us are part of any organization.

Of course this could be a gender bashing play as well - the English in Shaw's play speak of themselves as special and site the traditional masculine qualities of strength and heroism. Lord Talbot epitomizes a real hero figure, a chivalric ideal. Where as France is considered weak with a king who is a coward but then there is Joan, a strong warrior woman showing herself in a traditional male role therefore, a threat to male dominance.

I am also thinking that in order to appreciate Shaw we would probably have had to be familiar with Shakespeare's Henry VI - this is a speech that Joan makes in Henry VI that shows her strength or if you prefer, her arrogance, which to me is a word that goes along with supporting the male view of women which also eliminates the validity that Shaw questions, that God spoke with this young women.

JOAN LA PUCELLE
Assign'd am I to be the English scourge.
This night the siege assuredly I'll raise:
Expect Saint Martin's summer, halcyon days,
Since I have entered into these wars.
Glory is like a circle in the water,
Which never ceaseth to enlarge itself
Till by broad spreading it disperse to nought.
With Henry's death the English circle ends;
Dispersed are the glories it included.
Now am I like that proud insulting ship
Which Caesar and his fortune bare at once.


A link to Henry VI ~ Shakespeare

And this bit from Schiller is wonderful...

JOHANNA (as if inspired).
Speak not of treaty! Speak not of surrender!
The savior comes, he arms him for the fight.
The fortunes of the foe before the walls
Of Orleans shall be wrecked! His hour is come,
He now is ready for the reaper's hand,
And with her sickle will the maid appear,
And mow to earth the harvest of his pride.
She from the heavens will tear his glory down,
Which he had hung aloft among the stars;
Despair not! Fly not! for ere yonder corn
Assumes its golden hue, or ere the moon
Displays her perfect orb, no English horse
Shall drink the rolling waters of the Loire.


Link to Schiller's Maid of Orleans

Wow look at this - Schiller saw her as if creating a crusade...

JOHANNA.
This realm shall fall! This ancient land of fame,
The fairest that, in his majestic course,
The eternal sun surveys—this paradise,
Which, as the apple of his eye, God loves—
Endure the fetters of a foreign yoke?
Here were the heathen scattered, and the cross
And holy image first were planted here;
Here rest St. Louis' ashes, and from hence
The troops went forth who set Jerusalem free


Now compare those authors with Shaw's words as he describes Joan as "earnest"

JOAN [earnestly] Charlie: I come from the land, and have gotten my
strength working on the land; and I tell thee that the land is
thine to rule righteously and keep God's peace in, and not to
pledge at the pawnshop as a drunken woman pledges her children's
clothes. And I come from God to tell thee to kneel in the
cathedral and solemnly give thy kingdom to Him for ever and ever,
and become the greatest king in the world as His steward and His
bailiff, His soldier and His servant. The very clay of France will
become holy: her soldiers will be the soldiers of God: the rebel
dukes will be rebels against God: the English will fall on their
knees and beg thee let them return to their lawful homes in peace.
Wilt be a poor little Judas, and betray me and Him that sent me?


We shall see what we shall see but if this play is anything like Shaw's other plays the male characters will have parts that are showing compassion for their dominance being challenged.

I also found this Photo of the statue of St. Joan of Arc in Reims Cathedral

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 16, 2005 - 10:30 am
Whoops you were posting while I was writing Harold and Deems - the concept of Protestinism was alive and well during this time in history in England with the Lollards Lollardism Under Henry V. and Henry VI

Here is the link to the index page of the History of Protestantism

Since we all know about Henry VIII we assume that was the beginning but there were various factions of Protestants before his time.

Harold Arnold
May 16, 2005 - 11:32 am
The word “Protestantism: creeps from the lips of Warwick near the end of Scene IV with:

Warwick. ------------. It goes deep, my lord. It is the protest of the individual soul against the interference of priest or peer between the private man and his God. I should call it Protestantism if I had to find a name for it.

Cauchon (looking hard at him). I think you are not entirely void of sympathy with The Maid’s secular heresy my lord. I leave you to find a name for it.

Shaw did use the capital “P” having his character, Warwick correctly anticipating and naming the Reformation a century before its beginning.

Deems
May 16, 2005 - 12:32 pm
In Scene IV (page 95 in the Penguin edition), Cauchon expresses his concerns about heresy. In this long speech, he mentions two men who were early reformers (or heretics depending on your point of view), John Wycliff (Shaw spells it WcLeef) and John Hus.

Wycliffe, who died in 1384, was an Oxford professor and a theologian. He believed that people should be able to read the Bible in their own language. In the 1380s, Wycliffe’s handwritten Bible manuscripts in English appeared. (This is the first translation of the Bible into English). His copy text was the Latin Vulgate, the only version of the Bible known at the time. Of all the reformers who preceded Luther, Wycliffe put the most emphasis on scripture. His followers were the Lollards.

John Hus of Bohemia (1373-1415) was a follower of Wycliffe. He was found guilty of heresy and was burned at the stake in 1415. He is reported to have said, “In 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/john-hus.html

In 1517, Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the church door.

In the same speech, Cauchon speaks of Mohammed who had also declared himself the messenger of God.

Cauchon: “What will the world be like when The Church’s accumulated wisdom and knowledge and experience, its councils of learned, venerable pious men, are thrust into the kennel by every ignorant laborer or dairymaid whom the devil can puff up with the monstrous self-conceit of being directly inspired from heaven? It will be a world of blood, of fury, of devastation, of each man striving for his own hand: in the end a world wrecked back into barbarism.”

It’s quite a speech!

Maryal/Deems

JoanK
May 16, 2005 - 12:46 pm
"Long speeches" -- it's no accident that in this scene, we aren't talking about the play as a play so much as about Shaw's ideas. Indeed, it almost stops being a play, and becomes a philosophic discussion, instead.

Almost, but not quite. We still see what we saw in the other scenes: sharply delineated characters, funny and surprising bits.

Still, it's becoming clear that this play is a lot better to read than to see.

Deems
May 16, 2005 - 12:52 pm
JoanK--Yes, that was my students' opinion. I think many of them fell asleep in this scene. I like all the ideas, but when they are being delivered from the stage, they are crying out to be cut.

The end of this scene has a nice bit of stage business where the heretofore unremarkable chaplain gets blessed for wanting to take Joan down with his own hands.

JoanK
May 16, 2005 - 01:02 pm
A couple of small points got my interest:

In the beginning, when Warwick is reading the Book of Hours", and says "But nowadays, instead of looking at books, people read them. A book might as well be one of those orders for bacon and bran that you are scribbling".

I'll bet Shaw put the Book of Hours in so that Warwick could make this speech. But what is he saying? Pat H suggests that Warwick couldn't read. The tone is that it is below the dignity of a noble to read. Does anyone understand? Maybe it's making fun of upper class education (in Shaw's time, not Joan's) which I've seen satirized as learning to be ignorant.

Another such reference: The nobleman: Oh! you are an Englishman, are you? The chaplain: Certainly not, my lord: I am a gentleman.

Again, what is Shaw saying?

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 16, 2005 - 01:21 pm
Hmmm if he served as a tutor for the King I think He must have been able to read - Warwick, Richard de Beauchamp, earl of, 1382–1439, English nobleman

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 16, 2005 - 02:24 pm
Hmmm do you thing Warwick could really have said this - sounds too much like separation of Church and State developed by the US constitution --

Although I guess if you put another spin on it, maybe it could be the words of a man who supports the State being controlled by a King who is not a Royal by virtue of the anointing of the Lord and with powers based upon the Will of God as determaned by Rome - maybe Warwich was not thinking state that would include the shifting emotions that are the people's will...

WARWICK [whose patience is wearing out] My lord: pray get The Church out of your head for a moment; and remember that there are temporal institutions in the world as well as spiritual ones. I and my peers represent the feudal aristocracy as you represent The Church. We are the temporal power. Well, do you not see how this girl's idea strikes at us?

Deems
May 16, 2005 - 03:27 pm
My guess is that Shaw uses this expensive book for several reasons. One, it would be identifiable to many in the audience. The fact that Warwick has such a book would indicate that he could afford it. Secondly, because the book is a book of prayers for each hour, it would lend him a certain "sanctity," or at least the appearance thereof.

I doubt if the real Warwick would have had such a book in camp. I think it's just Shaw.

Joan Pearson
May 16, 2005 - 05:30 pm
Harold, JoanK, it's great to have you back with us today! (Did you catch any bass, Harold?) -- I'm glad others are having trouble with this play - not just me. JoanK - I've hear that actresses love to play the "Joan' role. They don't get the long philosophic parts...just the dramatic role she can get her teeth into!

I agree with you - and Maryal's students, this play is better to read. (You can put it down between scenes and think about it for a while before going on.)

The Chaplain's role seems to be one of comic relief - or at least he is the one both the Archbishop and the Earl of Warwick can bounce ideas and make sport of. The Chaplin inserts his naive comments so they can each argue with him, rather than one another. "Sancta simplicitas" I think it makes for better theater, rather than two talking heads, although there is a lot of jumping up, "flaming up" to make a point and keep things lively.

Chaplain de Stogumber seems to be saying he is a gentleman because he was born in England "six cousins between himself and the barony". Titled men are gentlemen. Englishmen can be anyone fighting for England. The Burgundians can be called Englishmen. The concept of Nationalism, crossed with the old feudal titles...

BaBi
May 16, 2005 - 05:40 pm
Oh! you are an Englishman, are you? The chaplain: Certainly not, my lord: I am a gentleman.

Joan, I can tell you what my own take is on this statement. Whether I'm correct or not, who knows.

This is, obviously, before the days of nationalism. The country is ruled by noble families, and the upper classes are identified as adherents to the House of York, or Lancaster, or Gloucester, etc. Or even, God bless them, Royalists loyal to the King.

Perhaps only those of the lower classes would be called "Englishmen". All those considered 'gentlemen' would be attached to one of the noble houses.

