A mysteriously invincible champion on a white horse appeared at a number of key battles of the Reconquista, helping the overmatched Christians decimate their enemies.
Santiago Matamoros: St James the Moor-slayer.🧵
The first appearance came in the year 844 at Clavijo.
Tradition tells that King Ramiro I of Asturias was required by the King of Cordoba to hand over 100 maidens annually as tribute.
When King Ramiro decided he would no longer pay that tribute, King Abdelraman brought war against him.
The first day of battle did not go well for the several overmatched Christians. And the Moors appeared likely to do the same tomorrow.
The Christians must have been sorely tempted to beat a retreat from the battle altogether. They’d given it a good effort, but they had no chance.
Then King Ramiro was visited in a dream by Saint James, patron of Spain, who told the king that he himself "would join the Christians if they would fight again the following day,” according to James Fitzhenry.
They did show up to fight, and they won big.
Something similar happened again in 939 at Simancas, and again at Las Navas in 1212.
The legend of Santiago Matamoros is fascinating, but more than anything I'm interested in the "if" in his promise. He would help the Spanish Christians if they lined up again for battle the next day.
This tells all about the Christian life.
Note: St James certainly did not say he would fight the battle for the Christians, allowing them to kick back and watch as he destroyed their enemies.
He said he would join them *if* they mustered the resolve to fight again.
It reminds me of an excellent line from Leon Gautier’s treatise on chivalry: "'Fight, God is with you.' Such, in a few words, was the whole formula of Christian courage."
God will help us, but only if we show up and get to work!
Christian life is of a deeply and mysteriously cooperative nature. God wants true-hearted soldiers willing to suit up for his cause. He will see the them through to triumph, but again he won’t fight their battles for them.
And sometimes God might make you wait until the second day of battle before he sends St James to your aid, perhaps because he wants to see if your heart is truly in the fight.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The most interesting thing about Green’s account of the Arthurian saga (1953) is the attempt to offer Sir Gawain as the anti-Lancelot. 🧵
Like most Arthurian retellings, Green's work is heavily based on Malory's Morte d'Arthur.
I must make a confession: I don't love Malory's masterwork. The Lancelot Problem ruins it for me.
The Lancelot Problem is a failure of narrative justice. The great knight faces too little consequence for his wrongdoing. He is time and again offered as the knightly ideal, praised by all, even Arthur.
Except that his betrayal of his king brings down the kingdom.
It happened before; it can happen again. In the 7th and 8th centuries, the Christian civilization of the Franks seemed doomed. They were surrounded on all sides by ferocious enemies. It was only a matter of time until they were wiped out.
But then a series of kings came along, culminating in Charlemagne, and changed everything. The consequence of their greatness was European civilization itself.
This is why we call Charles the Father of Europe.
A passage from Wilson's biography of Charlemagne captures the spirit of that accomplishment.
Of the great novelists, very few were as interested in manliness as she was. 🧵
The form of the novel seems inherently tilted toward female characters and allows them to shine in a distinctive way. A disproportionate number of the most memorably admirable are ladies.
Rarely does a man shine in this form. They tend to be problematic at best.
Off the top of my head, the various ways that male protagonists go wrong:
- impotent (Jake Barnes)
- ridiculous (Jay Gatsby)
- suicidal (Quentin Compson)
- cowardly (Arthur Dimmesdale)
- passive (Newland Archer)
- untrustworthy (Jim Burden)
- corrupt (Willie Stark)
1) Yesterday was a little rougher than I had remembered and expected. All the better, though. The point is not to make this as comfortable as possible. There’s a high degree of overlap between “difficult” and “meaningful.”
And it should get easier after this initial test.
2) I was reading Josef Pieper last night on the virtue of courage. One of the teachings of the tradition is that there are greater requirements of courage in endurance than in attack.
You will need an excellent sword with which to win yourself a kingdom.
The famous blacksmith Galas spent three years fashioning Charlemagne's Joyeuse and heavenly forces blessed it with magical properties.
The hilt and handle were decorated with gold and jewels, and the pommel was said to have contained the head of the Spear of Longinus, the same point that pierced Jesus’ side.
The bard tells us: “never was there a sword to match it; its color changed thirty times a day.” Joyeuse must have lit up brilliantly during battle, blinding the fools who dared to challenge Charles.
If you have overcome an addiction to pornography, you are an absolute champion of the will.
I don't mean that in a sentimental, hokey, motivational guru way. I mean it dead seriously.
Think of the combined resources of all those predatory tycoons and tyrants, not to mention the satanic forces, who wanted you enslaved to that baseness, gratifying yourself into spiritual and physical oblivion.
And you overcame them.
That is nothing short of an incredible accomplishment, thanks be to God.