Die Jungfrau von Orleans - Reclam Text und Kontext

by Friedrich Schiller

Mit seinem 1801 erschienenen und uraufgeführten Drama Die Jungfrau von Orleans hatte Friedrich Schiller zu seinen Lebzeiten großen Erfolg. Die Geschichte des lothringischen Bauernmädchens Johanna von Orleans, das – unter Berufung auf göttliche Eingebung – die französischen Truppen von Sieg zu Sieg führte, dann in die Hände der Engländer fiel und 1431 als Hexe verbrannt wurde, rückt Schiller aus den Grenzen des bloßen Geschichtsdramas heraus – Johanna wird bei Schiller nicht auf dem Scheiterhaufen verbrannt, sondern erlebt die Apotheose auf dem Schlachtfeld.
Formal nimmt diese "romantische Tragödie" eine Sonderstellung in Schillers Werk ein: die dramatische Entwicklung wird durch lyrische Passagen unterbrochen, die Versformen sind ungewöhnlich vielfältig und reichen vom Blankvers über die feierliche Form der Stanze bis hin zum jambischen Trimeter, dem Dramenvers der antiken Tragödie.

Text in neuer Rechtschreibung. – Mit Anmerkungen von Ulrich Karthaus und einer Zeittafel der historischen Ereignisse.
Nach oben

Genres: Classics, Plays, Drama, German Literature, Fiction, Poetry, Germany

178 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1801

About the author

People best know long didactic poems and historical plays, such as Don Carlos (1787) and William Tell (1804), of leading romanticist German poet, dramatist, and historian Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller.

This philosopher and dramatist struck up a productive if complicated friendship with already famous and influential Johann Wolfgang von Goethe during the last eighteen years of his life and encouraged Goethe to finish works that he left merely as sketches; they greatly discussed issues concerning aesthetics and thus gave way to a period, now referred to as classicism of Weimar. They also worked together on Die Xenien ( The Xenies ), a collection of short but harsh satires that verbally attacked perceived enemies of their aesthetic agenda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...

Reviews

[Jan-Maat]

Der Mensch braucht wenig, und an Leben reich
Ist die Natur.

I once saw a fantastically bad production of this in a small town theatre it was in Kassel where in penance for my sins I was working at the time. It was so bad that I was glued to my seat unable to comprehend how it was possible for a production that had opened to the theme music from Dallas and an opening speech not found in the play which had an actress declaiming that she wanted a good car and not a shit one like an Opel could continue to steadily and progressively get worse. My neighbours seeing my open mouth offered me a mint, I think they left in the interval.

For the sake of universal education, a horde of children had been dredged in from the schools and perhaps also from the Borstals. When an actor uttered the words Ich bins they all burst out laughing, as it happened those could well have been the only original words of the play to have survived the transmission to the stage.

Luckily for the production team Schiller's skull and bones got separated after his death making it difficult for the man to rise up from his grave and explain the dramatic integrity of his original conception. But in any case there is something fun about a theatre production that is really terrible even if you do have to pay to enjoy your Schadenfreude.

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 3 out of 5]

"¡Siempre grave! ¡siempre austera! das a los otros la felicidad, pero no quieres compartirla. Fría como siempre, no participas de nuestra embriaguez. ¡Ah! ...como el cielo te reveló sus esplendores, no hay dicha en la tierra, capaz de conmover tu casto pecho""

Es la primera obra de Schiller que leo y debo decir que tiene unos diálogos muy inspiradores, claros y dignos de recordar siempre. Lamentablemente aunque me haya gustado ello y en sí el final que es muy patético, que emociona muchísimo cual obra romántica, no puedo darle más de tres estrellas por las tremendas licencias que se ha tomado en la historia de Juana de Arco y por la incompatibilidad del argumento en dos pasajes precisos de la obra.
Considero primero que Juana de Arco es un personaje tan fascinante que no era necesario alterar tanto la historia para lograr el dramatismo y la tragedia que tuvo su propia vida, segundo el cambio que se hizo para lograr el momento dramático fue demasiado opuesto a lo que Juana representa en realidad por lo que no me gustó para nada.
Además de esto encuentro dos variaciones puntuales de Juana de Arco que a la larga no fueron utilizadas de manera correcta en la obra haciendo inútil casi su innovación.
Puedo decir que el estilo del autor me gustó aunque no su argumento

[Mina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ich bin ja immer schon glücklich, wenn ich ein Drama aus dem 18./19. Jahrhundert lesen kann, ohne ständig über verkünstelte, altbackene oder verklausulierte Formulierungen zu stolpern. Bei Schiller kann ich mich darauf verlassen, dass es kein großes Rätselraten gibt und ich nicht schon an der reinen Textebene verzweifele.

Über die Jungfrau von Orleans kann man sicherlich viel, sehr viel sagen - sowohl über die historische Person als auch über den Vergleich mit Schillers Werk. Rein auf mein Lesevergnügen bezogen kann ich nicht leugnen, dass ich teilweise recht amüsiert war. Die ach so göttliche und gute Johanna, patriotisch bis aufs Blut und vor allem jungfräulich!, metzelt alle nieder und ist natürlich trotzdem die von der Mutter Maria auserwählte Unschuld in Person. Bis, ja bis - Achtung Spoiler - sie ihrem Feind ins Gesicht schaut und ihn nicht töten kann.

Wenn ich mir das ganze “Oh” und “Wehe mir!” zur Seite schiebe, finde ich im Kern eine Frau, die plötzlich aus ihrem Kriegswahn erwacht und zum ersten Mal ihr Opfer richtig als Menschen wahrnimmt und nicht nur als Feind. Das war für mich ein starker Moment, wenn mich auch einiges davor und danach irritierte. Abgesehen davon, dass ich von Schiller keine durch und durch feministische, selbstbestimmte Protagonistin erwartet habe, ist hier einfach alles etwas drüber. Das passt ja auch einerseits zu einem Theaterstück, das mit großen Effekten spielt, andererseits zur damalige Epoche, in der die Literatur den “Drama”-Regler gerne mal voll aufdreht.

Mich hat das Werk zumindest nicht dazu verleitet, mehr in der Sekundärliteratur zu graben und das macht es für mich zu einem “nice to have (read)” ohne große Begeisterungsstürme.

