In Comes a Dashing Knight on a White Horse
As a medieval historian one becomes very familiar with the idea of ‘chivalry’. It is ever-present in the background of the mid-late medieval world and as such I’ve just spent several months immersed in countless papers on the subject. I was reminded recently however in discussion with a friend that the connection between chivalry and the medieval is by no means an obvious one for anyone outside of medieval academia. For my friend chivalry was a set of Victorian ideas that promoted men holding open doors for women and she was surprised to learn that it in fact originated somewhere in the 12th century as a way to moderate the behaviour of a potentially dangerous knightly class. The journey of chivalry from the 12th to the 19th century is an interesting one, but why was chivalry born in the first place?
You may have noticed by now if you’re not an historian but
have met a few (or read several of my blog posts so far) that academics never
pass up the opportunity to debate a term. The common observation that a
historian will never fail to answer a yes or no question with ‘it’s more
complicated than that’ is scarily accurate. (There is a reason I avoid pub
quizzes much to the relief of my friends). As such, it may come as no surprise
that there is quite a big debate about what ‘chivalry’ is and whether it even
existed at all.
Broadly chivalry is understood as a set of ideals for the
behaviour of knights which was communicated, celebrated and debated through a
body of literature (often in the epic and romance genres) including stories of
heroes from history and legend as well as things akin to chivalric handbooks.
It is therefore seen to exist in two arenas: in literature and in the reality
of medieval war and society. (As a clarification for anyone reading medieval
texts, chivalry can also be used as a collective noun for knights, e.g. ‘all
the chivalry of France were on the battlefield’).
The first major contention concerning chivalry is how far it
existed in both literature (as a defined concept) and in the reality of
medieval life. Some argue that chivalry was simply an idea that existed in
romance and epic literature to govern knights in fictional narratives. This could
either act as a self-congratulatory image for kings and knights or a medium
through which civilians (mainly churchmen) could criticise knightly activity.
In other words, it makes a nice story but has little practical application
beyond romanticism or rhetoric. The main reason for this opinion is the large
amount of evidence of knights behaving badly and breaking the chivalric code outlined
in literature seemingly without any qualms throughout the period. Knights were
known to rape, pillage and plunder even in their own countries and territories
and fight in underhand ways which were supposedly dishonourable for knights.
The most obvious response to this point is that ideals are
very rarely met. In fact, this is the very point of an ideal; something to work
towards which is of benefit even if one falls short of it. A lack of
achievement does not mean a lack of trying (or that the ideal is not generally
recognised to be a good one). Anyone who has ever made a New Year’s Resolution can
attest to this. Any even if one knight is not concerned with following the
chivalric code, another may well be. It is more likely that, as with any ideal,
that medieval knights applied chivalry with a healthy dose of pragmatism,
especially when attempting to apply it to the messy business of actual medieval
warfare.
But what did this chivalry entail? Most simply, chivalry
gave knights a standard of behaviour by which they could be judged. This
standard was designed to provide honourable applications for the raw and
potentially dangerous power that came from being an armed and physically
powerful man in society. The central ideal of chivalric behaviour then was
military prowess; the ability to perform well in battle. This was after all,
the function of a knight. In addition, however, there were several values that
were supposed to govern this military prowess such as loyalty, bravery,
prudence and honour. These values prevented a knight for exercising his power
in harmful ways and made him more effective in war.
Within these values however there exists a great degree of
ambiguity and complexity arising from the attempt to make a knight both
honourable and effective. Chivalry was also part of an intricate dance being
played out in the medieval period to make the knight (someone who murdered
people for a living) compatible with the life of a Christian (which defined
murder as a mortal sin). The combination of these aims mean that the chivalric
code is often contradictory and, when viewed in its entirety, almost impossible
to follow. It is therefore unsurprising that a degree of pragmatism was used in
its application.
Currently in my own research I have been exploring how these
paradoxes within chivalry play out in The Bruce (the text at the centre
of my work). More specifically I’m interested in how this standard is used to
portray and judge Edward Bruce as a figure in this narrative (see my previous post for more on this). Edward does not come off well in The Bruce and I want
to figure out the role that the chivalric code has in this portrayal. Edward is
praised for his military prowess and great bravery by Barbour. However, his
keenness to jump into battle and his reluctance to leave the field even in
unfavourable circumstances win him an equal amount of condemnation for
recklessness.
At first glance this seems a fair criticism. Ignoring good
advice and refusing to retreat when the enemy forces greatly outnumber your own
are obviously undesirable qualities in a commander. The rub comes however when
Edward is praised and criticised for the same behaviour at different parts of
the narrative. And even the behaviour Edward is criticised for could be seen as
a very valid fulfilment of the chivalric ideal which highlights the paradoxical
nature of some of its demands. This is how one of Edward’s victories during the
Scottish Wars of Independence is described:
“Look how boldness, shown without hesitation and
driven ruthlessly to a conclusion, can often cause an unlikely
situation to come to a right fair and good conclusion”
9.637-657 (John Barbour, The Bruce translated from
Scots by A. A. M. Duncan. Emphasis mine.)
A chivalric knight should not be afraid of death and never
submit to cowardice. As we can see in the quote above, the unrelenting bravery
and eagerness to fight on doggedly rewards Edward with praise and success.
Later on in the Bruce however Edward’s decision to fight despite
overwhelming odds is deemed reckless. The refusal to retreat because it will
bring dishonour upon Edward by giving him a reputation as a coward (a cardinal
sin for a chivalric knight) is by Barbour labelled as pride (also undesirable
in a knight). This leaves us pondering what the ‘right’ decision was that
Edward was supposed to make here. The main difference between these two
incidents is that Edward is successful in one and meets defeat and death in the
other, so the answer may well be that the ‘right’ decision was to win the
battle. As Craig Taylor has argued in his work on chivalry, ultimately in
real-world scenarios, chivalry cared as much for outcomes as it did means.
Coming back to where we began, the idea of chivalry colloquially
today is one of polite and courteous behaviour, often of men towards women.
This comes from the romantic revival of the 19th century which
rediscovered medieval literature and sought to rekindle its perceived values
for Victorian society by retelling many of these stories in a highly
romanticised fashion. So whilst the modern conception of chivalry is a lot more
polite than its medieval ancestor, we can see some lines of continuity. In
medieval Europe the chivalric code also proposed rules of proper conduct
towards women and fellow knights. These rules did not extend to the common
people however and knights remained free to treat those lower than them in any
way they liked. So some of the examples mentioned earlier in the article of
knights behaving badly simply did not come under the chivalric code (much to
the horror of civilians and churchmen). This means that chivalry also acted as
a way to cement the place of the nobility and acted as another signifier to
differentiate them from those below. Whilst it was in theory possible for a
non-noble to gain knighthood through military skill and merit, in practice the
crossover between the knightly class and the nobility was a marked one. In the
19th century chivalry retained its association with the upper
classes and polite society. I do wonder what the knights of the 14th
century and the polite society of the 19th century would have made
of each other if they had ever met face to face…
Further Reading:
Craig Taylor, Chivalry and the Ideals of Knighthood in
France during the Hundred Years War (Cambridge, 2013).
Richard Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe
(Oxford, 2001).
Comments
Post a Comment