Talk:Joan of Arc - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durova (talk | contribs) at 02:34, 23 October 2005 (→Expansion request: Plays). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:34, 23 October 2005 by Durova (talk | contribs) (→Expansion request: Plays)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Joan of Arc received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please, let's focus on progress.

Subpages

Military Stuff

Ahoy. I've been silently lurking as the page has steadily improved since I stumbled upon it in December (see the bottom half of Talk:Joan_of_Arc/NPOV). While some of the issues I pointed out at the time are still there (though they are improving!), there is something else I would like to bring up. The middle section detailing Joan's Visions and Missions is a tad muddled with in regards to her military conquests and their significance. A different section with more detail would certainly be cool. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expansion request: Plays

This talk page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this talk page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template.
If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This article was last edited by Durova (talk | contribs) 19 years ago. (Update timer)

The article says that different plays offered very different interpretations on her life. Could this point be elaborated on? For instance, what interpretation did each play use, or how did each portray her? Wesley

As a new user I'm not ready to insert this into the main article. Please advise.

This selective list covers major works and authors in chronological order:

Anonymous (Jacques Millet?), "Mystery of the Siege of Orleans" was first performed in Orleans just four years after Joan of Arc's death. The surviving version appears to be a revision from around 1450. God and several saints play major roles in this this sprawling drama of more than a hundred speaking parts.

William Shakespeare, "Henry VI, Part I" makes Joan la Pucelle the leading villain. Drawn from English sources of the previous century, this Joan of Arc begins with the appearance of piety but soon proves to be a cunning witch justly executed.

Voltaire, "The Maid of Orleans" is a mock epic poem that explores typically Voltairean themes deriding mysticism as humbug.

Friedrich Schiller, "The Maid of Orleans" in literary rebuttal to Voltaire, Schiller creates a sympathetic Joan of Arc as a romantic heroine. A magic helmet renders her invincible until she falls in love. This influential drama dominated nineteenth-century fictional treatments: Verdi's and Tchaikovsky's operas about her are essentially musical adaptations.

Georg Kaiser, "Gilles and Jeanne" explores the disturbing implications of Joan of Arc's association with the most notorious criminal of her era.

George Bernard Shaw, "Saint Joan" this drama, widely esteemed as Shaw's masterpiece, draws heavily from historical records rediscovered after Schiller's era. Historians may contest Shaw's assertion that she was an early Protestant with impartial judges. Subsequent twentieth century plays often mirror Shaw's interest in her trial.

Bertolt Brecht, "Saint Joan of the Stockyards" transposes Joan of Arc into working class Chicago and portrays her as a labor leader. Brecht made Joan of Arc the subject of three separate plays, all with socialist themes.

Maxwell Anderson, "Joan of Lorraine" this play-within-a-play with a debt to Shaw is chiefly memorable as the basis for Ingrid Bergman's screen portrayal.

Paul Claudel and Arthur Honegger, "Joan of Arc at the Stake" relives her trial in a deeply religious oratorio that summons the founder of the inquisition to condemn Joan of Arc's judges.

Jean Anouilh, "The Lark" is an allegory of Vichy collaboration in the aftermath of World War II. Lillian Hellman's noteworthy English translation adds a critique of McCarthyism.

Durova 02:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Saints

"Eventually, the Roman Catholic church canonized her as a saint on May 16, 1920."

What about a List of Catholic saints burned by the Church? ;-) --zeno 22:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: Just kidding - I did not want to offend anyone's religious feelings ...

Formally, the Church didn't burnt them. At least with the Inquisitions, sinners were "relaxed to the secular arm", the civil (or militar) authorities. "The Church does not shed blood". But I don't remember another case of a Christian saint martyrized by a same-confession Chutch. Maybe Thomas Beckett? Have some repressed Jesuit or Templar become saint? -- Error 00:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One of Joan of Arc's unique distinctions is that no one else has been both condemned and sainted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Trial question

I have heard that during her trial, Joan faced a question on heresy designed to trip her up, and I would like confirmation or refutation of the story. She was asked by the inquisitors whether she was in a state of grace. Answering "no" would mean she was a heretic and worthy of death. Answering "yes" would be presuming to know the mind of God, in itself a heresy also worthy of death. Joan neatly evaded death by replying, "if I am in a state of grace, I have only God to thank for it, and if I am not, I pray to God that he help me achieve it." I always thought this story a good example of her intelligence, which she must have also exhibitted in her battle tactics (if she in fact led the battles, of which I am also uncertain). Can anyone confirm this tale? --zandperl 01:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm the question and answer. From an English translation of the transcript of her third public examination:

"Do you know if you are in the grace of God?"

