The Sword: Symbol of Nobility and Power
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
In our day, the sword has been surpassed as a weapon of war by far more potent arms. The modern soldier gives little thought to sharpening his sword for battle. Inadequate to defend its bearer against more lethal weaponry, the sword has been virtually eliminated from twentieth-century arsenals.
Yet, on occasions of great solemnity, officers in the armed forces of all civilized nations still wear their swords. Although no longer used in combat, the sword retains such symbolic value that one cannot imagine an officer at a solemn event without it.
Consider, too, that in those countries with academies of letters that use uniforms, the members wear swords on special occasions. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but during his initiation into the academy, a distinguished scholar is presented by his peers not with a magnificent pen but with a majestic sword–the only suitable accessory for his solemn apparel.
As in times past, some diplomats still use swords on formal occasions.
Why does the sword retain such power as a symbol despite its obsolescence as a weapon?
It does so because the sword preserves its heroic legacy as a badge of chivalry and guardian of human dignity.
For this reason, a sword worthy of the name is not only exquisitely crafted but made with the best materials. It may be embellished with gold or silver and even precious gems, but the richest adornment to any sword is bestowed by the bearer of ardent faith who enshrines a sacred relic of a favorite saint in its pommel.
During the Middle Ages, the sword assumed legendary proportions that it did not possess in antiquity. The people of the Middle Ages regarded the sword with a certain profundity, esteeming it as a symbol of man’s God-given nobility.
When a king is crowned, he always wears a sword. In any solemn ceremony that has not been stripped of all elevation and pomp by the levelers of modern egalitarianism, a sword is used.
Which would give a son deeper satisfaction: to say, “My father left me his Cadillac” or “My father bequeathed me his sword?” Inheriting a profitable business may enrich one’s purse, but far richer is the soul of the son who can say: “My father left me the sword with which he defended Christian civilization. He died a hero in battle, leaving me only the sword he wielded for Christ.” Such a sword should be kept in a chapel, for that is the home most befitting a relic.
(Crusade, Mar-Apr 1998. Adopted from remarks addressed to TFP members and supporters by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira on May 9, 1969).
Love and Fear in Christian Piety
In the famous Arena Chapel at Padua, the immortal brush of Giotto left us this mocked Christ.
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
According to Church teaching, love and fear of God are virtues. Since neither antagonism nor contradiction can exist among the virtues, love does not exclude fear and fear does not exclude love.
Furthermore, both of these virtues are essential for salvation. If we cannot envision a saint without love of God, likewise we cannot envision a saint without fear.
One could affirm that love is the higher virtue and that these virtues influence each soul in different degrees, according to its individuality and the economies of grace. However, disregarding one virtue under the pretext of stimulating another — that is, maintaining silence regarding fear to develop love, or vice-versa — usually inflicts irremediable damage on souls.
Now, there was a time when the profoundly balanced piety of the faithful held love and fear in proper perspective, whence both virtues were proportionately reflected in sermons, art, and religious literature. Later, however, Jansenism stressed the role of fear to the point of exaggeration and delirium. In reaction, saints, theologians and preachers pertinaciously stressed the role of love. As a result, many treasures of grace, of theological and pastoral wisdom, and of artistic beauty blossomed in the Holy Church because of Her most characteristic and best elements which we need not mention.
In this way, a wise and strategic maxim was applied: whenever one side of something is exaggerated, one must accentuate the other side.
Let us bring this principle into focus and see how to apply it today. Which one is being exaggerated? Love or fear? It seems modern man sins neither by excessive love nor fear. Much to the contrary, having forgotten God and having been impregnated with secularism, naturalism and indifferentism, he takes no account of God, neither loving Him nor fearing Him.
"Judas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?"
Consequently, the solution to this complete lack of love and fear is to call men to God by attracting them to one and the other virtue. For fear also brings men to God: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
In this regard, religious art can be of much help. It is a marvelous means of demonstrating how Our Lord Jesus Christ should be loved and feared.
In the famous Arena Chapel at Padua, the immortal brush of Giotto left us this mocked Christ, an admirable representation of the patience of the Divine Master. His adorable face is barbarously wounded; sacrilegious hands pull His hair and beard; a crown of thorns, a derisive symbol of His royalty, is set upon His venerable forehead. But Jesus, with eyes lowered, seems neither to see His enemies nor to feel the enormity of the outrage, but rather feels a fathomless sadness. This is truly the gentle Savior Who suffers everything for our redemption with a meek and humble Heart.
