chivalry-msg - 5/27/08 Codes of chivalry in period and today. NOTE: See also these files: Chivalry-art, chiv-orders-msg, courtly-love-msg, knighthood-msg, squires-msg, fealty-art, fealty-msg, 25-years-late-art, courtly-love-bib. ************************************************************************ NOTICE - This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday. This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter. The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors. Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s). Thank you, Mark S. Harris AKA: THLord Stefan li Rous Stefan at florilegium.org ************************************************************************ From: lisch at sysserver1.mentor.COM (Ray Lischner) Date: 1 Oct 91 01:19:41 GMT Organization: The Internet >>>>> On 30 Sep 91 14:52:00 GMT, JRECHTSCHAFF at hamp.hampshire.EDU said: Lyanna> I have a little question which is bound to produce some interesting answers, Lyanna> which is why I'm asking it. The question is What is Chivalry? Both in period Lyanna> and today. The meaning and concept of Chivalry changed during the Middle Ages, but there are some common themes. To start with, N. Denholm-Young put it best in "The tournament in the thirteenth century," (in Collected Papers of N. Denholm-Young. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1969. Originally published in Essays in Medieval History presented to Frederick Maurice Powicke, 1962.): It is impossible to be chivalrous without a horse. That said, one good place to start trying to understand medieval views of chivalry is "The Book of the Order of Chivalry," written by Ramon Llull (I don't remember exactly when; I think 15th century). There is a modern English rendition in David Herlihy's "The History of Feudalism" (NY: Harper & Row, 1970). It is useful to read what was written in the Middle Ages about chivalry, but actions speak louder than words. We can look at the behavior of people in history who were regarded by their peers as examples of great chivalry and honor, such as Philip of Flanders and William the Marshal. For example, in a tournament, Philip held his entourage aloof from the fray, waiting for everyone to get tired. Then he entered fresh and cleaned up. William noticed this and suggest that the young King Henry do the same. In the twelfth century, this was considered a clever idea, and one of the many things that distinguished Philip and William from the rest of the knights. Other aspects of chivalry are described in an article I posted earlier: A more concrete example of generosity and charity is an incident involving William the Marshal. At a tournament at Joigni, the countess and her attendants were waiting for the tournament to begin, when someone asked for a dance to occupy their time, asking ``who will be so courteous as to sing for us?'' The Marshal graciously sang for them. Then a minstrel, newly made a herald, sang a song with the refrain, ``Marshal, give me a good horse!'' When the Marshal heard the song, he left without a word, a squire brought him his horse, and he entered the tournament. He unhorsed his first opponent, and, still without speaking a word, led the horse over and gave it to the minstrel. (L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal, lines 3464-3420). By his act of generosity, the Marshal supported all of chivalry, and garnered worship for himself. He used the opportunity to demonstrate his prowess at arms, his charity toward those outside of the chivalry, and his generosity with gifts. As shown by the Marshal, charity outside of the knightly class is as important as generosity to one's peers. Ramon Llull, therefore, includes charity in the virtues of a knight. A knight without charity may not be without cruelty and evil will, and cruelty and evil will accord not to the office of chivalry because that charity behooveth to be in a knight, for if a knight have not charity in God and in his neighbor, how or in what way should he love God? And if he had not pity on poor men, not mighty and diseased, how should he have mercy on the men taken and vanquished that demand mercy, as not of power to escape and may not find the finance that is of them demanded for their deliverance? And if a knight were not charitable, how might he be in the order of chivalry? Charity is a virtue above other virtues for she departeth every vice. (Booke of the Order of Chivalry, Chap. VII). Generosity and charity are among the greatest knightly virtues. Giving gifts is necessary for the maintainance of the feudal society, and is a way of establishing a knight's reputation. Peregrine Payne (Dragon's Mist, An Tir) Ray Lischner UUCP: {uunet,apollo,decwrl}!mntgfx!lisch this might work, too: lisch at mentorg.com From: ag1v+ at andrew.cmu.edu (Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz) Date: 30 Sep 91 17:51:55 GMT Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Greetings gentle Lyanna, and all the good gentles here assembled. = What is Chivalry? Both in period and today. I find this question to be very interesting as what I think chivalry is changes every time I think on the subject. But in the vein of finding an answer to the question (or any question that deals greatly with defining something) I will turn to Webster's. (How I wish for an on-line OED, *sigh*.) In the romance languages, the word for chivalry comes from the word for horse. Why? Because what really separated men-at-arms from knights was the fact that the knights were mounted. Hence the first definition for chivalry in Webster's -- mounted men-at-arms. Archaic definitions of chivalry are: martial valor, and knightly skill. I find this particularly interesting since these are some of the prime requisites for being considered for the Chivalry by the Chivalry in the Society. So in that respect the Society has a small leaning toward accuracy in what is 'required' to be a member of the Chivalry. These next three definitions I find to be more modern in origin. gallant or distinguished gentlemen the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood the qualities of the ideal knight; chivalrous conduct Although I'm sure that in the Middle