It would at least explain the Chaplain's reaction. ...Babi

Pat H
May 16, 2005 - 09:54 pm
In addition to the important arguments about Protestantism and Nationalism, did you notice the passing reference to British Colonialism? On the last page of scene IV, de Stogumber complains that Joan "....denies to England her legitimate conquests, given her by God because of her peculiar fitness to rule over less civilized races for their own good." A neat summing up of the colonial attitude.

ALF
May 17, 2005 - 08:51 am
Sorry I've been delinquent here in the past week. I've had some cardiac problems, MD visits, tests, blood work, blah-blah.

Anyway, I don't see where Joan has changed that much. She is still a strong woman who knows that she must convince the English to leave her country and it's her job to make sure Carlie has been crowned King. God has spoken to her and she demands that others listen. How has she changed, other than her tone?

Harold Arnold
May 17, 2005 - 09:05 am
References to British Colonialism appear in other Shaw Plays. I have already mentioned his two Prologs for “Caesar and Cleopatra,” one of which appears to have been written specifically for British audiences in which he has Caesar lecturing on the impermanence of Empires. The 1946 movie of that film with Claude Rains, Vivien Leigh, and Stewart Granger was my initial exposure to Shaw plays.

Joan Pearson
May 17, 2005 - 09:18 am
Seee, there is so much that we'd miss viewing the play (we, the 21 st Century audience) - and so much we'd miss but for putting our collective heads together and sharing. Babi, the Chaplain reminds us that it is the landed gentry who really run things, not the king - and Pat H - good eye, picking up at the dig on British colonialism! Harold, thanks for underlining the fact that this is one of Shaw's pet themes.

It seems to me that Shaw is saying the people must rise up and fight for themselves, for their liberty when those with the power do not well represent them, consumed with their own profit or glory. In this play, Joan represents the people, weak but determined.

Are we saying that Shaw's play cannot be understood or appreciated without background knowledge of Shaw's time and writing? OR do you think today's audience draws parallels with Joan's French army and its attempt to drive off invading forces out to profit from conquered lands? Parallels with today's warfare, the huge loss of lives, all for a higher purpose?

Andy, bless your dear heart, we have missed you! Those of you who do see a change in Shaw's Joan, can you explain to Andy what it is? Or do we need to get into the final scenes to get a better feeling for the "changed" Joan? Maybe we should wait, at least until we get into the next scene, Scene V in the Cathedral at Rheims...Reims as Shaw spells it...

Joan Pearson
May 17, 2005 - 09:39 am
I found the following on the Reims's Cathedral - how it looked in Shaw's time, so you get an idea of the mood of the French and their allies towards their invaders when the play was first performed shortly after WWI.




Rheims in Ruins, 1915

Bomabardment of Rheims, 1915

The authors of the books featured in the above two sites document the extensive damage inflicted on this treasured cathedral during WWI. One author tells that every time the Germans were frustrated during the war, they would bomb Rheims.

Shaw opens Scene V in the Cathedral following the coronation, Joan alone on her knees in prayer, the people outside calling for Joan, (not the king), the new king and his men somewhere else, taking off the heavy clocks, removing the holy oil (rancid), grumbling about Joan. Quite an image of Joan's isolation...you'd think she'd want to go right home after this, wouldn't you, Andy?

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 17, 2005 - 10:29 am
The one photo taken from the air of the shell of the Cathedral reminded me of reading that when the Cathedral was finished it was large enough for everyone in the town to fit inside and attend mass at the same time - seems to me it said large enough for 2000 souls to attend Mass...seeing that photo I can understand how that would be possible but also the importance the Cathedral must have been for the people in the fifteenth century.

Joan Pearson
May 18, 2005 - 11:21 am
Barbara, I can just imagine when the play opens on scene V...surely everyone in the house remembers the heavy bombing inflicted on the Cathedral - every time I see a movie that shows the skyline of NY prior to 9/11, I get the same queasy feeling that the twin towers are no more. I wonder if Shaw's play ever made it to Germany?

I can't tell if Shaw is purposely comparing Joan with Christ - is it just me? He seems to be overlooking her saintedness and playing up her role as a poor peasant girl - one of the people - with principles. Does anyone but Joan have principles in the piece?

Pat H
May 18, 2005 - 11:51 am
Our book says it was published in Germany in 1923 as "Die Heilige Johanna", And I think I read somewhere that it was performed there early on, but I can't find it now.

BaBi
May 18, 2005 - 03:23 pm
I found Joan's solitary prayers in the cathedral a rather sad commentary on how alone and isolated she is in all this. Even those who care for her and believe in her recognize her vulnerabiity, and do not believe she will be able to win out over her opposition. I would not say that all other characters are wholly lacking in principles; rather that they are intensely practical men. Even her friends do not intend to be caught in Joan's downfall if she refuses to listen to their advice.

Babi

Joan Pearson
May 18, 2005 - 07:15 pm
Pat, I googled "Die Heilige Johanna" just out of curiostiy...this site was in German, with a link to the translation. You know, I can't believe they have a trnaslator for these site...no translator would be this bad. Do you think there's an automatic translator? Though difficult to read, it does emphasize the fact that Joan is completely alone..

"After the coronation/culmination they meet Karl, Jeanne, Dunois and other dignitaries. In this fifth scene of the piece particularly the king draws the attention of the girl to how alone it is in reality. The simple people believes enemies (jealousy) in it, at the Hofe however has it nearly only. Advising against to an attack on Paris, their Karl explains it would be as impossible to release it in the case shank from the hands of the Englishmen."Die Heilige Johanna - Translated - Holy Joan
Babi, you're right, the people around Joan are not aren't really without principle - they honestly believe that Joan is no longer necessary now that Charles has been crowned. I find myself agreeing with Dunois as he considers the high cost of war. It's as if Joan does not take that into consideration. Not sure I understand why Charles is content to stop before taking Paris. As Joan asks, "What is your crown worth, without your capital?"

I keep asking myself, how much of this is Shaw's version - and what is the historical explanation?

ps. And what DID happen with Paris? How long after Joan's death did it take to rout the English?

Mrs Sherlock
May 19, 2005 - 05:09 am
Before we started discussing this I caught the movie, The Messenger, which was not critically acclaimed, but I can't get it out of my mind. Here Joan is obsessed, but she is also clearly the victim of her obsession and those around her manipulate her for their own ends until she no longer has any value is inevitably discarded. Not Shaw and not historically accurate maybe, but it made Joan breathe for me. I think it was on thee Sundown channel.

Joan Pearson
May 19, 2005 - 07:41 am
Jackie, Joan's voices are something that most have difficulty understanding. There are so many interpretations. It's more than just voices Joan describes too - she tells of visual revelations. For you, the idea that they were an obsession works. Shaw looks at them as the product of an active imagination in a very pious girl. He explains in his Preface:
"There are people in the world whose imagination is so vivid that when they have an idea it comes to them as an audible voice, sometimes uttered by a visual figure. The inspirations and intuitions and unconsciously reasoned conclusions of genius sometimes assume similar illusions. Socrates, Luther, Swedenborg, Blake saw visions and heard voices just as Saint Francis and Saint Joan did. If Newton's imagination had been of the same vividly dramatic kind he might have seen the ghost of Pythagoras walk into the orchard and explain why the apples were falling. Such an illusion would have invalidated neither the theory of gravitation nor Newton's general sanity. What is more, the visionary method of making the discovery would not be a whit more miraculous than the normal method. The test of sanity is not the normality of the method but the reasonableness of the discovery. In the same way Joan must be judged a sane woman in spite of her voices because they never gave her any advice that might not have come to her from her mother wit exactly as gravitation came to Newton. We can all see now, especially since the late war threw so many of our women into military life, that Joan's campaigning could not have been carried on in petticoats. This was not only because she did a man's work, but because it was morally necessary that sex should be left out of the question as between her and her comrades-in-arms. She gave this reason herself when she was pressed on the subject; and the fact that this entirely reasonable necessity came to her imagination first as an order from God delivered through the mouth of Saint Catherine does not prove that she was mad. The soundness of the order proves that she was unusually sane; but its form proves that her dramatic imagination played tricks with her senses. Her policy was also quite sound: nobody disputes that the relief of Orleans, followed up by the coronation at Rheims of the Dauphin as a counterblow to the suspicions then current of his legitimacy and consequently of his title, were military and political masterstrokes that saved France. They might have been planned by Napoleon or any other illusionproof genius. They came to Joan as an instruction from her Counsel, as she called her visionary saints; but she was none the less an able leader of men for imagining her ideas in this way."
In his play, in this scene, even Dunois seems uncomfortable talking with Joan about her voices. How did he understand them? I'm wondering how the rest of you view them?

Deems
May 19, 2005 - 08:52 am
JoanP--I'm confused about the parallel between Joan and Jesus. I see that she is humble, from the people, and that she has a mission (to "save" France and get Charles crowned) but isn't this true of many historical figures. Lenin wanted to free the workers of the world. Richard III (the Lionhearted) wanted to free Jerusalem from the "infidels." MLKing wanted to "free" African Americans and establish a just world. What makes Joan more like Jesus than these people?

I think if Joan lived now and heard these voices, she would immediately be diagnosed as a schizophrenic.

Maryal/Deems

Pat H
May 19, 2005 - 09:37 am
Schizophrenia is certainly one of the explanations people give for Joan, and it fits in some ways. But they tone of the voices is wrong. They speak to Joan rationally and sensibly, and, as everyone points out, only say what she could have thought of from her own good sense. There is no craziness to them. It is a farfetched idea for her to take Orleans, but it isn’t crazy.

I have a lot of trouble with her voices; have to think some more about it.

Joan Pearson
May 19, 2005 - 03:52 pm
Maryal, I see a few more parallels than those mentioned...the mission yes, but the idea that Joan receives her orders directly from God. I don't see that with Lenin, Richard or MLK. And then the matter of the miracles. She oversteps, even ignors the the established order of the Church she claims to love and support - and then there is the matter of those miracles...

I don't remember the people who supported Len, Rich and MLK turning on these leaders...but Christ's followers denied him when the going got rough...as Charles and his court turned on Joan once Charles was crowned.

