Yes, the Medieval Church Evangelized, and yes, it Evangelized Muslims as well

 So I thought I would do a post on the Medieval Church's evangelism of the world in which it was passing through. It is commonly claimed, though false so, that Christians went to war with the Muslims without ever trying to convert them. That I will refute in this post.
 One of the most obvious examples of evangelism was by the Monks of Rome and Constantinople that brought Christianization to Europe by their teaching of the true Catholic faith during the early Middle Ages.  Irish Monks played an especially important role in the evangelism of Northern Europe.
 From St. Patrick going to Ireland in the 6th century, to St. Augustine of Canterbury going to England in the 7th, Monks not only Christianized, but frequently brought literacy and learning to the peoples of Europe.

Open air preaching was quite common throughout the Middle Ages. Friars would often go from town to town and preach people of Christ. This was especially common during Crusades. 

 John of Montecorvino was an Italian Franciscan that did missions in both China and India during the 13th century. 

 Saint Aurelius and Saint Natalia were Spanish Christians. This husband and wife were quite open and bold in public for their commitment to Christ.  Aurelius was born from a Muslim father and Christian mother, he and his wife Natallia were martyred in A. D. 852 for their confession of Christ. A monk by the name of George with them had spoken out publicly against the Prophet Mohammed.
 The above were not the only instances of Christians that tried to preach the gospel to the infidels as well as to other Christians.
 Open air preaching was quite common throughout the Middle Ages. Friars would often go from town to town and preach people of Christ. This was especially common during Crusades. 
 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in July of 1095 at Clermont France by an open air sermon. 
 Gerald of Wales went around Britannia preaching for the Third Crusade. 
 William of Rubrick was a Franciscian Missionary sent out by Saint Louis IX, King of France, during the Seventh Crusade to those in Eastern Europe and beyond. 
 There were several Jesuits that open air preached during the Reformation Erra. 
 The above are only a few examples. 

Saint Francis of Assisi preaching to the Muslims

Francis of Assisi believed even birds should here of the proclamation of the gospel 

A good book pictured above about Saint Francis preaching Christianity to the Muslims

The great Thomas Aquinas whom did have some dialogue with the Muslims pointed out their errors in the above book. 

Some sources for Further Information: The Medieval World by Anita Baker, Positively Medieval: The Surprising Dynamic Heroic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser, Aquinas on Reasons for our Faith against the Muslims translated by Father Damian Fehlner,   Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims by Frank W. Rega, A Mirror of Medieval Wales: Gerald of Wales and his Journey of 1188 by Charles Kightly, The Mission of Friar William of Rubrick: his journey to the court of the Great Khan Mongkee, 1253-1255, Usborne World History: Medieval World by Jane Bingham, 

A comparison between Shakespeare's Plays: Henry V and Richard III

Some of you probably know by now that I like  Analyzing and Interpreting Literature.  As these were two plays I read by my own free will back in high school, I thought I would post about them.
 Shakespeare's Henry V, is my favorite play of the great playwright. In fact the military speech that Henry V gives at Agincourt is the most famous military speech from  world literature.
 Richard III on the other hand is a really good play about a villain rather than a hero.  I'd give it a strong second place.
                                                                         Henry V:
 Set during the later years of the Hundred Years' War, Henry V is talked into by several notable bishops of his kingdom, to invading France. The invasion takes several years and after much weariness, the English begin to feel down. Henry rallies his men though by a stirring speech at Agincourt. The speech has such an effect upon his men, that they beat a force that has outnumbered them 5 to 1.
 After the war is finished, Henry marries Princess Katherine of France, by whom he is given divine right as king over both kingdoms.

   
                 The courtship of Princess Katherine is in of one of the last scenes of the play.

  Several film adaptions have been made of Henry V over the years. I can I think of at least four. The picture above is from the 1944 version with Lawrence Olivier that inspired thousands of British soldiers in the Second World War. 

Unlike the high spirited glorious version of 1944, Kennath Branagh took on a darker version of the tale in 1989. Rather than show the English so gloriously victorious at Agincourt, the film despics the horrors and gruesome fighting so common to Medieval warfare. 

 All that said of Henry, I now proceed to the next play, Richard III.
                     

                                                                           Richard III:


This play is set a little after the Hundred Years' War. The Wars of the Roses has already taken place in the settings of Richard III. This story is set just England, rather than England and France and revolves around a hunchback sinister villain that will do anything to gain the crown for himself.
 Richard III kills his two older brothers and marries a woman that he later murders. He is not without a rival though, Henry Tudor prepares an army to drive Richard from the throne.  It is widely believed that his two nephews that went missing, and had more right to the throne than he, have now been found in a chest with only their bones left. Richard III's body however, was also recently found under a parking lot, which may finally determine where the Battle of Bosworth took place.
 Richard rules a tyrannical rule over England that eventually brings him to his own doom on the fields of Bosworth. ''A horse a horse, I'd give a kingdom for a horse!'' he cries, as he surrounded by the rebel forces.  Richard is killed, and the play implies the coming victory and reign of Henry Tudor.