[Fonch · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dedicated to Manuel Alfonseca, and Irene Maciá

Ladies and gentlemen this play by Schiller (as I did in my previous review of"Mary Stuart" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9... I don't have to be so wordy when it comes to explaining how my opinion of Schiller has changed for the better, despite his Don Carlos https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...). ). At first I had no intention of writing this review, because there were not many that motivated it, but in my correspondence with my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (whose wonderful books, and his science blog Divulciencia https://divulciencia.blogspot.com/ I highly recommend, and it is both in English and in Spanish both the articles of his blog, as many of his books are in English and Spanish, and he has translated them himself). In our correspondence, which is one of the things that makes me happy, for the appreciation I feel for the Professor the Professor wrote to me telling me, that after my review (I have put three stars on it, and people will see why) he told me that he was not very interested in reading it, and less with the choice of"Joan of Arc" by Mark Twain (on Catholic fiction in the United States I recommend this wonderful article by Joseph Pearce https://www.religionenlibertad.com/cu... https://theimaginativeconservative.or...). My friend the Professor told me, that reading in a month's time"Joan of Arc" by Mark Twain https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8... was another way to dissuade him, not to read this work. In my case, it can be said that my motivation when reading Schiller's work is the opposite. Know the other versions of the story in fiction, and be able to compare them. At least this has had something useful a friend of mine at Goodreads Vladimir told me that he was unaware that Mark Twain had written a novel of the Maiden of Orleans. I told him that not only had I written it, but that the author himself considered this book his favorite. Now I have just responded to my friend Professor Alfonseca, because he has found a scientific error about"Eifelheim" the book we are debating at Goodreads. I have said that I accept it, but that it will be very interesting that vision of the Middle Ages Mark Twain, there has already been something, that I did not like about Mark Twain's novel in its prologue, and that which took 2-3 pages, and that is individualistic Manichaeism. That of considering Joan of Arc, as the only good thing of a horrible time. True, I can not consider the fifteenth century as a good century, although it depends on the area, for Hungary, and Poland was a very good century. The Italian states began the Renaissance, and France after the 100 Years' War became the great European power, and Castile-Aragon, after a terrible civil war and revolts with the Palleses, the civil wars between Agramonteses, and Beaumontese, despite that Aragon although inferior to Castile with 800000 became a power with the Catholic Monarchs. Castile for example sees the end of a bad dream with Queen Isabella and discovers America after the lazy reigns of John II, and Queen Elizabeth I's brother Henry IV, in fact, inspired the wonderful fantasy"The Curse of Chalion" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... Of course the fifteenth century was disastrous for Byzantium. that disappeared in 1453, for the English who lost the war of the 100 years, and were involved in the civil war of the Roses, but to me it seems much worse century the fourteenth century, and is the one that paradoxically creates the bad image of the Middle Ages, but some consider among them a servant that the Modern Age, of modern little, and that is an extension, or decomposition of the Middle Ages, or a period of transition between the Middle Ages, and the contemporary world. If Twain thinks the fifteenth century is bad, and he considers it the worst in history, I do not want to imagine what he will think of the century that precedes him, and the one that follows the sixteenth century that is of the wars of religion, which for me was a disaster, and that I studied the Modern Age.
That said, after this digression it is convenient to talk about Schiller's work but not before saying that I do not believe, that I am very impressed by Mark Twain's"Joan of Arc", since I have already read the best possible novel of Saint Joan of Arc I am referring to the novel "A weapon of angels" by Pamela Marcantel https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3... = true&qid=pKo1722KQQ&rank=1 , and of course my vision of Joan of Arc is very conditioned by that novel, and that has also affected this play by Friedrich Schiller. Of course, I also thought the same of Colleen McCullough's heptalogy of Rome https://www.goodreads.com/series/4371..., which I found insurmountable, and still is with everything Robert Harris wrote a very good trilogy about Cicero https://www.goodreads.com/series/5134..., which is pretty good. So despite my prejudices that I have them a book can change our idea of something, although I see it difficult in the case of Mark Twain. As for Schiller, despite his undeniable virtues, I must admit, he will not influence me much in my vision. Despite having very positive things.
The first thing I must say is that this book has three stars. Now I propose to goodreads users, to do an exercise in imagination, and assume that they would do if they got a book, and they liked it, even if it was not a masterpiece. Would they publish it or, wouldn't they? I have it very clear. I don't think, that I never became an editor I lack the pasta, and the most I can do is show my preferences based on what I thought for one book, or another, but if I had the power to decide, if this book was published, or not. I would say yes. That I would have published it, because despite the failures it is a good theater, and it is very well written. I sincerely liked Schiller's version of the Maid of Orleans, although I would publish it with an introduction and footnotes correcting, or nuancing what I do not agree with the author, or what the author has invented.
With regard to this book there are bad things, and good things. Let's start first with what's wrong with this book, and I guess that's what will throw my friend Alfonseca back, and make him not read this book. I think, that I already commented in my review of Mary Stuart, that as if Schiller were a film director he prefers aesthetics to historical veracity. As Fu Manchu's daughter said, tell me lies, but tell them to me sweetly. In this case the problem would be improvise, and I invented you, but I looked good. Taking into account that a work of fiction is not a history book I see logical, that I imagine, and I invented things, but it would have been better if the author had adhered within the possible to the events that occurred, and not to what for aesthetic needs he has devised. I asked myself how much did Schiller really know about Joan of Arc? It's okay, that her vision is positive, and I want to exonerate her of the English chauvinism of William Shakespeare in the first part of"Henry VI" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... for me one of the worst works of the Bard, or the Swan of Avon. You can always say the phrase of a character from the Family Matters series (I am a big fan of the series of the 80s, and 90s of the last century), and say as the pretender to the hand of Steve Urkel Maira Woodhouse (curious that https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... has the same surname as the heroine of the homonymous novel of Jane