11.08.2014

Joan's Conflicting Voices

In class recently we just finished watching Joan of Arc: The Messenger. The movie is about Joan of Arc and her amazing journey through her short life. Story covers everything from her early childhood up until her death at the stake. After watching the movie and comparing it to what the primary sources had to say about what really happened, something interesting caught my attention. In particular her voices. The movie and the primary sources depict them in different ways.



The movie depicts Joan's "voices" as a single voice. This voice comes directly from God himself. When Joan is giving her sign to King Charles VII in the movie, she describes the voices coming to her as a strange, violent wind. She also makes no mention of saints in the film and only recalls her interaction with God. The scene where Joan tells King Charles this information is one of mystery also because no one knows what Joan and King Charles talked about in that time they were together. Therefore any movie scene made depicting this is purely speculation.



In the primary sources, Joan describes her voices as those of Sts Michael, Catherine, and Margaret. She explained that the saints were delivering God's message to her. Where the film says God himself was directly speaking to her, Joan herself said otherwise. The other interesting thing I noticed about the film was its portrayal of God. Throughout the film, God always appears as the same age as Joan. I suppose the writer made it this way to make a statement saying "Joan's notion of God changed in her own mind as she aged." As the movie progresses, we see God almost questioning Joan, asking her what has she had done and seemingly reversing his involvement with her. This happening in the film seemed a little odd to me. It's as if the writer is proposing that Joan is starting to think differently now that the attack on Paris had failed and things seemed to be heading downhill. The writer almost seems to imply that God is in her head and nothing more.



What do you all think of how the movie handled her voices? Did they seem correctly represented to you or were they wrongfully portrayed?

Link to movie: http://watch32.com/movies-online/the-messenger-the-story-of-joan-of-arc-207361/full.html

Work Cited

The Messenger. Performed by Milla Jovovich. France: Columbia Tristar Home Video, 1999. Film.

Pernoud, Regine. Joan of Arc by Herself and Her Witnesses. New York: Stein and Day, 1966.


11.06.2014

La Porete vis-a-vis La Pucelle


As mentioned in class, like Joan, Marguerite de Porete was a woman in the Middle Ages who was brought to trial for heresy. Specifically, as a mystic, Marguerite de Porete believed and espoused in her book, The Mirror of Simple Souls, that one did not necessarily have to go through the theocratic “red tape” so to speak of the Church to have a relationship with God. Clearly, this was related to her role as a mystic, someone who possessed a personal and direct form of communication with God. She essentially placed the development of a personal love of God above that of one guided and limited by the Church and its parameters of ritual. In response, the Church not only burned her book, but also condemned and burned Marguerite on charges of heresy in 1310. Joan and Marguerite’s trials took place for different contextual reasons; Joan can almost be considered a prisoner of war in some aspects, while Marguerite was solely under fire for her arguments laid out in The Mirror of Simple Souls.

However, their trials have interesting parallels. For example, Marguerite apparently refused to answer questions on trial which is reminiscent of Joan’s own authoritative responses that she would either answer later, keep info between her and the King or wait for her voices’ permission. Also Marguerite’s burning is described somewhat similarly as Joan’s, especially in relation to the reaction of the crowd.  A chronicler, William of Nangis, stated in 1310, “She [was] both pious and noble, in her death...For this reason the faces of many of those who witnessed it were affectionately moved to compassion for her; indeed, the eyes of many were filled with tears” (The Trail of Marguerite Porete). Additionally, Marguerite experienced a long lead up to her actual burning, as did Joan. For one, Marguerite’s book had been criticized and denounced for years before her trial and according to William of Nangis, she neither renounced her book after being excommunicated nor did “she, although having been lawfully summoned before the bishop...want to appear and held out in her hardened malice for a year and more with an obstinate soul.” Overall, due to the relative rarity of burnings in the Middle Ages, perhaps it is not surprising that Marguerite and Joan’s circumstances are somewhat comparable.
Image Source:http://www.albin-michel.fr/images/couv/5/7/5/9782226221575g.jpg
 
The first illustration of Marguerite Porete on a modern copy of her work, The Mirror of Simple Souls,  is interesting when placed beside this Les Vigiles Joan of Arc illustration.

Margerite de Porete

Earlier this week, we talked about French mystics who have been condemned by the Church and burned as a heretic before Joan. And Margerite de Porete caught my eye because similar to Joan she also went through Church's inquisition. Marguerite published her spiritual work “The Mirror of Simple Souls” around 1290. According to the Web, in her writing she states that when in the state of contemplative love of God the soul has no need of Masses or prayers. That statement was clearly belittling the Church’s authority. We can understand why the church felt threaten and took action against Margerite, immediately.  

