 Knighthood
|
INDEX
Introduction
Knighthood
Who is a Knight?
Symbols in Vigils
Introduction to Chivalry
Code of Chivalry
Isn't Chivalry Dead?!
On Romance |
 |
Introduction
 uman exemplars
of the god-like virtues of faith, courage, gallantry, compassion, and aid to the weak and
oppressed. There are those who belive that knights were only smelly brutal men in rusty
armour, superstitious and greedy, who lived upon the labour of the peasants and went on
wars of conquest on the excuse that they were obeying their kings.
The reality was quite different. The orders and rituals of knighthood were clearly
established and the great brotherhood would never have accepted such unsuitable members. A
man could not even become a knight unless he was a youth of noble blood, and he had to beg
an established knight to make him into service. Acdceptance was by no means certain,
because a knight's squire had to combine youthful beauty with the promise of superb
manhood. He had to entertain the knight by singing sweetly to the lute, act as messenger
between the knight and suitable ladies, serve him gracefully at dinner, and generally act
as body servant, confidant and admirer, always prepared to heap lavish praise upon his
master for some deed of gallantry.
Sometimes this apprenticeship was cut short when a knight was captured in battle. It
was appropiate for the squire to offer himself for ransom, and stay in captivity while the
knight rode off and tried to raise the ransom.
If all went well the time would come for the squire to win his spurs. The armourers
fitted him with his first armour and made his lance, sword, and poignard, while the
heralds worked out an appropiate device for his shield. If the squire could afford it he
bought various magic charms to protect himself against evil.
The young knight practised ardently in the tiltyard in order to grow accustomed to his
armour and weapons, until it was time for his first tournament. The ladies in the audience
assessed him carefully as he took his place in the lists, and tittered mockingly if his
opponent unseated him with a great clangour of armour.
After the first tests of skill and courage the knight rode forth in search of noble
deeds. If he was fortunate there would be a war against the pagans, but if not he had to
sally forth alone. By that time he would have fallen in love with some demure virgin, and
she gave him a glove or scarf to wear on his helmet. Some older knights wore ladies'
stockings streaming from their helms, but a young knight was so pure in heart that such a
sight made him blush with embarrassment.
On the first knightly journey he had no need of squire or other retainers. His armour
shone brightly without polishing and the light of beckoning glory sustained him without
food or sleep. As the hooves of his charger beat along the forest paths he looked eagerly
for some fitting opponent.
When he entered a village he listened eagerly for news of a dragon or wicked lord in
the neighbourhood, preferably the abductor of a fair damsel. He would not be averse to
tackling sorcerers, magical beasts who destroyed cattle by breathing on them, or even
giants who ate children of widows. It was however, preferable to return home with a
dragon's head slung behind him and a rescued damsel upon his saddlebow.
Any acceptable feat won him the golden spurs of true knighthood, and after that he
could spend the time enjoyably in hunting, hawking, fighting in tournaments, feasting, or
defending his kings against enemies.
Unfortunately a young knight's purity of heart gave him many uncomfortable moments.
Every knight had to have his lady and he treated her strictly in accordance with the
rules. He sent troubadours to serenade her, presented with the mailed gloves of opponents
killed in the lists, and sighed beneath her castle windows on moonlit nights. But the time
would come when a lady expected more ardent attentions. A knight would hardly dare to
drink his wine for fear that it contained a love potion, and he might be obliged to kill a
friend if the impatient lady looked kindly upon him.
It was even worse when the wife of a great lord, or even the queen herself, began to
languish for the attentions of a young knight. The only remedy was another knightly
journey unfitted for love of women and must devote himself to the pursuit of honour. It
was always a relief when the king summoned his knights for a slaughter of pagans, and they
could enjoy the sport without being distracted by ladies.
The time would come, however, when a knight found his joints creaking as loudly as his
armour and his head growing bald from the pressure of his helmet. There was no more need
to resist the blandishments of womankind and he could settle down with his mulled wine by
the hearth. He excanged stories of dragon hunts with other superannuated knights and
showed the scars won in battle with the king's enemies. They all agreed that modern
squires and knights behaved disgracefully. When a lady let down a silken ladder, so that a
knight might climb up into her chamber, he would actually use it. The age of knighthood
was doomed when knights began to pay more attention to women than to damsels in distress.
|
Knighthood
by Brian R. Price
AKA SCA Brion Thornbird ap Rhys, Earl & Knight, OL
July 29, 1996
What is a Knight?
Without doubt, the definition has changed throughout the centuries, metamorphosing from
a crude warrior, the milites, growing with society as it changed, first into
the officer and gentleman, and more recently, back towards the original ideal, into a
seeker of virtue and a defender of the weak.
Never has their been a perfect knight. Knighthood is, by definition, an office that
strives for a distant ideal, a changing ideal, but one that seeks to emulate the ancient
virtues associated with chivalric office. Knights will be definition fail as they are
human, but attain their grace in the striving for virtue, for the perseverance of seeking
to overcome the vanities of the body and soul, to do what is 'right'. It is a striving for
excellence even as we know that perfection is beyond our grasp, but that fact alone does
not allow us to stop in our quest for it.
