One Novel, Many Faiths

Ned George · Apr 24, 2007

In the story I'm writing at the moment, I have four main characters, all men, and each has different beliefs. It wasn't planned, and it's not a comparative study of religion in any way. However, I have one character who, coming out of France, is Catholic. Another is English, and Quaker. A third has no religious beliefs at all. A fourth, another Frenchman, was once a divinity student, but now thinks devotion, for men, is in poor taste.

The difficulty I'm having is in representing the Christian characters as Christians without getting too far into doctrine or specific worship practices. They are presently living in French-occupied Egypt, so the only Christian churches are Greek Orthodox.

From what I've found, most modern Christians don't know that Catholic evangelicals did and do exist. There are no conflicts between these two. The characters do share some of their beliefs to help one another, and because of his history and backstory, one becomes radical (for the period), in thinking that execution is wrong. Of course, the Quaker agrees. They are non-violent.

Here's the problem. The historical truth of religious beliefs might be one thing, while the believability factor might be another. Which do we go with? Truth or a comfortable story that readers won't question?

BruceJ · Apr 24, 2007

Truth

Unfortunately, there's already too much written in the context of Christianity that is "comfortable" and that "readers won't question." (ref 2 Tim. 4:3,4). If you compromise on truth for readability--or for any other reason--it becomes at best stretched truth, at worst a lie (difference?).

My recommendation is to teach the readers something (i.e., the truth) and if that stretches them, all the better!

Good question, by the way!

Higgins · Apr 24, 2007

French-occupied Egypt?

ned said:
In the story I'm writing at the moment, I have four main characters, all men, and each has different beliefs. It wasn't planned, and it's not a comparative study of religion in any way. However, I have one character who, coming out of France, is Catholic. Another is English, and Quaker. A third has no religious beliefs at all. A fourth, another Frenchman, was once a divinity student, but now thinks devotion, for men, is in poor taste.

The difficulty I'm having is in representing the Christian characters as Christians without getting too far into doctrine or specific worship practices. They are presently living in French-occupied Egypt, so the only Christian churches are Greek Orthodox.

From what I've found, most modern Christians don't know that Catholic evangelicals did and do exist. There are no conflicts between these two. The characters do share some of their beliefs to help one another, and because of his history and backstory, one becomes radical (for the period), in thinking that execution is wrong. Of course, the Quaker agrees. They are non-violent.

Here's the problem. The historical truth of religious beliefs might be one thing, while the believability factor might be another. Which do we go with? Truth or a comfortable story that readers won't question?

You only have a very few brief time-spans for a French-occupied Egypt:
1799-1801 and a few square miles for a month or so in 1956. Morroco or Algiers or Lebanon or Syria might work better for a French Occupation. The Christian churches in Egypt for native Egyptians would be Coptic. In Alexandria of course, there would (I am guessing) be a few Christian congregations.
You might want to try the period of the English predominance there(regime, an occupation by treaty with the occupied) in Egypt which would be roughly 1882 to 1955. Your characters could go visit the Greek Orthodox monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. Or even drive on over to old Jerusalem, which would be under Ottoman Turkish control until 1917, then under the Mandate of Palestine until UN control in 1945, then under Partition in 1947, then under Jordanian control until 1967.
The Qumran committee was just such a mixed group of Christians and was formed in the late 1940s to supervise the reconstuction, editing and publication of the Qumran scrolls. You could look into how they functioned. Which was not very well at all. Only Milik, a Polish Catholic priest, avoided being paralyzed by his texts or going nuts. He got married and did useful work on the Aramaic Fragments of the Book of Enoch from Cave 4.

Ned George · Apr 24, 2007

The Treaty of Jassy ensured Orthodox churches could remain in Cairo at the time. The treaty was despised by the Islamic world.

I'm not sure what you suppose I was asking: I'm not looking to change the time period of the story.

Ned George · Apr 24, 2007

BruceJ said:
Unfortunately, there's already too much written in the context of Christianity that is "comfortable" and that "readers won't question." (ref 2 Tim. 4:3,4). If you compromise on truth for readability--or for any other reason--it becomes at best stretched truth, at worst a lie (difference?).

