List price: $109.99 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $63.95
Buy one from zShops for: $63.90
Used price: $5.59
Collectible price: $12.71
Buy one from zShops for: $19.98
Used price: $2.20
Buy one from zShops for: $5.20
Collectible price: $52.94
Its most admirable and useful feature is its convenient synopsis of the basic grammar and morphology of the Martian and other languages created by Helene Smith, as publicised by Theodore Flournoy in -From India to the Planet Mars-. The analysis of the syntax and the sound systems of her creations is intriguing, and should be read by any author wishing to create a fictional language of her own.
The book also discusses at great length the theories of Nicholas Marr, a linguist who had some influence on Stalin, and who hypothesised the natural evolution of a common language for the future. The extensive treatment of Marr seems less in keeping with the subject annnounced in the title. Marr did have some curious notions on the reconstruction of the languages of the past, but the main thrust of his theory seems empirical rather than imaginary.
A more serious flaw is in the writing style, which shows traits of the worst of contemporary academia. It goes beyond being merely formal or pedantic: that much is forgivable, for it is, after all, an academic book. The problems, instead, reflect the failings of the times. Puns are occasionally treated as containing great insights. When the author occasionally gets sidetracked into sexual or political topics, she deploys the tactic of vaguely radical obscurity. Fortunately, these digressions are not frequent.
This book is not for everyone, but for those happy few who are interested in the subject of invented languages, it may well be worth a look.
Used price: $64.00
Collectible price: $100.59
Used price: $7.90
Collectible price: $12.71
- While the author at least admits that Joan was put on trial by the English and Burgundians, she nevertheless glosses over the implications of this and does little more than repeat the 'spin' which Joan's enemies placed on the theological matters under debate. A main theme is the notion that since Joan saw visions "apprehensible to the human senses" she would automatically be guilty of a grave offense in the pre-Renaissance era, which is truly ironic: in the Bible itself, there are many cases of angels not only manifesting themselves in corporeal form (e.g., the appearance of Gabriel to Mary), but in fact some such appearances were sufficiently physical as to be seen by many people (such as the angel(s) who appeared at Christ's empty tomb). To accept this book's argument you'd have to claim that the medieval Church viewed the Bible itself as heretical. Similarly, it is claimed that Joan was guilty for never telling the clergy about her visions - despite the patent fact that she had gained approval from the clergy at Poitiers, from the Archbishop of Embrun, from Jean Gerson, and so on, some of which Warner herself admits.
Warner uses much the same distortion with regards to La Pierronne, who was killed by a similar pro-English group from the University of Paris after she had dared to say that Joan was a good Catholic. No "witchcraft" charges were filed against her: the only thing they could come up with was the absurd notion that she was guilty of blasphemy for saying that she saw God clothed in a white robe and red tunic (as opposed to what, one wonders?) Warner never seems to consider that the charges in such partisan trials might be nothing but bunk promoted by the opposing faction, devoid of any valid theological basis.
On a final note on this subject: Warner at least admits that Joan had threatened to lead a crusading army against a heretical group called the Hussites, but merely sees this as another chance to heap more empty criticism on Joan. This time the charge is "intolerance", strangely ignoring a few obvious points: 1) far from being docile theologians who merely held dissident views, the Hussites were a military faction which had recently gone on a savage rampage across large swaths of the Holy Roman Empire, destroying many hundreds of villages. To label her "intolerant" for being willing to lead an army against such a group is either deliberately unfair sniping, or a clear sign of ignorance about the nature of the Hussites. 2) You would think that the author would at least possess the fairness to admit that if Joan wanted to lead a crusading army against heretics, she could hardly be a heretic herself.
