This video claims Shaw's play is historically accurate, but historians have pointed out that Shaw's script and his "historical" introduction are erroneous on numerous points, including some basic ones such as the claim that the judge, Pierre Cauchon was a neutral, conscientious person when in fact he had served as an advisor for the English occupation government for over a decade before the trial, and was accused by many of the other tribunal members of corrupting the trial and falsifying the transcript on behalf of the English. The eyewitnesses said Joan was innocent of the charges, and she was opposed by the tribunal - which was composed of pro-English "collaborators" - because she had opposed the English, not for any of the reasons Shaw invents in the play (no, she didn't oppose the Church, as numerous eyewitnesses pointed out; mysticism wasn't considered heretical since there were so many medieval mystics who were approved by the medieval Church; she didn't promote "nationalism" since her stated motive was to place Charles VII on his throne based on her view that God supported his claim). Shaw admits she was a devout Catholic but claims she was also the "first Protestant", which is a self-contradictory argument. Many of the central characters are fictional, such as "John de Stogumber". And so forth for so many other issues.
Wow! I can't wait to see this!
This video claims Shaw's play is historically accurate, but historians have pointed out that Shaw's script and his "historical" introduction are erroneous on numerous points, including some basic ones such as the claim that the judge, Pierre Cauchon was a neutral, conscientious person when in fact he had served as an advisor for the English occupation government for over a decade before the trial, and was accused by many of the other tribunal members of corrupting the trial and falsifying the transcript on behalf of the English. The eyewitnesses said Joan was innocent of the charges, and she was opposed by the tribunal - which was composed of pro-English "collaborators" - because she had opposed the English, not for any of the reasons Shaw invents in the play (no, she didn't oppose the Church, as numerous eyewitnesses pointed out; mysticism wasn't considered heretical since there were so many medieval mystics who were approved by the medieval Church; she didn't promote "nationalism" since her stated motive was to place Charles VII on his throne based on her view that God supported his claim). Shaw admits she was a devout Catholic but claims she was also the "first Protestant", which is a self-contradictory argument. Many of the central characters are fictional, such as "John de Stogumber". And so forth for so many other issues.