Saint Joan

I have a great passion for reading. In between novels, I love delving into an enthralling play. It's as if it zaps the brain awake! I never expected to be so completely captivated by this tragic retelling of Joan of Arc's final demise. But truly, it was an absolute thrill and a real page-turner. I adored this particular section:

"Joan: Aye lad but you cannot fight stone walls with horses, you must have guns, and much bigger guns too.
Dunois: Aye lass, but a good heart and a stout ladder will get over the stoniest wall.
Joan: I will be first up the ladder when we reach the fort, Bastard. I dare you to follow me!"

Shaw's modernist tragi-comic version is not only satirical and witty but also exceptionally clever. It doesn't just "dig at the ribs" of the ecclesiastical and monarchical corruption that was so characteristic of the fifteenth century. In fact, it's common not only in Shaw's era but also in our own, as is captured in this extract from a ghost from hell:

"Aye put the blame on the priests, but I who am beyond praise and blame tell you that the world is saved neither by its priests or its soldiers, but by God and His Saints..."

Joan, in her own simple words, was "a soldier and nothing else." This is a timeless piece of historical drama, told with Shaw's razor-sharp pen. It continues to engage and fascinate readers, transporting them back to a time of great turmoil and heroism.

It has been quite some time since I delved into reading a play, and this particular one turned out to be exactly what I required.

As I was reading, I came to the realization that I had never witnessed any form of media depicting Joan of Arc. However, Shaw's portrayal of her in this play was, in my opinion, extremely well done.

The epilogue, despite being a little on the unserious side, was actually quite nice. It provided a thoughtful conclusion to what could have been a rather bitter ending.

Joan, they simply were not prepared for your nonbinary authenticity, and perhaps they never will be.

I am truly grateful to Fabiola for gifting me this wonderful book. <3

I am currently re-reading the rather lengthy introduction. It serves as an excellent antidote following my Cradle of Filth concert. I would highly promote St Joan as a lesbian icon. In today's times, anything that can get some greens onto the kids' plates is a welcome effort! Reconciling Christianity in an honest manner while also embracing relativistic psychology poses a great challenge.

Shaw is extremely fair in demonstrating that the harsh justice of the medieval Church was no more severe than that of today's society when it comes to safeguarding itself against challenges to the status quo. He points out the summary execution of "traitors" during the war of his era. Additionally, he highlights that at least they founded their actions upon an honest belief in the salvation of the eternal soul and faith in the love of God and His Church.

This is an enjoyable read that offers a convincingly human portrayal of Joan and her contemporaries. However, I can't help but wonder how effectively it would translate to an actual staging.

Without the author's copious explanations regarding the exact thoughts and expressions of the characters, as well as his theory of the medieval Church, it might be a challenge for the audience to fully understand and engage with the story.

On the other hand, at least one wouldn't have to deal with his 'reformed' spelling. This aspect could potentially be a relief for some readers who might find the unconventional spelling distracting.

Overall, while the book has its strengths in presenting a humanized view of historical figures, its suitability for staging remains a question mark. The lack of in-depth explanations during a live performance could potentially lead to a loss of some of the story's nuances and meanings.

Nonetheless, it is still an interesting read that offers valuable insights into the lives and times of Joan and her contemporaries.

Nationalism is often a complex and controversial topic. Albert Einstein once said, "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." George Orwell also believed that "Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception." On the other hand, Muammar Gaddafi stated, "Those nations whose sense of nationalism has been awakened are bound to perish." So, is nationalism good or bad? Can it be simply answered in one word? Probably not.

In 2022, looking at the world map, we can see the names of countries. The inhabitants of these countries have divided the land according to their own needs and interests. This division is mainly based on religion or language. For example, the British created East Pakistan based on religion, and later, Bangladesh emerged based on language. There are not many examples in the world where a nation has established an independent country based on language. Bangladesh is one of the youngest countries in the world. Most of the countries that have enhanced the beauty of the world map for centuries have been created with religion at the center. First, religion, and then the awareness of nationalism, have laid the foundation for these ancient countries. Nationalism and religious belief are always closely intertwined because both teachings are taught to consider oneself superior to others.