- In the chapter "Ideal Androgyne", Warner again makes copious use of the propaganda spooled out by Joan's enemies while ignoring the eyewitness accounts of those who had actually known her - not only at the Rehabilitation but also in private letters and memoirs written by her soldiers - who described her as "beautiful and shapely", commented on her feminine qualities, etc. Similarly, the author completely ignores the quotes from Joan herself concerning the practical necessity of wearing soldiers' clothing (of a type which had "laces and points" which allowed her to tie the pants and tunic together), partly as a defense against rape while in prison as well as to discourage sexual advances while bedding down with her army in the field. This was the accepted way of doing it in that era, and if it was thus being done out of necessity the Church itself granted permission (see medieval theological works such as St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica", St. Hildegard's "Scito Vias Domini", and so on). The accounts say that in the end her guards maneuvered her into a "relapse" by leaving her nothing to wear but her old male clothing, and she had no choice but to put it back on after arguing with them "until noon", according to one eyewitness. Warner replaces this evidence with speculation.
- In the chapter "Amazon", the author ignores Joan's own recorded quotations stating that she did _not_ fight in battle but instead carried her banner, a view which is backed up by the more reliable eyewitness accounts. This evidence is replaced with a sidetrack through ancient mythology, as if such would somehow be relevant. We are then told about Joan's alleged "joy in battle", which is entirely fictional: the eyewitness accounts repeatedly say that she wept over the deaths of enemy soldiers.
- The book's claims about the Rehabilitation are largely false. For instance, the claim is made that the tribunal never declared Joan's holiness and never vindicated her decision to wear soldiers' clothing, which is wrong on both counts: the Inquisitor specifically labeled her a martyr for the faith - practically the highest possible declaration of holiness; and he devoted an entire section to the clothing issue (see Part VI of his 'Recollectio Frater Johannis Brehali'). It would help if authors would at least bother to actually read such documents before giving an 'analysis' of their contents.
It is truly sad to see this book in reprint, as it does a great disservice to the heroine whose life is here being filtered through the dishonest claims of the men who cruelly put her to death. As the Acknowledgments allude to, the books of Regine Pernoud (founder of the Centre Jeanne d'Arc) are recognized as the best of the readily-obtainable books on the subject; two of these are available here at Amazon.
On the point about RĂ©gine Pernoud: the charge that Pernoud was a hopeless fan of Charles VII who omitted to mention the letter about the siege of Paris is patently false: the entire text of that letter is included (both in the original language and in translation) in Pernoud's book "Joan of Arc: Her Story" [called simply "Jeanne d'Arc" in the French version], and many of her books contain scathing criticisms of Charles VII. Scholars consider Pernoud to have been one of the best authors on this subject because she was accurate, thorough, and honest in her presentation of the evidence, which is not something that can be said about the book currently under review. And there lies the crux of the issue: historical writing is supposed to be based upon documented evidence, properly analyzed in light of the circumstances of the time period, rather than a mishmash of modern-day politics superimposed upon historical figures and events. This book falls into the latter category, unfortunately.
If, however, you turn to Regine Pernoud for an "unbiased" version of Joan's life -- whatever that might be -- you are on much more dangerous ground. Pernoud conveys opinion by omission; if a document is at odds with her reading of Joan's life or actions, she simply ignores it, leaving it unmentioned. An example of this is a crucial letter Joan dictated on the necessity of taking Paris. Yes, Pernoud IS French (or rather, she was), and she writes as though she has on-line access to 15th-century feelings and personal opinions -- a big problem, in my view. But Pernoud's relentlessly pro-Charles interpretation of events is much more distorting and misleading than anything generated by Warner's British feminism, which is fairly presented as the lense through which the material will be viewed.
If you want another good book on Joan, try Charles Wood's study of Joan and Richard II.
No one scholar is going to write a book which satisfies everyone on such a complex figure. But Warner is a good place to start reading and/or thinking about Joan of Arc.
Used price: $6.22
Buy one from zShops for: $6.04
List price: $19.95 (that's 30% off!)
Used price: $13.00
Collectible price: $15.88
Buy one from zShops for: $12.50
Used price: $4.00
Collectible price: $13.50