Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre recently announced that it will be putting on an original play in which Joan of Arc, world-famous crossdresser and military hero, will be portrayed as non-binary. Predictably, this has aroused right-wing culture warriors and transphobes more generally, who consider the very notion of a genderqueer Joan to be an abomination — and an insult to women.
Transphobic propagandist Matt Walsh had this to say:
In the right-wing American Thinker blog, meanwhile, Monica Showalter declared the as yet unseen play to be “repugnant.”
“Is nothing sacred to the left?” she wrote.
Suddenly, St. Joan of Arc has been rewritten into a transgender icon, according to wokester elites in the arts, who’ve decided to culturally expropriate the Catholic saint and national patroness of France for the god of transgenderism … Instead of being the Maid of Orleans, the Liberator of France, and a great symbol of feminine chastity, beauty, innocence and courage, she’s now some creature whose bravery consists of contemplating her genitals and displaying her wokeness in the trendy new definition of heroism.
NewsBusters dismissed I, Joan as a
new woke piece of garbage play … which views the warrior saint through the funhouse perspective of modern gender silliness. … Shakespeare’s Globe perverted a Catholic saint and molded her into a woke monstrosity. Get woke, please go broke.
“Joan of Arc has been cancelled,” proclaimed Paul Joseph Watson on Infowars. (Whatever that means.)
But what exactly is the problem with a play positing a genderqueer Joan?
Theaters aren’t history classes. Every play based on a historical figure is fictionalized to some extent, because that’s how plays (and movies. and novels) work. Even the most realistic plays involving historical figures have to stuff the unruly facts into a dramatic structure. And sometimes playwrights (and screenwriters, and novelists) like to deliberately play around with the historical facts — to play a game of “what if?”
Did anyone else enjoy the movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? I did, even though as a trained historian I am aware that Lincoln did not, in fact, hunt vampires.
The Globe theater is asking a much more realistic “what if” question than many history-inspired works of fiction, looking at a famous female crossdresser — who was literally burnt at the stake for refusing to dress in women’s clothes — and asking to what degree we can see her as queer.
No, Joan of Arc was not “nonbinary” in a contemporary sense, because that concept didn’t exist in her time. And even if she had been genderqueer in all but the name, she would have understood herself in a different way than contemporary genderqueer folks do. As she saw it, God had told her to cut off her hair and don men’s clothing, and she was simply obeying his orders.
But that’s not the end of the issue. Did she see herself as wholly female or wholly male, or some mixture of both? Was her crossdressing a way to assert her not-exactly-female self, or merely a convenience for someone wearing armor and going into battle? We don’t know; we can’t know. But it is an interesting question to ask, and one way to ask that question is to write a play in which she’s imagined as non-binary.
Transphobes tend to assume that no one was trans until about, well, 14 seconds ago, historically speaking, and that transness is some sort of modern affliction exacerbated by the internet and funded by George Soros. as part of a devious plan to destroy Western civilization. The people of the past didn’t have time for that nonsense, transphobes often argue. But the fact is they did. Joan of Arc wasn’t even the first crossdressing saint, as Wikipedia notes in an extensive page on “Cross-dressing, gender identity, and sexuality of Joan of Arc.” In Medieval times women who dressed themselves as men in order to become monks were accepted as “holy transvestites”
A saint especially popular among the common people in Europe from the eleventh century on … was Saint Uncumber. She was a Portuguese princess who refused to be married to the heathen King of Sicily, and prayed to God to be saved from this fate. Her salvation was unusual; she suddenly grew a beard.
History is much weirder and more interesting than right-wing culture warriors — and other transphobes — would have you believe. I have no idea if I, Joan will be any good. But it’s already got people thinking.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
But what would Shakespeare think about all this?
Call me old fashioned, but I liked it before all this gender thing when you could enjoy a play about a girl dressing up as a boy who then gets mistaken for a girl; as played by a 40 year old man.