Schizophrenic? Hmmm... Hasn't she seemed "together" - as Pat says, rational? Everything she does seems to make sense - it works. I don't know that all of a Schizophenic's actions make sense all of the time. Joan seems quite relaxed, comfortable in her skin (armor). It isn't until the end of this scene when she decides to go it alone that I see her not behaving in a not quite rational manner.

Joan Pearson
May 20, 2005 - 08:24 am
Two more thoughts on those voices...Joan is not the only saint to experience such apparitions in the Middle Ages and in more recent times, Fatima, Lourdes, etc. Such occurances were not unheard of before Joan's time - one of the characters in Shaw's play says as much.

The other thing...earlier we learned that there were statues of St. Michael, Catherine and Margaret in Joan's church in Dorémy. Do you suppose she had a visual impression from these statues as she prayed?

I thought it was interesting to hear Dunois tell Joan he thought she was "a little bit cracked" - that she made him uneasy when she told him of the voices. If it wasn't for the sensible things she related he wouldn't have listened.

Joan tells him "Whatever you may chose to believe"...the voices came first. I guess that's what we have to do - accept the fact that the directions for successfully overtaking the English and seeing Charles crowned worked out, just as Joan's voices assured her they would.

Gradually she learns from the growing chorus that she AND her voices have been renounced and that she is alone. I loved her response...most beautiful in this scene, if not the play...
Yes I am alone on earth; I have always been alone. My father told my brothers to drown me if I would not stay to mind his sheep while France was bleeding to death. France might perish if only our lambs were safe. I thought France would have friends at the court of the king of France; and I find only wolves fighting for pieces of her poor torn body. I thought God would have friends everywhere, because He is a friend of everyone, and in my innocence I believed that you who now cast me out would be like strong towers to keep harm from me. But I am wiser now; and nobody is any the worse for being wiser. Do not think you can frighten me by telling me that I am alone. France is alone; and God is alone, and what is my loneliness before the loneliness of my country and my God? I see now that the loneliness of God is his strength; what would He be if He listened to your jealous little counsels? Well, my loneliness shall be my strength too; it it better to be alone with God; His friendship will not fail me, nor His counsel, nor His love. In His strength I will dare, and dare, and dare, until I die. I will go out now to the common people and let the love in their eyes comfort me for the hate in yours. you will all be glad to see me burnt; but if I go through the fire I shall go through it to their hearts for ever and ever. And so, God be with me.

Maryal, here's another instance where I see the parallel with Christ's experience...but if I go through the fire I shall go through it to their hearts for ever and ever. Her lone martyrdom, as Christ's, remained in the hearts of people long after her death.

Harold Arnold
May 20, 2005 - 09:12 am
3. Does anyone besides Joan want to go on to take Paris or is she completely alone in this? Why does't Charles want to go? Is he resentful because the voices don't speak to him, now that he is king?


I think the lack of interest on the part of the French in pushing on to take Paris is a reflection of the French reaction to the great social changes that the 100 Years War was brining to Europe. Joan of course was a principal instigator of these changes.

Of course the newly crowned French King, now Charles VII, would in principal seem to want the return of his capital. But this would require a military operation that would require the participation of the Barons and other French nobles. The interest of these Feudal lords was a prompt return to the pre-war feudal status quo that made them virtual independent sovereign within their little fiefs. The taking of Paris would enhance the power and status of the National Government headed by the King. The French nobles were just not interested in further increasing the King’s power and national control because it would necessarily reduce their independent control of their own individual bailiwicks. King Charles VII realized he could not get the necessary cooperation from the nobles and seemed quite content to enjoy his newly bestowed Crown (by Joan) as King of a substantial part of France albeit without the traditional capital, Paris.

The History of the next 200 years in England and France and other parts of Europe was the gradual strengthen of the National Governments headed by the Kings. Curiously as the period progressed the common people often found it in their interest to support the King and strong national governments in preference to the decentralized Feudal system of the past. Also less than a century after Joan, the Reformation began giving the kings the further opportunity to enhance National Power as church political power was reduced..

Harold Arnold
May 20, 2005 - 09:31 am
On the subject of Joan’s voices I am inclined to agree with Deems that Joan today, “would immediately be diagnosed as a schizophrenic.” While our modern prophets might proclaim publicly their dreams for a better world they have never publish the details of supposed conversations with specific saints conveying to them the will of God to the extent Joan certainly did. Today such announcements would be unlikely to convince more than a fringe minority..

Deems
May 20, 2005 - 10:06 am
Thanks, JoanP--I understand your parallels better now. However, I don't recall any references (in the Gospels) to Jesus hearing voices. Miracles, of course, occur. Christ is deserted by his disciples--but only denied by Peter--the others apparently hide--but John is there at the cross with the women, so he doesn't desert.

Joan began hearing voices at 13--the beginning of adolescence with all those hormones stirring around. She lived in a place that was disintegrating because of the intrusion of the English, politics--or the lack thereof--would have been all around her. there were statues of the very saints who spoke to her in the little chapel that she frequented. She lived in a time when it was more frequent for people to hear voices. I think what's different about her is that she was a girl, an uneducated girl, a most unlikely person to raise or lead an army. For me, the miracle is there, in that action. The voices don't bother me--perhaps she only heard them in her head--perhaps she heard them out loud.

Maryal

ALF
May 20, 2005 - 11:54 am
I've got to agree with Joan. I believe she really did hear the voices of her saints and her God. Call me a cock-eyed optimist but as my granddaughter says "just sit quietly and you can hear Jesus speak to you." She's 5! I think Joan was honest, not dillusional, notr schizophrenic. I, too, see the parellel of Jesus with the "fire", the bringing of the little children and the invalids to heal, as the Archbishop told her. "They will kiss your hands and feet and do what they can, poor simple souls, to turn your head, and madden you with the self-confidence that is leading you to your destruction."
Just as Jesus did.
She is "clothed with the virtue of humility." People believed in her, her mission and they too, followed. She was taken away, condemned and hated by the enemy as well, betrayed by those she cared about and ultimately put to death. Here we are centuries later trying to unravel the mystery.

Pat H
May 20, 2005 - 04:11 pm
Joan, telling la Hire that he will have to finish without her:

No: I shall last only a year from the beginning.

The Others: What!

Joan: I know it somehow.

It’s interesting that she knows this, but not from her voices. I guess she forgets it later, since apparently she is going to think she will be saved from burning.

Joan Pearson
May 21, 2005 - 05:33 am
Good morning! The sun is shining here at last! Nothing like having cold rainy days and a house full of company eager to tour the local sites! Today will be a busy outdoorsy one. Hope the weather is this pretty where you are!

Harold, thank you for pointing out the reasons Charles hesitated from pushing on to Paris. Now everything is in context - I have to ask. Where did Joan get willing men to fight with her? I guess I'm still scratching my head about why SHE went on herself? As I've understood it, her voices were silent once she accomplished her mission of Charles' coronation. She was receiving no orders to extend the kingdom and take Paris. Do you get the idea that Shaw is saying that Joan developed a taste for war - and a taste for the adulation of the people. She didn't want to go back to life on the farm - until she'd seen Paree? Why DID she want Paris? Since you put it in context, I don't see Joan with this big vision for a NATION. This wasn't ever on her agenda. I know how Shaw saw it - get those English speakers back to their own kingdom - leave France for French-speakers. But this is 20th Century Shaw speaking. I'm wondering at the historic reason she continued. Will we ever know?

As Maryal says, she lived in a time when it was more frequent to hear voices. If we take Joan out of context and into the modern world, today's public would consider Joan's voices delusional. But in the 15th century, faith in the supernatural was a part of life - time spent in meditation, contemplation and prayer. Mysticism. Maryal makes the point that the uneducated country girl was able to raise and lead an army was nothing short of miraculous. As Andy writes - "People believed in her, her mission and they too, followed." What went wrong with the attempt to take Paris? Why did her "supernatural ability fail her?

Pat - don't you think Joan telling La Hire she only has a year is Shaw's attempt at heightening the drama in the theater? Of course the audience knows what is going to happen. I know what you mean about Joan "forgetting" - we'll see more of this in the next scene. Shaw's Joan is the one to watch on the stage - but the real Joan is demanding a closer look too.

Harold Arnold
May 21, 2005 - 08:40 am
Joan and all:
I don't see Joan with this big vision for a NATION. This wasn't ever on her agenda. I know how Shaw saw it - get those English speakers back to their own kingdom - leave France for French-speakers. But this is 20th Century Shaw speaking. I'm wondering at the historic reason she continued. Will we ever know?


I agree completely that Joan never saw herself as a Nation builder. Her mission as directed by her voices was simply to get the English invaders from France. That accomplished she seemed quite content to leave the social institutions intact as they had existed over the previous centuries.

In fact, however, other evolutionary forces were operating to effect social change. As I see it, the old order was in the process of changing yielding its place to the new. Joan unintentionally had been a catalyst accelerating this change. After Joan, for better or for worse civilization was on a new course for social change including the reformation, Nationalism, and the Renaissance

Pat H
May 21, 2005 - 10:12 am
What a nicely structured scene! We have the characters, one by one, telling Joan what is wrong with what she wants to do next, then each explains why he will desert her if she is captured, neatly outlining what is to come.

The underlying foundation is the steadily escalating theme of her aloneness, starting with the opening, Joan praying alone, her remark "I know well that none of you will be sorry to see me go.", everyone’s intention not to stand by her, the Archbishop’s speech about the crowd, and finally, her magnificent and moving final speech. Then she sweeps out, leaving her dazed companions behind.

ALF
May 21, 2005 - 10:24 am
Harold is right! The English were a threat still while they remained in France. Joan had had a taste of victory but she knew that it was necessary to "take back Paris." Of course Chas. (the puppetmaster) didn't see it that way as he preferred peaceful negotiations. His interest was in Charles, not his country and I'm sure that he feared Joan would become too powerful and if she lost a battle he feared God's favor was no longer with her, nor with the French. The girl was left to fend for herself, with no attempt at negotiating for her release. What a "wimp" this guy was.
Even Dunois denounces her at the end of this act. "As God is my judge, if she fell into the loire I would jump in in full armor to fish her out. Bit if she plays the fool at Compiegne, and gets caught, I must leave her to her doom. "

WHY?????