"If I am not, may God place me there; if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest in all the world if I knew that I were not in the grace of God. But if I were in a state of sin, do you think the Voice would come to me? I would that every one could hear the Voice as I hear it. I think I was about thirteen when it came to me for the first time."

-- Paul Murray, 6 Sep 2004

In French :
— Êtes-vous en état de grâce ?
— Si je n'y suis pas, que Dieu m'y mette ; si j'y suis, que Dieu m'y garde.
Quite intelligent for a so-called "peasant". Inspired by the Holy Spirit, this answer leads the Church to think she was in the grace of God. Gwalarn 12:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user

Hello everyone. I recently (by request) blocked a user for repeatedly removing content from the article without edit summary or discussion. This user then contacted me, and (sort of) explained why he was doing what he was doing. I gave him a list of links explaining our policy, and unblocked him a few hours later. I will keep an eye on things, and if necessary will block the IP again if what comes from it appears to be vandalism. Fire Star 03:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I am that user. I removed religious propaganda from the article. I have no idea how to to an "edit summary" or "discussion" since all the help pages mention these things but there is apparently no link to do that that I can find.

I put an explanation in the body of the article since I can't find any other place.

I received no email from you answering my question: is this encyclopedia an actual encyclopedia or is it a right wing religious propaganda medium? If such unscientific and blatantly mythological statements are allowed in articles, then obviously this place is a mouthpiece for such viewpoints and I can stop trying to remove superstitious statements.

That would be a pity since this is otherwise a cool place.

Neither did I receive an email with links explaining anything. The help pages here are circular and only lead back to themselves and insanely long lists that are useless.

Hi Favedave, I sent this message to User talk:69.239.114.85, and I'll send it to your new talk page, as well. it will explain a lot about how we do things. Because we report on religious things, doesn't mean we espouse them. Our policy of npov is our "prime directive."

"Greetings. If you are the Favedave who sent me an email message, then you were blocked for removing sections of the Joan of Arc article multiple times in one day without any communication from you, even when the other editors asked you not to in their edit summaries. I realise that you are new to Misplaced Pages, so you will be forgiven quite a bit, and I hope you end up liking the place and sticking around, but your aggressive tone in the email message to me, things like "And it's obviously not (an encyclopaedia) if your primitive religious views trump all else" needs to be modified if you are going to edit successfully here. Misplaced Pages is run by consensus, so there were other reasons for the reversions of your removals, reasons you should consider and discuss if you want your edits to remain relatively unmolested. I will shorten your block time, but in the meantime please review the following links in order to help your sojourn at Misplaced Pages be more productive.

Regards,

Fire Star 23:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

-Fire Star 13:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charles VII & Reasons for Retrial

I remember reading (sources escape me at the moment) that a (main) reason for Charles VII's retrial of Joan was to "prove" that Joan was innocent of the charges raised against her, to legitimize her actions that ultimately led to his coronation. By legitimizing her, his position was legitimized. Similarly, his position could be damaged if his coronation was perceived to be enabled by a heretic. (Ok, that was kinda involved, i hope the reasoning came across more or less intact.) Any thoughts? YggdrasilsRoot 18:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS:(and i won't belabor the NPOV issues in the article, since it seems to be a touchy topic)

Visions section, NPOV, and accuracy

There are competing historical theories here:

Joan of Arc and others around her encountered supernatural phenomena, and accounts of these events have been passed down to us over the ages.
Joan of Arc was insane, delusional, or a chronic liar. Accounts of others sharing in her visions are the result of exaggeration through re-telling or religious fervor; mental illness; fraud; white lies in support of one's faith; confusion or hallucination through the power of suggestion, confirmation bias, religious excitement, or other natural psychological phenomena.

