 |
| Don't worry, the fire is fake. |
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!
(a little late)
And what better way to spend this wonderful holiday then by reading Shakespeare? After all, we have good 'ole Will Shakespeare to blame for all those Romeo and Juliet cliches that run rampant in American pop culture.
As promised in my previous post, I have much more to say about Part One of King VI. In addition to Lord Talbot, another character that really stood out to me was Joan of Arc. Both her character and Lord Talbot's character reveal what a profound impact context has on literature.
Having been a student of the French language for five years, I've seen Christian Duguay's 1999 made-for-TV-movie, Joan of Arc at least twice (that and The Count of Monte Cristo seem to be the only movies French teachers are familiar with), Shakespeare's Joan la Pucelle is a far cry from Duguay's pious saint.
Shakespeare's Joan is rude and audacious. She's a good fighter, but that's all she's got going for her. Unlike movie-Joan, who remains humble and virtuous, Shakespeare-Joan is depicted more as a witch than a saint.
Joan's character is best shown in scene iv of act v. In this scene, Joan is about to be burnt at the stake when her shepard father comes to bid her goodbye. Joan denies that this man is her father, falsely claiming that she was born to nobility. Her father leaves in a rage, and when the English start to take her away to be executed, she pleads that should not kill her because she is "virtuous and holy; chosen from above." However, when this argument has little effect on the English, she changes her tactics completely, claiming that she is pregnant with the child of Dauhpin. But the English won't be swayed by this either, so Joan lists off the names of French generals, each time claiming that one of them is the father, changing the her mind every time the English reject her argument.
Thus, Shakespeare's Joan is vain, self-serving and unscrupulous. She is a sharp contrast to Duguay's Joan, who looks up to the sky in complete submission, her lips parted in prayer as those deadly flames tear at her skirts.
It would be tempting, very tempting, to make the feminist argument. After all, Shakespeare made a complete joke out of a woman who took on an unconventional role in society and fought for what she believed in at no matter what the cost. But I believe that Shakespeare's depiction of Joan la Pucelle is a reflection not of womankind, but rather, of the French.
Published roughly half a century after the Hundred Years War, Part One of King Henry VI was written in a time when relations between France and England were still tense. This may be a historical play, but its also a propaganda piece. Take, for instance, the juxtaposition between Lord Talbot, the ideal English knight, and the flighty King Charles of France, who is portrayed by Shakespeare as a fool.
At one point, King Charles and one of his dukes speak of how Joan la Pucelle will be made the patron saint of France. Thus, Joan can be seen as a symbol for France. Audacious, rude, unscrupulous; through Joan we see how Shakespeare and his countrymen viewed France.
So what?
Joan la Pucelle is a perfect example of why, as readers, we need to consider the context of the literature we are reading. Part One of King Henry VI is certainly not one hundred percent historically accurate. Shakespeare was biased towards France, partial towards England. It's at no fault to him; this is simply a result of the time period he lived in. And it certainly makes King Henry no less of a masterpiece. If anything, it just makes the play more interesting. The same is true of Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte.
A book never stands alone. It is a living, breathing piece of the time period that conceived it. And it is this dynamic, far-reaching aspect of the written word which makes literature so much fun.
No comments:
Post a Comment