Joan of Arc and Sacrificial Authorship by Ann W. Astell (review)

Abstract

Reviews Ann w. astell, Joan ofArc and SacrificialAuthorship. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. Pp. xvi, 226. isbn: 0-268-03259-9 (cloth), $55. isbn: 0—268-03260-2 (paper), $25. Astell's probing inquiry into modern literary constructions ofJoan ofArc builds its case upon, as she puts it, 'the poet's ability to depart from historical reality, to transform its matter in the process ofimitating it, and thus to give the world itself new, mythic models and ideals.' Astell's book offers a broadly researched and profoundly considered analysis ofpost-Enlightenment portrayals ofJoan ofArc in vernacular literature ranging from poetry to biography to drama to film, from Schiller to Sackville-West to Shaw to Dreyer. In essence, Astell demonstrates that Joan of Arc evolves mythically from the 'historical record' ofa living saint ofFrench liberation to a mythic symbol ofsuffering and sacrifice for universal humanity. Innovatively applying René Girard's theory of sacred violence and scapegoating for the ritual reunification of conflicted communities, Astell narrates the mythic constructions ofJoan's sacrificial agency in modern contexts of ideological change, political turmoil and artistic inspiration. Astell argues that every new construction of Joan beyond the fifteenth-century historical record is 'inescapably autobiographical' and reflects the voices ofboth its own historical era and the private world of its author. Astell directly and fairly addresses her own voice as author as well—a Catholic scholar and lifelong devotee of St. Joan. At various points, Astell objects toJoan's 'de-Christianization' by modern humanist thinkers. However, she goes on to reflect lucidly upon the ways in which Joan has been truly a 'catholic' rather than a 'Catholic' saint, i.e. a source of universal inspiration. Astell's own religious assertion (drawn from Girard), that the authentic ethos ofChristianity is 'antimythic' and 'antisacrificial' attempts to substantiate her argument that modern literary portrayals ofJoan as a sacrificial victim are mythic lies that decidedly swerve from the 'historical record.' Astell's Christian apologetics are insufficiently refined and considered, however, to meet the complex demands posed by Christian history's vast range of diverse voices, including the so-called 'historical record' ofJoan ofArc in particular. As a result, a rocky tension besets Astell's book between, on the one hand, what the author identifies as the 'historical record' ofJoan ofArc, and on the other, later literary constructions of Joan. Astell does not address directly why she considers Joan's fifteenth-century trial documents to be 'historical record' exempt from any literary criticism themselves. John H. Arnold's Inquisition and Power has recently shown that medieval trial texts embody distinctive constructions ofboth their authors ARTHURIANA I4.2 (2004) 83 84ARTHURIANA and subjects in genres of Latin writing shaped by legally formal, mythic, and discursive traditions. To explore further the unresolved implications about historical record versus artistic construction in Astell's book, one might consider how the author herselfat times imaginatively constructs the life of Joan of Arc while presenting it to her reader as 'historical record.' Astell would benefit from conscious reflection on her role in speculating upon and imaginatively constructing the historical Joan. For example, no forensic evidence exists at this time that precisely determines the abuses Joan experienced in prison at the hands of her hostile English guards and brutal living conditions. Astell asserts, however, as a matter ofhistorical record, that Joan underwent a rape 'attempt' in her condemnation trial. Whether Joan underwent a rape attempt, multiple rape attempts, an actual rape, multiple rapes, or indeed whatever degree or type of degradation, including what courts today refer to as 'sexual assault' versus 'rape,' remains a question that can only be speculated upon by historians on the basis ofsparse trial testimonies. This type of interpretive error unfortunately pervades Astell's analysis that straightforwardly contrasts historical reality with artistic deviations from the record. Identifying her intellectual perspective as that of a Catholic scholar, however, it may be Astell's wish in her 'rape attempt' assertion to dismiss certain offensive literary constructions ofJoan as a prostitute and to affirm Joan's virginity as lifelong, thus upholding Joan's canonization as a 'virgin' saint by the Catholic Church. If this is the case, Astell overlooks the extensive medieval discussion...