"Give me leave to curse awhile..." (On "Henry VI, Part I")

I'm somewhat obsessed with Joan of Arc currently, having recently finished Marina Warner's Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism. Despite all my medieval scholarship, somehow the details of the Maid of Orleans' life had heretofore escaped me. Coincidentally, Henry VI features Joan, including many of the actual historical details of her life and trial, in combination with the propaganda that colored the English public perception of her character, providing a fascinating and conflicting portrait of her role in the war between France and England in the post-Henry V era.

First up, a little background on the play: there is much debate as to Shakespeare's role in its production, with some scholars claiming he had no hand in it whatsoever, to others staunchly defending his authorship. The current wave of thought seems to be that he did indeed write it, but as a collaboration with other authors, which fits with the somewhat (to me) clunky effect of the plot. In addition, there is confusion about when, exactly, the play was written. There is evidence that a play about the particular subject matter was performed in 1592, but other scholars claim that the text as we know it is rather a prequel, written to capitalize on the popularity of the second and third plays, already in existence. It's also possible that Shakespeare (or another playwright, or a combination of the two,) wrote the earlier version of the play, which was then improved for later production, which happens to be my own opinion. There are just too many late-medieval holdovers in the text for it to be a completely original (not necessarily in dialogue, but in scenes and characterization.)

The scenes with Joan of Arc in particular illustrate this fact. When she first appears onstage in Act I, scene ii, the scene corresponds with what we know from history and urban legend. She claims divine guidance from Saints Katherine and Deborah, as well as from Christ and Mary themselves. She identifies the king of France, Charles, though his courtiers sought to beguile her, as history claims occurred in fact at Chinon. In all aspects, Shakespeare depicts her here as Joan la Pucelle, the Maid of France, inspired by God to lead France to victory. Nowhere in this scene are we given any indication of villainy or deviousness on her part, much less evil-doing.

As the play proceeds, while Shakespeare deviates heavily from historical accounts of battles, until Act V, most of Joan's scenes continue in this vein. It is unlikely that Joan ever fought hand-to-hand, as shown here, and her later trial partly hinged on her unwillingness to ever commit violence against anyone. Nevertheless, her character remains consistent throughout the first four acts of the play; she fights for France and her king, while using both strength of arms and her wiles for her country's benefit. She speaks of purity and courage, and is by all accounts a noble and superior knight.

By contrast, the English lords scrap and squabble amongst themselves for power and privilege, while the adolescent, impotent, and easily-led King Henry VI looks on in dismay. Shakespeare's scenes involving the English lords are acknowledged for their confusion. With the exception of the soldier and general Talbot, who leads the English forces in France, audience members most likely find it difficult to support any on the English side; many old grudges resurface, dividing into factions that inevitably lead to the downfall of the English cause in France altogether.

In France, though, until Act V, all of the French lords and generals, including Joan, are always seen together, as a single unit. They fight and infiltrate together, even when using disguises and secrecy, as when they sneak into Rouen as peasants.

The later Henry VI plays feature this theme heavily: that it is the English penchant for factionalism and infighting that leads to their losses in France. Whether the first play is a prequel written after the success of the second and third plays, or was an earlier production later enhanced, this very visual evidence underscores the same theme. The French work together, as a unit, and remain successful, while the English undermine each other for personal gain, or fail to work together for the common good, as when they argue about whose responsibility it was to send more troops to relieve Talbot, and it ruins their cause.

And then we get to Act V. And for the first time, we see Joan la Pucelle alone.

It is this scene, in particular, that lends weight for me to the theory that Shakespeare both wrote the play in collaboration with others, and that it retains holdovers from an older, previous version. This scene undoes Joan's character completely. In it, we see her renege on all of her earlier Christian imagery to call on devils and demons to aid the French cause. The scene contains very specific, dramatic stage directions from the devils, including them "walking, and speak not," hanging their heads, shaking their heads in denial, etc. It's a curiously medieval form of pantomime that recalls the morality plays of earlier decades, and is probably the scene that leads some scholars to claim Marlowe's hand in the play, as it is reminiscent of his work on Doctor Faustus. But Faustus hardly stands alone; it is part of a long tradition of plays wherein devils and fiends make appearance onstage amidst smoke and noise.

But this scene, along with the following scene for Joan in which she claims pregnancy (unsuccessfully) to avoid burning at the stake, provides us with an abrupt about-face for her character. Of course, the popular opinion of Joan within the English imagination of the time was that she was a witch and a harlot, so these scenes are not out of character for the audience of the time. However, they are inconsistent with the very heroic character we have seen so far, who claims such devotion to her cause and Christ that when

"In complete glory [Mary] reveal'd herself;
And, whereas I was black and swart before,
With those clear rays which she infused on me
That beauty am I bless'd with which you see." (I.ii.280-3)

Shakespeare, even in his early works, also never shied away from creating complex female characters. Why the oversimplification of Joan?*

Within a few short lines after Joan is hastened offstage, the only other woman in the play appears, Margaret of Anjou, who will become one of Shakespeare's most villainous of female characters. She, too, appears innocent and virginal at first. Is this a remark on Joan? If not, it's certainly an awkward moment for her to appear, right after the only other woman in the play is burned at the stake.

Frankly, the entirety of Act V feels like a combination of pandering to an audience who wants a violent finish to a play filled with discussion and intrigue, combined with a need to complete a few necessary plot points. Is this the ending Shakespeare intended? Or was this the result of several minds working together, with separate priorities? The last few episodes of Game of Thrones comes to mind. Why are we still falling back on women's duplicity or madness as an easy plot point that just explains everything? Ugh.

* Ironically, since the English burn her anyway, refusing to believe that she is indeed pregnant, doesn't this mean that they believe that she was, indeed, a virgin?