And this is not a right conceived in each individual mind, but is rather a shared ideal
of rightness that resonates in the human breast with each beat of the heart. It is a
'rightness' that we as human beings recognize intuitively; it is 'hardwired' into nearly
all of us; that partially explains why the ideal of knighthood still speaks to us after
all this time. I wish it was this basic law that gave strength to our modern ones, but I
digress-that is an argument for another day.
Historically, knights were the defenders. Beginning as warriors, some defended the
populace while others pillaged. Their virtues were warrior ones, revered by warrior
cultures the world over; prowess, strength, courage, loyalty. These are the virtues of the
pure soldier, the killing machine who when he uses his considerable strength for good,
contributes greatly to society even as he is estranged from it. Estranged because to excel
in the extreme, be jettisons the concerns of hearth and of the soul, focusing his whole
being upon the martial task at hand-he must not fail or the society to which be belongs
will perish.
Society quickly settled from the warfare of the dark ages that spawned this freeroaming
warrior. The church grew in power and influence alongside the growth of ease at court.
These developments, made possible owing to the leisure accorded by a more stable Europe,
gave voice to others concerned with what the knights were and what they should become. The
clerk and the lady, chiefly, were the two main influences upon the course of knighthood,
next to the influences of the warriors themselves.
The church believed the knights should become 'knights of Christ', using their
considerable strength to defend the faith and to become the physical defenders of the
church and her ideals. And many knights did just this, following even to extremes as they
cast themselves into Holy War during the many crusades that punctuated the whole of the
Middle Ages. The church contributed the powerful virtues of faith, temperance and
humility; three cornerstone virtues of what has come to be knighthood.
The lady and the demands of court also shaped what the knight was to become. She
demanded, through the romance literature that remains a powerful influence today, that the
knight act with strength on one hand, and courtesy and respect on the other. A knight
should respect women, he should defend them in their hour of need, eschewing the magnetic
gravity of mere lust. Love could be a powerful influence over the knight, a strengthening
force, that could propel the knight to greatness beyond his own capability. The church
agreed, arguing only that the spiritual love of Christ was superior to the love of a
woman; but the important detail was that love as an ennobling motivator was added as a
chivalric element that was to stay. As a nobleman and dispenser of justice, the knight was
required to seek justice, to defend the right, and to dispense of his wealth with
largesse, showing the generosity that thwarted greed and thus helped the knight to ennoble
himself in deed as well as blood.
These things are of course ideals. The expectations for 'chivalrous conduct' have
certainly changed throughout the history of knighthood; these elements of virtue have
stood the test of time in their purity, changing only in how we interpret them from age to
age. Does that make them worthless? I answer this with another question-As long as the
pursuit of these virtues drives men to excel, to seek goodness in their hearts, and to
fight for something higher than themselves, to recognize in their humility that they are
far from grace but continue to strive for it, is this worthless?
The days of the steel armoured knight have all but passed; though some true knights do
indeed seek to strengthen their character and their arms through the practice of arms,
today the knight must rather rely on the armour of his soul to defend himself, seeking to
ennoble himself in the same way as his ancestors-by his deeds.
Renown is the key quality of a knight. Renown, the fame by which a knight is known for
his virtue or malice, is not glory, it is not honor, it is the 'good name' earned through
the pursuit of virtue. A pursuit that others have recognized, according you honor because
of it, honoring you enough to increase your fame both in their own hearts and in the
estimation of others. Renown is what you earn; you thus earn the armour that will defend
you when you fail; provided that you continue to strive for excellence, keeping the virtue
of humility close to the heart that the knight not fall to the sin of vainglory, a black
peril that dwells next to the heart of all men, a seed buried deep in a man's character, a
seed that grows, infected and undetected, swelling a man's breast with boasting and
bravado, robbing him of the perspective to take a better view of his motivations and his
own armour-his renown.
Knights today face a battle no different from their historical counterparts. They seek
the right, the higher right that we all recognize and believe that we have, seeking to
gain honor within their own actions as well as to defend what they believe in both in deed
and in word. Some knights today pursue this excellence through the tournament or martial
exercise; some through confraternal organizations that defend charity and support their
brethren as well as advance the causes of right. As in history, none of these groups, let
alone the nobles within them, will attain the ideal that drives them. Bitter divisions
sometimes rend the best companies of knights, quietly ushering them further from the basic
ideals that empower them, starting them on the journey to vainglory that defeats humility,
overcomes charity, makes a mockery of courtesy, and in short blackens the heart against
chivalry.