Austen"Emma") "Don't worry Steve my Einstein also had his failures" the same can be said of William Shakespeare. It was one of his first works, he was eager to succeed, and if the Tudors would have liked his work to have ended up in the Tower of London, because censorship is not only a matter of the Inquisition, and generally the secular powers are usually more despotic than the ecclesiastical ones, and this happened. Apart from the fact that William Shakespeare is English, it is evident that for him Joan of Arc is a woman, that she could only have triumphed using the powers of darkness, and that although he recognized that she was a saint to the French it is evident to him, that the claims of the English of Edward III were just, and that the King of England, despite the Salic law had the right to the French throne, and not Felipe VI, hence he did not see with good eyes this national humiliation, which also depressed his country, and created a power void that caused the Wars of the Two Roses, which elevated their lords the Tudors (despite the few rights on the English throne they had). That's how Shakespeare sees it, and that makes him unfair to this saint, and French heroine. The case of Voltaire https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6..., which I believe, that as a good illustrated was influenced by England there is already more evil (we must take into account three factors 1º The weight of Locke in the French enlightenment, 2º the inoculation of Freemasonry in France by means of the Huguenot Teofilo Desaguliers, and Pastor Anderson, and 3º the relations between British Enlightenment, and the French one of the first Montesquieu https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... hence the British influence. Another factor could be added, which our Ramiro de Maeztu already pointed out in his manifesto of the Defense of Hispanidad https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... the enlightened his ministers, and his philosophers were recruited in order to counteract the Jesuits, who had denounced the adultery of King Louis XV with Madame de Pompadour, hence they were promoted, and barely fought by censorship, because they were very useful to power). In the case of Voltaire there is more malignancy, because what he was looking for was to end the infamous (althoughas goodreads users can imagine the infamous). That is why it has to demolish one of the myths of the French people. Apart from that I believe, sincerely that Voltaire, despite the fame he has, and his elegant French what he is writes is very superficial. Something, that you read, but you can not remember for a long time, and if you start thinking about it it seems vulgar, and very poor. Apart from the least of the idea that Voltaire is very unoriginal, and what should most run away us about him is that he is malevolent and seeks to do harm, and that should always be avoided. Doing evil to do it. Of Voltaire what we have to stay with is the brilliant comment that C.S. Lewis makes in his spiritual biography"Captivated by joy" when he talks about the shallow depth of anti-Christian thinkers, although he points out that they are funny, especially Gibbon https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (gibbon's case was already commented Gibbon wanted to be Catholic, but his father did not allow him, and out of spite he became a Mason. It happened to him as the fox of the fable of the fox and the grapes, as he can not taste them despises them). Hence, that he considers her an impostor, that he sleeps with Dunois (who was not yet Dunois that we will talk about in this review), and surprisingly that he is in favor of the priests who burn her. Here he will surprisingly agree with George Bernard Shaw, although in his prologue he was critical of Voltaire, and his apprentice Anatole France https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (another who also gave him for defaming the new saint"slander, slander, that something remains") I think, who has best penetrated France was Leonardo Castellani in one of his essays how to intellectually survive the twenty-first century https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6... (read all his articles are a delight). Returning to George Bernard Shaw, curiously Shaw will not attack Joan of Arc, and his attack will consist of proving that the judges of his trial were right, and that Joan of Arc was a heretic who deserved to be burned. Apart from considering her as the precursor of Protestantism, and its first protomartyr, I think that if they had said that to poor Joan of Arc they would have given her gags. If he must look for pioneers of Protestantism Shaw would do better looking for them in his beloved England, specifically in John Wycliffe https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and if he wants a protomartyr, who thinks of the goose, that is, Jan Hus https://www.goodreads.com/author/show.... Apart from the stead of George Bernard Shaw trying to blame the crime, or his execution on the Catholic Church. It is curious, because in the film Víctor Fleming with Ingrid Bergman, and that he awarded an Academy Award (less and less academy) to José Ferrer insists on the opposite in English guilt. In any case the bishop in question was in the pay of the English so I do not know to what extent the process, which was annulled by Pope Callixtus III, and Joan rehabilitated by him, and one thing must be recognized, that the Pope has more authority than a bishop. Among the most important problems of Schiller's work is, although he tries to refute many of the slanders of the writers cited, against Joan of Arc. It is curious, it seems that the illustration tried to question I think, that by odium fide they realized the catholicity of the character, and it is curious how it was romanticism that comes to the defense of Joan of Arc (Schiller between the two worlds). After Schiller Walter Scott who is Scottish, and to whom history owes a lot, since a novel of his about Charles the Bold inspired (and this has been told on other occasions) and encouraged by Leopold von Ranke the creation of History as an academic discipline, although perhaps previously we should resort to Giambattista Vico https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... apart from that Walter Scott, despite being Protestant, and on some occasions was critical of Catholicism in some novels (although not much). He has enjoyed great prestige was essential for St. John Henry Newman https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... and also liked John Paul I very much (I remember his delicious letters in "Most Illustrious Lords") https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... that is why it does not cease to be striking, that in his novel of "Quentin Durward" he has already shown a very positive image of Joan of Arc in that novel (it should be remembered that Scotland sent soldiers to fight on behalf of France, and that the kings of France had a Scottish guard) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... it should come as no surprise that defenders of Joan of Arc come from Scotland as is the case with Andrew Lang https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... (also quoted in george Bernard Shaw's foreword to St. Joan https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show... ) and it should come as no surprise that Robert Louis Stevenson is also favorable to the maiden of Orleans, and that this defense comes from Jane Sedley, who will pose as a boy for much of the novel of "The Black Arrow" https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2... https://www.goodreads.com/author/show...