In today's world, the issue of religious belief can be easily toyed with by many. It may seem like a simple fantasy of a weak and ignorant mind. However, it cannot be denied that the major changes in the world have come about through the hands of religion. The astronomers of ancient Egypt, Greece, and India drew the map of the universe thousands of years ago to determine the time of worship of their respective gods. With this knowledge, the James Webb Telescope has now arrived. On the other hand, Bach and Michelangelo sang the praises of their God and Son, and painted amazing frescoes on the walls. From Michelangelo to Bach, from Joan of Arc to Iqbal Khan - in politics, linguistics, astronomy, art, cartography...where has religion not played a role as a giver? Their respective gods may be different from each other, but in the progress of science or art, religious belief has always played a role as a fuel in one way or another.

Joan of Arc is one of the most important figures in French history. If someone were to say that modern France began to take shape with the help of Joan of Arc, it would not seem like an exaggeration. Joan was born in a very动荡time when France and England were at war over land for 116 years. Historians call this the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453). We know France and England as the bearers and carriers of civilization today, but this civilization did not come overnight. To understand how野蛮it was to fight for 116 years, we need to look at the history of this war. Without this historical turmoil, the role of Joan of Arc would not be clear to us, nor would the agenda of Bernard Shaw's play about Joan.

The Hundred Years' War between England and France began mainly when King Edward III of England claimed the throne of France. After the death of King Charles IV of France in 1328, there was no suitable male heir to the French throne. Charles had seven children, but only one daughter survived. Since 987, the rule in France has been that the king's son will be the king; if there is no son, the nearest male relative will inherit the throne. King Edward III of England was the son of Charles' sister Isabella of France. He claimed that since he was the nearest male relative of the childless Charles, the French throne was now his. The claim to the throne through the mother's side had never been heard of in France before, nor was it necessary, because all previous kings had had sons.