Today there are many paths to knighthood. You can seek membership in a knightly order;
you can use a martial art or the tournament; you can seek these virtues on your own in
'errancy'. But these are all external, not worth very much unless the spark of knighthood
is ignited within you. It is the spark of nobility that has been recognized since the
earliest age within certain men and women of character and spirit. Seek this spark within
yourself--it is there--seek first to find it, then to use whatever tools are required to
fan this spark into a great fire of your passion--perchance through the effort of striving
you will meet with more success than you will ever know.
|
Who is a Knight?
by Brian R. Price AKA SCA Brion Thornbird ap
Rhys, Earl & Knight, OL January 24th, 1998
What is a real knight? For some time there has
raged within the confraternity ‘community’ a debate concerning who is and is not
a ‘real’ knight. Without question, those British Knights of the Garter
and their brethren have inherited the title in an indisputable tradition extending
unbroken back to Edward III in the 14th century. The Knights of Saint John
also have an intact lineage, running all the way back to the 12th century. The
various modern fraternal organizations based on the Templar romance have a more debatable
connection. Then there are the Knights of Columbus and similar groups. Within the Society
for Creative Anachronism and similar organizations lies yet another tradition now
more than thirty years old. Lastly, many smaller groups use the concept of knighthood to
inspire their members in some way and to build better people.
For me, all of these groups contain ‘real’ knights. In every instance the
adoubement of knighthood now has little to do with the feudal structure and everything to
do with a recognition of a particular kind of individual who has built their renown in the
context of doing ‘right.’
When the Queen of England confers a knighthood, it is in recognition of deeds done in
service of Crown and Commonwealth. A Knight of Saint John, a Templar,
and a Knight of Columbus are members of close fraternal organizations whose aims
are to achieve good works in the world and to provide an internally consistent system of
values based on core religious beliefs common to most of the worlds population. A
knighthood conferred here also recognizes achievement--renown. Within the Society for
Creative Anachronism knighthood is conferred based both on physical prowess in the system
of martial arts practiced by the SCA and for renown based on a loosely understood effort
to follow ‘chivalry.’
The common thread for all the groups above is their concern for the knights duty to
pursue the ‘good’ in various ways through personal sacrifice, sincerity, and
excellence displayed in profession and avocation alike.
To be a knight in much of the medieval period had little to do with adoubement
or service to any ideal, it had to do with the possession of such equipment and skills as
were requisite to the title. Skill with sword, lance and horse was the basis more than was
a focus towards the ideal. From the earliest days of what might be called the chivalric
tradition, any knight could make a knight, but there was honor to be gained in being
knighted by a King of particular renown or by a powerful nobleman whose reputation as a
knight sans reproche brought him fame. But there was no centralized registry of knights;
any country knight could and did confer knighthood on soldiers they thought worthy. Nor
was the ceremony an absolute requirement. If an armed man travelled far, and appeared a
knight then de facto he was a knight.
The idea that a knighthood need be obtained through particular channels is a
Renaissance one. English knights began to obtain their stations directly from the Crown,
but by this time the station had changed from a tier in feudal society to an honorific
title. Even so, the honorific use was to reward service to the Crown or state; a
recognition, if you will, of renown in service.
As a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, some would say that I have
little claim to the title of knight. Some view the encounter as primarily a social
enterprise, a kind of theme party, while others focus on the development of the martial
art. Others take it far more seriously, some to the point of fanaticism. Part of the
problem with the Society, a simultaneous strength and paralyzing weakness, is in this
diversity. There are knights of all varieties within the SCA. There are those who are
attend to party, for whom the belt means privilege and an increased chance at the ladies.
There are those for whom the fighting itself is the essence, they would just as soon drop
the rest. There are those who live their entire lives trying to fulfill some kind of image
or in seeking power within the organization. And there are those who believe that
knighthood is largely a private path. All of these are true about the SCA. And yet, it
does produce some real knights.
In the SCA only the King can confer a knighthood. But the king must himself must be a
knight. There is a legend that one of the early SCA knights was himself a ‘real’
knight, and some have used this to validate all knights made since that date. I cannot
ascertain the truth of this belief, but for me it doesn’t matter. I know of many
within the SCA whose character and demeanor, both inside the Society and out, that they
are knights in the pursuit of the ideal sense of the word. I know others who wear the
white belt but who I cannot in good faith consider knights--I believe the same could be
said for any group of men laying claim to the title in any time period.
I cannot agree with the modern knights who believe the only paths lie through their own
organizations. I see the whole argument as a colossal waste of time--would not this time
be better spent in the pursuit of deeds worthy of a knight rather than in trying to
discourage others from pursuing the ‘right’ in their own way?
It is also true that someone cannot awake one morning and say, “I am a
knight,” and become one. But why not? The reason is that the earning of a
knight’s title lies, in every case, of the building of renown such that the title is
earned through deeds. Through sincerity. Through dedication. It is not the title of
‘knight’ that makes a man a knight, it is his renown. Sometimes circumstances
will recognize such a gentle with a formal title, and sometimes not.
Modern knights vary in quality as surely as did the medieval ones. As in the Middle
Ages, some follow some kind of romantic ideal while others hold the attitude that only
performance on the battlefield counts. Knights of both types all ultimately fail to
achieve the perfection of their ideal, whether it be a purely martial image or a more
philosophical one, but they can succeed in the betterment of themselves and of their
world, and this is the function of knighthood.