[Katri · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this to bits and found it the most fascinating non-history book I've read in ages (that should probably teach me to mostly stick to classics, because that's what I seem to enjoy reading, whereas most modern literature is a chore to me). My only issue is that I didn't really like the way the ending played out, but I'd probably need to see the play performed to find out how it feels then. Too bad Schiller is not trendy in my country these days.

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 1 out of 5]

ESPAÑOL: Obra de teatro sobre la vida de Juana de Arco. No me ha gustado, porque el carácter y la historia de la protagonista están completamente tergiversados. Además, la obra está plagada de anacronismos.

Juana es presentada como si no tuviese misericordia con los ingleses, negándose a perdonarles la vida incluso cuando se rendían, luchando con ellos y matándolos, cuando en realidad jamás mató a nadie ni combatió, porque prefería su estandarte a su espada. La presentan también enamorándose de un oficial inglés (!!!) y varios grandes franceses se pelean por ganar su amor.

Schiller ha introducido muchos otros detalles falsos: Juana dice que la Voz celestial que la guio fue la de la Virgen María, cuando Juana de Arco siempre afirmó que fueron el Arcángel San Miguel, Santa Catalina de Alejandría y Santa Margarita de Antioquía. La escena IV del segundo acto presenta a Juana vestida de mujer con armadura, cuando en realidad iba vestida de hombre.

Para Schiller no existe el juicio de Juana de Arco después de que fue capturada por los borgoñones y vendida a los ingleses. En la obra, Juana muere en plena batalla, atacando a los ingleses.

El papel de la Reina Isabel de Baviera está enormemente exagerado (quizá por ser alemana, como Schiller). En cuanto a la que fue amante de Carlos VII de Francia, Agnès Sorel, desempeña un papel importante en esta obra que no se corresponde con la realidad, pues no se convirtió en amante del rey hasta 1443, 12 años después de la muerte de Juana de Arco. De hecho, cuando apareció Juana, Agnès tenía unos 7 años de edad. Difícilmente podía ser amante del rey.

Cuando una obra biográfica, aunque sea novelada, se tergiversa hasta este punto, no me gusta nada. Lo siento, porque algunas de las obras de Schiller sí me han gustado.

Por último, todos los personajes, incluidos los parientes de Juana (simples campesinos), hablan de forma demasiado ampulosa, por lo que tampoco me ha gustado el estilo literario de la obra.

ENGLISH: A play about the life of Joan of Arc. I did not like it, for the character and the history of the protagonist are completely distorted. Furthermore, the work is riddled with anachronisms.

Joan is presented as though she had had no mercy on the English soldiers, refusing to spare their lives even when they surrendered, fighting and killing them, when in fact she never killed or fought anyone, because she preferred her banner to her sword. She is furthermore presented falling in love with an English officer (!!!) and several Frenchmen dispute her love.

Schiller has introduced many other false details: Joan says that the heavenly Voice that guided her was the Virgin Mary, when Joan of Arc always asserted that they were the Archangel Saint Michael, Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Margaret of Antioch. The scene IV of the second act shows Joan dressed as a woman in armor, when she was actually dressed as a man.

For Schiller, the trial of Joan of Arc after she was captured by the Burgundian and sold to the English, never took place. In the play, Joan dies in battle, attacking the English.

The role of Queen Elizabeth of Bavaria is greatly exaggerated (perhaps because she was German, like Schiller). As for Agnès Sorel, who was paramour of Charles VII of France, she plays an important role in this work that never took place, for she didn't become the king's lover until 1443, 12 years after Joan's death. In fact, when Joan appeared, Agnès was about 7 years old. She could hardly be the king's paramour.

When a biographical work, even fictionalized, is misrepresented to this point, I don't like it at all. I am sorry, for I did like some of Schiller's works.

Finally, all the characters, including Joan's relatives (simple peasants), speak in a too bombastic way, so I did not even like the literary style of the work.

[Jess · Rating 3 out of 5]

3'5

[Katyusha · Rating 5 out of 5]

جان دارك هي عذراء اورليا��, مسرحية من الادب الالماني ومن الاعمال التي وصفها غوته بأنها افضل ماكتب فريدريش شيللر
الموضوع الرئيسي الذي تتناوله قصة المسرحية يدور حول: الكفاح, والنضال دفاعا عن الوطن ضد الاطماع الاجنبية, وضرب المثل في التضحية والفداء في سبيل الوطن كواجب قومي ومطلب ديني.
لفتت انتباه شيللر الفتاة الصغيرة راعية الغنم الريفية (جان دارك) التي قادت الشعب الفرنسي الى النصر والثورة ضد الاحتلال الاجنبي مختارة الموت حرقا على التفريط بالعدالة.
التغيير الذي قام به شيللر على القصة الحقيقية هو عدم ذكر محاكمتها وبدل اعدامها على كومة من الحطب بين السنة النار اختار لها ان تموت في مسرحيته متاثرة بجراحها الخطيرة بعد معركة شرسة حققت من خلالها الانتصار لوطنها وانقاذ الملك من الاسر, تقف جان دارك وهي في شبه غيبوبة, تفقد الوعي, ومن ثم تسقط على الارض ميتة وتغطى بالرايات. اعطاها شيللر ككاتب الميتة التي يرى بانها تستحقها.
والكتاب في وقتها كانوا منقسمين بين كارهين للفتاة راعية الغنم جان دارك وبين محبين.
شكسبير وفولتير كانوا من الكتاب الكارهين لها فحدث ان انقص الاول من شأنها بمسرحية هنري السادس والاخر نسفها بلسانه الحاقد في ملحمته الهزلية عذراء اورليان.

قصير هو الالم, وخالد هو السرور.

من أفضل ما قرأته مؤخرا

[Francesco Iorianni · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zwar stellt Jean d'Arc zu Beginn des Stücks eine zielstrebige und entschlossene Frauenfigur dar, die sich der Mutter- und Eherolle entziehen möchte, aber gegen Ende bekennt sie sich dennoch zum Patriarchat und fügt sich dem Entschluss des Vaters. So reiht sich die verklärende Todeszene am Schluss ebenso zu den traditionellen Aufopferungsdarstellungen der Frauen in literarischen Texten. In erster Linie erscheint das Stück progressiv, hat mich am Schluss jedoch etwas enttäuscht.

[Gilfschnitte · Rating 3 out of 5]

For those of you who don't already know: Yes, virginity is a superpower. And Joan has plenty of it so she becomes convinced that God has appointed her to repel the Brits on their march through France. Joan is the cliche protagonist of her own young adult drama with all its hallmarks (superpower, tragic love and self doubt), but she and the side characters are dull and their actions infuriating. Yes, it is by design to fit the interesting theme of "everyone believes God is on their side and they act accordingly" but I couldn't read the book without groaning at the characters actions.

[Laila · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5
Als es erschien galt Johanna sicher als emanzipiert etc etc, aber dass die Entscheidung, nicht zu heiraten, nur durch religiöse Reinheit begründet werden kann, wirkt jetzt natürlich ganz anders💀
Ihre dramatischen Monologe waren aber trotzdem super

[Perry Whitford · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with all of Shakespeare's historical plays, don't come to Schiller's The Maid of Orleans if you want a strict biography of its subject.