                                               Lawrence Olivier as Richard III


                                                                    A final comparison:


 Whereas, Henry V is the noble hero that wins the heart of a woman and a kingdom, Richard III is the villain that is brought to his own doom by his own lust for power. Unlike the glorious victory at Agincourt that the English experience in Henry V over the French, the Battle of Bosworth fields in Richard is much more complicated between two English factions fighting for the same throne; and the very glory of it is watching Richard fall to his deadly end.
 There is romance between Henry V and Katherine in the former play, romance only exists in Richard III in the mad king's wooing of woman to help ensure his throne.
 Both plays are set in the 15th century, and both are essential to the context of the late Medieval World. 


 All in all, these were great plays, and necessary reads to any Medievalist.

Some thoughts on Sense and Sensibility Volume One

So I have been reading Jane Austen's first novel for quite sometime, Sense and Sensibility. As I have seen several film adaptions of it over the years, this is a story I have liked for a very longtime.
  Austen wrote many books including a book of prayer. A daughter of an Anglican minister, Jane Austen was a high church member of the church of England. Many have reflected on the fact that her stories make little reference to the historical situations going on in the world during her novels.
Another reason I like Austen, is because of her influence on Sir Walter Scott, author of Ivanhoe. Despite the fact that Scott admired her works, she did not feel the same of him personally. In fact I
suspect some jealousy there.

 ''Walter Scott has no business to write novels, especially good ones. It is not fair. He has fame and profit enough as a poet, and should not be taking the bread out of other people's mouths. I do not like him, and do not mean to like Waverly if I can help it, but fear I must. '' -Jane Austen, letter, 1814.

Anyhow it actually took Austen sixteen years to get the book published. Austen was not at all a Feminist, at least not as how people see the word with it's meaning today. Her books actually support patriarchy, and I think it is important for modern readers to understand that.
 The first volume of the novel, Sense and Sensibility largely concentrates on the misfortunes of the Dashwoood family. Mrs. Dashwood's husband, Mr. Henry Dashwood,  has just died, and her daughter in law, Fanny Dashwood, is not generous to her in laws. In those days after all if a father died, none of his chief inheritance would go to his wife or daughters. Mr. Dashwood's son only feels a little pity for his mother and three sisters, as his wife thinks only of herself.
 Before leaving, Elinor comes acquainted with Edward Ferrars, brother to Fanny Dashwood. Edward takes interest in Elinor from early in the novel, yet always seems reserved about it.
 Mrs. Dashwood has three daughters, Elinor, the Sense of the Story, Marianne the Sensibility of it, and Marguerite, a largely non-involved adolescent character with little of herself in the main events of the story.
 Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters are forced to move to a small cottage in Devonshire. There they meet some friends of little importance before the dashing John Willoughby comes around. Willoughby comes in at the right time and right place, to a desperate Marianne, who is bored with their current lifestyle in the new life they are experiencing at Devonshire.
Also, at their new home is Colonel Brandon, a soft and quiet figure that is mocked by Marianne and Willoughby for being boring. Elinor feels of Colonel Brandon's feelings for her younger sister, a match never seen in the eyes of Marianne, who is obsessed with every moment with the arrival of Willoughby. Colonel Brandon has to leave her only, for a task that is not yet disclosed in Volume 1.
 While Marianne and Marguerite are outside in a storm, Marianne hurts one of her feet by a fall from a hillside. This is when Willougby comes in, who carries Marianne back to her home in Devonshire.
 Willoughby never gives Marianne the slightest reason that he will marry her before he departs. But she insist when he returns that he will marry her, and mourns herself daily to be away from his company.

.
 Near the end of the first volume, Elinor encounters a certain charming and lying Lucy. Lucy, leads on to Elinor, that Edward has in fact been engaged to her for quite sometime, and knows how to make her story look entirely true.
 The first volume thus ends with much mystery of certain characters, and the suspense of who among these characters are really as they outwardly portray themselves.
 Sense and Sensibility is one of my favorite novels. I find Austin's writing quick and pure in tone, yet with the beauty of the slowness that a story needs to get where it needs to be. I love all the characters, and find it interesting that the first volume shows the story largely from Elinor's perspective.
 I have always liked the Dashwood family from the film adaptions I have seen. The Dashwoods I find to have a more developed family relationship than Austen shows in other novels.
 I think Sense and Sensability is Austen's greatest work.   Though I'm sure many of her loyal fans will disagree with me on that!