The true essence of knighthood lies not so much in whether you believe you are a
knight. The key is, do others believe you are a knight? If the answer to this question is
yes, then I believe you can claim the title of knight. In so doing you also accept the
duties towards acting with the right and striving towards the distant chivalric ideal. You
thus become a brother to all those knights who have trod the road before and who will come
after. Fine company indeed!
Within the SCA the knight is tested primarily through the practice of our martial art
on the tournament field in what I have called the “crucible of virtue.” In
England knights are tested in the political arena of Britain and the world. For the
Fraternal orders the challenges are wrought in the common stuff of life and in various
exercises designed to teach and to strengthen the mind. I do not know the testing and
refining techniques of other groups who use the idea of knighthood to build people of
quality, but I am sure they exist.
I believe that this essence of renown is a spark that burns brightly in those knights
who share the common bond of seeking a distant ideal, and that this spark can be
recognized instantly by others who travel the same road. Some of them are formally known
as knights while others are not. It is a comforting thing to know that it does not
require an institution to continue the chivalric tradition, but is entrusted to a thing
far more durable and pure--the human heart.
|
Symbols in Vigils
by Steen Jensen
AKA SCA Sir Sten Halverson, Baron
1993
At my vigil, it rained and thundered. The Chivalry raised a tarp over me, then crowded
in to stay dry. Som, I've been told, remained in the rain to make sure that the thing did
not collapse. The words they spoke to me moved me and altered my view of the society, but
perhaps my strongest impression remains that of the press of the peers of the chivalry all
around, and that it included me. In my mind, that was my acceptance into the order.
According to the Ordene de Chevalerie 1, by way of Maurice
Keen, a candidate for knighthood would bathe in the bath of courtesy and bounty, lay upon
a bed to remind himself of the paradise he will gain through chivalry, then dons a white
robe of cleanliness, a scarlet cloak to signify his duty to shed blood, brown socks which
stand for earth to which he will return after death, the white belt of virginity to remind
him to restrain his lust, and gold spurs to prod himself to God's commandments as we would
prod his steed into battle. Last, a sword is girded on whose double edge signifies that
justice and loyalty go together, and that a true knight must defend the weak against the
oppressor. The meanings themselves are unimportant, and probably shifted along with the
changing view of chivalry--in our own society (ed. the SCA), the few symbols we have
retained have drawn to themselves quite their own meaning--but what should be seen is that
symbols played an enormous role in the thoughts and actions of these folks. If we want to
approach their world, we must acquiesce to the strength of such symbolic thought. At my
vigil, the pressing in of the cold and wet members of the chivalry became a very potent
symbol.
The chain, belt or baldric, and the spurs, within the Society, are the most important
symbols of the Chivalry, and I like to present them at a vigil as objects of
contemplation. At my squire's own vigil, I spent considerable time simply arranging these
three, finally leaving the belt and spurs neatly arrayed while surrounding them, untidily,
with the chain. Once I had it done, I knew that it was correct, but even now I cannot
fully explain why. The power of the best symbols is that they cannot be fully fathomed,
and that even the attempt to understand them may do them harm.
Other symbolically important objects are swords, helms, shields, and any or all of the
candidate's armour. The appropriateness of any of these objects to the candidate's vigil
depends upon their value to the candidate. Some candidates don't own a sword, or have a
shield that to them is merely plywood, or wear a borrowed helm--it is best to talk to the
person before carting the stuff to the vigil site. Often, a candidate will have other
objects that to them have a special meaning. On one occassion, a fellow who was in law
enforcement included his badge in his vigil.
The site is a powerful factor. I prefer a setting open ot the night sky where the
candidate is positioned to look back upon the lights of the distant encampment. While
emphasizing the closeness of the Chivalry, such a site reminds the candidate of the
vastness of the world--pride and humility in one. However, the focusing power of a closed
tent certainly has its own attraction.
Gestures, such as the chivalry crowding in around me, have their own power. One wise,
old knight of my acquaintance has come up with a ceremony in which members of the Chivalry
take on the guise of various knightly virtues and so offer words to the candidate. Being a
simple fellow, I had misgivings, but, having taken part in several of these ceremonies, I
cannot deny their power. Most gestures, however, are not so elaborate. They involve how
visiting members of the Chivalry are seated, how they comport themselves, how the
candidate is brought to the site of the vigil, and how the vigil ends. The usual raucous
behavior of the waiting chivalry, if it is too near the site, works negatively to lessen
the seriousness of the vigil; if it is at a polite distance, it becomes instead a symbol
of the joy of the occasion.
Overuse of symbols can be as serious a problem as their under appreciation. Polonius
gave Laertes good advice 2, but its effect was lost through the
ponderousness of the words. A site cluttered with props, or an overlong ceremony, will
overload a candidate's impressionability, spilling over into his sense that we are taking
this all too damn seriously. The threshold differs from candidate to candidate, but all is
lost if it is crossed, so I always err on the side of simplicity.