From the first sentence:

Many contemporary attempts to explain Joan's visions have been based on the commonly-held belief that her visions were described merely as auditory sensations which only she could hear.

to the last:

It can be pointed out that if this has a natural explanation, it certainly cannot be any known form of mental illness or hallucination.

...as currently written, this section sounds like it's debunking the idea that Joan of Arc was insane, hinting at a supernatural explanation. It needs to be corrected so that it's neutral between the two theories. The rewriting process would be easier if we had some more details about the claims that are made...

The mental conditions suggested include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and even temporal lobe epilepsy.

Who makes those suggestions? Can we name any professional mental health experts?

historical documents state flatly that other people (e.g., the Count of Clermont, Guy de Cailly, etc) could simultaneously experience her visions.

Which documents would those be? Can we get some excerpts?

Doctors have examined some of the descendants of her family and found no evidence for a genetic mental illness.

Can we get specifics here? References?

References on these facts would not only help verify accuracy, but also help expand the article and provide external sources for more information and context for interested editors and readers. -- Beland 3 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Previous discussion, since archived, points to this journal article: Epilepsia. 1991 Nov-Dec;32(6):810-5. (abstract)

I also happened to find mention of her here.

AWilliamson said: Judy Grundy wrote a piece rejecting the notion, and (more importantly), the people you cited were basing their theory on entirely erroneous historical information about the person they were analyzing - they certainly may be experts on epilepsy, but they are not historians and their conception of the historical facts concerning their "patient" was based on misconceptions, resulting in a flawed diagnosis. I see this article here. -- Beland 4 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Credulity

(previous discussion on the same section)

"As written in the testimony, Joan also stated that these visions often took solid, physical form that she and other people could see and touch. Doctors have examined some of the descendants of her family and found no evidence for a genetic mental illness. It can be pointed out that if this has a natural explanation, it certainly cannot be any known form of mental illness or hallucination."

This is ridiculous - to take at face value what was written some hundreds of years ago by people entirely convinced of the existance of God and entirely unscientific in their approach towards such matters which are hardly well-understood today, let alone then! Toby Douglass 00:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

That section was added in order to address certain modern medical theories which argue - according to the theorists themselves - that "if one accepts the descriptions of her visions at face value" (or words to that effect) then these allegedly describe private visions which could therefore be hallucinations brought on by schizophrenia or other such disorders. The article merely points out that these descriptions actually do _not_ say that her visions were private or exclusive to herself, a point which needs to be stated if theories ostensibly based on these descriptions are to be addressed.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Have taken the initiative of removing this text Doctors have examined some of the descendants of her family and found no evidence for a genetic mental illness. It can be pointed out that if this has a natural explanation, it certainly cannot be any known form of mental illness or hallucination. for reasons stated, no discernable evidence, NPOV, no references found Sherurcij July 7, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Here we have one of the thorny issues surrounding Joan of Arc. How does one explain her visions? To a devout Catholic this is obvious. All other readers will have difficulty with that solution.

A leading alternative explanation in twentieth-century scholarship has been hallucination with its implication of mental illness. This encounters problems on two levels. First, accredited medical and psychological professionals usually refuse to attempt diagnosis of people they have never met. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread: a historian with an avocation in psychiatry enters extremely shaky ground. I once read a serious scholarly work (whose title and author I unfortunately forget) that attempts to attribute a Freudian Electra complex to Joan of Arc based on a dream her *father* had. Even supposing such "diagnoses" are feasible, it's quite problematic to reconcile any hallucinatory mental illness with surviving historical documents. Attempts to do so employ very selective readings of the original texts and generally create more dilemmas than they resolve. How, for example, could a schizophrenic woman inspire such a positive effect on army morale?

The preponderance of evidence indicates a Joan of Arc of unlearned yet exceptional natural intelligence and generally sound disposition who sincerely believed she received divine visions. Perhaps all that really needs saying on this matter is that she lived in a society that regarded such things as rare but possible. -Durova, October 21, 2005

Pants against rape?

