A Hero and a Legend

6 September 2012


After delving into Henry VI part one, my thoughts turned to Shaw's play about Joan of Arc. And I'm truly glad they did. When I previously wrote a review of this play, I felt I omitted quite a few aspects and, in many ways, missed the essence of what Shaw was striving to convey. I'll do my best not to repeat what I've already said about the play, as those points remain valid, except for the final paragraph. It wasn't a vision Joan had but rather a strange collective vision that Charles the Victorious had 25 years after the events, where the participants reflect on what transpired.


One of the things I truly appreciate about Bernard Shaw is his practice of explaining most of his plays in a prologue (although not all plays have this privilege). He also utilizes the prologue (and sometimes an epilogue) to elucidate and expand on the play's themes, always referring back to the play for a better understanding. These prologues are excellent as they prevent English teachers from distorting the play's meaning away from the author's original intention. Perhaps Shaw did this because of what was emerging from the universities in his era (or maybe the audience simply didn't get it).


Shaw employs the play to explore the trial of Joan of Arc and pose the question of its fairness. His answer is that it was, as the trial was conducted in a manner much better than some of the show trials today. In fact, the trial's nature was simply to determine whether Joan was indeed a heretic and if she would recant her sins. Joan didn't consider herself a heretic; she was a beloved child of God. However, she was having visions and speaking on behalf of God, something the church couldn't tolerate. In those days, revelation was restricted to the church, and no one could speak on God's behalf outside of it. The issue of her being a woman wasn't really raised, but since many of the church's leaders (in fact, all of them) were men, having a woman step forward as one of God's chosen was offensive to them.


The question isn't whether the church was right or wrong because the church was adhering to its law, and that law had been broken. Someone had claimed a vision of God and sought to speak God's word out of place. As Shaw points out and continues to emphasize throughout the play, this is the essence of protestantism, and as he indicates, Joan was one of the first protestants. Not because she criticized the Church's teachings but because, not being a member of the clergy, she dared to act as if she were, and that was unacceptable. The reason being that it undermined the authority of the church and the Pope. The Church existed to unify Western Europe, and any challenge to that unification was bound to bring bloodshed to the continent. In fact, it did, as evidenced by the 30 Year War, which was often a conflict between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church.


Many view Joan as a poor illiterate farm girl, and I believe this adds to the romance of her character. Joan is a classic example of how through death one ceases to be human and becomes a legend. It's far more romantic for someone from the dirt and grime of the peasant community to rise up and become a legend than if she were a highborn farm girl whose family had influence in local affairs. The same is true of Jesus. We like to think of him as a poor peasant, which he wasn't; he was a carpenter, and carpenters were tradespeople, not peasants. We don't like the idea of Jesus coming from the middle class, so we ignore the man and create the legend.


Joan, as Shaw also explores, is what I would term a modern prophetess, and she meets the fate of a prophetess. In fact, many prophets and prophetesses have met the same end, if we include some of the reformers who had sticky fates. We can even give Martin Luther King that title, though while not executed under state authority, he did find himself on the receiving end of an assassin's bullet. Socrates' execution was state-sponsored, as were those of a number of the early Christians. He also notes that it's more likely for a hero and a martyr to be canonized than a Pope. In a way, he suggests that a Pope isn't fit for canonization simply because, while he may be the authority over the church, he hasn't done anything to move the church and humanity forward (though I believe Pope John Paul II is on his way there).


I want to conclude by discussing the Hundred Years War a bit more. I mentioned earlier that Joan was executed and suggested it was the French who did it, but that's not correct. The French can't escape blame because not only did they simply step back and not intervene, but it was the Church that condemned her, and the French had influence within the church. It's similar to the situation of Pilate, who, despite washing his hands of the blood of Christ, still handed him over to be executed even though he had the power to release him. As such, by handing him over, one can't avoid blame.


The time when Joan appeared, the war had been raging for about 90 years (as far as historians are concerned, though the war actually lasted much longer and was more a series of skirmishes and battles than one long continuous war). In the play, Joan speaks about France being for the French and, in a way, is flagging the beginning of nationalism. She says that England is for the English, not France, but Shaw seems to have overlooked something. England was, and still is, conquered by the Normans. The Normans were never driven out of England; instead, England was incorporated into Norman territories, so in a way, much of the region was actually English. However, they had expanded and taken more than their fair share. Yet we must remember that if the English hadn't managed to conquer France in 90 years, they never would. The war had cost the lives of at least three Kings, as well as at least one crown prince. But the French were also suffering. Joan indicates that to the French, the war was a game, but it was a game they were losing. So Joan comes along and shows them how to fight a war. It's a change of strategy, a change of tactics, and it put the English on the defensive.