Joan Pearson
May 22, 2005 - 03:43 am
Harold, I like your designation of Joan as a "catalyst accelerating change." Your explanation of the changing times explains the difficulty I have with the concept of France as a nation, and France as a composition of feudal estates. Once Charles is crowned King, Henry loses his nominal power over the estates, and Charles can be content to rest on his throne. As Andy points out, Joan had no use for the signed treaties Charles now has - she knows his power must be felt - all the way to Paris. But how can she force him to see that?

Pat, I agree, the scene of Joan's gradual realization of her abandonment makes for good theater. Her determination to go it alone as "she sweeps out, leaving her dazed companions behind" - was this decision to set out for Paris alone with a rag-tag second-string army ill-advised by her voices?

Andy, the image of Dunois jumping into the Loire in his armor to fish out his friend tells me that he would risk his life to save hers...but that to go on to Compiegne/Paris at this time is surely suicidal and he cannot go along with her. He probably never said that - this is Shaw's theatricality at work.

Harold, would you happen to know how soon after Joan's death the English were routed from Paris?

Joan Pearson
May 22, 2005 - 06:47 am
Shaw wastes no time...from the abandonment by those who have helped her in the past, Joan moves on to Paris via Compiegne at the end of Scene V...with only God on her side. What is Shaw saying? Should that have been enough? Scene VI opens on the 9th month of the trial. (Did I get that right?) Somewhere in one of the many links - will find it in a minute, Shaw claims that he used the original trial records as his resource, "rearranging them a little, for the staging." I find it amazing the the trial records are still available to us. If you are interested in these records, here are two links - there are many translations from the early records...
The trial was conducted and transcribed in French by court recorders, then subsequently translated into Latin for the official record. A complete second-generation copy of his French minutes is found in the "Orléans" manuscript, MS 518 located at the Bibliothèque Municipale d'Orléans. W.S. Scott's The Trial of Joan of Arc is the standard English translation of the Orléans manuscript, and is used here in this essay. The original manuscript of the Latin translation is lost. However, three copies of the original signed and sealed by Pierre Cauchon survive. On the translation of the official record

Translation of Joan's Trial and Condemnation Records


I look forward to spending the coming week on Shaw's play, keeping in mind that he admittedly flattered Cauchon and invented the role of the Inquistor.

I'll be "out of pocket" as Harold says (what exactly does that mean, Harold?) - anyway, I won't be in my pocket until tomorrow evening, but look forward to your impressions of Joan's trial. Doesn't it seem that the court is stacked against her from the git-go?

Have a super Sunday, everyone!

ps Maryal, take a look at the playbill in the header...what does the "pose" remind you of?

Harold Arnold
May 22, 2005 - 08:13 pm
http://www.letsgo.com/PAR/02-LifeAndTimes-9?PHPSESSID=5fed6a7d941669a037b2667bf62ead87 . For what its worth, this site notes: “Charles VII reclaimed Paris in 1437 and drove the English back to Calais.. The Valois Dynasty took over where the Capetians left off” and moved toward securing a unified France.”

http://www.cityguide.travel-guides.com/cities/par/History.asp This site notes: “1420- 36 The English ruled Paris; the English king, Henry VI is crowned King of France.“ This would indicate the English left Paris in 1436.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/paris/history.htm This site indicates the English remained in Calais until 1453.

It would seem from these sources that Charles VII reclaimed Paris in 1437 just six years after Joan’s death. Apparently the English held their toehold on the Channel, Calais, until 1453 before retiring to their island from where they later developed new non-European interests!

Pat H
May 23, 2005 - 10:36 am
I know I’m behind, but I wanted to make a few more comments about V before moving on to VI.

Joan P says that Joan didn’t hear her voices after Orleans. They had already told her to go to Rheims, but what made her want to go on?

Was it because it made strategic sense? La Hire seems to think it does.

Was it because she was in love with war? Dunois and la Hire think she is. Joan herself feels like she is living more fully during battle.

Was the Archbishop right that it was pride and hubris? Was she "exceeding orders" to continue? But she doesn’t seem to be proud, more just determined.

Or was it simply because she knew she was still following God’s will? Dunios says that after God sets you on your feet he expects you to carry through on your own, and she is certainly doing that.

Pat H
May 23, 2005 - 10:42 am
La Hire was eager to follow her--he said she "had hold of the right end of the stick"; Dunois was grudging, but didn' actually refuse. Charles, of course, was horrified at the very idea.

Pat H
May 23, 2005 - 10:47 am
I don't think so. She is totally focussed on her mission, and answers directly without even noticing the effect she is having. Meanwhile the Archbishop is curdled with rage because she is bypassing his function as intermediary between her and God and not listening to his orders, which represent the church's authority.

Deems
May 23, 2005 - 02:12 pm
JoanP--That playbill's designer sure saw a parallel between Joan and Jesus. (Do you think spring will get here before June does?)

BaBi
May 23, 2005 - 05:29 pm
I would think, since Joan had not heard further from her voices, she would simply proceed according to the instructions she already had. One of the things she said, early on, was that she was to drive the English out of France. If that was part of the instructions from her voices, that part of the job was not yet complete. I think, with her singlemindedness, she would continue on the same path until her voices told her she was done. Or until, as it happened, the choice was no longer hers.

Babi

Harold Arnold
May 23, 2005 - 07:38 pm
Here is an example of a re-appearance of Joan of Arc in recent popular culture. The peripherally well-known 1960’s-90’s Canadian/poet-song writer/singer, Leonard Cohen wrote a song about her. It was an early song first appearing in the early 1970’s. Later Cohen made it his feature number in his PBS “Austin City Limits” concert in 1987, and the next year in a concert series in other US and Canadian cities. In this production, he was backed-up by two excellent lady singers, Julie Christensen and Perla Batallia. Christensen took the solo part of Joan of Arc.

Click Here for the poem, first the handwritten original draft followed by the final printed version.

Click Here for a composite CD recorded live at the Austin City Limits and other city concerts.

Barbara St. Aubrey
May 23, 2005 - 08:40 pm
Interesting in this translation of the poem by Christine de Pizan who Joan linked her poem earlier in the discussion - Christien evidently died before Joan was martyered - she writes in her poem a few bits that are further explained in this site - Selected Writings of Christine de Pizan, trans. By Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski and Kevin Brownlee


"I have learned about Esther, Judith, and Deborah*, worthy ladies, through whom God restored His people which was so oppressed, and I also learned about many others who were brave, but there was none through whom He has performed a greater miracle than through the Maid.


  • As Kennedy and Varty point out, Joan was often linked to these Old Testament heroines, for example, by Jean Gerson in his text about Joan, De quadam puella [About a certain maid), written in the spring of 1429 in support of Joan's mission. They suggest that the Tale may have been inspired by Judges 5, the Song of Deborah'; see Le Ditie 67. Christine also mentioned these women in the Book of Fortune's Transformation and the City of Ladies."

    And then this bit ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    For more than five hundred years ago, Merlin, the Sibyl, and Bede* foresaw her in their minds and put her into their writings and made prophecies about her as the remedy for France. They said she would carry the banner in French wars and they exactly predicted her deeds.


  • To link these three prophets may appear strange to a modern reader, since Merlin was a magician connected to the Arthurian tradition, Bede an English historian (d. 735), and the Sibyl one of the prophetic women of antiquity. But in the Middle Ages the three were often linked. At the time, their prophecies were interpreted as referring to Joan of Arc. For details see Kennedy and Varty La Ditie 68-69, and Andrew Lang, The Maid of France (London: Lougmans Green, 1909).

    And finally this bit ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    She will destroy the Saracens, by conquering the Holy Land*. There she will lead Charles, whom God may protect! Before he dies he will make this trip, he is the one who will conquer it. There she will end her life, and both will gain glory. There things will be fulfilled.


  • Joan seems to have had plans for a crusade. In two letters, to the king of England and to the duke of Burgundy, she spoke of fighting the Saracens. To the duke she suggested that it would be more useful to make peace with the French king and fight the Saracens than continue the internal strife. For details, see Kennedy and Varty, La Ditie, 70.
  • Joan Pearson
    May 24, 2005 - 10:44 am
    Good morning! Gee, it isn't morning any longer, is it? I became lost in the interesting links you provided while I was away. Time flies when you get caught up in the links, doesn't it?

    - Maryal, yes, I think the playbill in the heading with Joan at the stake is an intentional parallel with Christ crucified. And I see Barbara has provided us with another - the links to the sites that tell of the predictions of her coming, just as Christ's coming was foreseen in the OT. "More than five hundred years ago, Merlin, the Sibyl, and Bede* foresaw her in their minds and put her into their writings and made prophecies about her as the remedy for France. They said she would carry the banner in French wars and they exactly predicted her deeds." Christine Pizan's poem was prophetic.

    The writer Mary Gordon did much research on this subject - I found this article that appeared in the New York Times Book section:
    "Certain popular legends, however, served Joan very well in that they made a place in the public mind for someone like her. Many prophecies, from widely diverse sources, were abroad in Joan's time about a maiden who would save France. The earliest is from the Arthurian wizard Merlin, who prophesied that a marvelous maid would come from the Bois Chesnu, the ancient wood, to save France. Marie d'Avignon, a woman with a reputation as a prophet, had, some years earlier, foretold the arrival of someone like Joan at the dauphin's court. "She spoke of having had frequent visions concerning the desolation of France. In one of them Marie saw pieces of armor that were brought before her, which frightened her. For she was afraid that she would be forced to put this armor on. But she was told to fear nothing, that it was not she who would have to wear this armor, but a Maid who would come after her who would wear it and deliver the kingdom of France from its enemies."