My recommendation is to teach the readers something (i.e., the truth) and if that stretches them, all the better!

Good question, by the way!

Thanks for the encouragement, BruceJ,
I'm really making an effort to educate without sounding like a lecturer. My purpose is not to change what people believe or to give 'history of religion' lessons. I hope to tell a compelling story that will inspire the reader and that's all. It would be easier to go with the cliche, with whatever the reader expects. I'm so glad to find someone who agrees that lying isn't the right way to go, even if it is the easier way.

Higgins · Apr 24, 2007

Seems unlikely

ned said:
The Treaty of Jassy ensured Orthodox churches could remain in Cairo at the time. The treaty was despised by the Islamic world.

I'm not sure what you suppose I was asking: I'm not looking to change the time period of the story.

I would be surprised if there were any Greek Orthodox churches in Cairo in 1792. It would be even more surprising if the Mamelukes did as the Ottomans suggested in Egypt in 1792. There would be Coptic Churches, of course in Egypt. Maybe some Greek Churches in Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox monasteries from St. Catherines' on to Cappadocia and Mt. Athos and so on. There were of course many Christian minorities living in areas under Mameluke and Ottoman control. Those Christians had been living under Islamic regimes for over a thousand years.

If you want French-occupied Egypt, then you do in fact mean in 1799 to 1801, right?

Ned George · Apr 24, 2007

Yes, that's the period, the months after Bonaparte's departure for Paris and after Kleber's death. It's a short period for the novel, I agree. But it didn't require much time.

For some reason, Greek Orthodox is in my head for Cairo. I don't know where I got the information, but I'll check on my sources and double check the fact. I mostly use contemporary sources, so it's possible that the journalist of the period might have been mistaken? I have Al Jabarti's account as well as a number of other writers who described the campaign, both French and native. Whatever the case, I'll certainly let you know what I discover. If this is something you question, then it stands to reason others will doubt it as well. I'd better double check.

You sound like a history major. There are few people so passionate about their subject as a history lover.

By the way, I've got a short section on Malta as well. A character was there when Bonaparte invaded. If you know anything useful, curious facts or whatever, do let me know. I've got a basic outline of events, but little more. I'd like to read something written by one of the knights hospitallers if such an account exists. Have you ever heard of any?

Thanks for your interest,
ned

Higgins · Apr 24, 2007

Sounds marvelous

ned said:
Yes, that's the period, the months after Bonaparte's departure for Paris and after Kleber's death. It's a short period for the novel, I agree. But it didn't require much time.

For some reason, Greek Orthodox is in my head for Cairo. I don't know where I got the information, but I'll check on my sources and double check the fact. I mostly use contemporary sources, so it's possible that the journalist of the period might have been mistaken? I have Al Jabarti's account as well as a number of other writers who described the campaign, both French and native. Whatever the case, I'll certainly let you know what I discover. If this is something you question, then it stands to reason others will doubt it as well. I'd better double check.

You sound like a history major. There are few people so passionate about their subject as a history lover.

By the way, I've got a short section on Malta as well. A character was there when Bonaparte invaded. If you know anything useful, curious facts or whatever, do let me know. I've got a basic outline of events, but little more. I'd like to read something written by one of the knights hospitallers if such an account exists. Have you ever heard of any?

Thanks for your interest,
ned

I was a History Major long, long ago. My speciality was American Indians.

In 1792, there would be pre-existing Christian Churches in Cairo. It may be that the Treaty of Jassy allowed the Russia patriarchate some kind of supervisory or ecclesiastical role in them. So for example, the Treaty might have allowed ecclesiastics to appeal to the Russian Patriarch in administrative issues. So what the Treaty might have done is not protect the churches but allow another "sovereignty" to look into their affairs.

