Customer Reviews

Joan of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman (Studies in Women and Religion)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is another book which ignores the more objective evidence in favor of the slander promoted by Joan's opponents (i.e., the English and their allies among the Anglo-Burgundian clergy) while adding a large dollop of speculation and New Age philosophy into the mix. Joan was never considered a heretic by anyone except her enemies: for a more balanced selection of the clerical views of that era, see Jean Gerson's treatise in her defense (written in 1429) and Inquisitor Bréhal's declaration of her innocence contained in his "Recollectio" at the end of the Rehabilitation Trial in 1456. Similarly, the notion that 15th century women were a stifled class is rather curious, given that there were so many aristocratic women (Marie de Berri, Jeanne de Montfort, Marcia Ordelaffi, Jeanne de Penthièvre...) who took charge of their families' armies and other affairs during the Hundred Years War period (Joan was not the only woman to be given titular command of an army, by any means); this doesn't fit the model of history which certain modern academics subscribe to, but it's the way the feudal system has traditionally operated (that's why England has a Queen right now). Finally, the book's insistence on calling Joan a "shaman" has provoked justifiable ridicule, and hardly needs to be debunked here (I hope).

It seems that some authors cannot resist the temptation to rewrite Joan's history in terms of their own ideology. The end result hardly qualifies as history.

This book violates every tenet of scholarship by shamelessly repeating and repackaging the dishonest accusations made against Joan in 1431 (accusations which were soundly debunked when the case was appealed a couple decades after her death and the original verdict was thrown out by the courts on July 7, 1456). The obvious lack of evidence for the views expressed in this book does not seem to concern the author, who plunges ahead with her "theory" in complete disregard for scientific methodology and standards of proof.

Irrespective of the claims of the previous reviewer, this is a book based on scholarship. As early as 1986, Barstow uncovered what so many others are announcing today--that a central question of women's lives is the question of authority. On whose authority does a woman speak when she can not speak on her own? In a world where women were tightly hemmed in by culture and religion, where they had no authority to speak, Joan of Arc discovered a new basis for personal authority. In her case, it was her voices which gave her that authority; once heard, she could do no other than to speak what they commanded. As Barstow says--Joan's story is a that of an autonomous woman, one who broke through the limitations and constraints of her time. In this highly documented book the reader learns of Joan's doubts, her humiliation, her torments. Finally, one learns again about courage against all odds.

Winner of the Adele Mellen Prize for its distinguished contribution to scholarship, Joan Of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman by Anne Llewellyn Barstow is not just another biography of Joan of Arc's life per se, but rather a methodical and seminal exploration of the topics that best shed light on how she lived as an autonomous woman in fifteenth-century France. Placing Joan's visions in the context of medieval mysticism, her dissent condemned by the church as heresy in the context of medieval dissent, and so much more, Joan Of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman is an impressively thoughtful, exhaustively researched, and inspirationally insightful study of the details that surrounded this great woman's brief life and lasting legacy. A work of outstanding scholarship, Joan Of Arc: Heretic, Mystic, Shaman is a welcome and enthusiastically recommended addition to personal, community, and academic library collections.

I think one should question how autonomous a woman is if she listens to the voices which supposedly came from outside of her being. I can understand the shaman relation. Of course anyone from a scientific perspective who has made "standards of proof" their god are never willing to accept the factual existence of other viewpoints, but to each his or her own. Altogether, this work has some interesting points, but comes from a lousy angle. You can't blame them, but several Westerners have been caught in a trend for awhile now to concretize myth and magic in order to satisfy "science-types". It just doesn't work and only draws more criticism. You cannot fit a square peg into a round hole.