Ages there were 'codes of conduct' that knights followed, I think that it was really in the Rennaisance and later where the concept of what chivalrous conduct is or how knights should act as gentlemen really came into play. To be chivalrous is to be 'marked by honor, generosity and courtesy'. This is how I really like to view chivalry. I think that this is what the Society is really after when we say we are interested in recreating the Middle Ages 'as it should have been' or as Cariodoc says 'selectively recreating the Middle Ages'. Let alone the slavery, and poverty, and unkindness that will be found in any society. Instead look at the good that came out the Middle Ages; the fine works of art, the courteous behavior towards others and the high minded consideration of people 'especially to women'. To me one of the most wonderful things about being a member of the Society is to be able to let people treat me as a lady without having to rigorously defend my right to be 'a person'. Chivalry is championing someone, and on the other side, appreciating and supporting your champion. Being inspired or inspiring. Giving flowers to a gentleman (or lady) - just because. [Although I must admit that I do not often give flowers to ladies. ;> ] Chivalry can be taking the time out of your feast to be a server. It can also be taking the time to write or say something in a special way that creates a warm glow inside of those who hear or read the words. I find chivalry to be many things, but honor, courtesy and generousity are a very good sum of the total. Su segura servidora, Esmeralda la Sabia Debatable Lands, AEthelmearc, East ************************************************* From: L6PJDU at IRISHMVS.CC.ND.EDU (Cathy Lindsay 239-6679, 219) Date: 2 Oct 91 16:11:00 GMT Organization: The Internet Greetings from Katherine. For what it's worth, I'm going to give my opinion of what chivalry means in day to day relations. I suppose it's confused with the notion of courtesy in my head, since I'm not sure there's a whole lot of difference. I'm a fan of Miss Manners too, for what it's worth! But seriously, I think my own personal ethos of chivalry/ courtesy is strongly influenced by my Christian beliefs. However, I don't think this is out of line--the high middle ages was a very Christian time! Honesty: essential. Anyone who plays games with the truth is disqualified (other than the bardic arts, naturally!). Honesty is tough: it means owning up to personal responsibility and fault, and making amends when necessary (instead of trying to cover up for yourself). Part of honesty then, is keeping your word. Loyalty: whether related to fealty or not, or just to friends, personal loyalty is important. On a personal basis this would mean keeping confidences confidential (!) and so a person who is loyal is someone you could trust with your life, if it came to it (ok, it's related to fighting ;-) ). Generosity has been mentioned by others. I think it entails not only largess as far as material goods, but also a generosity of spirit--being quick to see the best in people, not the worst. Looking for the potential in others, seeing in them what their best possible selves are (or can be). Tact/thoughtfulness: I guess that's where Miss Manners comes in! So, as I see it, by my definitions such things as evil politics or defamation are marks of those lacking in chivalry/courtesy. The only way to win is not to play (as far as evil politics, that is). Lastly, the Arthurian (Camelot) notion of "might *for* right" is not limited to the tourney field. Might can of course be physical prowess, but in the SCA and mundane life it can also be influence or skill or reputation. I think the SCA does need more of this: evil politics seems present at all levels, for example. Perhaps people need to be bolder at calling it what it is, and refusing to participate. This kind of courage is also what I think of as chivalry. Katherine From: jakos at DPW.COM (Ceilene Jakos) Date: 2 Oct 91 20:28:22 GMT Organization: DP&W, New York, NY Chivalry is, was and always will be action rooted in HONOR. Your every thought, word and deed must be honorable, and your name must be honored. Your good name is your most prized possession, and it is the thing which you pass on to your sons and daughters. It is your reputation and all that is known of you. To act dishonorably, thereby losing your honor, is a worse punishment than to lose your life. Thea Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 13:56:36 -0500 From: "Michael Gunter" Subject: Re: [Sca-cooks] RE: Chivalry and Supporting your Local Monarch To: sca-cooks at ansteorra.org > I disagree. "there are times when a Man of Honor can not blindly > follow orders". > > the hand that gives the orders is guilty of the thought , the > hand that committed,carries more guilt, for not only did he knowingly > commit the act, but He was aware of the Sin of the act twice guilty>. > > my opinion. Actually, the correct term would be a Man of Principle, not of honor. I know, it's weird when you start getting into all the niceties. The best way to explain it would be that the man of honor would be bound by his oath of fealty to carry out the commands. Now, his principles could override his honor and have him break his oath. But oathbreaking was a serious offence. He may have personal honor which overrides his fealty but it is still an oathbreaking and he would be considered to have sacrificed his honor. It may be somewhat similar to the concept that a traitor is never fully trusted, even if that traitor turns away from a tyrant. A principled man who broke his fealty would have to do a lot of making up in order to regain his honor in the eyes of the society in which this person exists. As I said, chivalry were basically laws. To follow these laws was to be considered "honorable", which was a good thing. To go against them was dishonorable. Sometimes principles had to go against the code but that was a personal choice. Just as sometimes someone might have to break the law for a personal principle, you still have broken the law. Gunthar I prefer to be a principled person myself. Edited by Mark S. Harris chivalry-msg Page 6 of 6