    Although it is easy to distinguish Joan from other mystics or pseudomystics, we should not go too far in this direction and forget that she was, at her core, a person moved by a religious vision. Like everything else about her, the nature of her religious life was mixed, there was a strong sprinkling of the practical and the political about it. There is no doubt, however, that she would have been incapable of doing the sometimes literally incredible things she did if she were not convinced to the depths of her soul that she was inspired by God.
    Joan's own father was said to have had a dream about his daughter leaving home with the soldiers in soldier's clothing, which is why she was so fiercely protective of her and refused to let her go to talk with Robert Baudricourt.

    Joan Pearson
    May 24, 2005 - 11:00 am
    - Harold, Leonard Cohen's song - another example of how Joan lives on in the 21st century - through song and film...(and Shaw's play). To think that someone who died over 500 years ago is still a topic of conversation and study... she is not forgotten. It was her martyrdom, her sacrifice that keeps her spirit alive.

    Ginny sent along these photos this morning. She was in Paris - on May 8 and came across the magnificent statue of Joan on her horse near the Louvre on the Rue de Rivoli. What caught her eye was the blanket of flowers at the foot of the statue. May 8, 1429 - the siege of Orleans was lifted - the first French victory, Joan leading the Army. The French haven't forgot their saint either! Thanks, Ginny!



    Joan Pearson
    May 24, 2005 - 11:23 am
    - Harold Only six years after Joan's death, Charles DID to on to take Paris! Thank you so much for looking this up.
    I was stunned into searching further into Joan's history beyond what Shaw has chosen to present on the stage.
    "The events that unfolded afterwards led to Joan's downfall and ultimately to her demise. Joan and the newly crowned King Charles had opposing strategies on how to press the French advantage. Joan was a warrior, committed to continuing her military success against the English by marching on and retaking Paris. King Charles, on the other hand, was interested in a diplomatic truce and relegated Joan to an insignificant role. The reality was that Joan never truly had command of an army, though she was instrumental in persuading French leaders and soldiers to fight. Urged on by Joan, Charles reluctantly accompanied her and the French army as they captured small towns near Paris. When Joan opposed a truce, Charles allowed her to attack Paris on her own. (Warner, 1981, p. 73).

    Facing massive superiority in men and arms, Joan bravely stood in full view during the battle and urged the French army to victory. She was wounded during her heroic stand, receiving an arrow through the thigh, but she remained undaunted and urged King Charles to continue the attack the following day. Instead, King Charles ordered a retreat, and the French attempt to regain possession of Paris from the English failed (Guillemin, 1970, p. 139).
    After this defeat, not much is known about Joan's life. Her popularity and inspiration dwindled. Despite her accomplishments, King Charles continued relegating her to a back role and wanted her gone. Joan continued pushing for warfare, and Charles eventually allowed her to lead an army on her own. Charles consented to this mission believing secretly that Joan would be killed or captured (Guillemin, 1970, p. 156).

    This time, Joan and her army faced the numerically superior Burgundians, who were French allies of the English. Shortly after the battle began, the French retreated, and Joan was unhorsed. To stop the advance, the French pulled up a drawbridge. Joan, defending the rear gallantly, was among a handful of soldiers left behind and captured (Sackville-West, 1936, p. 248).Joan, Charles, Paris

    - Pat H - do you think Shaw's abbreviated, simplified stage version serves to emphasize Joan's isolation - her lack of support and the fact that her strength to endure came from God? "You do see La Hire and Dunois with her at the time she is captured?

    - Babi, I believe you and Pat are both right - when her mission was accomplished at Rheims, she expected Charles to continue on to Paris to finish the job. Seeing the devastation of war on the people, the choice was no longer hers. She had to complete the mission with or without Charles. I have to say that Charles may have been right to wait for a better moment. Do you think that if he had fought with her, they might have prevailed and she never would have been captured? Why would God allow her to be captured after having provided her the miraculous strength to accomplish what she had done?

    ps. Joan P is unable to find any source to substantiate her understanding that Joan's voices were silent after Rheims.

    Why in the world is Joan not allowed any representation in the trial that would condemn her to death? The first thing that came to mind when I read Shaw's stage description of the court - "kangaroo court"...
    Kangaroo court - a tribunal where truth is no defence, where opinion is on trial, where fines can be unlimited, where there is no trial by jury, where the judge - called an adjudicator - is judge, jury and prosecutor, where there is no right of appeal within the framework of the Act, where normal rules of evidence don't exist, and where impressions count for more than fact."

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    May 26, 2005 - 12:48 am
    I think Shaw made Joan into a smarter than average women rather than show her gift of leadership and prophecy as being from God through the saints - as a result all that is left to her in that scenario is to become a scapegoat to the power-archy.

    I've been reading When God was a Women and I am struck by the similarities between Joan of Arc and the Goddesses who at some later point in history reigned with a son or brother or lover or consort. Not that Charles fits exactly any of those roles but he was the lessor figure, the weaker - while Joan is the stronger, who fits the 'God role' for women.

    Women were Goddess of Intelligence and Knowledge - law-givers - sage dispenser of righteous wisdom, counsel and justice - they represented order, rhythm, and truth - prophetess as the Lady of Vision - hunted and fought in the lands of Libya, Anatolia, Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia and Russia - Goddesses understood planting and harvesting methods - they were the patron of language - in India she invented the original alphabet - she was the official scribe of the Sumerian heavens - Goddesses were powerful, courageous and leaders in battle.

    Primitive people in the twentieth century do not understand the relationship of sex to conception and therefore, to most archaeologists it was an easy leap to accept that people who revered Goddesses - [worshipped between 9,000BC to 500 AD and overlap the time of a powerful male God who was worshipped only starting about 1,200 to 1,500BC to the present] - saw a female as the giver of life and the lone producer of the next generation and a Goddess was worshiped as the originator of the tribe and therefore, created the basis of the social structure.

    Male oriented religions and male bias refer to female religions as 'fertility cults' and see the sacred icons and literature belonging to a pagan or heathen religion. Many of the strengths of the Goddesses become the basis for the Eve story and the Lorali story, which are tools used to change the devotees acknowledgment of the intelligence versus emotions and therefore, power of a male God.

    And so I just wonder how much of the Joan of Arc happening is a resurrection of the power-over a female God who is being declared heathen, so that the power of the church, with its male God, can be played out as supreme again.

    Almost like the story is in our DNA and every so often it is played out again duplicating history but also, duplicating within all of us a buried memory of recognition that is ancient within us. As if we see in the story what is familiar like a nursery tale that we have forgotten we were told but the story is familiar and comforting and so we listen to the tale as if it were new.

    BaBi
    May 26, 2005 - 05:58 am
    Even the 'male-dominated' Christian religion has to make place for a woman to be honored and adored, if not as a goddess, then as the greatly influential Mother of God. As a non-Catholic Christian, I can't say how accurate my view is, but I have the impression that more prayers are offered to Mary than to any other.

    I suspect many people have a natural tendency to trust and rely more on the compassion of the female. We could probably find much to ponder in our need for mother/father comfort, support and aid, and how we view and understand God. And don't you think our ambivalence here is reflected in the acceptance/rejection of Joan? She is loved for coming to the aid of France; she is feared and rejected for not submitting to the leadership of the masculine hierarchy.

    There was an epilogue to this play, but someone would have to remind me what it was about. My copy long since went back to the library, and I honestly don't remember.

    Babi

    Mrs Sherlock
    May 26, 2005 - 06:56 am
    Sorry I've been lax; too many balls in the air. Things are getting back to normal so I'm back.

    Joan Pearson
    May 26, 2005 - 07:32 am
    Hi there, Jackie! Glad to see you back in your seat following your juggling act!

    Barbara, yes! Shaw does make Joan into a human, rather than a saint, doesn't he? A strong woman too. (I'm curious to hear what you thought of the Epilogue, which takes place after her actual canonization.)

    Hmmm, was she smarter than the average woman? She certainly had more hutzpah than most - self-confidence. Shaw seems to concentrate on her humanity, her human flaws too. Does he dwell on her femininity? In portraying her as a woman with questionable help from above, she is "a scapegoat to the powerarchy" as you put it, but Shaw also makes her a victim of her own pride, don't you think?

    I can understand the political reasons Joan needed to go - and also why the Church hierarchy could not let her go on, considering the deep, well founded concerns regarding the heresy that threatens the primacy of the Catholic religion. Shaw portrays her as deserted by her voices at her greatest moment of need. A poignant moment here in Scene VI when she says,
    "My voices promised me I should not be burnt."

    It should be remembered that this is not part of the official transcript of her trial - this is pure Shaw, his way of telling his audience that the voices were not supernatural phenomena - voices from above.

    Joan Pearson
    May 26, 2005 - 07:46 am
    Babi, yes, Mary, the greatest Intercessor...I guess being a Mother gives her special access to her Son's ear. (I'm curious, does a non-Catholic Christian petition Mary in her prayers?) You've given us something else to consider - "our ambivalence in the acceptance/rejection of Joan? She is loved for coming to the aid of France; she is feared and rejected for not submitting to the leadership of the masculine hierarchy. Does Shaw's Epilogue clear this up - or underline it? Today, Joan is revered as the Patron Saint of France, by the political as well as hierarchical powers.

    The Epilogue...one of you classified it as "silly" - the dream scene, in which Joan returns to Charlie's bedside following her rehabilitation trial - AND her canonization I think - and is confronted by each of her judges and accusers from her trial...does that jog your memory? Was Shaw trying to be funny - or what? What did he accomplish with this final scene?

    Pat H
    May 26, 2005 - 08:43 am
    Shaw pokes ironic fun of almost everyone in the play, but not at Joan—he portrays her with sympathy and respect. I think that even though he was using her story for his own agenda, he responded to her quality.

    He does show her as having a fair amount of pride—certainly the Archbishop thinks so. I’m not sure whether he is saying she is undone by her pride or that what others interpret as pride is her own certainty in the truth.

    Mrs Sherlock
    May 26, 2005 - 11:23 am
    I'm at work and the book's at home, so I'll have to get back. I don't remember reading the epilog, though I'm sure I did.

    BaBi
    May 26, 2005 - 11:58 am
    Ah, yes,..the dream scene. I think Shaw put that in for balance. The heroine of the piece had come to a terrible end; he perhaps wanted some way to allow her to 'come out on top'.

