> Acting as devil's advocate re Christoph Maier's analysis of what
> Francis was intending when he met al-Kamil, his new interpretation is
> largely based on exempla and other material which are closely linked to
> Bonaventure. It could therefore be argued that we are dealing with the
> reconstructed Francis of the mid- to late thirteenth century, when mendicant
> involvement in the crusades is well established.
it certainly could.
> I think Maier's argument
> is tight enough to get round that, and that Francis was comfortable with
> crusades, but I suspect one could argue it the other way.
obviously i'd be tempted to do so. will have to look at the argument. it
is very hard, especially with someone who has essentially resigned from
his own movement while still alive, to take later, even fervently loyal
expressions of fidelity too seriously. i find it very hard to imagine
Francis comfortable with crusading violence.
ps. did not Jeremy Cohen argue a similarly dramatic transformation from
Francis' view of Jews and the later virulence of Franciscan antijudaism?
rlandes
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|