A Review of Canterbury Tales: The Tale of Sir Thopas

The Monk did tell the last tale is interrupted. The audience seems to have had enough of gloomy stories for a while. Chaucer himself tells the story of Sir Thopas.
 One day Sir Thopas goes for a ride and falls asleep outside. He dreams he sleeps with an elf queen. Thopas come to have strong passion for this elf of his dreams and when he awakens cries to Mary that he may be with her.
 A giant comes though, and threatens Sir Thopas to leave. Thopas however, simply returns by saying that he will kill the giant when he returns. The giant tried to kill the knight upon the knight's departure but failed.
 The knight returned to the town and assured the people of his coming triumph over the giant. Thereafter he rides out again but then the story never finishes what happens as Chaucer is interrupted by the host. The Host claims the tale is boring and proceeds to the next tale.
 I thought it was odd the story's end this way. I am wondering if this was something Chaucer never finished purposely, or if it so ends the way it does for sake of humor.

This is one tale I could not think of a Bible verse to go with it. Plus, the story is unfinished. That said I hope you enjoyed the tale!

Celtic Christianity and the conversion of Scotland

 1. The brief facts of the Celtic Christians.
 Tomorrow we celebrate St. Patrick and the conversion of Ireland to the Christian faith. I wish all a very merry St. Patrick's day. As Ireland gets so much attention around this year, I thought I would a post on the Scottish.
 That said many do not here of the conversion of the Scottish Pitcs to the Christian faith via the Irish monks. Also there were other Christians who spread the gospel to the Celts long before St. Patrick did.
 Celtic Christianity was hugely influential in the Early medieval World. The Celts were seldom influenced by Roman Christianity prior to the 7th century. These peoples while holding a faith common to the Roman Church followed many different disciplines. The Celtics had no bishops but rather abbots and they celebrated Easter on a different day of the year than we do know. Those are just a few examples. King Arthur was a Celt and multiple legends surround these barbaric peoples.
 The Celts of course were a far reaching people that spread across Europe. Steeped into paganism and earth worship for centuries, these people were instrumental after their conversion to following Jesus, and in time would evangelize much of Europe.
 Celtic artwork and liturgy was very akin to Greek art and Byzantine liturgy. Several church fathers witness to the fact that the Celts came to Christ before Roman influence reached them. This could imply that it was the Greeks or Coptics that actually Christianized these peoples.
 At the same time it is a myth that the Celts resisted authority from the church. But that debate I won't get into here.

2. Celts appreciated the earth

Medieval man loved the earth much more than most humans do today. This is not less true for the Celts.  One could perhaps argue that the Celts were the first environmentalist. 

 Modern day environmentalism is quite hypocritical. They claim to support the earth but then support progress. Actually it was progress with it's factories and etc. that brought on hurt to the very nature of this earth. Farming is the way to save this Earth from pollution. 

 Medieval Man took more care of this earth by his lack of technology concerning industries, than all the ''Progressives'' with their proposals of taxing people to death to pay for universal healthcare etc.

As earth day approaches celebrate the beauty of God's Creation and that harmony with the earth is never fulfilled until we first know God. 

3. Conversion of Scotland

All that said, I proceed to the focus of this post. 

Saint Columbia was an Irish monk that went to Scotland and therein Christianized the Pics. He and other monks then taught the illiterate Scotts the Latin language. Like St. Patrick, there are many attributed miracles to Saint Columba, of the Apostles of Ireland. 

''For the Word of the Cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those that are being saved it is the power of God.'' -1 Corinthians 1: 18

Some sources of information

Celts The History and Lagacy of One of the Oldest Cultures in Europe by Martin J. Dougherty, Positively Medieval: The Surprising Dynamic Heroic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser, The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis, St. Paul in Britain by R. W. Morgan. 

A Review of the Fall of Arthur by J. R. R. Tolkien

Some weeks ago I finished this work from Tolkien that was published just a few years ago. It is a tragedy very akin to other Arthurian stories that I am familiar with. I thought it was a very well written work.
 Of course Tolkien is one of my favorite writers. He had such an excellent knowledge of English Literature. He was also a devout Roman Catholic but I am not here to post about him personally as I have done that on another blog. 
 I have read The Hobbit and the Children of Hurin by Tolkien, as well as The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. I am making my way through the Return of the ing currently.
 That said, I have Tolkien's Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Sir Orfeo, and Sir Peal to read. I am excited to get to those.
 Finally, The Fall of Arthur is an underrated work by Tolkien. Reading of Mordred split the kingdom apart by his rebellion on one hand, while Lancelot and Guinevere continue their affair on the other is all so stressful for the great King Arthur. Sadly, this work was never finished which makes it a short read.

