Product Details

• Published on: 1994-11
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback

About the Author
From 1989 to 1991, Carolyn Gage was the Artistic Director of No to Men, a radical feminist theatre company in Ashland, Oregon. In two years, the theatre produced nineteen different plays, including ten one-acts, two musicals, and a one- woman showall written by Gage. She has written the first textbook/manual on Lesbian theatre, Take Stage! How to Produce and Direct a Lesbian Play, a book which challenges the structures and values of traditional theatre. Gage has toured nationally in her award- winning one-woman show, The Second Coming of Joan of Arc.

Gage has won the Oregon Playwrights Award, the Walden Writer's Fellowship from Lewis and Clark College, the Oregon Institute of Literary Arts Writer's Grant, and the Oregon Arts Commission Individual Artist Grant. Her short stories, poems, reviews, and political essays have been widely published in journals, anthologies, and women's publications, both nationally and internationally.

Customer Reviews

Brilliant feminist imagination
I was fortunate enough to see "The Second Coming" produced with the author in the lead role. What a fabulous experience! This play is firmly situated in literary tradition as it imagines the circumstances of Joan's life, as a woman of her time. Gage's feminist politics are uncompromising in this piece, as in all her work, as she fearlessly names patriarchy as responsible for the ills women suffer. The other plays in this book are equally good and powerful in that several of them are brief and would not be difficult to stage. While this book is an excellent read, the real power of this work is as performance. Women need more roles, better roles, real roles, in theater, and this book has them. Gage's gift for seeing and giving voice to the feminist potential in every story is on display in this remarkable book.

The Second Burning of Joan of Arc
This seems to be another case in which an author and her readership first claim that the material is based on the original documents and therefore true to history, then when historians prove this to be false the claim is made that the documents don't matter anyway, using the usual rhetoric about "multiple truths" and so forth. The version presented in this play isn't even corroborated by the book upon which the play itself was (loosely) based, a biography by Vita Sackville-West which itself has been roundly denounced by scholars, including feminists, for its many inaccuracies; but at least Sackville-West was honest enough not to claim that Joan was a "lesbian", nor a rebel against the Church, nor a "teenager runaway" escaping an alcoholic and abusive father, etc, and in fact she often states precisely the opposite on many of these subjects. The author of this play merely took a few comments in the above book out of context, then wrote up a purely fictional account, and now apparently tries to defend it against academic criticism by dredging up discredited tactics of evasion - something which she would never approve of if it was her own life that was being rewritten.
The facts of the matter are not in dispute among reputable historians; here are some of the historical issues which are relevant to the play:
- Even Ms. Sackville-West, despite having been a lesbian herself, never alleged that Joan of Arc had any such tendencies: the playwright apparently jumped to that conclusion simply because Sackville-West's book mentions a number of the eyewitness descriptions of Joan being placed with little girls (such as the 9-year old Charlotte Boucher) or their mothers or other hostesses in the homes she stayed in at Orleans and other locations during her army's campaigns. As I believe Ms. Sackville-West herself notes, this was the standard procedure in that era whenever a shortage of beds forced such an arrangement (i.e., rather than placing men and women in the same bed). The little girls and women that she "slept with" themselves said that she was a virgin, meaning that they could not possibly have been having sex with her unless they are contradicting themselves in the same breath, a point which the author of this play deliberately ignores.
- Similarly, the claim that Joan "died for the right to wear male clothing" ignores the eyewitness accounts given on that subject even in Sackville-West's book, to say nothing of the full testimony in the original documents: several witnesses said that Joan herself told them that she had to continue wearing her soldier's clothing (of a type which was designed so that the pants and tunic could be tied securely together with "laces and points") because her guards had attempted to rape her on several occasions, and such clothing was her only defense against such attempts. She said that her alleged "relapse" was the result of the guards taking away the dress that had been provided her, leaving her nothing to wear but her old male clothing. Only her enemies claimed that she insisted on wearing male clothing as a personal preference rather than out of necessity: this was the claim they had to make, since the medieval Church allowed an exemption in cases in which a woman was wearing such clothing for protection (see medieval Church documents such as St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", or St. Hildegard's "Scivias" for example). Joan was absolutely correct in saying that what she was doing was perfectly lawful under the rules of the Church.
- Even Ms. Sackville-West describes Joan as a pious Catholic, in contrast to the play's spin on this issue. What Carolyn Gage interprets as "contempt" for the clergy seems to be based on a rather deliberate misinterpretation of a handful of comments to the pro-English clergy who put her on trial, while completely ignoring her good relations with the clergy of her own faction: one of her closest companions was a friar named Jean Pasquerel of the Order of St. Augustine; another chaplain in her army was her cousin Nicholas Rommee (de Vouthon) of the Cistercian Order; there are many descriptions of her close association with the crowd of mendicant friars who served in her army, and she had the support of Jacques Gelu (Archbishop of Embrun), Jean Gerson, and many other high-ranking clerics, whose writings in praise of her still survive. The only clergy she may have had contempt for were people like Cauchon - a long-term advisor and supporter of the English and Burgundians whom she well knew to have been prosecuting her out of revenge. When the case was appealed after her death, the presiding Inquisitor denounced Cauchon as a heretic for what he did, echoing Joan's statements warning him not to proceed with his prosecution.
- Once again, even Vita Sackville-West never alleges that Joan harbored any anger against men, and there are many eyewitness descriptions of her fondness for men such as Duke Jean II d'Alencon, Duke Charles of Orleans, and Charles VII. Her squire and bodyguard, Jean d'Aulon, said that she "especially loved a certain honorable man whom she knew to be of chaste habits"; another eyewitness says that she liked the company of "aristocratic fighting-men". Sackville-West herself comments on Joan's apparent affinity for such "men of action". Nowhere in the documents is there the slightest hint of any feminist beliefs, nor any anger against her father: Gage's caricature of this man as an incestuous alcoholic is based on her own unfortunate family problems, and has nothing to do with Joan's circumstances as outlined even in Sackville-West's book.
None of the basic facts of Joan's life are disputed by any reputable historian, given the fact that she is one of the most thoroughly documented people in pre-modern history. The process of inventing a fictional spin on someone's life is usually called 'libel', and the practice of defending such by claiming that "truth doesn't exist" is simply a dodge of the issue.