So, by examining this play and this period, we see several major changes. The first is the beginnings of the reformation, where a woman appears and speaks on behalf of God without Church authority. We have the concept of England for the English and France for the French, which is the dawn of nationalism (which protestantism also brought about because it broke the Church's rule over Western Europe). And finally, we also witness a change in warfare, as it moved away from the jousting contests of the Middle Ages and into the idea of fighting for freedom, for nationalism, and to defeat an enemy. Oh, and before I forget, just to be clear, Joan was captured by the Burgundians (allies of the English), who then handed her over to the Church for trial, and the Church then handed her over to the English to be executed.


The Birth of Feminism

17 August 2009


Joan of Arc was a hero of the French during the Hundred Years War and is regarded as the crucial turning point that delivered the French from English domination. Even though she won only a couple of battles and her life ended at the stake, it was enough to turn the tide of the war over the next twenty years (though the English still maintained a foothold in Calais). At the time the play was written, Joan had just been canonized by the church, and the play was written in response to that.


While Shaw wasn't decidedly anti-Christian, he was a socialist and a critic of the social structure (particularly the treatment of women). This play is no different. Like Shakespeare before him, this is a history play, but it has a tragic ending. Joan, as history tells us, ended her life at the stake, convicted of witchcraft. As the story goes, France was at war with England and was losing badly. Joan, a devout Catholic, received a vision and rose up to lead the French armies against the English. After a series of decisive battles, she turned the tide of the war. Suddenly, public opinion turned against her, and she was found guilty of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Talk about gratitude.


I guess this is a story of gratitude and how, hundreds of years after the event, the woman is finally recognized for what she did for France. I suppose it's possible to be repentant for an act committed by one's ancestors. We've seen this in Australia with the apology to the aboriginals for the stolen generation (where we took the children of the aboriginals from their families and placed them in Western schools to teach them Western values). Unlike the stolen generation, this happened centuries ago and involved one person, so there's no fear of being sued for one's actions.


What's interesting is how this play ends. After she's been found guilty, she's given one final vision where she sees herself as a hero remembered throughout the ages and, in the end, canonized. She seizes on this to request redemption in the present but is sternly rebuked. The conclusion is that while she's a hero and the savior of France, Europe, and indeed the world, simply aren't ready for a female heroine or even a female monarch. Okay, England managed to have female monarchs much sooner than many other nations, but Joan is a person out of time. She shouldn't exist because it's too uncomfortable for a male-dominated society to accept a female warrior (and in many cases, it still is).

GBS was truly a remarkable writer. His play "St. Joan" stands as his sole tragedy, which makes it rather ironic that this particular play was actually quite funny.

I have yet to witness the play in person, but I can easily envision myself seated in the third row, erupting into laughter every ten minutes. It is definitely something I must look into. I wonder if anyone else shares the opinion that it is extremely humorous?

Perhaps the unexpected comical elements within a tragedy add a unique layer of depth and entertainment to the play. It challenges our preconceived notions of what a tragedy should be and keeps the audience engaged in a different way.

GBS's ability to blend comedy and tragedy in "St. Joan" showcases his versatility as a playwright and his talent for creating works that are both thought-provoking and entertaining. I look forward to experiencing this play for myself and discovering the full extent of its humor and charm.

Remarkably, the same is true here in Sh - there are many problems with Sh. This person will make all kinds of claims that are anti-traditional, contradictory, and often baseless. However, contrary to his other problems, his ability to write dialogues is smooth like butter. There is no noticeable deviation in this play either. For some plausible reasons, he claimed in the play that this play reflects very well the real events of the Zone of Ark, and for some other plausible reasons, he defined nationalism in the Padre of the 14th century. But the way the events are presented and the way his definition is derived - ah.

It is a strange thing that Sh says he does not want to have any enemies for this play in Zone, those who are criticizing it will understand it well. However, after reading this play, still, sometimes the character of Khal will come to mind. Maybe it is a natural characteristic of human beings to look for enemies and see if they can fill the gap of those enemies. It can be played with a little push and pull, and then whoever it is.