Although the French culture has no connection with the Islamic religion, and in many cases, their positions are completely opposite, there is a surprising similarity between a rule in medieval France and a provision in Islam: the denial of female leadership. Just as a woman cannot be the prime minister or president in Islamic law, medieval France also excluded women from all these political activities; the idea of female leadership was almost a thing of the past for the French in the Middle Ages. When Edward claimed the French throne through his mother, France rejected it based on their historical denial of female leadership. The legal principle that the French lawmakers showed, with the Latin name "Nemo plus juris ad alium transfere potest quam ipse habet", which means in simple Bengali, "You cannot transfer the responsibility of a higher position to anyone more than your own social position." (Does this rule still apply in our country? Is it because of this rule that ordinary people, students, teachers, workers, rickshaw pullers cannot elect the prime minister of our country by voting? Since there is no one higher in position than the prime minister in the country, does he have to elect himself?) Deprived of the French throne, Edward became a hostage and stopped paying taxes to France, which made the French king angry and he invaded some English lands. Thus began the Hundred Years' War.
Edward's descendants continued this war. Finally, 83 years after the start of the war, in 1420, the English offered a treaty to the French. According to the treaty, the English recognized Charles VI as the king of France, but with the condition that Charles' daughter's husband, Henry V of England, would be the heir to the French throne. Through this treaty, Charles VI's son, Charles VII (who later became Charles VII), was effectively excluded, and it was ensured that the French throne would come under English control. Shortly after the treaty was made, both Charles VI and Henry V, the two main figures in the treaty, died. Henry V's 9-year-old son, Henry VI, then became the king of France. It should be noted here that Henry VI was the only English king who, following the procedure, also became the king of France. Before and after him, many English kings claimed to be the king of France, but it was only a formality. Henry VI was the only 'de facto' English king who simultaneously became the king of France.
When Joan of Arc was born in 1412, the king of France was Charles VI, with whom the English had made that hasty treaty. Charles VI was mentally very ill, and it was often impossible for him to manage the affairs of the state. Taking advantage of his weak rule, his brother Louis (Duke of Orléans) and their close relative John the Fearless (Duke of Burgundy) fought for power. John the Fearless assassinated Louis, which led to a civil war in France. Two different political parties emerged in France, one led by John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, and the other by the followers of the assassinated Louis, who began to call themselves the Armagnacs.
Charles VII, who had been in the background all this time (he was excluded from the throne by the English when they made the treaty with his father Charles VI), now joined hands with the Armagnacs and became politically strong. In the middle of this, an extremely eager group of Armagnacs assassinated John the Fearless, and the blame was placed on Charles VII. Earlier, Charles VI had excluded his son Charles VII by making a treaty with the English, and now, with the blame for the assassination placed on him, there was chaos in the country that Charles VII was not the legitimate son of Charles VI, but rather the illegitimate child of Charles VI's wife Isabella and the assassinated Duke of Orléans, Louis. When Charles VI and Henry V died within a two-month period, Charles VII now directly challenged the 9-year-old Henry VI for the throne. He declared himself the Dauphin (the rightful and legitimate heir to the throne). Amidst all these internal upheavals and decades of war, France was in a very bad state. France was losing a little bit of itself every day to the English. It was at this time that 17-year-old Joan of Arc appeared as the savior of France.
Joan, who came from a very ordinary peasant family, began to spread the word in her village that she had received a command in a dream to crown Charles VII as the king in Reims Cathedral. Through the dream, Joan was given this great responsibility by the angels Michael (whom Muslims know as Mikael), Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine. Both Saint Margaret and Saint Catherine were martyred at the age of 15-16 by the Romans for their unwavering Christian faith. Joan began to create a huge public opinion in favor of crowning Charles in Reims Cathedral; since ancient times, Reims Cathedral had been the coronation site for French kings. Riding on this dream, the French army achieved some initial successes against the English, and many became convinced that Joan had truly come on a divine mission to liberate the French. Joan crowned Charles in Reims Cathedral, and at the end of a long and dark night, a glimmer of hope for France's independence could be seen... To stop Joan's victorious march, the English and their allies, the Burgundians (who were actually French), began to plot a conspiracy in their camp.
Joan's fortune did not last long. Soon after, she was captured by the Burgundians. Her trial began under the English Church. The main accusation against Joan was: blasphemy! Joan had rejected God's command by dressing like a man, she had established herself as an opponent of the Church, and her dreams had supernatural visions - how was this possible without worshipping the devil? The English bore the entire cost of this trial of Joan; 131 clergy were given the responsibility of seeing the accusation of blasphemy against Joan written down, and all but 8 of them were French, but they were all followers of the English king or the Burgundians. We don't need to rush to understand the outcome of this trial in a country where a trial is set up. The decision to burn Joan alive had been made long before the start of this trial.
Bernard Shaw claims in his play 'Saint Joan' that he has no villain; those who judged Joan or gave the verdict of punishment were not really bad. The English had held France's independence hostage out of their patriotism, and their French allies, the Burgundians - those who were seen as traitors in the eyes of the French - had also joined hands with the English for the sake of that patriotism. Here, no one can be simply painted black and white. Maybe this claim is quite true in the context of the dark and backward Europe of the Middle Ages. Standing 6-700 years after Joan's time, perhaps it is not appropriate to measure that time with the yardstick of good and bad in our time. However, in Shaw's play, in the scene of that trial, we can see the historical figures exactly as we want to see them. The claim that Shaw makes in a calm voice does not quite match, and the 'bad people' come across as 'bad' only through their actions and conversations.
Shaw ends the play with a tragic scene; the disembodied Joan returns to earth for a while from the afterlife, and then she learns that at the time of writing the play, in 1920, the Catholic Church had canonized her as a saint. Joan then requests that she be allowed to return to the mortal world as a human again; no one answers her request because the mortal world is still not ready to receive its great men (especially 'great women'). Even 700 years after Joan's death, the question will still be asked why her clothes were not feminine, why she fought in the war like a man, why she did not sit in the corner of the house with a cloth on her head and her face covered?
Most of the great thinkers in the world have hated and taught to hate nationalism. But the seed of nationalism that Joan sowed in the minds of the French people, perhaps if she had not done so, the history of France would have been completely different, perhaps there would be no such country. If this aspect of nationalism did not exist, perhaps the existence of the country called Bangladesh would not be there today. I started this writing with the words of three very famous people, one of whose statements is completely opposite to the statements of the other two. Great thinkers like Albert Einstein or George Orwell have condemned nationalism, while Muammar Gaddafi has embraced it. So, where is the mistake? Are Orwell and Einstein not so great after all?
In fact, everyone in the world is more or less like Gaddafi. Orwell and Einstein are only one in a million.

