Chivalry was itself a vocation of secular figures—knights being feudal vassals of political leaders—and yet religion and religious practice were endemic to the lifestyle. Knights were expected to be fully active Christians and were limited by its prohibitions just like any other gentile. However, they could also be guilty of terrible atrocities, generating a tension that was often acknowledged but never really solved.
Usually concessions were made by Christian figures in specific situations as Saul discusses in Chapter 12, killing enemies while on crusade was acceptable because they were heretics and thus outside the Christian hierarchy while knights stayed their hand against enemy knights whenever advantageous. This dispensation, however, did not extend to the peasantry who were often slaughtered unremittingly whenever they were deemed in the way. Yet again, none of this is particularly new.
What makes Saul most definitely worth one's time though is his understanding that our belief that chivalry was a firmly controlling code of conduct, or even as prohibitive as a set of laws, is entirely anachronistic.
This fallacy came about with the "re-discovery" of chivalry in the Victorian Era when the idea was embraced by an increasingly politically marginalized aristocracy and authors who wanted to spin creative tales of pageantry and adventure. As such, our impression that knights roamed the countryside in highly stylized accoutrements battling evil and selflessly saving those in need is the product of art or literature generated long after chivalry ceased to be a factor on the battlefield.
Really one need only to attend the nearest Renaissance fair or turn on the latest movie depicting medieval warfare to see just how pervasive this misimpression really is.
Therefore, this is Saul's major contribution to the historical discussion of chivalry and what makes his book well worth the read. Saul hits home the fact that, beyond all else, when discussing chivalry one must never forget the reality that medieval knights fought with a tacit understanding that pragmatism could overrule ceremony wherever necessary.
If saving an enemy knight from slaughter was deemed financially or politically favorable, the knight could survive, but certainly not for altruistic reasons; the reward was either land, gold, or war booty. It is this reality that historians often overlook, and so it is this discussion that makes Saul valuable. While it should be remembered that he casts his investigative glance solely upon England as chivalry often expressed itself in slightly different ways on the Continent , he is able to separate distorting impressions from the reality of practice, as well as summarize chivalry's social, cultural, and religious characteristics, in an effective and easily accessible style.
These factors combined, Chivalry in Medieval England is undoubtedly a must-read for anyone trying to understand what chivalry is and what it really meant to those who practiced it. Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the Stanton Foundation.
Skip to main content. The Ohio State University. Department of History. Home Topics Africa. Middle East. The world chivalry itself comes from the Medieval Latin caballarius , meaning horseman. These warriors were commanded by warlords and rewarded with land, or with license to plunder the villages where they did battle, looting, raping and burning as they went. There was never a firm consensus on what it meant to be a good knight. A maiden leads a knight in a suit of armor to a castle.
Still, Wollock argues that chivalry did go well beyond the simple need for a disciplined military. Particularly in romantic literature of the time—some of it written expressly for young noblemen who were being trained for knighthood. Knights were presented as pious, generous and merciful. Instead, the holy knights ended up sacking the great Christian city of Constantinople. The capture of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade. On the flip side, Wollock says, chivalric culture encouraged knights to develop their own sense of morality rather than simply relying on church authorities.
The original inhabitants of the conquered countries had, with few exceptions, been reduced to the situation of serfs, and could not be invested with the honors of chivalry. This is evident from the following decree of the twelfth century: Ad militarem honorem nullus accedat qui non sit de genere militum.
Of this distinction all were desirous, and, as a natural :consequence, the object of each noble youth's ambition was one day to become a knight. But this could not be obtained without previously passing through a long course of education, which should prepare him for its duties, since those who had been previously admitted into the order were careful not to receive any who might disgrace the sword that dubbed him.
Thus the castle of each feudal chieftain became a school of chivalry, into which any noble youth, whose parents were from poverty unable to educate him to the art of war, was readily received. Even those barons who were able to educate their sons preferred to entrust them to the care of some neighboring knight, that the young aspirant to chivalric honors might not from parental tenderness be spared those trials and hardships necessary to prepare him for his future career.
The education of those destined to chivalry commenced at the age of seven years. The first situation filled by these youth was that of page or varlet, and was considered highly honorable, though it implied every kind of attendance on the person of their new lord. Here they remained a large portion of the time with the females of the family, the rest being spent in the service of the knight, whom they accompanied in all his excursions.
At the age of fourteen, when advancing age and skill in the use of arms had qualified the page for war, he was usually admitted to the higher grade of eseuyer, esquire or squire, and at the same time exchanged the short dagger of the page for the sword. The squires likewise passed seven years in manly exercises and perfecting themselves for the art of war.
The third and highest grade of chivalry was knighthood, to the honors of which the squire was admitted at the age of twenty one. The candidate was required to prepare himself by confession, fasting, and passing the night in prayer. Having performed the preliminary religious rites, and taken an oath in which he promised, among other things, to be a brave and loyal knight, to protect ladies and orphans, never to lie, nor utter slander, and to be a champion of the church and clergy, he received the accolade, a slight blow on the neck with the back of a sword, from the person who dubbed him a knight.
The words which accompanied the accolade were to this effect : "I dub thee knight in the name of God and St. Michael; be faithful, bold, and fortunate. It has already been mentioned that one of the strictest requirements of chivalry was that enjoining respect to females.
0コメント