After reading this play, the story of Luther of John Osborne came to mind. Both stories take place before the Middle Ages, both are about religious and political matters, and both bring characters who are not real but bear the names of the real on stage. Although Sh has come here as always for the sake of intelligence, the story of that play would have been better. But here, what is strange - in Bengali, it is something like this - Witt, God go.

The role at the beginning of the play is the same, and that is also equally beautiful. Everything together is amazing.

An interesting and highly entertaining perspective on Joan of Arc is presented here. Historically, she has been a very controversial figure, especially when it comes to Shaw's insistence on Cauchon's political impartiality. However, this need not overly concern us. Whether it is historically justifiable or not, the sharp exchanges between Cauchon, the principled upholder of canon law, and Warwick, who simply requires any available PR cover for the politically imperative disposal of Joan, are among the finest aspects of the play.

There are numerous other excellent elements as well. Notably, the opening comedy at Vaucouleurs, the intense back-and-forth of the trial, and in my humble opinion (though this is a minority view), the imaginative and wry epilogue.

The main issue lies with Joan herself. Understandably, GBS desired to strip away all the excessive religiosity that had accumulated around her in the lead-up to canonization. But, being Shaw, he went too far. I can accept her rustic manners, her tactless frankness, and her adolescent insistence on principle at all costs. All of this makes her seem real enough. However, the most crucial aspect of Joan of Arc, surely, was the extremely powerful charismatic effect she had on others. And I don't think this is conveyed successfully at all. In the context, she must have inspired a profound sense of religious awe, which is completely absent here. His Joan claims a direct line to heaven, is very self-assured, and is remarkably bossy - that's about it. Various characters tell us that, yes, they have been reduced to jelly by her, but it is not at all clear why they should have been.

When contrasted with the portrayal of the great charismatic characters in Shakespeare, Shaw's limitations as a dramatist become glaringly obvious.

Having already delved into Schiller's interpretation of the material, I harbored certain expectations. However, Shaw's version far exceeded them.

There is a fascinating emphasis on what one's motivation is permitted to be. This is explored through the exploitation of Joan by power-hungry men and a hypocritical church that contradicts its core beliefs in the pursuit of secular power.

Joan's simplicity and earnestness are paired with her strong will, which at times makes her appear arrogant. This is exquisitely contrasted by the calculated and sometimes even compassion-seeming philosophizing of the church as it searches for religious justifications to kill her. That is precisely why the 4th scene is so remarkable!

It is a gripping tragedy for Joan, with devastating implications for the Catholic Church as a whole. The story unfolds with a sense of inevitability, drawing the reader or viewer in and leaving them with a profound sense of the human condition and the consequences of power and belief.

In Saint Joan, Shaw made a remarkable attempt, and perhaps even achieved, a masterpiece founded on this very conception.

The play serves as a flawless illustration of the hero as a victim who is transformed into a savior. Shaw has crafted his most enduring portrayal of the Life Force in Saint Joan. The protagonist, Joan, aspires to lead the common people by being an individual of outstanding character and vision.

Shaw's Saint Joan is both witty and self-assured. She adheres to reason and common sense yet does not conform to the stereotype of a religious martyr. Saint Joan is regarded as Shaw's only tragedy, despite containing many humorous passages. However, it has also been described as a comedy with one tragic scene.

In the first scene, Robert de Baudricourt ridicules Joan, but his servant is inspired by her words. Eventually, de Baudricourt himself begins to feel the same sense of inspiration and gives his consent to Joan. The servant enters at the end of the scene to exclaim that the hens, which had been unable to lay eggs, have now started laying eggs again. De Baudricourt interprets this as a sign from God of Joan's divine inspiration. It is with this simple beginning that the spirited spirituality of the seemingly innocent young Joan begins to take over the play, to the extent that she is leading the French troops against the British. Her voice exhibits a lively purity that is enhanced by an unlimited imagination.

Several values collide in Saint Joan's universe. The church is envious of its power to rule the world. Although Joan's deeds are mostly individualistic or Protestant in nature, both England (Warwick) and France (Charles) are envious of their patriotic might. She upholds the individual's right to define God as they see fit. In this historical incident, France is the fortunate beneficiary of Joan's whim and her military prowess. The play's underlying message is that there is no place for love or charity in Joan's world. The Catholic Church and English and French politicians are, at best, concerned with shaky ideals like morality and patriotism and posturing.

