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.
@Alan Robertshaw
Did you ever watch a program called “this is history” ? I remember a very young me crying with laughter when the presenter pulled a Robin Hood hat out of the ground. I think they ended up being the Horrible Histories team!
@ lollypop
Ooh, now you’ve really triggered a memory. I seem to have a recollection of people dramatically exclaiming “This is history!!!”
Is that it? I’ve tried on YouTube but to no avail.
When I was eight, the library in my school closed. (Boo!) We students got to choose books to take home and keep. Being a women’s studies scholar even at the time, I chose One Thousand and One Nights and a biography of Joan of Arc. I was completely put off by the fact that the fictional character Scheherazade from One Thousand and One Nights had to tell a new story every night so that her husband, the king, didn’t murder her.
But Joan of Arc — damn! God spoke to a girl and made her a general and led her to victory! I was more than impressed. And I was very, very confused when my mother, an evangelical Protestant, pooh-poohed the whole thing.
“God said so” is a perfectly valid reason to do something in Jeanne’s time. And she sure did win some battles. The Dauphin/King done her wrong.
@Alan: That’s not fair, oftentimes the girl was a teen boy, and a boy might be the older women, which is how we get The Dame.
@Kimstu: Thank you for introducing me to the Publick Universal Friend! Sounds like she had a near-death experience and came out of it — like many people do — determined to live a life more authentic to themself.
I enjoyed Lincoln hunting vampires as a movie so bad it was good. Admittedly, I was also either reading or surfing the net at the time, so I probably only paid attention to the OTT parts. Good background noise on a weekend night, possibly with an adult beverage.
I liked “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, although I didn’t believe the rando white guy could have beaten Bruce Lee either. But of course it was an alternate history too. My brother and I tend to use quotes from the movie in conversation; it’s the only Tarantino movie I’ve ever liked more than my husband did.
I too prefer when things are gotten right in TV/movies about the past. There was one series where I grumbled about 7 things wrong in the first 6 minutes and hubs politely asked me to pipe down. I liked “Gladiator” despite the completely alternate history of Marcus Aurelius’ death, and the fact that in the opening scene, I grumbled that the Romans didn’t have stirrups (long-suffering look from Mr. xn). But all was forgiven when the awnings over the arena were deployed.
This generally doesn’t bother me in plays, since obviously they’re more abstract than movies/TV, although I do prefer the costumes to make a try at period-ish. I mean, I once enjoyed a version of “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” in which the chorus had LED headbands and was on roller skates– but everyone was in tunics or stolas. Miles Gloriosus’ boot tops were made of flayed stuffed toy lions from the toy store in the mall, so he looked like he had clip-on critters holding onto his shins.And I was in a production of “Fiddler on the Roof” where the intruding Cossack army was dressed in leftover ROTC uniforms because we couldn’t afford the tunics and big furry hats. It was effective, though.
@Elaine: More like Dork Knight, if that picture is of him.
Team Joanne Harris!
No. For us, everything is open to question, challenge, and potential factual repudiation. We go where the evidence leads us.
Sacredness is a right-wing thing. It means declaring some things off-limits to enquiry, and thus enshrining some beliefs as unquesionable dogma. It’s inherently authoritarian, as such.
Polycystic ovarian syndrome?
@Alan
Ah that’s because I misremembered! Sorry, it was “we are history!”. And at least one clip survives. Watching it as a not-ten-year-old I’m getting the feeling it was a direct pisstake of David Starkey’s somewhat pompous presenting style, haha.
https://youtu.be/QXP3yOOG1Wo
@ lollypop
Yes! That was what I remember. Marcus Bridgestock yelling “We are history…..!”
In a similar vein, for people who prefer science to history…
@ Vicky P
Your article on that old trans rights case has got us chatting on legal twitter. And someone has found an even earlier case!
(Helpfully called ‘X”)
https://scott-wortley.medium.com/some-quick-thoughts-on-ewan-forbes-sempill-and-issues-in-scots-law-ec3ec2cefc57
We are going to do a video on this on the new channel. I think it would be a good launch topic. And there’s often so much tension on social media over legal cases; so I reckon a video on trans rights should be a nice non contentious change from that.
@Alan
Ooh, fascinating! Thanks for the link, and I look forward to seeing the video when you post it.
“Joan of Arc, the world’s most famous cross-dresser…”
Corporal Max Klinger would like a word.
@Victorious Parasol
That’s one way of looking at it, to be sure, and I can’t argue with it. Even so, I am nevertheless inclined to act on the principle that we should adhere as closely to the truth as possible even in those cases. Or at least, whatever is closest to the truth as far as we can tell.