I could have sworn Joan’s (or rather Jeanne’s, I figure that the French pronunciation would be far more accurate than an Anglicized equivalent) cross-dressing was for at least in part for the pragmatic reason of avoiding rape, but a quick read of that Wikipedia page suggests that her main reason was “God said so”. Naturally, God is unavailable for comment as always.
And while I know for a fact that this will make me sound like a stick in the mud, I’ve always preferred to have historically inspired works adhere as closely to the actual history as possible. While there are obviously no records of what Joan thought of her own gender, it seems irresponsible to just project our own suppositions onto someone who’s no longer in a position to confirm or dispute them. Better to accept that we will never know and not try to put words in her mouth about the subject, so to speak- it might seem to be an interesting question, but what good is a question whose answer is impossible for us to know?
(For the record, I thought the premise of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter was ridiculous, and not in a good way- maybe if it was a comedy it would have been more to my liking, but playing it straight just made the whole thing seem even more asinine.)
Anybody who thinks that non-binary or genderqueer identities, and “unconventional” pronoun use, for public figures were totally unheard of until the current cultural moment needs to read about the Public Universal Friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Universal_Friend
@Anonymous
“God says so” was basically the entire gist of Jeanne’s legal defense against accusations of heresy, blasphemy, defying parental authority, apostasy, slander, witchcraft and crossdressing that were levied upon her (yeah they really threw the entire book at her). If she made a “reasonable” case for herself as genuinely guided by the voice of angels or God himself, she could basically beat all those accusations even if she was flatly guilty of most charges, especially the crossdressing ones. That’s why she defended and provided proofs of her virginity (witches couldn’t be virgins according to folklore and virginity was a prerequisite for sainthood for women). She also claimed to have never killed anyone in battle too as this would have disqualified her.
To be fair though, she probably indeed wore a masculine air cut as to avoid attracting too much attention during her travel to Chinon and more or less kept it to “fit in” with the men she lived with and commanded. People at the time even made this argument on her behalf even though she did not herself. Note that even Jeanne’s precise crossdressing isn’t all that known. We know she cut her hair when she went to Chinon in typical fashion for young men, but this wasn’t brought up during her trial instead focusing on the fact she wore men’s clothing only and more specifically armor and undercoats, the clothing you are supposed to wear under an armor or in travel during military campaign. Unlike what movie often show, you don’t wear plate armor just like that. The extant and nature of her crossdressing when she was captured and during her imprisonment isn’t as well documented as one might expect considering the importance it had on her demise.
This is exactly why the Shakespearean plays Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, and Richard the IIIrd have been so richly reviled and have been unable to find a theater company willing to perform them for centuries now — because putting words into the mouths of historical persons and attributing motivations to them that likely did not exist in life, that is absolute anathema to great art!
Thank goodness that Shakespeare found that transcription of the St. Crispin’s Day speech or we would have lost Henry the Vth (both parts!) as well.
It would have been completely IRRESPONSIBLE TO JUST PROJECT Shakespeares own thoughts on the characters. I mean, how fucking dare he, right?
And then to use a Shakespearean theater – OF ALL PLACES! – to insert gratuitous gender ambiguity!
The fucking NERVE of those people. The absolute NERVE.
@Anonymous
Ah but then there wouldn’t be those brilliant youtube videos where historians watch films and say stuff like “Well that tunic is all wrong” and I LOVE those.
On the post in general, has anyone else seen what’s been happening to Joanne Harris on Twitter? She’s one of my favourite authors and the JK Rowling army of dimwits has mobilised against her.
@lollypop
No, I’m sorry. I’m not on Twitter at all. What’s happening? Is there a summary post/article somewhere?
@Crip Dyke
Here’s kind of a write-up.
https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-accuses-chocolat-author-of-failing-to-support-her-after-death-threat-12674522
As far as I can make out, it all started when Joanne Harris created a Twitter poll for authors to see how many had received death threats in the wake of the (horrifying) Salman Rushdie news, and threats against JK. I think she wanted to draw attention to the issue.