Sorry no info springs to mind for the Knights of Malta/Knights of St. John/Hospitalers. I think your choice of time point is brilliant and there should be plenty of good sources. Have you read O'Brian's nautical adventures? Very good for this period. I myself had a brief vision of this in a thread in the Critical Theory subforum (some traces of the French expedition were found in the Valley of the Kings when some of the Tomsb were examined systematically):

We can almost see it now: the big attractions at the Valley of the Kings, some Ramasside tomb, fabled since Antiquity finally visited by the French 1799 expedition (who still cannot read Hieroglyphics since the Rosetta Stone is found later when the English arrive on the Coast) and here come the savants, puffing away madly on pipes full of the extremely potent local tobacco, each like his own little train of thought. They get some way down into the vast tomb and cannot read a thing, though they are surrounded by writing. They come to the sacred well or shaft that blocks their way deeper...but they cannot see to the bottom. Luckily they have some supply requisition forms with them (initialled by Desaix even) and they crumple these up and light them off their well-stoked pipes and throw them into the well to see how deep it is. In 1979, these illuminating textual gestures are finally brought to light and "decyphered"....

Ned George · Apr 24, 2007

Oh, yes, I bought O'Brien in a boxed set and read them all in four months. Loved the movie, too--still one of my top three. I've also done Forester's Hornblower books (not so good), Alex. Kent, Pope, as well as bios of Cochrane, Pellew, JP Jones, J. Cook, Blight, Hugh Pigot, Wellington and Napoleon...as you can see, it's a hobby of mine, this period. I also read bios of non-military people from the period, such as George III and IV, the Spencers/Cavendish clans, just about anyone so long as they were alive at the time. To round it off, I will read any fiction written during the time. I feel fiction gives historians a closer look at everyday mores, etc.

Oh, the Rosetta stone was indeed discovered by a Frenchman. The English confiscated it when they invaded and shipped it to London where it remains. I've seen it! They wouldn't let me touch it, though. Meanies.

Here's some info I copied from another website:

"French Army engineer Captain Pierre-François Bouchard discovered the stone on July 15, 1799, while guiding construction work at Fort Julien near the Egyptian port city of Rosetta (now Rashid). He understood that it was important and showed it to General Jacques de Menou. They sent it to the Institut de l'Égypte, where it arrived in August. The French language newspaper Courrier de l'Egypte announced the find in September.

On March 1801, the British landed on Aboukir Bay and scholars carried the Stone from Cairo to Alexandria alongside the troops of de Menou. French troops in Cairo capitulated on June 22, and in Alexandria on August 30.
After the surrender, a dispute arose over the fate of French archaeological and scientific discoveries in Egypt. De Menou refused to hand them over, claiming that they belonged to the Institute. British General John Hely-Hutchinson refused to relieve the city until de Menou gave in. Newly arrived scholars Edward Daniel Clarke and William Richard Hamilton agreed to check the collections in Alexandria and found many artifacts that the French had not revealed."

I can add that although the stone remained in England, a Frenchman, Champollion, was the first to translate it in 1822. Got a little of their own back, I guess, with that coup.

I read somewhere that when the republican army first encountered Luxor, they stopped in dead silence. The military band began to play, and no one said a word. The scholars sketched madly. Yes, you imagined it beautifully.

I didn't know about those recent finds. Fantastic!

I'm feeling very French, these days.

Higgins · Apr 24, 2007

Rosetta Stone

ned said:
Oh, the Rosetta stone was indeed discovered by a Frenchman. The English confiscated it when they invaded and shipped it to London where it remains. I've seen it! They wouldn't let me touch it, though. Meanies.

I've seen it was well. I'd just seen the da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks so I was a bit burned out emotionally and did not burst into tears as some people have.

ned said:
I read somewhere that when the republican army first encountered Luxor, they stopped in dead silence. The military band began to play, and no one said a word. The scholars sketched madly. Yes, you imagined it beautifully.

Wow...falling silent at Luxor. Now that's a marvelous moment.

ned said:
I didn't know about those recent finds. Fantastic!

I'm feeling very French, these days.

Yes, many of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings have been open and largely accessible since Antiquity...so nobody bothered examining them very closely until the 1970s and then those little bits of the French expedition turned up among other things.

BruceJ · Apr 25, 2007

ned said:
Thanks for the encouragement, BruceJ,
I'm really making an effort to educate without sounding like a lecturer. My purpose is not to change what people believe or to give 'history of religion' lessons. I hope to tell a compelling story that will inspire the reader and that's all. It would be easier to go with the cliche, with whatever the reader expects. I'm so glad to find someone who agrees that lying isn't the right way to go, even if it is the easier way.

