> From: [log in to unmask]
> Organization: Arts
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:30:15 +0000
> Subject: Re: crusading love
> Priority: normal
> Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
> With reference to pilgrimage and crusade: Richard Landes referred to that
> moment when Bishop Gunther of Bamberg and his fellow pilgrims (1064-65)
> were forced to defend themselves, or the just war in action. They started
> off on their pilgrimage, as was traditional, unarmed ('most of the
> Christians thought it was impious to supply themselves with military
> aid...'). Traditionally, pilgrims embarked on an inherently pacific
> religious journey; pilgrimage meant vulnerability. I am convinced that the
> papacy and the crusaders themselves considered 'the Jerusalemites' of 1095
> authentic pilgrims. But the idea of armed pilgrims represents a paradox--I
> wouldn't go so far as to call it an oxymoron--somewhat like that other
> extremely curious, and paradoxical, crusading hybrid, the monks of war.
> Monks, of course, were pre-eminently exponents of peace. What is especially
> interesting about 'armed pilgrimage' is its apparent novelty. And its
> novelty (I would welcome correction here) seems to be conceptual. When
> scholars say that 'armed pilgrimage' "evolved", they are taking Darwin
> seriously. Sudden mutation, not slow growth, is what evolution certainly
> means in this case. Or can anyone point to a proper, self-consciously
> 'armed pilgrimage' before 1095?
>
> Gary Dickson
> University of Edinburgh
>
>
Dear Gary Dickson,
I don't believe there was anything like an armed pilgrimage before
1095 - indeed the whole idea is a nonsense and the `Great German
Pilgrimage' has, I believe, been blown up out of all proportion.
Perhaps you might like a copy of my `Destruction of Jerusalem and the
First Crusade' in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47 (1996) 1-17.
If so please send me your address.
John Framce, University of Wales Swansea
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