“Judas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” Both faces were close to each other at the memorable moment of this infamous kiss and terrifying question. Giotto depicts this scene in another painting in the same chapel. With his low forehead, flabby flesh, grim look, vulgar nose, loathsomely soft and drooping lips, Judas reveals an inexpressible infamy in his whole being. Jesus-noble, infinitely superior, and possessing an ineffable moral loftiness-looks upon him with a gaze wherein a sparkle of love, rebuke, severity, and total repulsion can be found. Poor, miserable Judas, who did not want to open his soul to the love or fear which this gaze elicited and to which this doleful and pungent question invited him.
And, because his soul resisted every invitation to love and to fear, it sank from theft to deicide and from deicide to despair.
An Interview with Professor Thomas Madden:
Dispelling Myths About the Crusades
The American TFP’s Crusade Magazine recently did an interview with accomplished medieval historian Professor Thomas Madden of St. Louis University, to dispel some common myths concerning the Crusades. The text of this interview is transcribed below.
1. Some authors contend the Crusades were wars of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. What is your position in this matter?
It is difficult to see how anyone familiar with the sources could make such a claim. The original goal of the First Crusade, as it was annunciated in the papal call as well as numerous crusader charters, was to respond to Muslim aggression against Christians in the East and to restore those lands taken by Muslims to their Christian owners.
2. Many adversaries of the Crusades claim that, although Crusaders wore crosses and religious symbols, their only goal was to gain riches and territories. What is your opinion on the matter?
This is a fairly old-fashioned view, now largely rejected by scholars. It was based on a Victorian experience with colonialism that has no relationship at all to the medieval Crusades. We now know that crusading was almost never profitable. Crusaders often impoverished themselves and their families in order to pay for their expeditions. Whatever booty they received (and the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder) was more than offset by their expenses. The vast majority of Crusaders had no interest in remaining in the East, but rather fulfilled their vows and returned home as soon as they were able.
3. Some accuse the Crusades of being a sort of medieval colonialism disguised in religious trappings. Is this true and could you comment on this?
Colonialism, if it is to have any meaning at all, requires certain things: most importantly a mother country that funds and directs the colonial expansion, a colonial government linked to a home government, and policy of colonization or exploitation in the colony. The Crusades had none of these things. No mother country supported the Crusades. Rather they were funded and undertaken by individuals across Christendom for the benefit of their souls and their co-religionists overseas. The governments in the Crusaders States were independent, with no direct ties to any European countries. And the Europeans had no policy of colonization or exploitation in the East. Rather, the overriding purpose of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was to safeguard the Holy Places and the lives of Christian pilgrims coming to visit them.
4. Is the following thesis historically defensible: Although the West lost political control over the Holy Land and the near East after the seventh and last Crusade, the effort Christians made from the 11th to the 13th centuries broke the impetus of the Muslim offensive against Europe and thus prevented the European continent from becoming Islamic back in medieval times.
No, on several counts. The Seventh Crusade was by no means the last Crusade. They continued well into the sixteenth century. The famous Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was a Crusade. Catholics did lose the mainland, but they held onto Cyprus and Rhodes for centuries. I believe it is fair to say, however, that the Crusades did slow the advance of Muslim Empires – namely the Ottoman Empire – into Europe just long enough to allow Europeans to effectively defend themselves. I have no doubt that had there been no Crusades at all that western Europe would have been conquered by Muslims in much same fashion as southeastern Europe was.
"I have no doubt that had there been no Crusades at all that western Europe would have been conquered by Muslims in much same fashion as southeastern Europe was."
5. The Fourth Crusade is one of the most maligned of the Crusades. This is the Crusade you have studied in depth. Could you comment on some of the myths about the Fourth Crusade?
The biggest myth is that the Crusade was purposely diverted from its original goal – either by Pope Innocent III or Doge Enrico Dandolo – in order to conquer Constantinople. In fact, on several occasions the pope forbade the crusaders to go to Constantinople and once they were there, forbade them to attack the city. It is also not true that the Crusaders were led to Constantinople by a hatred of the Greeks or an envy of their empire.
Instead, they came to Constantinople at the invitation of a Greek claimant to the throne, who promised to help them on their Crusade. The Crusaders only attacked Constantinople after their Greek friend double-crossed them, refusing to pay their reward or to join the Crusade. Even then, they only initiated hostilities when the Greeks murdered their former friend and ordered the Crusaders to leave immediately without reward, support, or even food. The Fourth Crusade is a tragedy, but it is one in which the Greeks and Latins both played important parts.
Email this post
Print
Comments on this entry are closed.