 Part 4. The conflict between genius and discipline. Having thus brought the matter home to ourselves, we may now consider the special feature of Joan's mental constitution which made her so unmanageable. What is to be done on the one hand with rulers who will not give any reason for their orders, and on the other with people who cannot understand the reasons when they are given? The government of the world, political, industrial and domestic, has to be carried on mostly by the giving and obeying of orders under just these conditions. Don't argue, do as you're told, has to be said not only to children and soldiers, but practically to everybody. Fortunately, most people do not want to argue, they are only too glad to be saved the trouble of thinking for themselves, and the ableist and most independent thinkers are content to understand their own special department. In other departments they will unhesitatingly ask for and accept the instructions of a policeman or the advice of a tailor without demanding or desiring explanations. Nevertheless, there must be some ground for attaching authority to an order. A child will obey its parents, a soldier, his officer, a philosopher, a railway porter, and a workman, a foreman, all without question because it is generally accepted that those who give the orders understand what they are about and are duly authorized and even obliged to give them. And because in the practical emergencies of daily life there is no time for lessons and explanations or for arguments as to their validity. Such obedience are as necessary to the continuous operation of our social system as the revolutions of the earth are to the succession of day and night. But they are not so spontaneous as they seem. They have to be very carefully arranged and maintained. A bishop will defer to and obey a king, but let a curate venture to give him an order, however necessary insensible, and the bishop will forget his cloth and damn the curate's impudence. The more obedient a man is to accredited authority, the more jealous he is of allowing any unauthorized person to order him about. With all this in mind consider the career of Joan. She was a village girl in authority over sheep and pigs, dogs and chickens, and to some extent over her father's hired laborers when he hired any, but over no one else on earth. Outside the farm she had no authority, no prestige, no claim to the smallest deference. Yet she ordered everybody about from her uncle to the king, the archbishop and the military general staff. Her uncle obeyed her like a sheep and took her to the castle of the local commander, who on being ordered about tried to assert himself, but soon collapsed and obeyed. And so on up to the king as we have seen. This would have been unbearably irritating even if her orders had been offered as rational solutions of the desperate difficulties in which her social superiors found themselves just then. But they were not so offered, nor were they offered as the expression of Joan's arbitrary will. It was never I say so, but always God says so. Joan as Theocrat. Leaders who take that line have no trouble with some people and no end of trouble with others. They need never fear a lukewarm reception. Either they are messengers of God, or they are blasphemous imposters. In the Middle Ages the general belief in witchcraft greatly intensified this contrast, because when an apparent miracle happened, as in the case of the wind changing at Orléans, it proved the divine mission to the credulous and proved a contract with the devil to the skeptical. All through Joan had to depend on those who accepted her as an incarnate angel against those who added to an intense resentment of her presumption a bigoted abhorrence of her as a witch. To this abhorrence we must add the extreme irritation of those who did not believe in the voices and regarded her as a liar and imposter. It is hard to conceive anything more infuriating to a statesman or a military commander or to a court favorite than to be overruled at every turn, or to be robbed of the ear of the reigning sovereign by an impudent young upstart practicing on the credulity of the populace and the vanity and silliness of an immature prince by exploiting a few of those lucky coincidences which pass as miracles with uncritical people. Not only were the envy, snobbery, and competitive ambition of the baser natures exacerbated by Joan's success, but among the friendly ones that were clever enough to be critical, a quite reasonable skepticism and mistrust of her ability, founded on a fair observation of her obvious ignorance and temerity, were at work against her. And as she met all remonstrances and all criticisms, not with arguments or persuasion, but with a flat appeal to the authority of God and a claim to be in God's special confidence, she must have seemed to all who were not infatuated by her, so insufferable that nothing but an unbroken chain of overwhelming success in the military and political field could have saved her from the wrath that finally destroyed her. Unbroken success essential in theocracy. To forge such a chain, she needed to be the king, the archbishop of Rance, the bastard of Orléans, and herself into the bargain, and that was impossible. From the moment when she failed to simulate Charles to follow up his coronation with a swoop on Paris, she was lost. The fact that she insisted on this, whilst the king and the rest timidly and foolishly thought they could square the Duke of Burgundy and effect a combination with him against the English, made her a terrifying nuisance to them. And from that time onward she could do nothing