''Do not avenge yourselves, beloved; allow retribution to run it's course; so we read in scripture, Vengence is for me, I will repay, says the Lord. -Romans 12: 19. 

A Review of Canterbury Tales: The Pardoner's Tale

 The last few months I have been reading one English classic after another. I have finished finished Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson recently, and am now reading Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austin. But foundation to essentially all of English Literature is the Canterbury Tales.
 The Canterbury Tales was written by Geoffrey Chaucer in the 14th century. The stories actually English rather than Latin, the more common language of the everyday common English folk. Chaucer was a Christian, and was certainly opposed to corruption in the church as is often portrayed in his stories.
 In fact, Chaucer was a student of the reformer John Wycliffe. That said it remains today debatable as to the specifics of Chaucer's religious faith. Whether the great poet was a Roman Catholic or Lollard* is still an issue of debate.
 All that said, I now precede to my post and the next story of the Canterbury Tales.
 The Pardoner that tells the tale is quite a crooked churchman. He promises the other Pilgrims at Canterbury that he will them absolvement for any sin so long as they give him money. The Pardoner in fact cares nothing of men's relationship to God.
 The tale is about three rascally men who are foolish and have an obsession towards drinking. Drunkenness is strongly condemned in this tale,  and drinking warned of. One day the men find an old man who promises them a local treasure. They hastily go for it and in their greed kill each other for it. These same brothers are sworn loyalty to each other. The story thus shows that is much danger in swearing, gluttony, gambling etc, such common sins of fools. But perhaps above all, this story shows how greed can destroy relationships.
 Of course the Pardoner himself that tells the tale is no saintly man!
 This was my least favorite yet of the Canterbury Tales, yet all in all, a good read. A least favorite among these stories is in comparison to some of the best therein in all of literature!
 It should be noted that many copies of the Canterbury Tales do not include all the stories. If you read them then make sure you get a copy of the full work.

 * The Lollards were English separatist that followed the teaching and theology of Wycliffe. Some of their beliefs varied, though they rejected a number of Roman Catholic teachings including Transubstantiation.  The Lollards help set the foundation for the coming English Reformation.



''Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! '' -James 3: 5

A Review of Canterbury Tales: The Wife of Bath's Tale

 The Wife of Bath's Tale is the third tale of the Canterbury Tales. This story surprised me in a number of ways, and to me was the least predictable. I really enjoyed it.
 The story is told by a scandalous wife that has been married to five husbands. The wife practically brags on her marriage to so many men.  The fifth husband, Jankyn is much younger than she, and is the only one that she married for love. Jankyn of course makes her angry by stories of wicked wives. But all this is in in the preface to the story.
 The actual story is set during the days of King Arthur. The Knight of this tale is a lustful jerk.
 The Knight of the Wife of Bath's Tale actually rapes a woman and from this is to be punished by King Arthur. However, the queen insist for the king not to bring death sentence to the knight, and to let her decide his fate.
 The queen demands for the knight to still live that he must find what women want the most. Only if he finds this may he live.
 The Knight sets out into the Forrest but all the young maidens flee his presence. One woman alone remains, an older woman. She tells the Knight that she will tell him what women want most if he does whatever she asks. The Knight quickly agrees to her demand.
 When the Knight comes before the queen, he has rightly answered by help from the old woman, that women want more than anything to have authority over their husbands, and to have the final say in all matters.
 Impressed, the queen agrees to let the knight live. But then the old woman returns and demands the knight marry her. He takes disgust at her presence but comes to agree to her demand as he knows before all that she helped him live.
 The Knight reluctantly sleeps with the older woman. She insist that what makes people noble is their actions, not their birth or looks.  She insist that if she is really ugly and old and humble as the knight claims, then she has more reason to be faithful to him than if she were beautiful and arrogant. She offers the knight two choices, either to stay as she is, old yet faithful, or become young and beautiful, with a chance that she will live an immoral life with other men. The Knight chooses the second.
 The following morning the woman is beautiful and young. She and the knight live happily ever after.
 The morale thus according to the Wife's tale, was that men should listen to their wives.

 That said, I thought the knight did not get what he deserved! But remember that the woman telling this tale is quite lustful herself. I found the story most intriguing at what was going to happen.  I imagine you did too.

 ''A diligent woman is a crown to her husband: and she that doth things worthy of confusion, is a rottenness in his bones.'' -Proverbs 12: 4