Sure, across its prologue and five extended acts much of her accepted story is included, but, like Shakespeare, in order to serve his themes Schiller elaborates wildly and imaginatively where it suits his purpose, creating an heroic yet conflicted figure, like a cross between Jesus Christ and Otto von Bismarck.

Celestially convinced of her role in the restoration of the French monarchy from the invading English, Schiller's Joan does more than just inspire beside her banner, she actively fights and kills for the cause.

Yet she finds herself riven by doubts when she falls in love with the English soldier, Lionel. Questions of the highest allegiance are asked as Joan loses her zeal and is denounced, only to re-find her calling with the clash of steel.

The play opens as Joan's father, the troubled Thibaut, arranges for his three daughters to be safely married before the English arrive. But the solitary shepherdess Joan, having received a vision of the Virgin and a soldier's helm from a passing knight, is full of prophecy and proclamation, declaring for herself a very different destiny:

"Ne'er with the bride-wreath shall thy locks be dressed / Nor on thy bosom bloom an infant fair /
But war's triumphant glory shall be thine / Thy martial fame all women's shall outshine."

Joan sets out to save Orleans, but her father believes her to have been bewitched by a "Druid tree" and will later accuse her.

The Dauphin, Charles, a dreamy idealist, no lover of war, has his head in the clouds and completely capitulates when the truth hits home to him that Orleans is about to fall. Fortunately he has a fighting maiden within his court too, his lover Agnes Sorel, whose martial zeal matches Joan's:

"Oh, come! Let my example challenge thee / To noble self-denial! Let's at once / Cast off the needless ornaments of life! / Thy courtiers metamorphose into soldiers; / Thy gold transmute to iron; all thou hast, / With resolute daring, venture for thy crown!"

The three principle female characters are all at least as strong as the men in this play. The third, the mother of Charles, Queen Isabel, has forsaken her son for the usurping Henry. Her philosophy is simple and ruthless:

"Who pleasures me, I love; who wrongs, I hate."

In Orleans the appearance of the maid entirely confounds the English and their Burgundian allies, leading to a rout, a "Defeat most ignominious and burlesque!" In Talbot's famous line:

"Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain"

The nationalistic intent of Schiller's retelling is made clear in two scenes back to back in Act II where Joan slays the Welshman, Montgomery, despite his appeals to her feminine nature, then refuses to fight with the traitorous Duke of Burgundy because of his French blood.

But in Act III, Joan faces and then falls for Lionel, having actively resisted the esteemed suitors Dunois and La Hire, leading her to doubt the purity of her mission and to stand silent when her father accuses her of satanism.

In a blatantly Christian parallel, Joan appeals directly to the Virgin Mary in her lowest moment, much as Jesus had to his Almighty Father when on the crucifix:

"Unpitying Virgin! Heavy is thy hand / Hast thou completely thrust me from thy favor?

Joan is taken prisoner by the enemy, then, in a complete fantasia upon the real final act of her life, she overcomes her earthly passions, rediscovers her inner-Bismarck and re-enters the fray, turning French fortunes with her fervor.

Having read both parts of Gothe's Faust not long ago I knew that the plays of the German Romantics can be enjoyed straight off the page, marrying emotion with morality so nobly and dramatically, with the grand language to match.

I can't speak German, but if the translation I read came in any way close to capturing the lyricism and power of Schiller's verse - and I believe that Anna Swanwick's is thought to be one of the best - then this is a play that Shakespeare himself would have been proud of.

A Germanic Henry V.

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

از نمایش نامه های خوب شیللر که با نام ژاندارک یا دوشیزه اورلئان توسط بزرگ علوی به فارسی برگردانده شده است. ژاندارک بیشتر به یک تراژدی عهد باستان شبیه است و همراه "ویلهم تل" از بهترین آثار شیللر است.

[Sana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es sei von vorneherein gesagt, dass ich älteren Werken, vor allem Dramen, skeptisch gegenüberstehe. Das liegt nicht daran, dass es alt ist oder in älterem, gehobenen Deutsch geschrieben, sondern vielmehr an der wenigen, komplex gestrickten Handlung. Vor allem in Dramen kann man nur schwer spannende Situationen hineinspinnen, da sich auf der Bühe zum Beispiel Kämpfe nicht so gut darstellen lassen und es auch vielen Regieanweisungen bedürfte, um einen Kampf gut zu beschreiben. Deswegen habe ich bei solchen Werken immer Angst, dass ich die Handlung als zu langweilig oder zu langsam empfinde.

In meinem ersten Werk Schillers, "WILHELM TELL", war es nicht so, und auch in diesem Drama ist es nicht so. Im Gegenteil, man erlebt hautnah den Hundertjährigen Krieg zwischen Frankreich und England mit und durchlebt mit den Charakteren verschiedenste Emotionen. Zusätzlich dazu hat Schiller einen Weg gefunden, seinem Zuschauer/Leser mitzuteilen, was bei Kämpfen geschieht, ohne dass seitenweise Regieanweisungen geschrieben stehen müssen: Berichterstattung, beispielsweise durch Soldaten. Aus diesem Grund besitzt das Buch ein ziemlich hohes Tempo und ist durchaus imstande dazu, den Leser zu fesseln. Vor allem die emotionalen Seiten des Krieges, wie die Wut des Volkes von Orleans darauf, dass Karl VII am Anfang nichts unternimmt, um sein Reich zu retten, oder die Verzweiflung Karls darüber, dass seine Untertanen ihm nicht mehr treu sind und er keinerlei Geld mehr hat, dass er in Waffen, Ausrüstung etc. investieren könnte, wurden von Schiller sehr schön beschrieben. Das Buch behält außerdem bis in die letzten Seiten seine Spannung bei und endet erst mit dem Ende des Krieges. Alleine deswegen ist das Buch dazu in der Lage, dem Leser einige unterhaltsame Stunden an Lesevergnügen zu schenken.