BUT she used the phrase “have you received death threats (credible or not) …” which JK fans took as a sideswipe at JK. They have decided it was a sneaky way to suggest the death threats against JK aren’t credible, rather than what Harris OBVIOUSLY intended -which was for the authors to count any kind of death threat in their vote. I think she was trying to make the VERY RELEVANT distinction between an actual fucking fatwa and having an entire group of religious extremists very seriously mobilised against you and someone random saying “I’m going to kill you” on Twitter.
Well. Joanne Harris is not a strident activist or anything, but she is vocally pro-trans-rights. And the GCs have been waiting for the excuse to release their tide of bile against her. So they have started harassing her for not defending JK enough. They forced her into the position of seeking her son’s permission to share that he is trans on her twitter account (because the GCs found out and were going to out him). This they have now taken as evidence of her “bias”. And they are calling for her to lose her job at the Society of Authors.
It’s really grim, basically. And the gutter press is framing it predictably:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11121973/Joanne-Harris-takes-swipe-JK-Rowling-Twitter-just-hours-dismissing-row-fabricated.html
The Right really are the true snowflakes.
Messing around with historical characters in works of fiction is quite normal!
I recall watch Inglorious Basterds and loving although I am sure it wasn’t quite historically accurate.
Ditto Braveheart with it’s delightfully made up storyline about paternity fraud.
re: Rowling’s death threats – one thing which I find strange is that JKR immediately jumped to “trans people want to kill me” after the first (only?) confirmed actual threat, when a more reasonable assumption would be “religious fundamentalist(s) who think Harry Potter promotes witchcraft”. They’ve threatened her before, it’s just been awhile. Then again I guess since her descent into TERF ideology she’s been living in a fantasy world where trans people are the only threat that exists.
History doesn’t always leave an accurate record. Plus there’s a difference between something that is trying to be a re-creation of historical events (Spotlight, Glory, Apollo 13, etc.) and something that is using historical events as a lens to look at the human condition. Lin-Manuel Miranda has famously described Hamilton as “a story of America then, told by America now.” There’s room for all kinds of art.
I can believe Jeanne D’Arc was a transsexual: She was mentally I’ll and ended up killing herself, albeit with the cooperation of the Catholic Church.
What a deep and original insight.
By that reasoning, all martyred Catholic saints were mentally “I’ll” [sic] and ended up killing themselves, albeit with the cooperation of various other entities. You should inform the Pope.
I’m not even going to going to bother with the whole “transsexual” nonsense, as you’re clearly too stupid to understand that words have actual meanings….
@Crip Dyke
I mean, I do like Shakespeare’s plays but if you’re going to fictionalize things that much then why use a historical character at all? I know some people go for the whole “what could have been” thing, but I prefer depicting things as they actually were (to the best of our limited abilities). That, and when using those events to look at the human condition one must always remember that it’ll frequently be tainted by presentism- applying our standards to the past is often as bad a fit as applying the standards of the past to the present. Oh sure, we may think we’ve come a long way since the Middle Ages, but the people of a century or two from now might think we’re no better.
In other news, that is why Shakespeare is the renowned playwright and I’m just a schmuck commenting on a blog.
Ah yes, “The Dark Avenger”, a username to be taken very seriously indeed. Go back to Call of Duty, kiddo. Or maybe do some chores, your mom will probably thank you.
@Steph:
I recall watch Inglorious Basterds and loving although I am sure it wasn’t quite historically accurate.
And it provided a setpiece that did “Putting Out Fire” justice (Tarantino had originally conceived the role of Shoshanna for Nastassja Kinski.) The one I had problems with was Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, but not because it was counterhistorical; “Bruce Lee” plus “Manson murders thwarted” is a richly inviting premise; “White self-insert fantasy who demonstrates his badassness by whooping Bruce Lee’s ass thwarts the Manson murders” is a disappointing use of those elements.
