You really do a good job making this seem authentic, I have to say initially I was fooled! Great language use, though I have to say it's a bit hard to discern the scope / story of the piece.
A few reactions:
- I loved that description.a good but unlettered man
- would love to know what he means by "lack of restraint" also it should read "Christ-like" or "Christlike"previous conversations and had shown a lack of restraint which certainly was not Christ like
It's a bit annoying that it seems like the first third is not the "concern" of the speaker's writing - I would phrase this a different way to make sure that the reader doesn't feel like they've wasted their time in the opening portion.Yet this concern is not the subject of my writing,
I have some issues with the religious and historical authenticity of that proposition. An 8th Century Monk would likely not say that "God is no author of confusion" - this is more of a post-rationalist phenomenon. In fact, the early church and the Orthodox were very into talking about how God was a mystery. It was in the later centuries when the church got a little more dogmatic, and then also had to respond to rationalism and make it seem like all God and religion could be understood. If you read the book of Job, God pretty much says himself, humans don't need to understand all God does, confusion is okay - because God knows what God is doing. There are definitely other reasons that a monk could come up with for why God wouldn't want to "blur the lines between beast and man" maybe preserving the dominance of the human in creation.We know that God - divinely perfect and loving – is no author of confusion
- this also seems like a weird rationale - why would a saint have issues determining the two spirits and for what purpose. Some of the saints like Francis were big fans of animals anyways.lest the saints should not be able to identify those beings which have the spirit of a beast
- this is unclear to me what is being said.Perhaps, the middle ground is this: some of these peculiar races exist and others do not.
This whole piece definitely gives me the vibes of old missionary statements where they tried to make it seem like African Religion was all about cannibalism and other "gruesome immoral practices" - which was definitely a thing that a few misinformed reporters did for a while, and then no one fact-checked them so it was a wide-spread belief with not many (if any) actual cases of them running into cannibals - with such stereotypes being supported by those like Georg Hegel. I think you've got the time period a bit wrong though? 8th Century just seems so early for this.
The third paraphraph gets very interesting with the turn here, "If a beast can comprehend good and evil than he is as man, a wilful being in need of Christ. It would be a good work then to send men to beasts of comprehension, because they are not really beasts at all, rather they are children of Adam" where the speaker considers that they might not actually be beasts.
I think this is an interesting piece of literature because you're able to get into the mindset/time frame of when a lot of difficult stuff was happening in the church and culture's perception of "other places" mostly stemming from being very misinformed. It's interesting to think about what might have went through their head. Unfortunately though, I think the piece needs some interpretative or narrative lens at the end - what is the reader supposed to get from this that they wouldn't gain better from reading an actual similar account from the time period? It's a well written piece, a cool thought-exercise, but I'm left a bit confused on what it's impact-value is.
Keep on writing, you've got a great capture of language and interesting style!
- alliyah
Points: 144400
Reviews: 1227
Donate