It’s just the principle of the thing- poetry may be all well and good at inspiring virtue (ignoring of course that “virtue” itself may be just another social construct), but I do not believe that alone is enough to justify blurring the lines between fantasy and reality and on top of that a virtue that can only be taught via fantasies is not far removed from being a fantasy itself. I also never really bought into the Romantic worldview that he advocates. Its hyperfocus on subjectivity and emotion lends itself too easily to solipsism and self-inflicted depression, and its fixation on an idealized past is known to be one of the foundations of fascism as we know it today. Literature and poetry should supplement history, not usurp it.
I like the method they use in some ‘based on a true story’ films where, if they depart form the facts, they break the fourth wall and explain why.
For example in The Big Short there’s a scene where they find a crucial document in the lobby after a disastrous meeting. One of the characters explains that in real life they got the document from somewhere else, but they didn’t want to slow down the pace of the movie.
There’s a wonderfully surreal bit in 24 Hour Party People were the real Howard DeVito, playing a different character, walks past a scene featuring a fictional Howard DeVito and says “I don’t remember this happening.”
@Anonymous
I’d argue that’s kinda sorta what a play like I, Joan does. (ETA: The supplanting, not the usurpation.) The history is still out there, filed under “non-fiction”. But I don’t think literature’s role is limited to supplementing history. Literature (of all kinds) is ultimately commentary, aka opinion, presented in a structured format of some kind or another to attract and hold the attention of an audience.
Okay, but in what way does I, Joan usurp history. Is there something in the play that tells people not to read history books? Do you have to sign a statement of principles in order to watch the play that includes a commitment to getting all one’s historical facts from stage plays?
I just don’t get it. And, hey, I’m not saying that YOU have to like this. It’s not your thing, and that’s fine.
But you’re clearly, clearly aware that fictionalized history abounds from the previously mentioned Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter to the ever popular Outlander series. Hell, even the Harry Potter/Magical beasts series do a bit what with implying that the true but secret cause of the muggle WorldWar2 was a wizarding war behind the scenes. From barely touching on historical events and persons but implying things that aren’t true (Harry Potter) to efforts to set entirely fictional persons amidst the historical facts of an era (Outlander) to fictionalizing actual persons doing actual historical things that have been well documented (Inglorious Basterds) to scholarly works of history that occasionally get facts wrong (like, all of them, Katie), this is a continuum of outright fiction to reasonable (but occasionally erroneous) interpretation.
Given that I, Joan breaks no new ground in the sense of attributing historically implausible feelings and motivations to a person who is historically certain to have existed (see my own reference to Richard III), why should I, Joan be given some special responsibility not to “usurp” history that is not placed on all the other works I’ve mentioned.
Honest to goodness, of all the people who might be accused of “usurping” the historian’s role, I would think you would loathe Umberto Eco, whose laboriously detailed attention to facts of historical setting are impinged upon by characters carefully crafted to be believable and whose actions carefully calculated to be plausible and appropriate for their historical moments.
Umberto Eco seems to me like his writing would attract the pinnacle of your ire, while I, Joan seems quite consciously to represent itself as a creative reinterpretation, not the work of a documentarian.
So, again — and not to be hostile, merely for my information — what is it that characterizes a work that “usurps” the historian’s role, and how do you know (or why do you suspect) that I, Joan fits in that category of villainous, hunchback usurpers?
@ crip dyke
You ever see this? Ignore the terrible trailer voice.
(The tank in this became quite famous)
History is written by the winners. As such, it is semi-fantastical literature featuring historical characters. I have personal experience with incorrect history being recorded by the winners of that history, up to and including what will be shown in available court records for all time. When your primary source material is corrupted, how can you possibly suppose that you could draw an accurate picture of a historical person?
It is all fantasy. It may as well be a fantasy that one enjoys. Which I think is the main issue at hand here: who enjoys what. There is enough bi-gendered material in the world to survive one single non-binary interpretation of Joan of Arc, I rather think.
Of course, my sexuality is still listed as a disorder in the DSM, so what would I know. Maybe there isn’t.
Yes, when it first came out.
Do I remember correctly that it was quite short and highly abridged?
@ crip dyke
I’m not sure; I very much lack your literary expertise. All I know is, as a Yorkshireman, it was highly defamatory of Richard III!
Poor old Dick. Buried under a council car park.
But as mentioned, at least that tank went on to have a stellar career. He’s quite famous in London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandela_Way_T-34_Tank
@Surplus to Requirements:
I will admit that was one of my first thoughts as well. Obviously something we can’t know, but we do know that a lot of things that seemed unique, mysterious, and unexplainable back then have had repetitions and perfectly ordinary explanations since then. (And a lot of them were only ‘unique’ at the time because nobody talked about them, so there was no way for anybody to know they weren’t.)
