Monday, October 25, 2010
My new hobby/endeavor
I have put in some thought as to what I am interested in pursuing. I am interested in people in history and I think I will pursue this however many months ago I wanted to conduct in-depth research about a person I find important and interesting. I think that my research will suit this blog and discussion between us. I want to seriously research the Marquis de Lafayette. He was French and American and I want to read his writings and better understand his contributions to both France and the United States. I am quite interested in this and now that I have made it known, I will have to begin...
A journey of a thousand miles always starts with a single step..
I have not written in a long time yet, it is not because I do not wish to do so anymore but rather because of time. A few months ago, I had the idea to write about various cities in the world. The reason behind the selection was that they were mostly lost in the middle of nowhere but held once, a certain status or at least they did and still have to me.
Some of them have a historical value, others have been the goal of some expeditions while most of them have an inspiring name. I do not really aim to make a specific point about them. It is just that they hold an interesting significance to me and I probably wonder deep down why some cities stay in the sunshine while others are forgotten like these ones.
My list of cities includes:
Timbuktu, which was for long time thought as legendary
Zanzibar, a haven for slave trade and departure point of famed explorer D. Livingstone
Archangelsk, a lost city in the north
Vladivostok at the end of the Transiberian
Dawson City, starting point of the Klondike Gold Rush
Samarqand, a very old city and main stage on the Silk Road
Ushuaia, at the edge of South America
I hope to be able to finish this project in a not too far future!
-Croissant
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Joan of Arc lecture
Oh how the tale is twisted. This evening I attended an Alliance Française lecture presented by Norman Stokle entitled ‘Joan of Arc: Fact or Fiction’. The presentation was kicked off with a retelling of Joan of Arc’s story and how she became the French heroine and Godly legend. This mystic story fabricated but this aligns with most stories surviving the test of time. Though I found myself getting swept up in Joan’s fantasy story, and somewhat wishing it were all true, I was enlightened by the second half of the lecture.
Stokle look various aspects of Joan’s life and related physical evidence to what was most likely, or rather most plausible. It is likely that Joan was not the peasant shepherd that she is portrayed as. He began critiquing her beginning as the child of Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée of Domrémy, born in 1412; there is not any birth record for Joan and there are accounts of local residents claiming they did not even know of Romée’s pregnancy. Also, during Joan’s heretic trial, a close friend with whom she played as a child, testified that Joan was older than her by several years and she herself was born in 1410. Joan’s date of birth can now be believed to be 1407 or 1408. Again there is no such record for her birth at that time. However Stokle claims that another birth of an illicit match taking place in 1408 could have sent Joan into the country to be raised. This match was between Isabella of Bavaria-Ingolstadt, the mother of King Charles VII of France, and Charles, Duke of Orleans. This would make Joan and Charles VII, whom she crowned king, her brother. This would explain her ease at being able to meet with him, convince him to give her an army, and her ability to persuade him to Reims to be crowned legitimate king of France. Additionally, Stokle claimed that Joan was well educated from her letters, her use of language that was not native to Domrémy, and her demonstrated ability to converse with nobility which if she was a peasant would be highly implausible.
Joan had claimed also to hear voices, those of St. Margaret of Antioch and St. Catherine of Alexandria which were claimed later by the Catholic Church to have never existed. So who then was speaking to her?
Further contestation of Joan of Arc’s story lies with the death itself. It has been detailed that Joan was burned at the stake however she was placed on a platform that was higher than any other stake used in execution and her head was covered. It was illustrated that in the square in which she was burned all of the windows were nailed shut. There is also on record that there were two other women being tried for heresy at the same time and held in the same tower, at Rouen, as Joan. This would lend to the idea that it was not Joan of Arc that was burned at the stake but rather another convicted ‘witch’. This is further evidenced by later letters and receipts containing her name, Jeanne la Pucelle. Such letters showed the same acquaintances which can demonstrate that an imposter was not possible.
One final comment that caught my eye about Joan’s stay at Rouen—the British man who oversaw the trail of Joan of Arc was the Earl of Warwick, Richard Beauchamp. Though the trail was held by the Church, the results were directed by the English. Is this why the French helped her escape death? Was the desire to rebel against the British the reason for her survival or was it due to gratitude of Joan’s accomplishments?