Therefore her work was quickly condemned by the bishop. During the Inquisition, the questioners focused on her writing and conflated her writings with the heresy of the Free Spirit. According to Virtual Medieval Church and its writing, Free Spirit was believed that it is possible for a human being to attain spiritual perfection in the present life, and that once an individual has attained such a state, he or she may then commit any sin with impunity (http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/medieval/julian/Marguerite.htm).

Her trial records show that Marguerite refused to acknowledge the Church’s authority. Instead she did not answer their questions. Her headstrong is admirable. I really like this part of the trial, it says,” Yet you refused to swear [the oath].  Even though you were questioned by us many times and in many places about this, you always remained contumacious and rebellious about these matters; because of your obvious and notorious contumacy and rebellion” (http://www.uncg.edu/~rebarton/margporete.htm).  Unfortunately her faith did get her killed. She was excommunicated and burned at the stake on June 1, 1310.
 

Sources:

 Images: Google 

11.05.2014

Cause and Effect: Joan's Death


The people who had put Joan to death immediately began to regret their actions. Witnessing the death of Joan and interpreting her as truly being holy struck fear into the witnesses. Pernoud included one witnesses statement along with a couple of reasons to worry about any divine consequence. Pierre Cusquel admitted to not being there but "heard say that Master Jean Tressard, secretary to the king of England, returning from Joan's execution afflicted and groaning, wept lamentably over what he had seen in that place and said indeed: 'We are all lost, for we have burnt a good and holy person'..." (Pernoud, 233). It went on to include an Englishman confessing his sins for his role in Joan's death and that he "greatly feared to be damned for he had burned a holy woman" (Pernoud, 233). The reasons for such a change of heart came from Joan crying out Christ's name throughout her death, wishing for there to be a cross visible and a small cross with her, a white dove appearing after her death, etc. 


The idea that such an awful consequence must follow whatever group of people responsible for a great sin was shown during the middle ages with Jewish men and their need for blood libels and the curse that women have to suffer. There was a belief that Jewish men had menses as a divine punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus and women suffered from menstruation for the original sin Eve committed.

The fear that some of the Englishmen and witnesses portrayed immediately after Joan's death seemed to have been a learned fear based on the religion. If Joan was holy enough to have had a heart that could not be destroyed by fire and be reincarnated into a white dove, it would have been understandable to be concerned of God's wrath if they were religious.

Resnick, Irven M. "Medieval Roots of the Myth of Jewish Male Menses." Harvard Theological Review: 241-63. https://druryonline.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-1155555-dt-content-rid-8250650_2/courses/2014_FA_RELG0385DMAINSE01/JewishMaleMenses.pdf.  

http://www.joanofarc.us/joan-of-arc-images/joan-of-arc-stake.jpg

11.03.2014

Braveheart Movie Review


Gibson, Mel, dir. Braveheart. Writ. Randall Wallace. Paramount Pictures, 1995. CD-ROM.
         The movie Braveheart directed by and starring Mel Gibson portrays the life of William Wallace, a medieval Scottish war leader and rebel. The film illustrates the rise of William Wallace who incites a Scottish rebellion for freedom after his wife is murdered by an English solider whom she assaulted after he attempted to rape her. William soon after begins attacking English camps, killing all soldiers and declaring the need for Scottish independence. The tyrant English king, Edward I, is originally unable to defeat William and his men until William is captured and imprisoned by the English and tried for treason. He is sentenced to torture and death but only after winning the favor and respect of the Princess of Wales, Edward II’s wife. William is executed at the end of the film, but nobly refuses to beg the English crown for mercy, and instead utters his last dying wish before being beheaded: “Freedom!” (Braveheart).
           
        The film is seen as one of the more historically inaccurate films of the modern era, featuring many historical falsities. One of the more glaring inaccuracies within the film is the illustration of William’s social class. Throughout the film William is pictured as a poor peasant, wearing brown rags with a dirty face, living in a small hut made out of sticks, mud, and stone. This is a traditional Hollywood view of medieval peasantry, whereas historians know William came from a lower noble family, and not of the extreme poverty as shown in the film. Another inaccuracy portrayed in the film is the idea of ius primae noctis or “right of the first night”. This fictional idea holds that the rightful king of the land is allowed privileges to all of the brides within his kingdom on the first night of their marriage. This is shown in the film as Edward I attempts to solidify his domination over Scotland by declaring ius primae noctis . Upon William’s return to his home village, and after Edward had declared his right of the Scottish brides, an English army comes to the village and takes away the newest bride amidst the village wedding celebration. This is the first act of the English that anger the Scottish men. In the scene of the Battle of Falkirk, William gives a speech to his men before the battle, claiming the Scottish right to rebel. He shouts, “They may take our brides, but they cannot take our freedom!” (Braveheart). Throughout the film, the idea of ius primae noctis becomes one of the most important symbols of the robbery of Scottish rights. However, this practice is in no way historical, and was never declared by any medieval king.