    In answer to your question, Joan: No, non-Catholic Christians do not petition Mary. Protestants are taught to pray only to God or to Jesus. Mary is respected and admired, but not prayed to.

    Babi

    JoanK
    May 26, 2005 - 12:07 pm
    For some reason, I had a hard time relating to this play. It was not the quality of the discussion, which, as always, was excellent. But I think Shaw now seems crotchety and dated to me. What do others think?

    Pat H
    May 26, 2005 - 12:28 pm
    In his preface, Shaw makes a big point of saying that Joan got a fair trial. But it certainly doesn’t look fair in the play. Warwick starts by giving Cauchon clear orders how the trial must come out. Cauchon says he will be just, and Warwick says "Well, by all means do your best for her if you are sure it will be to no avail." Joan has no one to defend her. After she is condemned, the Inquisitor himself says she is innocent. Her behavior at the stake convinces Lavendou she is innocent.

    Cauchon and his crew seem to be concerned only with the perceived threat to their authority, and the only issues addressed are very rigid, with no attempt to understand the real situation. This is supposed to be an overly sympathetic portrait of Cauchon. I’m glad I didn’t know the real man.

    Pat H
    May 26, 2005 - 01:19 pm
    Yes, let's discuss the Epilogue.

    Pat H
    May 26, 2005 - 02:27 pm
    Those of you who haave seen the play acted, where does the intermission come? After scene IV is half way through, but there is some sense to breaking after the high note of scene III. Of course, if it's cut, that would shorten IV-VI.

    Joan Pearson
    May 26, 2005 - 06:53 pm
    Joan K, I'm thinking of your question - does Shaw seem 'crotchety' with this play? I must confess, I haven't read much of Shaw, so I don't know how typical this is. Saint Joan is not the romp I had expected - much more serious, although there were light moments. I don't sense that Shaw was enjoying himself a whole lot when he wrote it. (I'm really looking forward to reading Pygmalion, expecting to see a somewhat different Shaw.) He seems more intent on making a statement in Saint Joan. But what is it?

    Pat sees him poking ironic fun at everyone but Joan, whom "he treats with sympathy and respect" - Pat, yes, I see him treating his own characterization of Joan with respect - but his Joan is not the Joan we see in the trial transcript, He seems to have lobbed off the parts that he does not respect - or at least the parts he did not find useful for his purpose.

    Babi, thank you - I thought that might be the case - "Protestants are taught to pray only to God or Jesus." In the transcript, Joan prays to Mary, and of course to her saints, Michael, Catherine and Margaret. Shaw seems uncomfortable with the voices, with her communication with the saints. Yet in the transcript, Joan remains firm in her belief in their existance. Shaw sees Joan as the proto-Protestant. Her repeated requests in the transcript to submit her case to the Pope he chooses to overlook. Her continued requests to attend Mass, he does not include. Her Catholicity is not what he is interested in. I agree with you, Pat, when you say - "even though he was using her story for his own agenda, he responded to her quality." Exactly what quality? I think we need to get to that to understand his point in writing this play.

    Maryal has seen the play, Pat. She might be able to answer your question about where the intermission occurred. I'll guess it was between Four and Five. What do you all think?

    Deems
    May 26, 2005 - 08:31 pm
    OK, memory is a little foggy about this, but I do remember that Christy broke into one of the scenes and put the intermission there. Otherwise the play fell into a division she did not want. Trust me, folks, the play is VERY long on stage and VERY talky. I have to agree with Joan K that there's something curmudgeony about Shaw to me. I've never been one of his fans. I did see Arms and the Man about twelve years ago and it was pretty good (but a little silly).

    Maryal

    Joan Pearson
    May 27, 2005 - 06:24 am
    Thanks, Maryal - Christy (the director?) interruped a scene for the intermission? I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years. She interrupted the trial scene?

    Pat, I was interested in your comment on Joan's trial, the fairness of it. I agree with you. It never seemed fair to me, although Shaw admits he flattered Cauchon by making him a good guy. You see the rather defensive Cauchon again in the Epilogue.

    I scribbled a note -from Harold Bloom's book on Shaw - :
    "Shaw acknowledged in the preface that he flattered the character of Cauchon...and invented the character of the Inquisitor - 'such were the inevitable flatteries of tragedy' - in order to make the trial of Joan fully significant, he had to make her judges the best possible representatives of the system that found her guilty." He quotes Shaw:
    " It is, I repeat, what normally innocent people do that concerns us, and if Joan had not been burnt by normally innocent poeple in the energy of ther righteousness her death at their hands would have no more significance than the Tokyo earthquake...

    The tragedy of such murders is that they are not committed by murderers. They are judicial murders, pious murders, and this contradiction at once brings an element of comedy into tragedy."

    Babi... I like your reason for the dream scene. "The heroine of the piece had come to a terrible end; he perhaps wanted some way to allow her to 'come out on top'." Had the play ended with the burning, we would have to call the play a terribly tragedy. I'm trying to imagine the mood ot the audience walking out of the theater after the dream scene.

    ALF
    May 27, 2005 - 07:17 am
    This Pierre Cauchon, formerly rector of the University of Paris, summoned support for the trial from Burgundian allies among the clergy, including faculty members of the university. Sixty or so theologians and clerics served as assessors in the trial, though rarely were all participants present at the same time. Cauchon conducted the trial sessions along with the Deputy Inquisitor of France. Under the guise of charitably saving her soul Cauchon built a case against her. Jean D'Estivet as "promoter," i.e. prosecutor, drew up a brief in the form of seventy articles prior to the interrogations. "

    This trial was fraudulent, corrupt and with only malice intended. Noone challenged their legal or their ecclesiastical decisions. Where was defense counsel? the big question that remains to me is Why were the damned English even allowed in the courtroom during this trial?
    why didn't someone demand a change of venue? The scales of justice balanced after a while, didn't they? The balance was at last tipped in Joan's favor. Her poor family must have suffered terribly.

    Pat H
    May 27, 2005 - 07:33 am
    It seems to me that even without the dream scene, Joan comes out on top. She dies a horrible death, but she remains stedfast in her faith, it is clear that God receives her, her behavior convinces some of her persecutors that she is indeed innocent and they have committed a great wrong, and Warwick realizes that the world has not seen the last of her. The ending of this scene is so strong that the audience must feel almost poleaxed. I wonder how the epilogue feels afterward. Maybe it is a necessary slow release of tension. (Of course it's also there to make some of Shaw's points.)

    Joan Pearson
    May 27, 2005 - 07:33 pm
    Hey there, Andy! Good to see you. I share your outrage at the trial proceedings. But am reminded that this was the INQUISITION! This was an ecclesiastical court. Technically they were gathered simply to determine whether or not Joan was a heretic, and if so they would excommunicate, not execute her. Of course, excommunicating her meant that she was to be given over to the English. Can you tell me, can anyone say why Cauchon and others were so concerned that things weren't being handled right when the English immediately snatched her up for burning? Was there supposed to be a secular trial - in which Joan would have legal counsel? Her life was at stake, after all.

    There also seemed to be a question about Beavais's authority in Rouen. Was he supposed to be conducting the ecclesiastical court in Rouen, or was he out of his jurisdiction? Did you find yourself becoming more concerned with what happened to the real Joan than to Shaw's Joan?

    Joan Pearson
    May 27, 2005 - 07:40 pm
    POLEAXED, Pat? Poleaxed? I had to look that one up - (although husband knew it - asked me where I've been...) I would have challenged it in a game of Scrabble - but there it is...
    - 1 poleaxe - to hit someone so hard that they fall down

    - 2 INFORMAL - to give someone such a great shock that they do not know what to do.

    So, where were we? You see the audience poleaxed...in a state of great shock following the burning. Is poleaxed the same as outraged? I'm not sure it was clear that God had redeemed Joan to most people. Maybe to the few who had attended the trial. But the average Frenchman/the average Englishmen - would they have any way of knowing that God received her? Wasn't it later, when the trial findings were reversed, that Joan's reputation was rehabilitated and the canonization process began?

    I'm thinking that Shaw's Epilogue might have been of such importance because like Christ, Joan reappears AFTER her death (there was nothing left of her except for her heart)...she reappears after her death, thus assuring that her memory will live on.

    What did you think of the Epilogue? More comic than tragic, right? Would the audience have come through the doors "poleaxed" following the Epilogue?

    Pat H
    May 28, 2005 - 08:33 am
    According to the trial records, the Bishop of Beauvais (Cauchon) claimed jurisdiction over the trial because Joan was captured in his Diocese. The trial was held in Rouen to please the English King. The See was vacant, and Cauchon asked, and was given, permission from the Chapter of the Cathedral to conduct the trial. So his presence was legitimate.

    BaBi
    May 28, 2005 - 12:39 pm
    And I would say the English king was 'pleased' to have the trial in Rouen, as he wanted to be quite sure the results would be what he wanted. Which, of course, is why Warwick was there.

    Babi

    Joan Pearson
    May 28, 2005 - 04:11 pm
    Hmmm, I guess that's why the Inquisitor is an important balance to Cauchon's presence at the trial. Cauchon has every reason to want to see Joan removed. I guess so does the Inquisitor.
    But they both repent - after the fact. I wonder what effect the martyrdom had on these two after the REAL Joan was burned?

    From the very start of the epilogue, you just know the mood has changed. Charles, reading in bed, knees propped up, enjoying Fouquet's Boccaccio. We had a portrait of Charles earlier, do you remember? Fouquet was Charles' court artist.

    "It might be assumed when reading this that the "Boccaccio" that Charles was reading was The Decameron (Il Decameron), and that Shaw deliberately wanted to underlay his dream scene with the sexual suggestiveness for which some of Boccaccio's tales in that book are notorious. 1 Boccaccio's Decameron is well known in the history of literature for being written, like Dante's The Divine Comedy, in vernacular Italian rather than the scholarly Latin. In this sense it seemed an appropriate forerunner for Shaw, whose masterly prose style is heavily inflected by colloquialism. Fouquet's illustrated Boccaccio
    I wonder at Shaw's portrayal of Charles after Joan's death. Here in the Epilogue we learn that he actually fought in battles, led his Army...but what kind of a man is he now? Did Joan's martyrdom have any effect on him?

