The Chautauquan, Vol. 03, December 1882: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Promotion of True Culture.; Organ of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific CircleChautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Religion
The Chautauquan, Vol. 03, December 1882: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Promotion of True Culture.; Organ of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Chautauqua Institution -- Periodicals; Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle -- Periodicals
Concerning the “good old days” of chivalry and the crusades, the
London _Quarterly Review_ once said: “Life was earnest in its beliefs,
stormy in its ambition, hearty in its sports.” There is a funny story
going the rounds in these “degenerate days” of a disciple of Peter
Cartwright, who resisted a western rough’s invitation to drink and to
fight. The concluding remark of the bully, as he picked himself out of
the elder bushes, was, in the tones of a deeply-deceived man: “What
do you come around here for, with a long face on, saying you ‘never
have fun with the boys,’ when you are chock full of fun? You’ve nearly
broke my back.” In this contest the champions of religion and of “fun”
were arrayed against each other, but it was the advantage of the old
crusaders that both religion and “fun” lay in the same direction.
The chief of those romantic bruisers, King Richard Cœur de Lion, is
thus practically described by Charles Dickens: “He was a strong,
restless, burly man, with one idea always in his head, and that the
very troublesome idea of breaking the heads of other men.” Anyway, the
crusades were the great safety-valve of Europe for surplus religious
zeal and pugnacity, and a great relief they proved to the people who
stayed at home, as Motley and Prof. Fiske have splendidly argued.
Richard sought this outlet for his “idea.”
His career in the Holy Land was romantically ferocious. He was, indeed,
so impatient to get to business that he fought two or three battles
with Christians on the way. He showed but one redeeming trait, brute
courage; and a historian declares that the Saracen Saladin shows as the
Christian statesman, and Richard as the fighting barbarian in these
crusades. He was far more considerate of his Saracen prisoners than of
his own soldiers, and treated the Mohammedan leaders with more chivalry
than he did the allied kings and dukes. His hot temper and overbearing
manner really defeated the crusade, for it drove every other prince and
general home in anger. The Duke of Austria, for instance: The walls of
Ascalon had to be hastily repaired to repel an assault, but the Duke
held back from manual labor, saying he “was no stone mason.” Whereupon
King Richard incontinently kicked his Grace till he went to work.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account