Sounds like your motivation is right on track. Best of everything good to you in your writing!

Higgins · Apr 25, 2007

Some Greek Orthodox (Melkite)

ned said:
Yes, that's the period, the months after Bonaparte's departure for Paris and after Kleber's death. It's a short period for the novel, I agree. But it didn't require much time.

For some reason, Greek Orthodox is in my head for Cairo. I don't know where I got the information, but I'll check on my sources and double check the fact. I mostly use contemporary sources, so it's possible that the journalist of the period might have been mistaken?

No, I'm mistaken. There would be some Greek Orthodox places in Egypt in 1798-1801. Most of the Christians would be Coptic (ie with a Monophysite/non-Chalcedon creed and a liturgy in Coptic which descends from the language of Ancient Egypt), but there would be some Greek Orthodox shrines at least. The Copts (as the active Christians would be called) were a relatively well-connected part of the population. For example a Copt worked effectively as Desaix's second-in-command on the expedition down the Nile and later raised a Coptic Legion to help the French (at least according to C. Herold in Buonaparte in Egypt, pub 1962).

And see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria

Ned George · Apr 25, 2007

Thanks again. Sharing research is so smart! Especially when you do the work and I get the benefits.

By the way, do you ever hunt through the Catholic Encyclopedia website? Since the Church has been around for so long, the website has information about almost everything imaginable. The articles are long and detailed. For example, a search on "Egypt" gives a brief history of the country, not just as it relates to religion, but in all areas of development.

I've been cruising the site for a couple of years now, ever since it came up in a search I was doing for a history class I took last year. The assignment had to do with de Las Casas account, and of course popes were involved in how the native Americans were treated by the Spaniards. I've loved the site ever since, and am so glad it's available as a jumping off place for historical research.

Higgins · Apr 25, 2007

Haven't systematically

ned said:
Thanks again. Sharing research is so smart! Especially when you do the work and I get the benefits.

By the way, do you ever hunt through the Catholic Encyclopedia website? Since the Church has been around for so long, the website has information about almost everything imaginable. The articles are long and detailed. For example, a search on "Egypt" gives a brief history of the country, not just as it relates to religion, but in all areas of development.

I've been cruising the site for a couple of years now, ever since it came up in a search I was doing for a history class I took last year. The assignment had to do with de Las Casas account, and of course popes were involved in how the native Americans were treated by the Spaniards. I've loved the site ever since, and am so glad it's available as a jumping off place for historical research.

No, I haven't systematically pursued the Catholic Encyclopedia online. I know people who can spot stuff that must have come out of it in other people's posts...or to put it another way...they dismissed it with a laugh, but knew its ins and outs...which I don't.

Las Casas is a fascinating fellow. The really odd thing is that apparently to save the Indians he recommended bringing in African slaves.

I'm very grateful to you for bringing up the French in Egypt. All of the intrugues in the early 19th century in the Levant are quite amazing...I just stumbled across Lord Elgin heading for Istambul 20 years before he got this firman to get the sculptures off the Parthenon.

Ned George · May 28, 2007

Sokal said:
Las Casas is a fascinating fellow. The really odd thing is that apparently to save the Indians he recommended bringing in African slaves.

I'm very grateful to you for bringing up the French in Egypt. All of the intrugues in the early 19th century in the Levant are quite amazing...I just stumbled across Lord Elgin heading for Istambul 20 years before he got this firman to get the sculptures off the Parthenon.

I'm behind and just saw this comment, so thought I'd reply:

In a history class I had last year, the prof said the Spaniards began shipping slaves from Africa after they discovered the perfection of the soil/climate for growing sugar cane or whatever they were planting. He said they'd already murdered all the native people, so they had to find laborers from somewhere else.

I always wondered about that. He was an odd teacher, tolerable but had some strange ideas. I guess I couldn't comprehend complete genocide, even after reading de las Casas. There were some references to smaller islands having been cleansed of all natives, but surely some survived!

On the second part: The Elgin marbles were a source of some contention to the artistic world. So many people thought them ugly and worthless!