David Aaronovitch, one of the more notorious British press “centrists who spend 95% of their time attacking the left and minorities” made a complete fool of himself on Twitter by instantly jumping to the conclusion that the play would depict Joan as amab, because those are the only people who are trans or non-binary.
Every time I hear them screaming “woke” I just hear it as “Entartete Kunst”.
@ Anonymous
*dusts off English degree*
We fictionalize historical characters all the time. Take General Custer – his widow was determined to control how he was seen, so she turned him into a hero. The Native Americans had a different point of view, and I’m not qualified to summarize that beyond “not a hero.”
We’re always telling stories about real people. At least in literature, we’re admitting that shouldn’t be mistaken for reality. Sir Philip Sidney argued this so well in his Defense of Poesy that his influence is still felt across the centuries.
I’m no Elizabethan courtier, so I’ll stick to being me and say this: What we call “history” is sometimes just the myth we’re comfortable hearing.
Historians have pointed out that Joan of Arc always called herself “the maiden” (“la pucelle”) as her standard moniker, which would seem to indicate a female identity beyond any reasonable doubt; and several eyewitnesses at her trial said she continued wearing soldier’s clothing (the so-called “male clothing”) in prison so she could keep it “firmly laced and tied” to prevent her guards from pulling her clothing off when they tried to rape her. The bailiff, Jehan Massieu, said they finally maneuvered her into a “relapse” by taking away her dress and forcing her to put the soldier’s clothing back on, then the judge condemned her; but the Globe Theatre’s staff claim that this somehow means that she was willing to die for male clothing. This flatly ignores the dishonest methods that were used to manipulate her into a situation where they would have a pretext for killing her. She was convicted by a tribunal which is proven by English government records to have been composed entirely of collaborators who supported the English occupation, and dozens of eyewitnesses later said the tribunal deliberately falsified the trial transcript and convicted her on false charges. The idea that she “transgressed gender norms” is based on a number of misconceptions: she said she didn’t fight in combat, and we know from the records that she didn’t lead directly. She was a religious visionary in an era when there were many women in that role. She was not “androgynous” as the play presents her: eyewitnesses described her as “beautiful and shapely”, and her hair wasn’t nearly as short as it has been made out to be (the trial transcript claims it was cut at ear level even after a year in prison, which presents a physical impossibility since prisoners were never allowed sharp tools and her hair therefore would have grown out by at least five inches during that time; therefore this part of the transcript was likely falsified along with so many other parts).
Hey dark asshole
Shove it up your ass. No one needs your hateful bullshit
@Snowberry:
re: Rowling’s death threats – one thing which I find strange is that JKR immediately jumped to “trans people want to kill me” after the first (only?) confirmed actual threat, when a more reasonable assumption would be “religious fundamentalist(s) who think Harry Potter promotes witchcraft”. They’ve threatened her before, it’s just been awhile.
An exquisite irony there is that Wiccans are another demographic who’ve had Rowling slam the Hogwarts gates in their faces:
http://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/544995944404897792?lang=en
http://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/544996025073541121?lang=en
The Doylean problem is obvious: Rowling’s whole setup is predicated upon all Muggles disbelieving in magic, and oh, bugger—here’s a class of real-world people who not only believe in but believe they practice magic. No Hogwarts for you—you’re just too inconvenient for my worldbuilding, and you’re a small enough group to afford to antagonize.
(And that’s before we get into the whole issue of cultures for whom belief in magic remains an integral part of daily life, and cultures who regard witchcraft by definition as evil, as distinct from the supernatural workings of holy people—a sk*nw*lker is something you choose to become, and by crossing a Moral Event Horizon.)
Personally I find her more interesting as a woman who transgressed gender norms, but that’s personal — I’m sure other playgoers will find the nonbinary idea more intriguing.
And Joan has been interpreted lots of ways that would have been incomprehensible to her so what’s one more?
As this is Horrible Histories I’m going to assume this is exactly how it went down…
And, in musical format…