but prowl about the battlefields, waiting for some lucky chance to sweep the captains into a big move. But it was to the enemy that the chance came. She was taken prisoner by the Burgundians fighting before Compiègne, and at once discovered that she had not a friend in the political world. Had she escaped, she would probably have fought on until the English were gone, and then had to shake the dust of the court off her feet, and retire to Dom Rémy, as Garibaldi had to retire to Caprera. Modern Distortions of Jones History This, I think, is all that we can now pretend to say about the prose of Jones' career. The romance of her rise, the tragedy of her execution, and the comedy of the attempts of posterity to make amends for that execution, belong to my play and not to my preface, which must be confined to a sober essay on the facts. That such an essay is badly needed can be ascertained by examining any of our standard works of reference. They give accurately enough the facts about the visit to Van Coller, the annunciation to Charles Aschignon, the raising of the Siege of Orléans, and the subsequent battles, the coronation at Rens, the capture at Compiègne, and the trial and execution at Rouen with their dates and the names of the people concerned. But they all break down on the melodramatic legend of the wicked bishop and the entrapped maiden and the rest of it. It would be far less misleading if they were wrong as to the facts and right in their view of the facts. As it is, they illustrate the too little considered truth that the fashion in which we think changes like the fashion of our clothes, and that it is difficult, if not impossible, for most people to think otherwise than in the fashion of their own period. History always out of date. This, by the way, is why children are never taught contemporary history. Their history books deal with periods of which the thinking has passed out of fashion and the circumstances no longer apply to active life. For example, they are taught history about Washington and told lies about Lenin. In Washington's time they were told lies, the same lies, about Washington and taught history about Cromwell. In the 15th and 16th centuries they were told lies about Joan, and by this time might very well be told the truth about her. Unfortunately, the lies did not cease when the political circumstances became obsolete. The Reformation, which Joan had unconsciously anticipated, kept the questions which arose in her case burning up to our own day. You can see plenty of the burnt houses still in Ireland, with the result that Joan has remained the subject of anti-clerical lies, of specifically Protestant lies, and of Roman Catholic evasions of her unconscious Protestantism. The truth sticks in our throats with all the sauces it is served with. It will never go down until we take it without any sauce at all. The real Joan, not marvelous enough for us. But even in its simplicity, the faith demanded by Joan is one which the anti-metaphysical temper of 19th century civilization, which remains powerful in England and America, and is tyrannical in France, contemptuously refuses her. We do not, like her contemporaries, rush to the opposite extreme in a recoil from her, as from a witch self-sold to the devil, because we do not believe in the devil, nor in the possibility of commercial contracts with him. Our credulity, though enormous, is not boundless, and our stock of it is quite used up by our mediums, clairvoyance, hand readers, slate writers, Christian scientists, psychoanalysts, electronic vibration diviners, therapeutists of all schools, registered and unregistered, astrologers, astronomers who tell us that the sun is nearly a hundred million miles away, and the Betelgeuse as ten times as big as the whole universe, physicists who balance Betelgeuse by describing the incredible smallness of the atom, and a host of other marvel-mongers, whose credulity would have dissolved the Middle Ages in a roar of skeptical merriment. In the Middle Ages, people believed that the earth was flat, for which they had at least the evidence of their senses. We believe it to be round, not because as many as one percent of us could give the physical reasons for so quaint a belief, but because modern science has convinced us that nothing that is obvious is true, and that everything that is magical, improbable, extraordinary, gigantic, microscopic, heartless, or outrageous is scientific. I must not, by the way, be taken as implying that the earth is flat, or that all or any of our amazing credulities are delusions or imposters. I am only defending my own age against the charge of being less imaginative than the Middle Ages. I affirm that the nineteenth century, and still more the twentieth, can knock the fifteenth into a cocktail in point of susceptibility to marvels and saints and prophets, and the musicians and monsters and fairy tales of all kinds. The proportion of marvel to immediately credible statements in the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica is enormously greater than in the Bible. The medieval doctors of Divinity, who did not pretend to settle how many angels could dance on the point of a needle, cut a very poor figure as far as romantic credulity is concerned, beside the modern physicists who have settled to the billionth of a millimeter every movement and position in the dance of the electron. Not for worlds would I question the precise accuracy of these calculations or the existence of electrons, whatever they may be. The fate of Joan is a warning to me against such heresy, but why the men who believe in electrons should regard