Main > The Round Table
Religion and Chivalry
Sir Edward:
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=83604
Well, it looks like the thread has continued on the Armour Archive, and I didn't really fan the flames of a firestorm too badly, it seems. :) That's probably a good thing. Sometimes I intentionally word things strongly and regret it later. Some very interesting discussion there.
Interestingly, I just got to the part in the book "Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe" which talks about the piety and daily religiousness of historical knights (I realize it's early in the book, I tend to put books down for weeks at a time). I find it difficult to separate in such historical accounts how much was cultural versus truly being pious.
Clearly chivalry began as a warrior ethos. It was distinct from the church, and yet it was considered important through most of the period that knights be pious. The book I mentioned discusses how knights frequently used flowery language invoking religious contexts to a greater degree than other writers of the time. To modern readers this can seem at odds with the violent jobs that they had to undertake. This sort of dichotomy, and how it was viewed (and encouraged) by the church, is an interesting topic.
Thoughts?
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: Sword Chick on 2008-07-16, 21:29:01 ---I've used the example of Scouts before, I think the Scout Law and Oath provide a nice framework for modern chivalry. However, the Scout Law states that a scout is "reverent"and the Scout Oath promises a "duty to God." In the Scouting organization, it is not required that you follow a specific faith, but it is expected that you have some belief in a power outside of yourself.
--- End quote ---
I forgot to finish my thought in the previous message-- I like your comparison to the Scout Oath. There seem to be very few organizations around today that have a similar set of ideals comparable to chivalry as such. This seems to be a good source for it in the modern world. Thanks for mentioning it :)
*crickets chirping*
I think this thread is dead :)
Sword Chick:
--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2008-07-18, 19:41:34 ---I think this thread is dead :)
--- End quote ---
Attempting to administer CPR...
I hadn't replied to your previous post, because I was hoping someone else would join in the discussion. Looks like it's just you and me, Kid.
I'm lacking on the history, years of math geekdom have left me sadly behind in the social sciences, but that won't stop me from expressing my opinion. :) I think the piety and faith provided an important balance to a knight's life. Not so much as a conflict or dichotomy with the job of a warrior as much as a needed perspective, a way of preventing a too casual attitude towards violence. Those of you better read than I am should feel free to correct me here.
Sir Edward:
--- Quote from: Sword Chick on 2008-07-18, 20:43:27 ---Attempting to administer CPR...
I hadn't replied to your previous post, because I was hoping someone else would join in the discussion. Looks like it's just you and me, Kid.
--- End quote ---
Yep, looks like it. We don't have that large of a user base here yet, so it's to be expected, especially with a topic that includes something that is very personal (religion) on a public forum. The Armour Archive has a much larger and very vocal readership, many of which are SCA knights or squires. I'm glad to see people are discussing it openly there.
My post there took a page from Geoffroi de Charny in a way. I took his logic about why nobles are more praiseworthy for the same deeds as commoners, and re-used it in a an attempted comparison between those who are devout and those who are not. I suspect Charny, who was quite pious, would not be happy with me for that. But I suspect he wouldn't be happy with me in other respects as well. :) Still, I was trying to make a point and stir up the discussion in one shot.
I agree with what you said about a knight's balanced life. I think it's more the modern mentality that would see it as a dichotomy, whereas I think the knights were probably pretty clear on it. I need to read further, but I'm under the impression that the church had sort of a love-hate relationship with the Chivalry (using the word here to represent the body of knights as a whole), as they fulfilled a necessary function, were pious and yet flawed, often battled amongst themselves and caused collateral damage, and represented a wide range of adherence to the religious ideals. They were an entire spectrum, just like any other cross section of society.
Sir Wolf:
hmmmm. i think it really depends on your view of the world. weither man is truely good, or born with sin needing something to make himself better. religion had played a large role within chivalry but now i don't think its that interlaced do to the time frame and peoples ideals.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version