Ugh, I meant to type “supplementing” not “supplanting” there, and got careless. Blargh.
@Surplus
May I ask what makes you think this?
Alan made similar statements in that other Amber Heard post, except he framed it as: progressives *supposedly* go where the evidence leads them. For the purposes of this response, it’s basically the same sentiment.
What I want to ask here is, what is a progressive? Seemingly, the most common usage of the term refers to left-leaning people who are less moderate than establishment liberals especially in the U.S. and Britain. We talk about progressive Democrats and progressive Labour members. The problem is, something like “everyone to the left of Pelosi” is a wide umbrella of ideologies. I’d even argue that it’s more diverse than everyone to the right of Pelosi.
So then I have to ask, do all those progressive groups go where the evidence leads them? Or do they adhere to some kind of sacredness, enshrining some beliefs as unquestionable dogma? The reality is that everybody does a bit of both. Most if not all ideological groups, even within the “progressive” wing, have strongly held beliefs that they haven’t questioned or challenged, or even outright refuse to. No ideological stance makes you immune to propaganda.
Grifters and trolls in “progressive” spheres are not new. In fact, sometimes the waters are so muddied by bad-faith actors that it can be near-impossible to tell what the real honest truth is, or to evaluate even neutral facts in an objective way. So even if you are just stating facts, the potential actual effect is that it gets taken out of context and makes people less rational, not more. I don’t think you can “simply state facts” or “simply correct something that’s wrong” when, for example, The Daily Wire is using a controversy to fish for recruits into their bigot pipeline.
@Crip Dyke
As you yourself pointed out, it simply is not my thing (and honestly a lot of fiction isn’t exactly my thing- I am very, very particular about it). From what you have described Eco’s work actually sounds as if it dovetails perfectly with my views (and for the record I feel his “Ur-Fascism” necessary reading for anyone seeking to trace the roots of fascist totalitarianism).
It doesn’t, and I would happily extend that responsibility to all of those other works as well. But again, I speak solely for myself and it’s not like those works were written solely to please me. If you like them, you are free to have them.
I, Joan might not fit into that category, and lacking any explicit confirmation or denial of its status I will not make further comment on it. But basically, anything that boasts of being “based on a true story” while taking creative liberties beyond what is strictly necessary to tell a good story comes at least very close to that usurpation, especially if people begin to believe it’s version over what really happened- either an account is true or it is not, it’t can’t be partially true any more than a person can be partially dead. Granted, this puts the burden on the viewers rather than the writer, but their ignorance is still a failing in its own right. People in general are quite bluntly very lazy about their historical knowledge and I can certainly imagine quite a few getting their knowledge solely from plays or other forms of pop culture.
I value truth far more than most people, and I am aware my views are very much in the minority. Nevertheless, they are my principles and I will fight tooth and nail to uphold them. I trust you have no further questions?
@Big Titty Demon
Simple. You do the best you can with what you have and draw from as many sources as possible to mitigate that corruption. They can’t all be full of shit.
There is no excuse for not even trying to discern the true from the false even when the task seems arduous at best. It may all be fantasy, but some fantasies are closer to reality than others and it is our duty to determine what those are and use them to approach the truth as closely as possible.
Relax, I know people with sexualities we don’t even have names for and they’re more well-adjusted than most allegedly normal people, so I highly doubt it’s actually a mental illness.
@crip dyke
If it makes you feel better, bisexual is just the label I put on myself because it seems to the the closes fit. In general it is an attraction to beings that are vaguely female or male in gender presentation. To be honest I don’t think there is a being alive that could comprehend my sexual preference. That doesn’t make it mental illness and it doesn’t mean we have a label for it .I would be willing to bet a lot of people are like that.
Reading this reminded me of Wyatt Earp. Even before Hollywood distorted his “true” story his public story was already largely fictional. Much of what people think they know about Earp came from Stuart Lake’s 1931 biography of Earp Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshall. Earp’s wife Josephine had a large role in shaping its narrative, having inconvenient facts, like Earp owning gambling saloons that included prostitutes, omitted. Lake would also later admit he made up much of what he wrote. He told journalist Burton Rascoe that interviewing Earp had been of little use, as Earp was incoherent. Most modern historians consider it a work of fiction.
@Elaine the Witch “I don’t think there is a being alive that could comprehend my sexual preference”
Wait… Did I just encounter a Hellsing Abridged fan in the wild?