An anonymous user has been revising my edits on the subject of the clothes of Joan of Arc. This user has been protecting a section that was initially written by AWilliamson, the self-claimed expert on saint Joan. I question the claim Joan supposedly made herself about her "pants" being the only protection against rape. Indeed the sources say these "pants" (or hose) were tied to her doublet. That was just a normal thing for male clothes (men didn't wear a belt to hold their pants up, they just tied it to their doublet; belts were only used to carry stuff around, like sword and knife). In her case there were 20 laces. I don't question these details. However, the debate is on two things:

Is it believable that a piece of cloth could protect a girl from rape? In other words: is a girl in a skirt more vulnerable to male aggression than a girl in jeans? I think this is a biased male idea: it comes close to the idea that girls in skirts ask to be raped.

Did these "pants" consist of two separate hose, leaving the crotch and bottom exposed (only covered by the end of the shirt underneath the doublet and all upper garment), or did they consist of one single cloth? If the hose did not cover crotch and bottom, the claim of protection doesn't hold. She would just be even more vulnerable!

This anonymous user has put forward a source saying the pants were one single cloth. However, this source is (again) a biased source, since it specialises on the subject of (saint) Joan of Arc. It's not an independent source. I now could gather all kinds of sources on the Internet saying the "pants" were separate pieces, but that's not how Misplaced Pages should work, at least not in my opinion. I therefore seek assistance from real experts on medieval clothing, especially on clothing of the early 15th century.

I' don't want to experience another edit war with this anonymous user (as I assume it is AWilliamson all over again that has been using this IP number: correct me if I'm wrong). — HAJARS 09:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but pants started as separate hose and then as hose joined in the back. The front was left open so that the man could attend to sanitary functions. Later, as the doublet grew shorter, men were required to wear codpieces to hide their genitals. Codpieces were certainly used well into the 16th century (see any picture of Henry VIII) so it seems doubtful that Joan would have gained much protection from a determined rapist. That having been said, Joan may well have believed that she was being protected by the tight laces. Can't we have a statement that just says that this may the reason she wore them? Then we don't have to determine exactly what she wore and whether it was effective. –Shoaler (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

All I like to have included in both the Joan of Arc and Cross-dressing articles is a little bit of doubt about the effectiveness of these "pants" against rape. Since a anonymous user has reverted my edits again in the section about her clothes (different IP number, same devoted user, I bet it's Allen, to shy to identify himself), I refrain from reverting those back again. I don't want to brake the 3RR. The statement you are proposing sounds just allright to me! HAJARS 21:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have modified the item in Cross-dressing removing speculation about whether male clothing at the time was effective in preventing rape and focused on her fear of being raped. That was her stated motivation. Whether it was effective or not is something only she knew. –Shoaler (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How could it possibly be cross-dressing when one considers the medival version of panties were worn. The so-called trial was more of a cast of fear by the thugs to continue to wear a dress or be burned. Yes, the thugs wanted to easily rape and pillage. Unforntunately, "rape and pillage" originated as an English phrase. --- Mr. Ballard 01:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Category Choice

I have to argue that Category:Wrongfully convicted people is a poor category for Joan of Arc, since it consists solely of modern examples of national judicial courts (separate from any church) who have found people like David Milgaard or the Birmingham Six guilty. Joan is a much different example, having been a combatant against the country. It could be argued that many saints fit the mould for 'wrongfully convicted', but I think we should leave that category unstained by arguments of which religion's martyrs were or weren't examples of wrongfully convicted people. Sherurcij 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tone

Just added a tag about the tone of this article. I see to much devotion for Saint Joan. I like to see more about the historical facts of a story about a human girl, a bit more critical if possible. — HAJARS 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm neither a Catholic nor one who goes in too much for faith, etc. but I don't see too much trouble with the current tone, perhaps it's been changed since you posted. Sure there's some stuff about ths St-Jeanne as you put it, but that is after all the primary reason she is known to us today. She's not a remembered historical figure because she was a random illiterate Orleanais wench that Milla Jovovich decided to play in a movie, her relevance is as a political-religious legend-myth both in her time and in ours. Other than perhaps as a study of mental illness or spiritual posession the girl herself is not really all that exceptional. Gabe 02:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All that crap about her being an army commander. What's that about then? 213.148.229.209 13:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Joan's propaganda use

One quick correction -- the opening paragraph says that Joan was used by 'allied' propaganda in both World Wars, but neglects to say that she was used extensively by the Vichy government during WWII, probably more than by the allies.

Category:

Old requests for peer review