Be guided by your intuition as much as by your brain. Symbolic language is felt more
than understood (a big reason that it has fallen to the roadside in our rational age). If
it looks right, it probably is; if it feels cluttered, thin it out. A friend of a
candidate once asked me if he might bring the fellow a plate of food. It felt wrong, so I
said no. My only thought was that the candidate would better remember the vigil on an
empty stomach. Was I right? I don't know. But my gut tells me that I made the right call.
A vigil is a right of passage, a ghost of a thing that has fallen our of custom in our
(ed. modern) culture. At a good vigil, a candidate is open and willing for impression by
both word and image. Folks in the middle ages took good advantage of this susceptibility,
and we can too, if we make use of the power of symbols as well as that of language. But
don't get too solemn about it; my squire has said that the one thing he liked a lot about
his vigil, which was set far out in a cow pasture, was that everyone had to wade through a
lot of, ah, well, manure to the to the good stuff. At your next vigil, think with your
head, think with your gut, and the good stuff will come.
|
Introduction
to Chivalry
by Steen Jensen
AKA SCA Sir Sten Halverson, Baron
1993
During many years in the Society, I could not define chivalry,
other than to wave my arms about and say such things as, "it's what we're striving
for," or "it's what its all about." The term seemed an elusive catch-all
for something more visceral than intellectual. Then I began to think, and talk, and have
come up with the following: Chivalry is a romantic ethic. By romantic, I mean an ethic
that is heavy on the ideal, and light on the practical, and is so doomed to failure in the
real world. Arthur falls; Roland dies; Don Quixote is no more than a glamorous fool.
The first problem in discussing chivalry within the Society (ed. the SCA) is that it is
a word with many distinct meanings. We must weed out the less interesting before we can
even begin a discussion of the use that lies at the heart of this game that we play.
First, these are the authentic medieval uses, which range from the early, "dem boys
on da horses," through, "the behavior of the boys on the horses," to the
late period, "the idealized conduct of the knights." With due courtesy to
proponents of strict authenticity I would argue that none of these are at the core of the
use of the word within the Society.
An important thing to notice about chivalry, as can be seen from its progress through
the Middle Ages, is that the particulars of its meaning evolve. Chivalry has never stood
still; that is the great reason that it is so elusive, and continues to have such power.
For it to have meaning for us in the Society, and not merely be a dusty historical oddity,
it must adapt to our needs. In all Medieval contexts, chivalry is tied to martial
activities, but in our modern use, I would find it difficult to face a non-fighting member
of the Society and tell them that they can not be a chivalrous person. The word, in so far
as it has meaning for us today, has shed its martial past.
Even limited ot its modern use, the word splinters into at least three distinct
directions. The first is an echo of its original use--"dem boys and girls with da
white belts and baldrics." The second use is in reference to specific
acts--chivalrous deeds on and off the field. While such actions are informed by a more
abstract notion of chivalry, discussion around them most often bogs down on the specifics
of the actions 1, and whether or not a deed should or should not, when and when not, be
counted as chivalric. I am happiest to grant that a great many actions can be motivated by
chivalry, then move on to discuss what it is that motivates. And here, I believe, we find
that chivalry drives the Society.
This last sense of chivalry is not divorced from all the others I have mentioned. It
arises out of the medieval tradition and is expressed through the deeds of our exemplars,
most notably the members of our own Chivalry. For my particulars, I look to the virtues of
the medieval knight, fully aware that, even among the writers of the time, these virtues
were a point of contention. I would first choose courtesy--the equal and polite
regard for all in the Society from crowned heads to the greenest newcomer who is wearing a
bed-sheet T-tunic, along with a due reverence to earned and bestowed honors. Generosity
is the second virtue, manifest in the Society mainly in time and energy, but including a
willingness to forgive weakness in others, and to grant trust. The third virtue is loyalty,
to your Crown and to your peers, to your household or group, to your consort, and to
yourself in your own belief in the Society and in your own honor. The last of the core
virtues is consistency, a virtue I derive from the medieval virtue of Franchise.
Franchise revolves around the bearing of a knight, that he should never forget himself,
and should always carry himself as befits his station. For us (and to some degree them, I
believe), it becomes a matter of consistency and courage. These are roles that we play,
and try as we might, we will never be as consistent as someone born to them. But we must
try, and when we fail, as we will, we must find the courage to make amends as best we can
and then to try harder. That is the virtue of consistency.
Aside from these core virtues of chivalry, we have variation built along the lines of a
social order. We have three peerages, and each has their own particular virtue and
expression. For the Chivalry (myself included), we have the old virtue of prowess,
expressed through the need to defend. We have our wars, we have the odd tug to be nosey
whenever we see a sign of trouble, and I believe we tend to be the most passionate and the
least thoughtful in defense of the whole, odd game we play. The virtue of the Order of the
Pelican is service expressed in sacrifice. This virtue and expression may seem to be an
extension of generosity, but its depth and passion astounds my lazy spirit, and causes me
to see it as a distinct virtue. The Order of the Laurel holds the virtue of magnificence,
manifest in adornment. This may seem an odd, materialistic virtue, but the Society would
only be a shadow of itself if we did not strive to look the part, and where possible to be
the part (through authenticity). Though each order of peerage has its own particular
virtue, each necessarily shares a little in that of the others, while all share equally in
the core. If you will, if chivalry is at the heart of the Society, then the Chivalry
defend it, the Pelicans sacrifice for it, and the Laurels adorn it. Take any away, or even
fail to appreciate the contribution of one, and you cause our little tripod to fall.