themselves as less credulous than the men who believed in angels is not apparent to me. If they refuse to believe, with the assessors of 1431, that Joan was a witch, it is not because that explanation is too marvelous, but because it is not marvelous enough. The Stage Limits of Historical Representation For the story of Joan, I refer the reader to the play which follows. It contains all that need to be known about her, but as it is for stage use I have had to condense into three and a half hours a series of events which in their historical happening were spread over four times as many months. For the theatre imposes unities of time and place from which nature in her boundless wastefulness is free. Therefore the reader must not suppose that Joan really put Robert de Baudrecourt in her pocket in fifteen minutes, nor that her excommunication, recantation, relapse, and death at the stake were a matter of half an hour or so. Neither do I claim more for my dramatizations of Joan's contemporaries than that some of them are probably slightly more like the originals than those imaginary portraits of all the pokes from Saint Peter onward through the Dark Ages which are still gravely exhibited in the Uffizi in Florence, or were when I was there last. My dunois would do equally well for the Duke d'Alisson. Both left descriptions of Joan so similar that as a man always describes himself unconsciously whenever he describes anyone else. I have inferred that these good-natured young men were very like one another in mind, so I have lumped the twain into a single figure, thereby saving the theatre manager a salary and a suit of armour. Dunois's face, still on record at Chateau d'Or, is a suggestive help, but I really know no more about these men and their circle than Shakespeare knew about Falcon Bridge and the Duke of Austria or about Macbeth and Macduff. In view of things they did in history and have to do again in the play, I can only invent appropriate characters for them in Shakespeare's manner. Avoid in the Elizabethan drama. I have, however, one advantage over the Elizabethans. I write in full view of the Middle Ages, which may be said to have been rediscovered in the middle of the 19th century after an eclipse of about 450 years. The renaissance of antique literature and art in the 16th century and the lusty growth of capitalism between them buried the Middle Ages and their resurrection is a second renaissance. Now there is not a breath of medieval atmosphere in Shakespeare's histories. His John of God is like a study of the old age of drape. Although he was a Catholic by family tradition, his figures are all intensely Protestant, individualist, skeptical, self-centered in everything but their love affairs and completely personal and selfish even in them. His kings are not statesmen. His cardinals have no religion. A novice can read his plays from one end to the other without learning that the world is finally governed by forces expressing themselves in religions and laws which make epics rather than by vulgarly ambitious individuals who make rouse. The divinity which shapes our ends, rough hue them how we will, is mentioned fatalistically only to be forgotten immediately like a passing vague apprehension. To Shakespeare, as to Mark Twain, Couchon would have been a tyrant and a bully instead of a Catholic and the inquisitor Lometra would have been a sadist instead of a lawyer. Warwick would have had no more futile quality than a successor the kingmaker has in the play of Henry VI. We should have seen them all completely satisfied that if they would only to their own selves be true they could not then be false to any man. A precept which represents the reaction against medievalism at its intensest as if they were beings in the air without public responsibilities of any kind. All Shakespeare's characters are so. That is why they seem natural to our middle classes who are comfortable and irresponsible at other people's expense and are neither ashamed of that condition nor even conscious of it. Nature abhors this vacuum in Shakespeare and I have taken care to let the medieval atmosphere blow through my play freely. Those who see it performed will not mistake the startling event it records for a mere personal accident. They will have before them not only the visible and human puppets but the church, the inquisition, the futile system with divine inspiration always beating against their two inelastic limits. All more terrible in their dramatic force than any of the little mortal figures clanking about in plate armor are moving silently in the frogs and hoods of the Order of Saint Dominic. Tragedy not melodrama. There are no villains in the piece. Crime like disease is not interesting. It is something to be done away with by general consent and that is all about it. It is what men do at their best with good intentions and what normal men and women find that they must and will do in spite of their intentions that really concerns us. The rascally bishop and the cruel inquisitor of Mark Twain and Andrew Lang are as dull as pickpockets and they reduce Joan to the level of the even less interesting person whose pocket is picked. I have represented both of them as capable and eloquent exponents of the church militant and the church litigant because only by doing so can I maintain my drama on the level of high tragedy and save it from becoming a mere police court sensation. A villain in a play can never be anything more than a diabulous ex machina, possibly a more exciting expedient than a deus ex machina, but both equally mechanical and therefore interesting only as mechanism. It is, I