Have you read much about Wm. Hamilton's time in Naples? His 'digs' were fairly scientific, and his work on the volcano itself got him an invite to the Royal Society. Decades of documentation from direct observation. What a pity about his personal life. The whole Nelson/Emma thing leaves me cold. I bought a biography on Hamilton a couple of years ago, and it's really well-written, quite an enjoyable book.

By the way, I appreciated your points on cults in the closed thread. I'd have liked to comment with the cults that existed in Revolutionary France during Robespierre's time, the cult of the Supreme Being, the cult of Reason, the cult of anything they could come up with that wasn't religious by tradition...

the treatment of priests, nuns and seminarians during the September massacres boggles the mind, the whole idea of outlawing religion in a country that had been so nearly the center of Christianity (Avignon) is a bit frightening. I plan to see Avignon one day; I wonder how I'll like it.

I have a theory that countries who (query: is "who" the proper pronoun when speaking of a country?)... of countries that eliminate religion by law. It seems that they never do well afterward, not even hundreds of years afterward. Is God punishing them for the sins of their fathers? I know some people would say so, and could probably find evidence to support the idea. Personally, however, I avoid pretending to know what God's thinking. It seems a bit vain to try. But as a statistic, they seldom do well after those kinds of revolutions.

Higgins · May 28, 2007

Rivers of Gold

ned said:
I'm behind and just saw this comment, so thought I'd reply:

In a history class I had last year, the prof said the Spaniards began shipping slaves from Africa after they discovered the perfection of the soil/climate for growing sugar cane or whatever they were planting. He said they'd already murdered all the native people, so they had to find laborers from somewhere else.

Have you read much about Wm. Hamilton's time in Naples? His 'digs' were fairly scientific, and his work on the volcano itself got him an invite to the Royal Society. Decades of documentation from direct observation. What a pity about his personal life. The whole Nelson/Emma thing leaves me cold. I bought a biography on Hamilton a couple of years ago, and it's really well-written, quite an enjoyable book.

By the way, I appreciated your points on cults in the closed thread. I'd have liked to comment with the cults that existed in Revolutionary France during Robespierre's time, the cult of the Supreme Being, the cult of Reason, the cult of anything they could come up with that wasn't religious by tradition...

the treatment of priests, nuns and seminarians during the September massacres boggles the mind, the whole idea of outlawing religion in a country that had been so nearly the center of Christianity (Avignon) is a bit frightening. I plan to see Avignon one day; I wonder how I'll like it.

I have a theory that countries who (query: is "who" the proper pronoun when speaking of a country?)... of countries that eliminate religion by law. It seems that they never do well afterward, not even hundreds of years afterward. Is God punishing them for the sins of their fathers? I know some people would say so, and could probably find evidence to support the idea. Personally, however, I avoid pretending to know what God's thinking. It seems a bit vain to try. But as a statistic, they seldom do well after those kinds of revolutions.

RE : Las Casas see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E5D7173AF936A15754C0A9629C8B63

Re: Hamilton:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PAL/is_505_159/ai_n6152589

On evil Atheist Empires, my favorite is the Soviet Union, though the brief period when the First French Republic was an evil atheist republic has its interest as well. These explosions of mass mobilization can be amazing things. Look at what the USSR did to Germany and Japan once it started rolling. Or Athens in 500 BC (at the beginning of its democratic mobilization)...definitely bloodthirsty, deviant, Atheist demon worshipers from the point of view of the incipiently monotheistic Persians who were (in their view) bringing truth and religious freedom to all the peoples of the World. I'm not sure what causes these evil atheist empires to implode. It may be that it is hard to maintain a mass mobilization and mass democracy without expanding beyond the point that you can hold on once your enemies figure out that they have to do some new things to stop you. It's really the Greek Colonies in Sicily that finally stop Athens: ie a new form of mobilization.

One Novel, Many Faiths

Ned George

BruceJ

Me and my Muse

Higgins

Ned George

Ned George

Higgins

Ned George

Higgins

Ned George

Higgins

BruceJ

Me and my Muse

Higgins

Ned George

Higgins

Ned George

Higgins