I trust that it won't. In the real world, such a system that it is built on tust, and
courtesy, and on the frailty of human effort will fall to cynicism, practicality, and
self-interest, even as it fires the imagination of its destroyers. All that would remain
would be tales that would renew themselves generation after generation as people grasp
after the ideals only to fail again and again. We in the Society have not these problems.
We can leave the baggage of reality when we go off on our weekends; we can live the
romance of our ethic without the damning weight of the full range of human behavior.
Chivalry probably had another name before this, stretching back into the past as a
title for unlivably high ideals. During the Middle Ages, a particularly appealing group of
virtues coaslesced around the new term (I suspect because the reality was correspondingly
harsh and brutal), and chivalry, changing with each romantic revival, has colored Western
culture ever since. The Society is just the current outbreak.
Chivalry is a romantic ethic, doomed to failure. Arthur fails; Don Quixote was a fool.
But I come away from good events with a heart full of courtesy and generosity, with a
strengthened sense of my own honor, and with a little more courage and persistence in the
face of a less than ideal world. That is the reason that during the Middle Ages warriors
and rulers at their leisure turned to dreams. That is the reason we today are drawn to
these virtues of chivalry. We may never live out a romantic ethic, but it is a food as
nourishing as any at the table, and a wealth as dear as any coin of the time.
Code
of Chivalry
“Knigts ougt to take coursers to juste & to go
to tornoyes / to holde open table / to hu(n)te at hertes / at bores & other wyld
bestes / For in doynge these thynges the knygtes exercyse them to armes / for to mayntene
thordre of knigthode Thene to mesprise & to leue (th)e custom of (th)t which
(th)e knygt is most apparailled to vse his office is but despising of thordre /
& thus as al these thynges afore said appertyne to a knygt as touching his body / in
lyke wise justice / wysedom / charite (/) loyalte / verite / humylite / strength / hope
swiftness & al other vertues se(m)blable appertyne to a knygt as touchyng his soule /
& therfor the knygt that vseth the thynges (th)t apperteyne to thordre of chyualry as
touchyng his body / & hath none of these vertues that apperteyne to chyualry
touchyng his soule is not the frende of thordre of knygthode.”
Prowess:
To seek excellence in all endeavors expected of a knight, martial and otherwise, seeking
strength to be used in the service of justice, rather than in personal aggrandizement.
Justice:
Seek always the path of 'right', unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Recognize that
the sword of justice can be a terrible thing, so it must be tempered by humanity and
mercy. If the 'right' you see rings agrees with others, and you seek it out without
bending to the temptation for expediency, then you will earn renown beyond measure.
Loyalty:
Be known for unwavering commitment to the people and ideals you choose to live by. There
are many places where compromise is expected; loyalty is not amongst them.
Defense:
The ideal knight was sworn by oath to defend his liege lord and those who depended upon
him. Seek always to defend your nation, your family, and those to whom you believe worthy
of loyalty.
Courage:
Being a knight often means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one.
Be prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the precepts and people you value.
At the same time, a knight should seek wisdom to see that stupidity and courage are
cousins. Courage also means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking
the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with
mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief.
Faith:
A knight must have faith in his beliefs, for faith roots him and gives hope against the
despair that human failings create.
Humility:
Value first the contributions of others; do not boast of your own accomplishments, let
others do this for you. Tell the deeds of others before your own, according them the
renown rightfully earned through virtuous deeds. In this way the office of knighthood is
well done and glorified, helping not only the gentle spoken of but also all who call
themselves knights.
Largesse:
Be generous in so far as your resources allow; largesse used in this way counters
gluttony. It also makes the path of mercy easier to discern when a difficult decision of
justice is required.
Nobility:
Seek great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight,
realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them
ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens. Nobility also
has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in
the service of rightness.
Franchise:
Seek to emulate everything I have spoken of as sincerely as possible, not for the reason
of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small
world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you
succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and
virtue.
|
Isn't Chivalry Dead?!
by Brian R. Price
AKA SCA Brion Thornbird ap Rhys, Earl and Knight, OL
September 14, 1995
No indeed, chivalry is not dead!
As an idea, chivalry's roots are tied to the fundamental Western values that bind our
civilization, a culture that I am proud to be a part of. Chivalry is an idealization of
virtue, a wedding of military excellence with courtesy, a sense of justice, piety, and
honor. All of this is brought foward to us from a dark time in history, from days when men
fought one another, fought the harsh world that had broken Roman order, fought against the
plagues visited upon Europe, a troika of perils nearly destroying European culture.