Shaw's play presents Joan as an outsider who appears lonely only when she is among those who voice the common opinions of the day. Her multi-faceted personality is concealed behind her single-minded pursuit of a vision of God's design for her life. Saint Joan is a tragedy without villains. The tragedy lies in a view of human nature where the incredulity and intolerance of both religious and secular forces engage in a battle with each other. It is made even more engaging by Shaw's epilogue, which brings the play into the present time and offers an opportunity for Shaw to discuss the play with the audience. Whether this play is truly great or almost great, it is undoubtedly Shaw at his dramatic best.

Many have written about Joan of Arc, but Bernard Shaw is not attracted by her military feats, acts of courage and selflessness. The play is not about that. He interprets Joan as someone who is not willing to give in and is a seeker of freedom. She is willing to admit heresy in her words and deeds, but not willing to accept a life sentence. Such is her uncompromising nature, principle and firm stance.

At the same time, Shaw criticizes or mocks the power, represented by the weak Dauphin Charles whom she installed on the throne with her strength, and the church which found evidence of heresy through devious means and carried out the king's order, fearing her popularity. The words of the inquisitor about the fabrication of accusations speak volumes: "Of course, she is completely innocent. She didn't understand a word of all we have been saying here. The innocent always suffer. Come on, or we'll be late for the end."

She is shown as a simple girl, guileless and straightforward. Sadly, the question of torture is still relevant today. The logic of its application sounds from Joan's mouth: "I can't bear pain; if you hurt me, I'll say anything you want. And then I'll deny it all; what good will that do you?" In the play, which takes place in the 15th century, they refused to use torture, but to this day, people are tortured.

Shaw, through the mouth of Joan, raises the question of the place of the church and God. The word "they" means the voices that she hears: "They do not command to listen to the church, but command to serve God first." This is the heresy for which she paid with her life - an encroachment on the power of the church.

**"The Complexity of Nationalism: Insights from History and Perspectives"**

Nationalism is often described as a disease, like a hammer, that attacks humanity from childhood, as Albert Einstein said. George Orwell believed that when one constantly tells lies to oneself and acts to justify one's greed for power, that's when nationalism emerges. Muammar Gaddafi stated that the nations whose sense of nationalism has been exaggerated are bound to perish.

But is nationalism good or bad? Can it be simply answered in one word? Probably not. In 2022, looking at the world map, we see countries divided according to the needs and interests of their inhabitants. These divisions are often based on language rather than religion. For example, Pakistan was created by the British based on religion, and later, Bangladesh emerged based on language.

Religious beliefs have played a significant role in many historical changes. The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, and India developed their own sciences and arts in the name of their gods. From architecture to astronomy, from music to painting, religion has been a driving force.

Joan of Arc is one of the most important figures in French history. She was born in a chaotic time when France and England were at war for 116 years. Despite being a woman in a time when female leadership was not accepted, Joan led the French army to several victories. She believed that she had received a vision from God to crown the Dauphin Charles as the king of France.

However, Joan's fate was not happy. She was captured by the Burgundians and handed over to the English. She was put on trial for heresy and was eventually burned at the stake. Bernard Shaw's play "Saint Joan" explores the trial and the complex characters involved.

In conclusion, nationalism is a complex and controversial topic. While some great thinkers like Einstein and Orwell have criticized it, others like Gaddafi have supported it. The example of Joan of Arc shows that nationalism can sometimes lead to great things, but it can also have negative consequences. We need to carefully consider the role of nationalism in our society and strive to find a balance between national pride and international cooperation.

Find this shelved in "literature that bolsters and ennobles the spirit." It is truly incredible. If we could only have half the courage of Joan! Just imagine what we might accomplish. Joan of Arc, also known as St. Jeanne d'Arc, was an extraordinary figure. Her unwavering courage and determination in the face of great adversity are truly inspiring. She was willing to fight for what she believed in, even at the cost of her own life. Her story serves as a reminder to us all that we too can find the courage within ourselves to pursue our dreams and make a difference in the world. St. Jeanne d'Arc, ora pro nobis

My sister recommended this play to me. Interestingly, it was also one of the texts in her English course at college. I have always had a passion for reading plays. However, I have to admit that I haven't delved into a large number of the notable classics. (Except for Oscar Wilde's works, which I absolutely adored.) In general, I seem to encounter difficulties when it comes to picking up classic texts.