repeat, what normally innocent people do that concerns us and if Joan had not been burnt by normally innocent people in the energy of their righteousness, her death at their hands would have no more significance than the Tokyo earthquake which burnt a great many maidens. The tragedy of such murders is that they are not committed by murderers. They are judicial murders, pious murders, and this contradiction at once brings an element of comedy into the tragedy. The angels may weep at the murder, but the gods laugh at the murderers. The inevitable flatteries of tragedy. Here then we have a reason why my drama of St. Joan's career, though it may give the essential truth of it, gives an inexact picture of some accidental facts. It goes almost without saying that the old Jean Dark melodramas, reducing everything to a conflict of villain and hero, or in Joan's case a villain and heroine, not only missed the point entirely, but falsified the characters making Cauchon, Escondrel, Joan of Primadonna, and Dunois a lover. But the writer of high tragedy and comedy, aiming at the innermost attainable truth, must needs flatter Cauchon nearly as much as the melodramatist vilifies him. Although there is, as far as I have been able to discover, nothing against Cauchon that convicts him of bad faith or exceptional severity in his judicial relations with Joan, or of as much anti-prisoner, pro-police, class, and sectarian bias as we now take for granted in our own courts, yet there is hardly more warrant for glassing him as a great Catholic Churchman completely proof against the passions roused by the temporal situation. Neither does the inquisitor Lometra, in such scanty accounts of him, as are now recoverable, appear quite so able a master of his duties, and of the case before him, as I have given him credit for being. But it is the business of the stage to make its figures more intelligible to themselves than they would be in real life, for by no other means can they be made intelligible to the audience. And in this case, Cauchon and Lometra have made intelligible not only themselves, but the Church and the Inquisition, just as Warwick has to make the feudal system intelligible, the three between them, having thus to make a 20th-century audience conscious of an epic fundamentally different from its own. Obviously the real Cauchon, Lometra and Warwick, could not have done this, they were part of the Middle Ages themselves, and therefore as unconscious of its peculiarities as of the atomic formula of the air they breathed. But the play would be unintelligible if I had not endowed them with enough of this consciousness to enable them to explain their attitude to the 20th century. All I claim is that by this inevitable sacrifice of versamillitude, I have secured in the only possible way sufficient veracity to justify me in claiming that as far as I can gather from the available documentation and from such powers of divination as I possess, the things I represent these three exponents of the drama as saying are the things they actually would have said if they had known what they were really doing, and beyond this neither drama nor history can go in my hands. Some well-meant proposals for the improvement of the play. I have to thank several critics on both sides of the Atlantic, including some whose admiration for my play is most generously enthusiastic for their heartfelt instructions as to how it can be improved. They point out that by the excision of the epilogue and all the references to such undramatic and tedious matters as the church, the feudal system, the inquisition, the theory of heresy and so forth, all of which they point out would be ruthlessly blue-penciled by any experienced manager. The play could be considerably shortened. I think they are mistaken. The experienced knights of the blue pencil, having saved an hour and a half by disemboweling the play, would at once proceed to waste two hours in building elaborate scenery, having real water in the river Loire, and a real bridge across it, and staging an obviously sham fight for possession of it, with the victorious French led by Joan on a real horse. The coronation would eclipse all previous theatrical displays, showing first the procession through the streets of Rance, and then the service in the cathedral, with special music written for both. Joan would be burnt on the stage, as Mr. Mathis and Lang always is in the Wandering Jew, on the principle that it does not matter in the least why a woman is burnt provided she is burnt, and people can pay to see it done. The intervals between the acts, whilst these splendors were being built up, and then demolished by the stage carpenters, would seem eternal to the great prophet of the refreshment bars, and the weary and demoralized audience would lose their last strains and curse me for writing such inordinately long and intolerably dreary and meaningless plays. But the applause of the press would be unanimous. Nobody who knows the stage history of Shakespeare will doubt that this is what would happen if I knew my business so little as to listen to these well-intentioned but disastrous counselors. Indeed, it probably will happen when I am no longer in control of the performing rites, so perhaps it will be as well for the public to see the play while I am still alive. The epilogue As to the epilogue, I could hardly be expected to stultify myself by implying that Joan's history in the world ended unhappily with her execution, instead of beginning there. It was necessary by Hooker Crook to show the canonized Joan as well as the incinerated one. For many a woman has got herself burnt by