Were you making a joke? France burned Joan for her efforts. The one charge they could make stick and sent her to the flames was that she had worn

a dissolute habit, misshapen and immodest and against the propriety of nature, and hair clipped 'en ronde' in the style of a man, against all the modesty of the feminine sex; also, in bearing arms in great presumption; in cruelly desiring the effusion of human blood;

The maid of Orleans was -martyred- by the French and English, a fact I hadly think anyone in possession of the facts would flaunt.

This is precisely the sort of infuriating misinterpretation that is promoted when women show up at events as women in boy's clothing. The crowd says "oh look, just like Joan of Arc", completely missing the fact that Joan was -burned to death- for wearing men's clothing.

Sadly, you've made my point for me better than I did for myself.

Political ploy or not, the quote comes directly from the transcripts of the trial of condemnation; the wearing of men's clothing was one of the key issues.

It was not until nearly twenty years after the death of Jeanne d'Arc that any attempt was made by those in authority to vindicate her memory or even to acknowledge the services she had rendered to the kingdom of France.

In 1450, however, after the occupation of Normandy and the submission of the town of Rouen, the idea appeared to have occurred to Charles VII. that to suffer the stigma of heresy and witchcraft to rest on the name of the Maid of Orleans, who had "led him to his anointing," was to throw a doubt upon his own orthodoxy, and to justify the taunt of his enemies that he had been the mere tool of "a lyme of the Fiend." On February 13th, 1450, therefore, he issued a Declaration empowering one of his Counselors, Guillaume Bouillé, to inquire into the conduct of the Trial undertaken against Jeanne by "our ancient enemies the English," who, "against reason, had cruelly put her to death," and to report the result of his investigations to the Council. - Introductory Notes to the trial of (Rehabilitation) Nullification.

Regardless of -who- was ultimately responsible for the burning and any subsequent remorse, the facts remain that at the time of the trial and burning, one of the heresies cited was Joan's wearing of men's clothing and styling of her hair in a man's style. Anything after that is simply revisionist politics and spin doctoring.

Gwen

Edited to add that Brent is correct- Joan was not burned for her conviction of wearing mens clothing but for her withdrawal of her recantation. She resumed wearing men's clothing, and again insisted she had spoken to God through the saints. It's a legal technicality that doesn't change the charges.

I will be interested to read Fraioli's book, especially her spin on the clothing issue.

G

To elaborate:

For me, women's clothes are more comfortable (until you get to the upper class Ren stuff), and I have no problem doing woman-y stuff at re-enactments. Anybody who thinks there's "nothing to do" as a woman needs their head examined, as there are hardly enough minutes in the day to do everything! That being said, I have often portrayed a man, mostly at 19th century things (US Civil War, train robbing, etc.) and I have "gotten away with it" because I'm tall, slim, walk like a guy (my poor mother), and stay in the background/upstage. I wouldn't even try to do Napoleonic: those tight trousers and swallowtail coats don't hide squat. For American CW events it was always a point of pride with me if a nearby bystander said, "Look at that guy, he has no shoes!" or "Look at the queue (sp) on THAT sailor!"

If it's a private gig, I won't bend genders because I want to "feel the period". If somebody says "lets' saddle up and do some drill/tilting/whatever", I can do it in my gown (with boots). On the other hand, if the public are involved (especially for Medieval/Ren gigs) I don't feel they should be aware that there are girls on the battlefield. It just muddies the waters and perpetuates the rampant misunderstanding of historical fact.

For a jousting show, it's really up to the "director/organizer" of the troupe, which is just a group of traveling entertainers. If it were up to me I'd lean on the historic side, because I cringe when I see pretty girls with their hair blowing in the wind cantering around the arena. The historian/reenactor in me just says, "What the...?!" Unfortunately, there are a lot of romantics and closet pre-Raphaelites out there who don't bat an eyelash at that sort of thing.

Re. the Seattle knights: I have seen them do both ends of the spectrum, from the 3-ring fantasy leather trench coat circus at the Pt. Angeles Ren Faire, to a pretty decent Medieval show at Camlann. Frankly, the Camlann show was a heckuva lot better, and not just because it was "period". I think forcing them to focus on a single moment in time made them focus their whole show, and it made for tighter, more polished entertainment. The Ren Faire thing I saw them do was a big, noisy, messy, incomprehensible melee and went far too long...but I digress.

Also, for what it's worth, women fighting as men who just can't pull it off at 20 yards let alone 10 feet are setting themselves up for ridicule, even from the uneducated public. The nice lady sitting next to me at Port Angeles commented thusly on one leather trenchcoated swordswoman, "Oh, my, look at the back porch on her!"

Neb

--------------------

Joan of Arc being burned, apparently in part because she wore men's clothes, because the accusers were jealous in how good she apparently looked in men's clothes.

*flee*

Although I do think some Medieval and early Renaissance women's clothing looks fabulous....It's when the Elizabethian/1600's hit then I think it all starts to fall apart. *shrug*

[ 04-24-2006: Message edited by: Dudicus ]

--------------------

Andy V.
You're friendly neighborhood Roman Dude