I grew up constantly hearing the name of Shaw, as well as that of Joan of Arc. But I had never read anything written by or about either of them. So, this seemed like a perfect opportunity to begin.

The play is divided into 6 scenes, along with a prologue and an epilogue, each also presented as scenes. Up until the fifth scene, my assessment of this play was a 2-star. But it was Scene VI and the Epilogue that I truly relished reading and that significantly enhanced the play for me. Overall, it serves as a great way to get acquainted with Saint Joan's story and with Shaw's writing style.

I am now looking forward to reading his other famous play, Pygmalion as well. I anticipate that it will offer another engaging and thought-provoking experience, further deepening my appreciation for Shaw's works.

It is said that I can understand what Shaw had in mind when he considered Joan as the first protester, but I myself am by no means in agreement with this approach.

Sympathetically, the author has tried to remove from the image of Joan of Arc all kinds of romanticized aureole, but he does this with a lot of argumentative dialogues and some part of the illustration was really false and boring.

Moreover, the way Shaw presents Joan seems to be a bit one-sided. He focuses too much on her as a protester and neglects other aspects of her character.

In my opinion, Joan of Arc is a complex and multi-faceted figure. She was not only a brave warrior and a devout believer, but also a young girl with emotions and dreams.

We should view her from a more comprehensive perspective and not simply reduce her to a one-dimensional image.

Overall, while Shaw's work may have some interesting insights, it also has its不足之处.

While listening to the discussion during our monthly book club meeting, it dawned on me about three-quarters of the way through that Saint Joan doesn't seem to be truly about Joan of Arc at all. As Shaw states in his lengthy preface,

A villain in a play can never be anything more than a diabolus ex machina, possibly a more exciting expedient than a deus ex machina, but both equally mechanical, and therefore interesting only as a mechanism. It is, I repeat, what normally innocent people do that concerns us; and if Joan had not been burnt by normally innocent people in the energy of their righteousness her death at their hands would have no more significance than the Tokyo earthquake, which burnt a great many maidens. 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 the tragedy; the angels may weep at the murder, but the gods laugh at the murderers.

There's nothing about Joan that really resonated with me. She's depicted as a zealot, simple and at times an adrenaline junkie. She doesn't strike me as the early feminist others see. She seems oblivious to societal constraints and is guided by voices, not conscience or judgment.

For me, she represents an idea, a vehicle for innocence. The tragedy surrounds her, not of a woman fighting against destiny but of destiny itself. She is unchanging, unrelenting, and unavoidable. The tragedy lies in the failure of those around her to accept her. They destroy her, and in the end, despite their justifications and moralizing, history condemns them. The memory of Joan, however, lives on and "shall be remembered when men have forgotten where Rouen stood."

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the Bobbs-Merrill edition I read on Goodreads. It contains valuable notes by Shaw regarding Saint Joan. In the Extract from a Letter to Mrs. Patrick Campbell, Shaw speaks of his desire to create a play about Joan of Arc ten years before writing it. He is well-versed in her story and states that the English soldier who gave Joan two sticks tied in the shape of a cross is the only redeeming figure. This soldier takes a central role in the Epilogue, receiving a one-day reprieve from Hell for his good deed. Despite Joan being about to be burned for heresy, he shows compassion. He is the only one in the play who interacts with her without trying to change or undermine her. If Joan represents Destiny, he avoids the tragedy by acceptance.

I could be completely wrong, but it seems to make sense as I write. At least it sounds good. I can't imagine actually watching this as a play. It's a 3 1/2-hour-long dialogue with no action. Most of Joan's speeches only demonstrate her fanatical devotion, except for a few like her "I am alone" speech and her recantation. The other nobles and clergy lack energy and depth. I think I understand where Shaw was going, but I'm not sure I'm engaged in the journey.

_____________________________________

"The more obedient a man is to accredited authority the more jealous he is of allowing any unauthorized person to order him about." (Preface, pg. 44)

"I want to remind you of one thing. Joan chose to be burnt. She could have escaped being burnt. [...:] Now, I recommend that to all of you who are listening to me, because in almost all of your criminal codes, here in England, in America, in Italy, in France, we are always condemning people for crimes to this very punishment of imprisonment, of long terms of imprisonment, sometimes of solitary imprisonment, and in that we are using a crueler punishment than burning, according to the judgment of this woman who had her open choice between the two. That is something for you to think about. I will not dwell any more on it." (Saint Joan: A B.B.C. Radio Talk)