The idea of chivalry came out of this darkness like a pheonix; first in the
glorification of the warrior virtues that Charlemagne used to unify Europe and dispell the
incroachment of foreign religions and cultures. Men saw heros as bringing them from the
darkness, heros like Charlemagne and Alexander. The idea of a man's greatness as seen
through the eyes of these people is brought to us with potent energy in the Song of
Roland, where Roland is glorified for his loyalty, prowess, and indominatable courage.
As the feudal system was founded,the warrior (latin--milites) became an important
social figure, glorified in song and rewarded in land and revenue.
These milites were a rowdy bunch, brawling and fighting amongst themselves as
much as fighting for their peasants or their king. But there was some order, and this
order began to reduce the barbarism that had been so much a part of life after the fall of
Rome.
During the 12th century, as society began to really settle, two important things
happened to the ideals of what was first called "knighthood." First, the church,
ever dominant in medieval affairs of morality, began to reshape the idea of the social
warrior to its own ends. Knights were called to crusade, to be the "soldiers of
God." The crusades were launched,the ideal put forward by the church sought to add
new virtues to the potent strength of the warrior--that with God and Right on one's side,
the sword arm itself was strengthened. The church added piety, justice, defense of the
innocent and the weak, honesty, humility and purity.
Alongside of this new "religious" chivalry, secular influences arose that had
an equally strong say in the new reality of knighthood. The ideas of Courtly Love, under
the patronage of Elanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie, created a new cult of
adoration surrounding women. Encapsulated by Andreas Capallanus in The Art of Courtly
Love, the central tenent in this school of thought was that through love the knight or
lover could be strengthened. by the love of a woman. Not completely different from the
ideals of religious chivalry, where the knight was strengthened by devotion to God. From
the Courts of Love chivalry acquired courtesy, generosity, fidelity,and the respect &
defense of women.
Out of the Courtly Love movement came tales of romance, from which the legends of
Alexander, Charlemagne, and Arthur hatched. These legends provided symbolic life to the
ideals of church and court, building new heroes, measuring the knight by a new ideal
standard. The symbols that have grown out of these legends are familiar to every young
Westerner--King Arthur and the Round Table, Knights in Shining Armor, and not least,
chivalry. In these tales chivalry was the idealization of each age; in each romance and in
each treatise on knighthood the authors set down new standards that the knight was to be
judged by. Chivalric virtues were a crystal clear distillation of what it meant to be a
fine human being, a person in search of justice and humility. These standards grew and
changed over time, until the knight perished and the idea of chivalry metaporphasized into
the ideal of avirtuous "officer and gentleman."
But the symbols of chivalry are powerful--powerful because of their deep attachment to
the most important virtues of man. Courtesy, respect, generosity (largesse), honesty,
fidelity, humility, justice, excellence (prowess), courage, loyalty, duty. These things
are timeless. Attached to the bright symbols of knighthood, they are still transmitted
down through the generations, striking a chord of need when times seem dark.
Today, morality and ethics are rare commodities. Schools no longer teach morality; but
religion is able to reach only a few and families are often broken. We see the results of
this disjunction nightly on the television news, and yearn for a better world.
It is into this vacuum that the symbols of chivalry bring both memories of an idealized
past and the promise for a better future. For indeed under the pressures of life man has
only morality to defend his soul from the ravages of the world. Medieval tournament
re-enactments recall something of these days gone past, compelling virtuous conduct by the
mechanism of reputation. Though I cannot speak for all, tournament re-enactments give
license to try out being good in a very gray world, to work towards a distant ideal. Many
young men and women start down this path, finding that it brings both pleasure and a sense
of peace with their world. The peace comes from the shield of ethics that they first begin
to develop on the tournament field, gradually expanding it by baby steps to encompass
their entire philosophy of life. In this sense tournament fighting is indeed a Western
martial art--an art with a very old philosophy that speaks to the heart, as well as to the
mind.
No indeed, chivalry is definately not dead.
On Romance
by Steen Jensen
AKA SCA Sir Sten Halverson, Baron
1995
A knight from another land who had come to live
in our kingdom found himself increasingly dismayed by the behavior of our chivalry.
Finally, he offered his complaints to a gathering of the chivalry, and ended his comments
by asking, "And after all, what do you want to be, an authentic medieval knight,
or...or...Sir Lancelot?" The knights and masters-at-arms of the kingdom looked at one
another, then back at the stranger knight, and one answered, "Sir Lancelot."
--Apocryphal West Kingdom Tale
Romance is powerful and cannot be denied. The Society should be an enactment of
medieval romance as much as a medieval re-enactment. In the ideal, the two should be
entwined--authenticity providing the meat for the form of the romance. Neither stands
alone. Being a bit of a ponderer rather than a scholar, I prefer romance, but my position
is debatable, and should be debated.