       William as a boy, seen in brown rags, with his house (hut) behind him made of stone and straw.
            
       Although the film portrays many historical inaccuracies and glorified Hollywood ideals, the producers and costume designers were particularly precise in their creation of medieval fighting and armor. Much of the movie is dedicated to battle scenes, but the costuming proved to be quite accurate to the time period of Wallace and the Wars of Scottish Independence. In the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, mail was still a dominant form of body armor. The English soldiers were often portrayed in mail, while the Scottish were seemingly less sophisticated of a fighting force, and instead wore their daily medieval garb in battle. The English also were shown in conical steel helmets, with swords and lances. One of the battle leaders was even shown in a barrel helmet. The Scottish, conversely, in keeping with the theme of their lack of sophistication, rarely had swords, and instead fought with large warhammers and small axes. Some Scottish soldiers even held slings. Both the English and Scottish were shown with shields, both round and heater shaped, appropriate to the century. The English, in keeping with the history and tradition of the English army, were shown with their deadly longbow men yielding a deadly attack upon the Scottish.

      William with his army. Notice the weapons they hold: axes, blunt swords, and even large sticks.

            Also historically accurate was the film’s depiction of the manner in which battle was executed. The Scottish soldiers were depicted yielding a battering ram upon an English fortress to gain access in the Battle of Falkirk. In response to the Scottish invasion, the English throw hot tar and fire over the top of the soldiers from inside the fortress. Both of these events are highly exact depictions of siege warfare, and the importance of laying siege and protecting from it. Aside from the scene with the battering ram, all other battle scenes occur with face-to-face combat, where the rules of battle were greatly respected. Both the English and Scottish would meet at the battlefield and would not launch any surprise or sneak attacks until the priests had completed their prayers and both sides engaged one another.
            
      One of the central themes to the movie was the idea of chivalry and courtly love. Before the rebellion begins, William falls in love with a local village woman, Murron, and marries her in secret to avoid her being taken due to ius primae noctis . Shortly after their secret marriage, however, an English solider in the village attempts to rape Murron. Murron attacks the solider in response to his attempted rape, and is killed in front of the village as a punishment for confronting the English soldier. William is thereafter driven to rebel in response to Murron’s murder, and desires to avenge the death of his bride. He carries her handkerchief with him throughout the movie, only allowing it to fall after being beheaded. Courtly love is also demonstrated in the film, which holds that knights were so consumed with love for a woman, they would do anything for her. William’s entire journey to freedom is interpreted even by those around him as a response to his love for Murron and his desire to make her happy and proud, even in her death. In the execution scene, before his death, William sees Murron in the crowd, smiling, comforting him. This seems to signify that William had finally succeeded in his courtly love duties, and could finally go meet her in the afterlife.

William with Murron in the village before her death. William's love for her remained central to his cause throughout the entire film.

            Another central theme to the film was the idea of freedom and William’s rejection of politics. William is often confronted with both English and Scottish royals and nobles, yet he rejects their roles and instead believes each Scot should be free. In an exchange between Robert the Bruce, the rightful king of Scotland, and William, William discards politics and reveals his true thoughts about both men’s roles. He says, “There's a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it,” (Braveheart). Much of William’s desire for freedom appears to come from the childhood influence of his father who tells him before going to battle: “Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow it,” (Braveheart). The torture and execution scene, perhaps the most important scene in the movie, reveals William’s ultimate chivalry and bravery, as he is willing to die for Scottish freedom.

Robert the Bruce discussing Scottish freedom and politics with William. It is in this scene that William tells Robert he desires total Scottish freedom, and fights hard for it. 

            Overall the movie Braveheart, while not known for its historical accuracy, was an entertaining film that presented several medieval themes and ideas. The film’s use of armor and fighting was pleasingly accurate, as well as the notions of chivalry, bravery, and courtly love. While the film did buy in to popular culture’s ideas of medieval life and peasantry, it nonetheless presented an idea that is still important in today’s culture: the desires of Scottish independence from Britain. Even in the wake of the 2014 election, while Scotland voted to remain a part of the United Kingdom, there still remain supporters of William Wallace’s cause and love for independence and freedom. For this reason, Braveheart will remain a must-see for many people for many years to come.