The preface is truly a most remarkable essay. It might even possess greater merit than the play that follows. In fact, the play seems more like an addendum to the preface rather than the other way around.

Shaw's profound musings on the horrors of life imprisonment compared to the more humane death penalty are brilliantly illustrated. He also delves into the unquestionable dogma of bourgeois democracy as a tactic of obfuscation. This arises from the need for an indirect imposition of conformity rather than stating rules outright that justify themselves through the possibility of violent enforcement to wield power. Additionally, his firm rejection of a teleological understanding of history, among other things, is of great urgency, especially in our present day.

The play, in my opinion, has a bit too much of the station drama. However, as a didactic exercise, it functions well enough. I must admit, though, that I prefer the bumbling didacticism of Brecht to this somewhat half-baked dramatic essay. Shaw proves himself to be an Ibsenist of the highest order. While Ibsen was essentially a Gottsched who had a genius for dramatic construction but no flair for the theater itself, Shaw is a dramatist with a touch too much of the schoolmaster in him. It is a work of genius, in the sense that Shaw himself offers in the preface. But, as he also argues, genius often proves indigestible.

\"The Lark\" - Joan of Arc
\"This world is a filthy place and I cannot abide it. If the English and the Burgundians do not kill me, the French will. If it were not for the voices I hear, my heart would be too weak and filled with cowardice.\" Joan of Arc, \"The Maid\", as they called her.
Throughout this work, I was not impressed by the courage of Joan of Arc, the peasant girl who led the French army to victory, nor by her encounter and eloquence that amazed me as much as her faith. I thought often about that faith and belief that led her to her death, to be burned after the French armies abandoned her and left her to the judgment of the temporal and religious authorities. Her voices that made her face death with confidence and holy steadfastness.
She remained firm until the end... So no one could save her... She was alone and she knew it.
How often I stopped at her words after everyone abandoned her after crowning Charles VII as king of France.
\"I have learned that the unity of God is the secret of His strength, and so my strength will be in my unity with God. He will not betray my sincerity, nor will His love fail me, nor will His counsel deceive me, and I will draw support from His support.\"
Joan acted with the simplicity and purity of a child, and although she had great courage, I did not see her faith as a holy faith, but rather as the faith of a child who was used to following the flocks and listening to stories and legends under the shade of the church.
I was impressed by Bernard Shaw's description, as he introduced me to his witty sense in several scenes, and I think this is due to his work as a comedian for a period of his life. He was completely successful in writing a suitable ending for the play, and I think his realistic portrayal of the trial scene was wonderful.
\"Saint Joan\" is a realistic play by the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw, which is considered one of the classics of realistic drama. Joan of Arc, nicknamed the Maid of Orleans, is the heroine of French national history, who led the French to victory in the Battle of Orleans in 1431 and was burned for heresy a year later by the Catholic Church. Although a large part of her burning was due to the political intrigues of the time, I think Bernard Shaw agrees with this as well, as he wrote in his long preface, \"The amount of tolerance that a society can achieve in any era depends on the amount of suffering that this society endures in maintaining the cohesion and connection of its parts.\" She was acquitted two centuries later, and it took four and a half centuries for the Roman Catholic Church to canonize her as a saint.

Good day, Joan.

Today, I want to talk to you about a very interesting topic.

It's about the importance of continuous learning in our lives.

In this rapidly changing world, we need to constantly update our knowledge and skills to keep up with the pace.

Learning new things not only broadens our horizons but also enriches our lives.

It can open up new opportunities for us and help us achieve our goals.

Whether it's through reading books, taking courses, or attending seminars, there are many ways to learn.

We should make learning a part of our daily routine and never stop seeking new knowledge.

So, let's embrace the spirit of continuous learning and strive to become better versions of ourselves.

Thank you for listening, Joan.