Knights wearing patches over one eye to serve a vow to their ladies, Sir William
Marmion and his golden helm; the Battle of the Thirty; Ulrich von Lichtenstein, dressed as
venus, breaking three hundred lances; John the Good of France surrendering himself to the
English because his honor bound him to so act; and of the tournaments "in the style
of..."--Romance, the striving for the romantic ethic, had a powerful role in the
Middle Ages. The men and women within a certain class threw themselves at an ideal in way
rarely seen in history. I call that ideal "chivalry" (Steen's quote removed
here) and hold it distinct from what was performed in the face of reality.
When William Marshal pursued glory over gain, losing his horse in the process, and was
mocked and chided by the Count d'Eu, his patron, he learned the lesson of compromise. His
career, in its success, unfolded from that lesson, blending romance with reality in a way
that made him a model for those generations who followed even as he fell short of the
ideal for which he strove. We study him as an example of what a man might achieve, but we
will fail to understand him or his time if we exclude or downplay that which he falls
short of.
Dr. Keen, an often cited authority on chivalry, refers to himself as a "social
historian," which I believe marks a careful distinction. He has set out in his book Chivalry
to describe the compromise rather than the ideal of chivalry; the romances, and even the
how-to manuals, must be of interest to him only in how they affected real behavior. But
that thing he confesses to love in the very last line of the book are the virtues he
describes in his last paragraph--the same virtues that have endured for more than a
thousand years--"is something from which it is not easy to withhold respect." It
is not the compromise, but the ideal, the romantic ethic, the myth (as he refers to it in
chapter 6), that drove the chivalric class in the society he has studied. Dr. Keen's is a
book of chivalry in practice. An historian of ideas might write a complimentary
companion--Chivalry in Theory--though a stronger case can be made that the writers
of the romances have long filled that role, offering their poetry to balance the scholar's
prose.
A romantic ethic such as chivalry is given by poetry an enduring life, from its rough
beginnings in Beowulf and the Song of Roland, through de Troyes and Eschenbach, to Malory
and Cervantes, and even on through the much-abused Victorians. Through its long life, such
a poetic ideal not only guides and informs its enactors, but is shaped and changed itself
through the actions of those who pursue it--(like) two mirrors, face to face, reflecting
back again each change what each produces in the other. But through whatever changes
occur, the core of what I call the romance of chivalry--loyalty, generosity, bearing,
courtesy--can be seen as far back as Beowulf, and survives the nineteenth century to us in
the present. That is its life.
In the SCA, we cannot simply be medieval re-enactors. Not only would that exclude those
of us who think in poetry rather than in prose, but it is flat impossible. We can strive
for individual authenticity in appearance and accoutrement, and I count that a right
thing; but rigorously authentic behavior is a fantasy. Even if we could agree on whether
our outlook should be that of a 14th century Burgundian or a 12 th century Angevin, we
would still have hordes of Vikings, Cavaliers, Samauri, Carthaginians, and bunny-fur
barbarians. And even if we allow each their "authentic behavior," somehow
shoe-horning in the odds and ends, suffering the ensuing chaos, there remains the question
of the common culture that will allow us to function. We have rulers chosen through combat
two or three times per year, orders of peerage called "Pelicans" and
"Laurels," a grab bag of traditions, awards, ceremonies, and no church.
Authentic behavior would be (supposing a European background) to treat it all as though
you had been dropped into the court of the Emperor of China. But we don't, and we
shouldn't.
The solution is to face the mirror of romance against our odd reality, and so allow
each of us to find our own compromise with our own ideal. The trick, I believe, is in
understanding that our romance includes to a great part the reality, the authenticity, of
the Middle Ages; the whole of it has become a part of our romance. As we each
strive for our romantic ethic, our failing, our compromise with others around us, will
give us the form for our common behavior. That will be our chivalry in practice, as our
ethic will remain our chivalry in theory.
On a scale of one to ten, I count the ideal, the romantic ethic, as a ten; and
authenticity as a nine. Authenticity's great value for me lies in the enormous part it
plays in our romantic vision. The more meat and bone of reality we have, the closer we
come to the form of our ideal. However, it can equally be argued that the reality is all
that matters, and that only from it will the beauty of romance arise. There can, and
should be, contention between these views, but each side must acknowledge the power and
place of its opposite. We should accord the courtesy to each other that we each hold
deeply held views, and recognize that our common foes are ignorance and
indifference--those who care nothing for ideal or reality.
Good Rhys, I find myself in agreement over most of your definition of chivalry;
whatever points of disagreement we have make only for good discussion. I applaud you as an
"authenticity mavin" against whom I might put my failings. But I would counsel
you against dismissing our modern romance as clap-trap. There are many, many of us who are
striving for Lancelot and the enduring life of the romances, as many in the Middle Ages
likewise strove. Romance and authenticity are complimentary and in the end each necessary
for us in the SCA. In as much as I need a Rhys to caution me against becoming a Conanesque
fantastic, a Rhys needs a Sten lest he become no more than a ghost walking in dead men's
steps.
|
|
|
 This site is best viewed in 1024x768 pixels, but I think that
it will run fine in 800x600. High Color recomendable.
Please, send me you comments,
critics and sugestions.
thantalas@oocities.com
|