carelessly whisking a Muslim skirt into the drawing room fireplace, but getting canonized is a different matter and a more important one, so I am afraid the epilogue must stand. To the critics, lest they should feel ignored. To a professional critic, I have been one myself, theatre going is the curse of Adam. The play is the evil he is paid to endure in the sweat of his brow, and the sooner it is over, the better. This would seem to place him in irreconcilable opposition to the paying playgoer, from whose point of view, the longer the play, the more entertainment he gets for his money. It does in fact so place him, especially in the provinces, where the playgoer goes to the theatre for the sake of the play solely and insists so effectively on a certain number of hours entertainment that touring managers are sometimes seriously embarrassed by the brevity of the London plays they have to deal in. For in London, the critics are reinforced by a considerable body of persons who go to the theatre as many others go to church to display their best clothes and compare them with other peoples. To be in the fashion and have something to talk about at dinner parties, to adore a pet performer, to pass the evening anywhere rather than at home, in short, for any or every reason except interest in dramatic art as such. In the fashionable centres, the number of irreligious people who go to church, of un-musical people who go to concerts and operas, and of undramatic people who go to the theatre is so prodigious that sermons have been cut down to ten minutes and plays to two hours. And even at that, congregations sit longing for the benediction and audiences for the final curtain so that they may get away to the lunch or supper they really crave for. After arriving as late, as or later than, the hour of beginning can possibly be made for them. Thus from the stalls and in the press an atmosphere of hypocrisy spreads. Nobody says straight out that genuine drama is a tedious nuisance and that to ask people to endure more than two hours of it with too long intervals of relief is an intolerable imposition. Nobody says, I hate classical tragedy and comedy as I hate sermons and symphonies, but I like police news and divorce news and any kind of dancing or decoration that has an aphrodisiac effect on me, or on my wife or husband. At whatever superior people may pretend, I cannot associate pleasure with any sort of intellectual activity, and I don't believe anybody else can either. Such things are not said, yet nine-tenths of what is offered as criticism of the drama in the Metropolitan Press of Europe and America is nothing but a muddled paraphrase of it. If it does not mean that, it means nothing. I do not complain of this, though it complains very reasonably of me, but I can take no more notice of it than Einstein of the people who are incapable of mathematics. I write in the classical manner for those who pay for admission to a theatre because they like classical comedy or tragedy for its own sake, and like it so much when it is good of its kind, and well done, that they tear themselves away from it with reluctance to catch the very latest train or omnibus that will take them home. Far from arriving late from an eight or half past eight o'clock dinner, so as to escape at least the first half hour of the performance, they stand in queues outside the theatre doors for hours beforehand in bitingly cold weather to secure a seat. In countries where a play lasts a week, they bring baskets of provisions and set it out. These are the patrons on whom I depend for my bread. I do not give them performances twelve hours long because circumstances do not at present make such entertainments feasible, though a performance beginning after breakfast and ending at sunset is as possible physically and artistically in Surrey or Middlesex as in Oberammergau, and an all-night sitting in a theatre would be at least as enjoyable as an all-night sitting in the House of Commons, and much more useful. But in St. Joan I have done my best by going to the well-established classical limit of three and a half hours practically continuous playing, barring the one interval imposed by considerations which have nothing to do with art. I know that this is hard on the pseudo critics and on the fashionable people whose playgoing is a hypocrisy. I cannot help feeling some compassion for them when they assure me that my play, though a great play, must fail hopelessly because it does not begin at a quarter to nine and end at eleven. The facts are overwhelmingly against them. They forget that all men are not as they are. Still I am sorry for them, and though I cannot for their sakes undo my work and help the people who hate the theatre to drive out the people who love it, yet I may point out to them that they have several remedies in their own hands. They can escape the first part of the play by their usual practice of arriving late. They can escape the epilogue by not waiting for it, and if the irreducible minimum thus obtained is still too painful, they can stay away altogether. But I deprecate this extreme course because it is good neither for my pocket nor for their own souls. Already a few of them noticing that what matters is not the absolute length of time occupied by a play, but the speed with which that time passes are discovering that the theatre, though purgatorial in its Aristotelian moments, is not necessarily always the dull place they have so often found it. What do its discomforts matter when the play makes us forget them? 1. Iod St. Lawrence, May 1924 End of Part 4 End of St. Joan Preface by George Bernard Shaw