On May 30

1431, Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc in French) was burned at the stake at the age of nineteen. The legend of Joan of Arc is similar to the story of Grace O'Malley and Zoya Kosmodemianskaya (see on this blog under Labels).

France was at war against England from 1330 to about 1430, which came to be known as the Hundred Years War. By 1429 the English had basically conquered much of France and occupied Paris. The French did not have the leadership to fight back, while Henry V of England was in fact claiming the French throne. Joan was able to get through all the hoops, was given troops to command and the rank of captain. Her troops under her leadership had an unexpected victory over the English at the Battle of Orleans. Then she assisted with the coronation of Charles VII.

In 1430 the allies of England, Burgundians, captured Joan while she was defending Compiegne and she was then surrendered to the English. The English of course took the opportunity to turn her over to the ecclesiastical court at Rouen to be tried for withcraft and heresy, and for wearing male clothing (how offensive!). She was executed shortly after...

1778, Voltaire, one of the greatest philosophers/writers of all times (and my favorite) died. He said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Au reste, après nous, de deluge...

Madame de Pompadour is perhaps one of the most influential women in history of Europe. Breaking through the bushes of tradition and status, she self-elevated herself to a position of power and influence in 18th century France. Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson was born in 1721 in the rue de Clery. Her father was a steward to the Paris brothers, French financiers. However, some say her biological father was a rich financier Tournehem, who became her legal guardian after her official father flew from Paris after a scandal. When she was 9, her mother took her to a fortune teller and was told that one day she would become the mistress of the king. So, she gave her the best education. She was also given the nickname “Reinette”, ‘little queen.’

After her marriage to the nephew of her guardian, she began entertaining the whole Paris and started patronizing artists and writers. Voltaire and Motesquieu were among her favorites. In February 1745 she was invited to a masked royal ball at Versailles to celebrate the marriage of the King’s son. By chance or design she was dressed as Diana, the goddess of Hunting. At this ball she drew the attention of the King (Louis XV). By September 15, 1745 she was legally separated from her husband and pronounced Marquise de Pompadour, the King’s official mistress. Because of her bourgeois background, she was immediately a target at the court—- many hated her. But soon she proved to have an enormous influence on the King, by having removed her enemies from posts.

She became to be known as the patron of arts and literature. She had given her patronage to Voltaire. She also supported Diderot’s Encyclopedie project. She had a huge influence on a trend in architecture and decorative arts that is better known as ‘Rococo.’ The fashion at that time came to be identified as the ‘Pompadour style.’ In art history this was a major period that affected the rest of European arts not only in the 18th century, but continuously through the 20th.

After 1750 her relationship with the King turned strictly into a friendship, but she continued forging huge influence on the King’s affairs. On October 12, 1752 the King made her a duchess, a big elevation from her status in the past.

When France was on the verge of war with England, she played a major role in bringing forth the ‘Diplomatic Revolution.’ The Treaty of Versailles signed on May 1, 1756 allied France with former enemy Austria, which disastrously led to the Seven Years’ War. After the French defeat at Rosbach in 1757 she supposedly comforted the King by famous now words, ‘After us, the Deluge.’ (au reste, après nous, de deluge).


When she died at the age of 42 on April 15, 1764, the King was in great grief. While they had been only friends since 1750, he remained very devoted to her while the public blamed her for the War and financial bankruptcy of France.

The King reportedly said when bidding farewell to this remarkable woman:

I am very sad at the death of Madame de Pompadour. I was indebted to her and I mourn her out of gratitude. It seems absurd that while an ancient penpusher, hardly able to walk, should still be alive, a beautiful woman, in the midst of a splendid career, should die at the age of forty.

Francois Boucher (1703-1770) painted numerous portraits of Madame de Pompadour.

Women and secularism

“What a man believes, and what he therefore regards as unquestionable reality, constitutes his religion.” Jose Ortega y Gasset, "Concord and Liberty". “His/her” religion, not everybody’s, because faith is a very intimate endeavor, perhaps the most private human space, after family and sex.

“The government is itself nothing but the self-established focus, the individual embodiment of the universal will.” Hegel, “Phenomenology of Mind.”

The idea of separation of church from state, or secularism has been a center of much debate. It is important to look at its origins in order to understand its true meaning. The Age of Enlightenment (18th century), when laying the foundation for the modern nation-state, promulgated that a state does not represent the Will of God, but the will of people. By its very nature the Enlightenment began the slow extermination of monarchs, who were ruling by grace of God, not by the will of people. In the new formula, the church as the earthly manifestation of God, was to be separate from the state. Moreover, religious scholasticism and mysticism of the Middle Ages were replaced by reason. Enlightenment was synonymous with reason. Thus, the Enlightenment thinkers recognized that the demands of religion/church are incompatible with the demands of the modern state institutions.

As these liberal institutions developed, the idea of separation of church from state deepened and became an integral component of a western liberal democracy. The state was not to establish any religion and was not to abridge free exercise thereof. Also, the state was not to let any church influence its workings. However, an unspoken dilemma was always there. The state is not an abstraction and in its functions, it is empowered by the people it purports to represent. As Hegel pointed out, the government is an embodiment of the will of people. Since religion constitutes an “unquestionable reality” for millions of people, the state is necessarily challenged with respect to religion. Therefore, it can never really and fully insulate itself from religion.

Today while most European states and America preach secularism, they do not follow what they preach. While the institutions such as Constitutions are secular in their formulations, the governments are influenced by religion. It all really revolves around how people understand faith and religion. If you subscribe to the broader definition of Gasset, the vast majority of people can be classified religious, since they all believe in something faithfully and even blindly.

The recent developments in the world have illustrated that things are not as simple as the Enlightenment thinkers envisioned and secularism needs serious review. While in its essence separation of church and state is necessary in many ways, in many others too much of it borders on suppression. Professor Madhavi Sunder called this era as the New Enlightenment (Read her brilliant article "Piercing the Veil"). Her vision is how to recharacterize secularism to serve the needs of religious minorities and first of all, women, who have made certain choices toward emancipation within religion/culture. So, the dichotomy is changing. Faith as it is understood by people, has to receive its redefinition in the state and its representation of people.

For example, when France banned the Muslim headscarf in public schools, Muslim women rebelled against it, “You are suppressing our religious faith. This is intolerance and discrimination under the guise of secularism.” The state had a lame response, “We are a secular state and cannot allow your religious symbols infiltrate the public sphere.” In fact, the real motivation behind the ban was the fear of Islamic fundamentalism and religious fervor. To give some break to the French government, it was really grappling with Islamic women—suicide bombers. Unfortunately, the ban resulted in more fundamentalism and more religious uprisings.

The problem is that while theoretically separation of church from state is a positive thing, it always ends up as a tool for religious discrimination by the majority culture of the minority, or in other situations, it simply turns into a tool to get rid of disfavored minorities. The headscarf for these women was not only a religious symbol, but a part of their cultural identity. France’s ban was to exclude them from the public sphere, or force them to choose rejection of their culture. But why should these women, already oppressed in their own culture, receive more oppression in the hands of a liberal democracy… Moreover, it seems the human rights law itself supports this. The European Court of Human Rights in Leila Sahin v. Turkey decided that Turkey was justified in prohibiting Sahin from wearing her headscarf in the public university.

I cannot pretend to have a ready answer to this dilemma, but it seems the goal should be to empower, rather than shut out these women, who have a right to choose… While Islamic extremism and militantism must be grappled with, I would search for other ways than suppression of religious minorities.