Einen gleichfalls positiver Aspekt des Dramas bilden die Charaktere, allen voran die Protagonistin, Johanna d'Arc. Eine einfache Schafshirtin, die von der Heiligen Jungfrau dazu auserkoren wird, Frankreich zum Sieg zu verhelfen, indem sie die Heere anführt. Die Begeisterung, die Johanna darüber empfindet, aus ihrem grauen Alltag auszubrechen und in Schlachten für Gott und ihr Land zu kämpfen, machen sie in den Augen des Lesers sehr sympathisch. Es ist vor allem die Ungewöhnlichkeit ihres Charakters, der sie von anderen weiblichen Figuren abhebt: Sie ist keinesfalls ein stilles, gefügiges oder schwaches Weib, wie es für das 13. Jahrhundert üblich gewesen ist. Sie beweist einen sehr starken Willen, Überzeugungskraft und auch unbändigen Mut, den sie in ihren Schlachten beweist. Eine wahre Anführerin, die sich von keinem Mann sagen lässt, was sie zu tun oder zu lassen hat und eine Brutalität und Grausamkeit während den Kämpfen zeigt, die manch einen in Angst versetzt. Insgesamt also eine wunderbar starke Protagonistin, die ich sogar als "kickass" bezeichnen würde, auch wenn sie außerhalb des Schlachtfelds eine sehr gütige Person ist.

Abgesehen von Johanna werden auch Schlüsselcharaktere wie Karl VII, seine Mutter Isabeau, Agnes Sorel - die Geliebte des Königs -, Phillip der Gute und weitere dem Leser nähergebracht. Sie alle sind sehr unterschiedlich und zum großen Teil sympathisch - wobei vor allem die Engländer jedoch etwas zu "schwarz" dargestellt wurden, denn sie alle bewiesen eine ziemlich weit ausgeprägte Arroganz -, und vor allem der Konflikt des von der eigenen Mutter verstoßenen Königs war äußerst interessant und hat so Karl VII etwas von der 'übergeordneten' Position eines Regierenden runtergeholt und ihm mehr Menschlichkeit verliehen.

Schiller hat außerdem schöne Ansätze an seinen Charakteren gezeigt, die Gott und sein Wesen auf höchst ungewöhnliche Weise kritisieren. Johanna soll im Namen Gottes handeln, muss jedoch ein Gelübde ablegen, dass ihr jedes Glück der Erde verbietet, somit auch die Liebe. Doch - kann der Mensch dies überhaupt? Kann der Mensch, der nach Glück strebt, sich überhaupt nur als Gefäß benutzen lassen und allem für seinen Gott entsagen? Ist das Leben, das wir dann führen, überhaupt noch ein Leben? Und widerspricht dieses Gelübde nicht eigentlich Gott, der ein Gott der Liebe ist? Diese und mehr Ansätze lassen sich in diesem Werk finden und können durchaus zum Nachdenken anregen.

Doch so gut ich das Drama auch finde - ab der zweiten Hälfte ging es steil bergab, und zwar aus dem Grund, dass Johanna ihr Gelübde bricht - ohne es zu wollen, natürlich. Und da sie noch nichtmal tatsächlich etwas getan hat, was sie hat irdisches Glück verspüren lassen, finde ich ihre darauf folgende Paranoia und Depressivität vollkommen überzogen und unglaubwürdig. All der Kampfgeist Johannas ist plötzlich verschwunden, nur um später ganz plötzlich, anscheinend ohne ersichtlichen Gruns, wieder aufzutauchen. Was sollte dieser Umbruch? Warum hat Schiller sich nicht eher an die wahren historischen Gegebenheiten gehalten? Diese sind nämlich tausend mal besser als dieser "Wendepunkt", den Schiller eingefügt hat. Ab diesem Moment erscheint Johannas Charakter nämlich nicht mehr rund und wird unverständlich. Und da dieser Wendepunkt eine Sache enthalten hat, die ich absolut nicht leiden kann und vollkommen unrealistisch finde, waren die restlichen 34 Prozent des Buches (nach Goodreads) nicht mehr unterhaltend für mich. Zumindest nur in geringem Ausmaß.
Außerdem erschien mir das Ende viel zu offen. Ich hätte sehr gerne mehr darüber gewusst, was mit Frankreich geschieht.

GESAMT-WERTUNG: 3.58/5 Sternen

Mehr Rezensionen von mir unter sanasversion.blogspot.com

[Lily · Rating 4 out of 5]

mochte ich richtig gern!!

[Isabella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wahrscheinlich mein (bisher) liebstes Stück von Schiller – gut lesbar und schlichtweg ergreifend.

[Sybil·la Naranjo · Rating 4 out of 5]

icònica

[jamal · Rating 2 out of 5]

johanna war so girlboss gatekeep gaslight bis der vierte akt alles gefickt hat; wdym du bist nur eine jungfrau, weil gott?????? wdym du verlierst all deine macht, weil du EINEN (1) mann siehst, der dich an deiner keuschheit zweifeln lässt!!!!!!! mir wär lieber schiller wäre der historischen vorlage treu geblieben tbh aber naja passt ja eh nicht in seine theorie der ästhetik nh

davon abgesehen stilistisch war ich sehr locked und pleased in die versformen zu erkennen yupppppp

[Tess · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybe not his best or my favourite of Schiller's works, but a wonderful enjoyable play nonetheless. It took me a bit longer than usual to get into it, but then I just loved it. The language, as usual, was brilliant. So powerful.

[Isabell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I quite liked this particular school-read. The story of Jeanne d'Arc has always interested me and Schiller's adaption - though perhaps not the historically most accurate version - was pleasing to read.

[Melissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Der Prolog ist scheiße. Aber der Rest ist super! Schiller hat sich zwar nicht ganz an die historischen Vorgaben gehalten aber das macht das Drama erst so gut.
Man erhält viele verschiedene Einblicke in die verschiedenen Persönlichkeiten.

[Steve Gordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Before Tarantino and Inglourious Basterds, we have Schiller's version of the Joan of Arc myth - a historical rewrite if you will. And what a fine example of Romantic drama it is!

[Azra · Rating 3 out of 5]

complicated, feminist, historical, good theater play

[Manuel Alfonseca · Rating 1 out of 5]

ESPAÑOL: Obra de teatro sobre la vida de Juana de Arco. No me ha gustado, porque el carácter y la historia de la protagonista están completamente tergiversados. Además, la obra está plagada de anacronismos.