    I'm thinking that looking at Boccaccio's illustrations before drifting off to sleep put Charles into a dream mode before the cast and Joan began to make their way on stage...

    This is all just a dream...Charles' dream - and Shaw's way of ending his play.

    Kayteez
    May 29, 2005 - 08:59 am
    Sorry I'm late on V and V1,

    I found Shaw's dialogues superficial...full of power politics, very little about Joan's reasoning. Why couldn't he have put some of Joan's 'voices' into a dialogue? I guess what I'm saying is Shaw really didn't write a play about Joan; it was written to show how governments and Churches see only threat to their authority.

    On the other hand, the Epilogue dialogue is real.and more important it gives Joan the opportunity to speak on the same level as her tormentors.I would like to see the epilogue as a play...I wonder if it has ever been included in any of the Joan plays.

    Joan Pearson
    May 29, 2005 - 12:16 pm
    Kathleen, thank you for speaking frankly. I'm wondering if others felt the same way. I'm thinking back to the start - and trying to remember what I expected. You write that "Shaw really didn't write a play about Joan; it was written to show how governments and Churches see only threat to their authority." I agree, that was a big part of it.

    But wasn't he writing a play about a strong woman who stood up for her beliefs, even to the death? He played down the voices, he played down the fact that she was taking direction from them, from God. He was interested in Joan as a person who stood up for what she believed in, even if she was alone in her beliefs - even to her death.

    Yes, the Epilogue is included in the play - the audience sees the dream scene. In his Preface, Shaw responds to his critics who complained about the 4 hour production that the Epilogue is crucial to the play. That's an interesting idea - Kathleen would have liked the Saints Catherine, Margaret and Michael to have taken part in the dream scene! I'm thinking though that Shaw really wanted to play down the roles of these three "characters."

    Joan Pearson
    May 29, 2005 - 12:33 pm
    I scribbled a few notes when reading Harold Bloom on Shaw (separate, not connected notes) - Perhaps they expains why Joan was an attractive subject for Shaw...

    - "Shaw did respond to Joan with the necessary "sense of sympathetic admiration inspired by 'her irreducible uniqueness." There was in this an element of personal identification with Joan. Joan's single-mindedness, her militant spirit, her directness in cutting through forms and ceremonies to the heart of the matter, all essentially congenial to Shaw."

    - "Above all where he felt an affinity with Joan was in the capacity to be right when everyone else was wrong.

    - "He was convinced that he was, like Joan, if not a martyr at least a witness to an understanding of the world which could only come after him."

    - "What we really get is a Joan cut down to Shavian size."

    - "But Shaw's imagination did go out to Joan, he did dramatize something of the extraordinary quality of her life."

    Joan Pearson
    May 29, 2005 - 12:41 pm
    It was a comic moment, didn't you think, when Joan asked the assembled who had just finished praising her, what they thought of the idea of her returning? One by one, they bowed out, unable to answer her question.

    If Joan were to rise again, come back to life, would she have been burned again - same charge - even in a different court?

    JoanK
    May 29, 2005 - 01:07 pm
    If Joan were to rise again, come back to life, would she have been burned again - same charge - even in a different court?

    No, she would be "lovingly" institutionalized and fed drugs until she became a zombie.

    Joan Pearson
    May 29, 2005 - 02:13 pm
    Oh dear, that's exactly what she didn't want to happen the first time...she wanted her freedom. Drugs or carp, it didn't matter. she needed to be free. Lucky for her she didn't get the "opportunity" to come back.

    You think she would have been convicted of heresy again? But not turned over to the English this time...

    Pat H
    May 29, 2005 - 05:43 pm
    I was going to say that one of Shaw's points was that someone like Joan would always be burned again--that people can't stand anyone whose ideas are ahead of the times or who are always right. But the world has changed since 1924, and I think JoanK has it right about what would happen now.

    Joan Pearson
    May 29, 2005 - 06:30 pm
    "People can't stand anyone whose ideas are ahead of the times or who are always right" - now you sound like Shaw, Pat. He believed he was right and that no one else had the vision he had. One of the reasons he felt sympathetic to Joan.

    I agree, today you don't send your opponent, political or religious to her death. I guess we've learned by now that that's a sure-fire way to make a martyr of her and lose political advantage...but way back then - 1455, 25 years after her death, following her rehabilitation trial, I bet they'd still have the same problem with Joan's voices and the same paranoia regarding her direct contact with God to their exclusion, that the Church, the Inquisitors would have burned her all over again as a heretic.

    Pat H
    May 29, 2005 - 06:55 pm
    I sounded like Shaw because I was quoting him, not because that's what I think. I have a lot of bones to pick with his theories. Incidentally, JoanK pointed out to me that he probably felt that he would end up a martyr because of his ideas (which, of course, he knew were right, and ahead of their time).

    Pat H
    May 29, 2005 - 07:02 pm
    In our book it says that Shaw invented the Inquisitor for dramatic purposes. That isn't quite right. In the transcript of the trial, he is there, with the same name and rank as in the play, but he appears not to played much part, as he is seldom listed among the attendees of each day.

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    May 29, 2005 - 10:24 pm
    Seems to me the deal is who you know - Joan had no close connection with a religious support system - and the most important. her visions had her acting as a warrior saint - the church does not like or want women warriors -

    In the last few years a 300 year old church in New Mexico was required by Rome to get rid of its statue of Our Lady that shows her with a sword - a medivel image of her as a warrior when she appeared to St. Peter Nolasco in the early 1200s -

    The Moors were rampaging through Spain imprisoning those who refused to renounce Christianity - at first he takes the sword given to him by Mary and fights - later he attracts young noblemen as ransom exchange for those imprisoned in North Africa. The Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the Ransom of Captives [later called the Mercedarians] is credited with 70,000 rescues.

    Women also band and became ransom exchange - starting the order Sister's of Mercy who today are very active in New Mexico, Texas and Colorado especially, where there are pockets of old Spanish/Mexican Missions. The Carmelite High that I attended also had Mercy Sisters as teachers although, the Sister's more often serve as nurses in hospitals owned and run by the Sister's of Mercy as is Seton Hospital here in Austin.

    All to say Rome to this day does not like warrior women - there were many women Saints with visions of God, an Angel or other Saints and they were not martyred or put on trail.

    Birgitta of Sweden ~ Cathrine of Siena ~ Julian of Norwich ~ Margery of Lynn ~ Chiara of Pisa ~ Francesca of Rome

    Birgitta of Sweden - [in 1344 she was a prophet to Sweden and all of Europe. She had visions, prophesied the Black Death, reformed King Magnus of Sweden, involved with the 100 yrs. war, the schism, and journeyed to the Holy Land]

    Cathrine of Siena - [could see guardian angels and was given the Stigmata]

    Julian of Norwich - [was given three showings that she wrote down and was considered a Church Doctor or Theologian because of her showings]

    Margery of Lynn - [has insight that she believes could only come from God]

    Chiara of Pisa - [received the stigmata]

    Francesca of Rome - [has visions, one of the Virgin who wrapped her in her own cloak, a vision Birgitta, and others in which she saw scenes out of Dante' s Commedia of Hell and Heaven. At God's command she begs for the poor and mends the clothes of the poor]

    Hildegard von Bingen who tells the Pope a thing or two and yet is not sacrificed for her behavior.

    None of these women scare the church enough to put them on trail or martyr them.

    Where as Madame Jeanne Guyon experienced God in 1680 and went to prison for it.

    And Saint Teresa of Avila born 1515 "...was denounced as hysterical, glory-seeking, wrong-headed, stubborn, and welcomed as enlightened, wise, inspired and sincere." but was not put on trail or in prison nor martyred.

    ALF
    May 30, 2005 - 05:50 am
    Happy Birthday to you
    Happy Birthday to YOU!
    Happy Birthday to our St. JOAN-
    Happy Birthday to YOU!!


    Does everyone know that today is our very own St. Joan Pearson's birthday?

    Joan Pearson
    May 30, 2005 - 06:48 am
    hahahaha, Andy! Thank you! You beat me in here this morning! It's a very special birthday this year. When I was a kid, the Memorial Day parade always passed right by our house. My father would sit me up on our fence and I'd wave to all those bands marching in honor of my birthday. This was before Memorial Day moved from May 30 to become a Monday holiday. This was before I learned the true meaning of Memorial Day - to honor not only the war dead, but the injured and the families who loved them.

    Yesterday the Vietnam War era Vets came into town - along with their sons, friends and loved ones...right through Arlington, across the Memorial Bridge, and down Constitution Ave. to the Capitol and back - on motorcycles. "Rolling Thunder" - 250,000 motorcycles estimated. Noise and uproar, tears...they came to make you remember the sacrifice of so many- and they did. They came to honor and remember the MIAs, the POWs'. This was my Memorial Day but my birthday is still always special when Memorial Day falls on the 30th.

    Joan Grimes
    May 30, 2005 - 06:55 am
    Happy Birthday
    Joan Pearson
    and many more!
    Love,
    Joan Grimes

    Joan Pearson
    May 30, 2005 - 07:37 am
    Thank you, Joan - and a happy name day to you! This day is the anniversary of Joan's martyrdom - the date the Church designates as her feast day. Shaw, in his Epilogue to the play makes much of remembering this date (quoting directly from an official document):
    "On every thirtieth of May, being the anniversary of the death of the said most blessed daughter of God, there shall in every Catholic church to the end of time be celebrated a special office in commemoration of her..."
    I wonder if the French commemorate this date today. Ginny took that photo of Joan's statue in Paris (also referred to in Shaw's Epilogue - as being a traffic obstruction) - a blanket of flowers was left on May 8 in memory of the lifting of the siege at Orleans. Barbara, you should know that MOST statues of Joan still depict her in her armor, with sword. But of course you're right, the Church could not accept Joan the warrior PLUS her visions. Pat, yes, oh yes, the Inquisitor did play a role, a major role in Joan's condemnation. It was Shaw who invented the sympathetic Inquisitor - the one who recognized Joan's innocence. Pure Shaw.