Stokle ended by claiming that her military victories and her crowing of the king are assured. These are true and alone can demonstrate her great contributions to unifying France. However, for these tings to happen it was necessary for her to have the confidence of the King and the military. As this confidence was in place, Stokle believed there must have been more to the story.
I enjoyed the discussion that Stokle led but I wonder how much of this research is true and how much of this research can be added to the many other theories surrounding Joan. Scholars can argue that Joan was crazy, a lesbian, a Protestant, and they can defend their arguments. Stokle can defend successfully his arguments that Joan was not born a peasant but half brother to a king and was indeed not executed. Though he displayed evidence such as letters after her presumed death and demonstrated the lack of evidence surrounding her supposed birth date, I am interested to know how whether this is enough to change her whole history. Though this research was convincing, I find that it doesn’t really matter. Jeanne d’Arc has proven herself as a hero and with that she gains the glory that comes with it—the glory of an epic history.
Stokle look various aspects of Joan’s life and related physical evidence to what was most likely, or rather most plausible. It is likely that Joan was not the peasant shepherd that she is portrayed as. He began critiquing her beginning as the child of Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée of Domrémy, born in 1412; there is not any birth record for Joan and there are accounts of local residents claiming they did not even know of Romée’s pregnancy. Also, during Joan’s heretic trial, a close friend with whom she played as a child, testified that Joan was older than her by several years and she herself was born in 1410. Joan’s date of birth can now be believed to be 1407 or 1408. Again there is no such record for her birth at that time. However Stokle claims that another birth of an illicit match taking place in 1408 could have sent Joan into the country to be raised. This match was between Isabella of Bavaria-Ingolstadt, the mother of King Charles VII of France, and Charles, Duke of Orleans. This would make Joan and Charles VII, whom she crowned king, her brother. This would explain her ease at being able to meet with him, convince him to give her an army, and her ability to persuade him to Reims to be crowned legitimate king of France. Additionally, Stokle claimed that Joan was well educated from her letters, her use of language that was not native to Domrémy, and her demonstrated ability to converse with nobility which if she was a peasant would be highly implausible.
Joan had claimed also to hear voices, those of St. Margaret of Antioch and St. Catherine of Alexandria which were claimed later by the Catholic Church to have never existed. So who then was speaking to her?
Further contestation of Joan of Arc’s story lies with the death itself. It has been detailed that Joan was burned at the stake however she was placed on a platform that was higher than any other stake used in execution and her head was covered. It was illustrated that in the square in which she was burned all of the windows were nailed shut. There is also on record that there were two other women being tried for heresy at the same time and held in the same tower, at Rouen, as Joan. This would lend to the idea that it was not Joan of Arc that was burned at the stake but rather another convicted ‘witch’. This is further evidenced by later letters and receipts containing her name, Jeanne la Pucelle. Such letters showed the same acquaintances which can demonstrate that an imposter was not possible.
One final comment that caught my eye about Joan’s stay at Rouen—the British man who oversaw the trail of Joan of Arc was the Earl of Warwick, Richard Beauchamp. Though the trail was held by the Church, the results were directed by the English. Is this why the French helped her escape death? Was the desire to rebel against the British the reason for her survival or was it due to gratitude of Joan’s accomplishments?
Stokle ended by claiming that her military victories and her crowing of the king are assured. These are true and alone can demonstrate her great contributions to unifying France. However, for these tings to happen it was necessary for her to have the confidence of the King and the military. As this confidence was in place, Stokle believed there must have been more to the story.
I enjoyed the discussion that Stokle led but I wonder how much of this research is true and how much of this research can be added to the many other theories surrounding Joan. Scholars can argue that Joan was crazy, a lesbian, a Protestant, and they can defend their arguments. Stokle can defend successfully his arguments that Joan was not born a peasant but half brother to a king and was indeed not executed. Though he displayed evidence such as letters after her presumed death and demonstrated the lack of evidence surrounding her supposed birth date, I am interested to know how whether this is enough to change her whole history. Though this research was convincing, I find that it doesn’t really matter. Jeanne d’Arc has proven herself as a hero and with that she gains the glory that comes with it—the glory of an epic history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)