Juana es presentada como si no tuviese misericordia con los ingleses, negándose a perdonarles la vida incluso cuando se rendían, luchando con ellos y matándolos, cuando en realidad jamás mató a nadie ni combatió, porque prefería su estandarte a su espada. La presentan también enamorándose de un oficial inglés (!!!) y varios grandes franceses se pelean por ganar su amor.

Schiller ha introducido muchos otros detalles falsos: Juana dice que la Voz celestial que la guio fue la de la Virgen María, cuando Juana de Arco siempre afirmó que fueron el Arcángel San Miguel, Santa Catalina de Alejandría y Santa Margarita de Antioquía. La escena IV del segundo acto presenta a Juana vestida de mujer con armadura, cuando en realidad iba vestida de hombre.

Para Schiller no existe el juicio de Juana de Arco después de que fue capturada por los borgoñones y vendida a los ingleses. En la obra, Juana muere en plena batalla, atacando a los ingleses.

El papel de la Reina Isabel de Baviera está enormemente exagerado (quizá por ser alemana, como Schiller). En cuanto a la que fue amante de Carlos VII de Francia, Agnès Sorel, desempeña un papel importante en esta obra que no se corresponde con la realidad, pues no se convirtió en amante del rey hasta 1443, 12 años después de la muerte de Juana de Arco. De hecho, cuando apareció Juana, Agnès tenía unos 7 años de edad. Difícilmente podía ser amante del rey.

Cuando una obra biográfica, aunque sea novelada, se tergiversa hasta este punto, no me gusta nada. Lo siento, porque algunas de las obras de Schiller sí me han gustado.

Por último, todos los personajes, incluidos los parientes de Juana (simples campesinos), hablan de forma demasiado ampulosa, por lo que tampoco me ha gustado el estilo literario de la obra.

ENGLISH: A play about the life of Joan of Arc. I did not like it, for the character and the history of the protagonist are completely distorted. Furthermore, the work is riddled with anachronisms.
Joan is presented as though she had had no mercy on the English soldiers, refusing to spare their lives even when they surrendered, fighting and killing them, when in fact she never killed or fought anyone, because she preferred her banner to her sword. She is furthermore presented falling in love with an English officer (!!!) and several Frenchmen dispute her love.

Schiller has introduced many other false details: Joan says that the heavenly Voice that guided her was the Virgin Mary, when Joan of Arc always asserted that they were the Archangel Saint Michael, Saint Catherine of Alexandria and Saint Margaret of Antioch. The scene IV of the second act shows Joan dressed as a woman in armor, when she was actually dressed as a man.

For Schiller, the trial of Joan of Arc after she was captured by the Burgundian and sold to the English, never took place. In the play, Joan dies in battle, attacking the English.

The role of Queen Elizabeth of Bavaria is greatly exaggerated (perhaps because she was German, like Schiller). As for Agnès Sorel, who was paramour of Charles VII of France, she plays an important role in this work that never took place, for she didn't become the king's lover until 1443, 12 years after Joan's death. In fact, when Joan appeared, Agnès was about 7 years old. She could hardly be the king's paramour.

When a biographical work, even fictionalized, is misrepresented to this point, I don't like it at all. I am sorry, for I did like some of Schiller's works.

Finally, all the characters, including Joan's relatives (simple peasants), speak in a too bombastic way, so I did not even like the literary style of the work.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wanted to read this play for a very long time, as I am a fan of Schiller's writing and am into Jeanne d'Arc lore - so what better book to read for me than one that combines both, right?

The story starts in a way that seems very historically accurate: Jeanne d'Arc, daughter of a shepherd living in France that is on the brink of being conquered by England, decides that she will be the one to lead France to victory and sets out to the king in order to set things right.

I have to admit, I started into this play completely blind. I didn't know a single thing about it except for the historical bits and pieces that I learned about Jeanne d'Arc. And the book sure turned out to be something completely different than what I expected it to be: Instead of a larger than life saviour, we get to see a Jeanne d'Arc that is human, has human flaws and tries to not only fight against England but also against herself in a certain way.

If you are familiar with the structure of plays, you know that in the third act, there needs to happen something unexpected that could potentially turn the plot topsy-turvy. And for the love of God, I simply wasn't able to predict what might happen in the third act to do that- but when shit hit the fan, not only was it literally out of nowhere and was played out and integrated into the story magnificently well, but it also felt very natural and offered an almost subversive, new view on the first half of the play. I don't want to spoil things (Talking about spoilers in a 200ish years old play feels sort of rediculous, but well...) but you are in for a surprise, a real plot twist even.

Because of the plot twist that I did not see coming - something that is very rare in 18/19th century German plays - I really liked this play a lot. If you want to get into German plays or Schiller and can live with an artist taking some liberties when it comes to portraying historical facts, look no further than this play for a good entry point.

[Niklas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Johanna von Orléans - Schiller
Frankreich im Hundertjährigen Krieg. Die Truppen und des Königs Vermögen ist erschöpft. Das Volk ist müde vom Krieg. Gerade als Karl der Siebente sein Königreich verlassen will kommt ihn eine überraschende Nachricht zu Teil. Eine heilige Jungfrau, von Gott gesandt soll seine Truppen zum Sieg geführt haben. Doch ihr göttlicher Auftrag ist zum scheitern verurteilt.

4/5 Sternen
Mir fällt es schwer das zu bewerten weil es halt nen klassisches Drama ist. Deswegen kann ich jetzt auch nicht so viel zu Sprachgestaltung und den ganzen Kram sagen. Es ist auf jeden Fall einer meiner Lieblingsdramen unter den wenigen die ich gelesen habe auch wenn ich klassische Dramen verabscheue. Ich habe mir das Buch eigentlich aus zwei Gründen gekauft: Einmal weil es wichtig für unseren Abiturschwerpunkt ist und einmal weil mich die Geschichte Jean dar‘cs fasziniert. Und da wären wir beim Knackpunkt. Ich habe nicht erwartet, dass es eins zu eins ihre Geschichte erzählt - so wie es passiert ist aber, dass ab den dritten Akt alles anders gemacht wurde hat mich gestört weil wie ich finde Jean dar‘c schließlich anders dargestellt wurde als sie war. An sich war es trotzdem spannend und interessant aber sie ist ne fucking starke weibliche Persönlichkeit ja! Als sie von den Engländern gefangen und zum Tode verurteilt wurde hat sie im Gerichtsprozess alle mir ihre Weisheit und besonnen, ruhigen Art zerstört, mit ihren Mut und ihrer Tapferkeit mussten die scheiß Bischöfe nur sagen : ja sie ist ne Zauberin ne, ab auf den Scheiterhaufen. Und in dem Buch hat sie ne Glaubenskrise, nein sogar ne Existenzkrise weil sich in einen Engländer verliebt? WTF I mean sie war ne Heldin und lässt sich doch von sowas nicht verunsichern , weil sie in nem Bekloppten Mann verliebt ist, als wäre sie nichts ohne einen Mann!. Aber naja wurde zur ne anderen Zeit geschrieben etc. I know. Deswegen halt der Abzug