    I did a quick google search this morning and came up with this AP mention that appeared in today's Washington Post...
    On May 30, 1431, Joan of Arc, condemned as a heretic, was burned at the stake in Rouen, France.
    Washington Post Today in History

    Joan G looked all through her extensive photo collection for a picture of the cross erected in the market square in Rouen on the very spot where Joan was burned. I would have been surprised if she found one, since the cross is so tall she'd have to have been on her back to get the top of it! I have one, but it looks like a tree trunk, top cut off. Actually it is not the cross before the Rouen church referred to in the play by Charles at the start of the Epilogue:

    "Joan - I was burned all the same. Can they unburn me?
    Charles - If they could, they would think twice before they did it. But they have decreed that a beautiful cross be placed where the stake stood, for your perpetual memory and for your salvation.
    The church and the cross were both bombed to the ground on DDay. The cross that stands there today is a modern replacement.

    Where is our other Joan, Joan K? You sound more than "crotchety" at Shaw on the subject, finding him not at all comparable to our Joan? What did you think of the Epilogue?

    Barbara St. Aubrey
    May 30, 2005 - 07:48 am
    Happy Birthday Joan - hope you have a wonderful day

    JoanK
    May 30, 2005 - 08:12 am
    Hah, hah. I guess I was a little crotchety. Maybe I didn't like Shaw because I'm too much like him.

    I thought like the rest of you that the epilogue was funny and made Shaws points, but crotchety (again) and not good theater.

    Pat H
    May 30, 2005 - 11:01 am
    Happy Birthday, Joan! I supposed if I had been thinking, I could have guessed that today might be the day. Have a wonderful day.

    Pat H
    May 30, 2005 - 01:17 pm
    Yes, the epilogue is very funny. I particularly like the soldier who finds Hell a snap after 15 years in the army, but feels his day off is a bit dreary. I’m not sure I have the dramatic imagination, but it seems to me to be good theater. We start with Charles alone and bring in the characters one by one to speak their pieces, very appreciative of Joan, then one by one they slink off with lame excuses, leaving Joan alone and magnificent.

    Pat H
    May 30, 2005 - 01:21 pm
    A minor quibble. The epilogue opens with Charles looking at Fouquet's Boccaccio. There is no way for the audience to know what the book is.

    Deems
    May 30, 2005 - 02:24 pm
    Happy BIRTHDAY, Joan!!

    Pat H
    May 30, 2005 - 05:25 pm
    One of Shaw’s claims is that Joan is the first Protestant Saint. By this he seems to mean that she rejects the necessity of the Church as intermediary between the individual and God, maybe also that she partially rejects the authority of the Church. Shaw certainly emphasizes this in his trial scene.

    I read the transcript of the trial to see how it seemed there. Her answers are not as pert and witty as in the play, but we aren’t reading her actual words, just a summary and besides, she isn't playing for the theater. She did continue to hear her voices, they told her she would be taken, and they continue to speak to her in captivity. The voices did not tell her to take Paris (subject of earlier posts).

    There is this amount of justification for Shaw’s claim: throughout, she continues to know that her voices come from God, and she should obey them first and foremost. She follows their orders in the face of orders from her interrogators. But it’s silly to call her the first Protestant. Changing the Church is totally not on her agenda. She has complete respect for the Church, and goes to Mass whenever she has a chance. In fact, a day or so before her execution, Cauchon allowed her to receive the Sacrament; This shows his doubts, since if she can do this, she is not a heretic.

    I was a little surprised at the dramatic impact this dry record has. This bit is notable:

    And later, her voices said to her: Take it all cheerfully. Do not despair on account of your martyrdom, for in the end you will come to the Kingdom of Heaven. This her voices told her simply and definitely, without faltering. And her martyrdom she called the pain and suffering that she was undergoing in prison; and she does not know whether she will suffer still more, but puts all her faith in Our Lord.

    Pat H
    May 30, 2005 - 05:42 pm
    So here is the end of our discussion. Three cheers for St. Joan! She has triumphed over the English, her accusers, the fire, and even Bernard Shaw.

    Joan Pearson
    May 31, 2005 - 08:44 am
    What a splendid day it was! All of the Joans came in to celebrate too! And the birthday wishes were icing on my cake! Thank you so much. It was a wonderful party.

    The comic elements of the Epilogue had to send the audience out to the lobby with smiling faces, don't you think? (Do you find yourself looking at the faces of outgoing movie audiences when you're on line going in? Over the weekend we saw the new film, Ladies in Lavender with Judi Dench and Maggie Smith. The faces were all beaming as the audience came out. "Maahvelous! Just maahvelous!" Said one. And it was. Their faces said it all. See it if you can!)

    Oh yes, the soldier, the saint from hell - "old Saint mumpledum" - Shaw seems to be disengaging from the martyrdom of Joan of Arc, from the tragedy of what happened in France and suiting the story to his own purpose with the light, improbably ending.

    Pat and Joan, you seem not to agree on whether the Epilogue is "good theater." I guess if it left the audience laughing at such a tragic story, Shaw accomplished what he set out to do.

    By the way, JoanK, you left me laughing with - "Maybe I didn't like Shaw because I'm too much like him." Funny lady! I would love to meet you some day!

    ********************************************************


    Pat H - Shaw began many of his scenes with such cultural references as the Boccaccio - without explanation. Don't you wonder whether his 1920's audience were familiar with them? I enjoyed looking them up, but if in a theater audience, I'm quite sure they'd fly right over my head! Yet another reason I think the play is more enjoyable if read first, then viewed on the stage.

    Joan Pearson
    May 31, 2005 - 09:03 am
    Do you remember that I told you last month I had contacted the Joan of Arc Center in Albuquerque asking why Shaw's play was not reviewed in the site's rather extensive list of books and articles on the subject of Joan of Arc? The reply that came back to my
    "I never did the review of Shaw's play because I did not care for it. As far as I am concerned he turned her into a PROTESTANT. What more can I say?
    Pat, I'm glad you took the time to read the actual records of the trial. It is clear that Joan has not rejected her Church, is not the heretic Shaw makes her out to be (without saying this, he implies that she is a freethinker, disregarding her Church.) She does not see how there can be any conflict between the messages she is getting from God or from the Church.

    IF - and this is a big IF she find conflict between what the Church was telling her and what her VOICES were telling her - and chose to follow her voices, then I'd call her the Protestant that Shaw portrays.

    Let's leave this discussion open for another day for further comment. In the meantime, if you are interested in looking at another side of Shaw, please stop in the discussion of Pygmalion today. I'm so interested in seeing what Shaw has done with the Greek story of Pygmalion and Galatea after seeing what he did with Joan! I'm also curious to see how the musical, My Fair Lady differs from Shaw's 1916 play. We plan to begin on June 15. Pygmalion

    Harold Arnold
    May 31, 2005 - 09:10 am
    1. Did Shaw's introduction of comic elements at tragic moments dramatically lessen the impact of the play? 2. What did Shaw accomplish by ending the play with the dream scene? Does the epilogue provide a happy ending? 3. Would you classify this play as a tragedy? A comedy?


    In no way could I consider this play a comedy; neither is it tragedy in the classic Greek sense. Rather it is high melodrama with an apparent unhappy ending. But there is nothing wrong with that!

    I suppose Shaw could have ended his play at the end of Scene 6. At that point he had told Joan’s story; she had been faithful to the end and died a glorious martyr’s death with her principal antagonists beginning to doubt the wisdom of their deeds. Yet I am sure Shaw never for a moment considered closing there. To do so would have been so un-Shavian, so un-20th Century, so un-protestant, so un-antagonistic. The Epilogue was an absolute necessity to make the work, a Shaw Play.

    So he added the Epilogue skillfully using the Charles dream to extend the time range of the drama to the 20th century. There we get considerable details of her exoneration of the charges on which she had been condemned and her final triumphant canonization as a Saint. The Epilogue does indeed provide a happy ending.

    Joan Pearson
    May 31, 2005 - 09:24 pm
    Thanks, Harold. I think we have to include the Epilogue with the rest of the play...Shaw insisted on that. The comic elements took away the tragic aspects of the play, though, don't you think? Maybe it's easier to simply call the play a satire and leave it at that.

    As you say, "the Epilogue was an absolute necessity to make the work, a Shaw Play."

    I am trying to remember the source of the anecdote I scribbled out...I think it must be Harold Bloom - in which Shaw was speaking before a group of literary types. In speaking of Joan's tendency to know everybody's business better than they knew it themselves, he searched for an adjective to describe her and came up with - "insufferable." The woman who closed the meeting turned the tables on him with "it is not Joan of Arc, but Bernard Shaw who is insufferable." How do you like that summing-up, JoanK?

    JoanK
    June 1, 2005 - 04:06 pm
    ""it is not Joan of Arc, but Bernard Shaw who is insufferable." How do you like that summing-up, JoanK?"

    PERFECT

    Joan Pearson
    June 1, 2005 - 06:32 pm
    I have to end by being fair to our Shaw...he did have a sense of humor about himself. If not for that, he really would have been "insufferable." He empathized with Joan, he felt that they were kindred spirits. He certainly recognized that when he labelled her, he was labelling himself insufferable as well.

    I certainly hope to see you in Pygmalion on the 15th. The "insufferable" Henry Higgins awaits us.

    Harold Arnold
    June 2, 2005 - 08:26 am
    Ok lets leave Joan for history now. Hopefully I'll see all of you again on June the 15 for Pygmalion.

    And Joan for next year please consider offering other Shaw Plays. "Major Barbara" and "Man and Superman" would be good candidates. Though my favorite is "Major Barbara," "Man and Superman" probably carries a greater universal appeal.

    Marjorie
    June 2, 2005 - 08:58 pm
    Thank you all for your participation. This discussion is being archived and is now Read Only.