On Thu, 25 Apr 1996, MG. Bull wrote:
> With reference to the suggestion that Francis represented a vision of
> non-violent Christian ethics in contradistinction to crusading thought, I
> recommend Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the
> Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), who argues very cogently
> that the Franciscans were sympathetic to crusading from the early days.
i will track it down. in the meantime, let me ask the following: how
early? and which Franciscans? we certainly know what Francis' idea of a
crusade was; and we also know how quickly his teachings became the focus
of disputes and his followers fell away from some of the more radical
aspects of his teachings.
> More broadly, Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading (Oxford, 1985) is
> instructive: it is significant that the overwhelming majority of contemporary
> criticisms of crusading were NOT root-and-branch, but along the lines of
> good idea but could do better.
again, i would note: 1) it is hard to argue with success (there may be a
parallel here with the fight in the early church between martyrs and
apologists... altho the m's clearly despised the arguments of the
apologists, over time, the a's made such significant gains that the m's
position -- not their relics -- became marginalized and eventually
ridiculed). 2) those who are willing to go into print on the subject
specifically are most likely going to conform to the general consensus
that this success is a (God-)given. ...as opposed to a teaching which
implicitly criticizes root-and-branch, like Francis'. the rapid approval
of (some, prominent) Franciscans despite the example laid down by Francis
-- which in fact succeeded remarkably, but only for the madmen of God --
is a good example of how quickly the radical critique oxidized upon
exposure to "reality".
rlandes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|