[Jannik Faierson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Also ich weiß ja nicht. Das Gute zuerst: Ich habe die abwechslungsreichen Passagen gerne gelesen, fand die Handlung recht spannened und konnte auch ein bisschen Geschichte dabei lernen (obwohl man hier sehr vorsichtig Fakt, Fiktion und Aberglaube auseinander halten muss). Während sich Goethe's Sprache oft sehr poliert und kultiviert für mich anfühlt, hat Schiller eher etwas natürliches. Mir fällt zum Beispiel nie ein besonderes Reimschema auf. Stattdessen bin ich eher in einem Lesefluss und genieße den "Schwung" der Verse. Okay, das klingt jetzt sehr abstrakt, ich bin noch dabei mein Verständnis von Sprache in der Literatur zu finden.
Neben meiner "sprachlichen Entwicklung" mag ich deutsche Literatur auch sehr, da es mich zum Nachdenken über große Fragen anregt. Aber dies war hier nicht der Fall. Die behandelten Themen von Leitgläubigkeit/Aberglauben und der Rolle der Frau fand ich sehr aus der Zeit gefallen. Das Verhalten der verschiedenen Figuren war fast schon komik-haft, so fremd kam mir all das vor. Beim kleinsten Donner schreien alle gleich "Hexe" und das Wichtigste ist ja sowieso das Heiraten. Naja, für ein Bühnenstück stimmt aber die Dramatik. Trotzdem fand ich es etwas zu oberflächlich und im Fazit eher eine simple Erzählung aufgebauscht zum Drama, aber dafür verpackt in schöner Sprache.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the second of Schiller's plays I've read. It was a pity I read the incomparable Maria Stuart first, because any play was bound to look imperfect afterwards. Maria Stuart is tense and elegant, as the two great Queens face each other across the divide of justice and the law. Die Jungfrau von Orleans is a more extravagant play. It stretches across space and time, draws in a host of characters, teems with supernatural happenings and takes great licence with history.

The "Prolog" was a beautiful piece of pastoral poetry, in the spirit of a Renaissance masque. Acts 4 and 5, in which Joan is afflicted with doubt and then meets her doom, are of extremely high quality. Acts 1-3 are full of drama and spectacle, and there are memorable moments, such as the appearance of the dark knight, or Joan's pitiless encounter with Mortimer. But I found these acts less powerful than the others. In the "Prolog," Act 4 and Act 5, the strands of the plot weave together, and the glorious pageant of history is combined with some psychological interest.

Schiller was a man of aspiring imagination and wrote clear, ringing poetry. This is yet another unforgettable piece of theatrical writing.

[Liz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Niemand: Wie Frauenfeindlich wollen Sie sein?
Schiller: ja

Also es hat den typischen Schiller-Fluss, das heißt, man kann es easy runterlesen und es ist nicht gespickt mit Wörtern, wo man jede zweite Zeile erstmal Bedeutungen nachschlagen muss.

Allerdings war ich DeZeNt geschockt von dem Frauenbild im Buch. Ich weiß, "andere Zeiten", aber selbst dann ist es einfach mega toxisch dargestellt, und das Ganze beginnt direkt im ersten Aufzug zweiter Auftritt und wird schlimmer statt besser für den Rest des Stückes. Denn was lernen wir von starken, ungebundenen und unabhängigen Frauen?
-richtig, sie sind des Teufels, lol. Wenn das keine tolle message ist. Niet. Und am Ende sind sie ja doch nur der Liebe verfallen, wie könnt es auch anders sein. Und das wichtigste im Leben ist die Schönheit, alles ganz tolle und wichtige Werte, die keine Frau verdient hat oder sich anzuhören braucht.

Als es dann noch mit Lionel und Johanna kam, dacht ich mir so...uh-hugh, bestimmt, direkt beim ersten Anblick unsterblich verliebt. Passt voll zum chara, 5 von 5 Sternen, weiter so.

Naja, hat man mal gelesen, aber das beste sind eigentlich meine eigenen Kommentare dazu, mal abgesehen von der Verzweiflung gegenüber des Frauenbildes, daher...

[Lukas Rupp · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Gelesen aufgrund Leonie Böhms Theaterstück "Johanna")

Die zeitlose Relevanz des Stücks wird in der Figur Johanna deutlich. Ihre Hingabe an ein höheres Ziel, ihre Überzeugungen und ihr ungebrochener Wille, sich gegen die Tyrannei zu erheben, verläuft immer auch in Ohnmacht und vorzeitige Resignation durch die lähmende Angst, ausgelöst durch "den Feind". Wer dieser Feind ist, wird in der Vorführung lediglich abstrakt dargestellt und dadurch den Betrachtenden die Möglichkeit erschlossen, ihn selbst zu zeichnen. Die Frage, wer Johanna ist, lässt sich hingegen einfacher beantworten, wie die Regisseurin selber mitgeteilt hat: "Wir alle." Auf der Bühne wird Johanna auf mehrere Charaktere aufgeteilt. Da gibt es zum einen die Rebellin mit starker Rüstung aus Schutzmechanismen und als Kontrast dazu, die harmoniebedürftige Johanna, die immer das Verbindende zwischen den Menschen sucht. So scheint mir dies u.a. als eine Erläuterung der Diskrepanz zwischen dem Punk- und Hippie-Dasein. Ersteres zerstört das, was Ungerechtigkeiten schafft, um neues zu schöpfen. Zweiteres lebt Frieden, Harmonie und Gewaltlosigkeit, in allen Formen, hält somit aber auch Ungerechtigkeiten in der Welt aufrecht.