ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Sir Edward on 2008-07-16, 20:13:31
-
An interesting thread just got started on the ArmourArchive forums, concerning whether religion is necessary for Chivalry. Personally I don't think it's necessary (though obviously it has been heavily intertwined historically). To me it's personal choice as to how one integrates it into other aspects of life. I'm curious to see whether my response will kick up the hornet's nest. :)
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1142192 (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1142192)
-
Hi Ed,
Allow me to kick up my own hornet's nest. :) I think the replies you get are going to be colored by the faith or lack thereof of the person that replies. It's been my own experience that those that claim a disbelief in God are the most defensive about belief not being necessary for <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.> Those that do have a strong faith can't imagine how it can be separated from <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.>
I admit to falling into the latter category. Though I really really need a trip to the confessional ;) , my faith is an important part of my life. From that perspective, I agree with the person that posted after you, that whether it is to serve a Higher Being, or to serve a societal ideal, Chivalry involves acknowledgment of a purpose greater than the one, something worthy of one's own service and sacrifice.
But I would argue that purely serving a societal ideal is not much better than serving one's own purpose. If your society benefits, you might also.
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.
Don't most 12 step programs (No, I'm not speaking from experience. :P) involve a belief in a higher power as well? The idea that you can't do it on your own? I would argue that "being chivalrous" without belief in a power outside of yourself really isn't. It becomes self serving in a way.
This was too quick of a response and I didn't take time to formalize my thoughts completely, for that I apologize. I was just eager to start getting some of my thoughts down.
Thanks, Ed. Good topic! (Those hornets are buzzing now I'm sure!)
-
Allow me to kick up my own hornet's nest. :) I think the replies you get are going to be colored by the faith or lack thereof of the person that replies. It's been my own experience that those that claim a disbelief in God are the most defensive about belief not being necessary for <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.> Those that do have a strong faith can't imagine how it can be separated from <fill in the blank with the cause of your choice.>
That's probably true in most cases. Generally I stay away from religious discussions, since people can get very defensive, and speak in strong absolutes no matter which side of the particular discussion they may fall upon. It boils down to an idealogical difference. Those who have strong belief can't understand how others can separate it in their minds. Those who don't have such strong beliefs don't understand how others integrate them.
I admit to falling into the latter category. Though I really really need a trip to the confessional ;) , my faith is an important part of my life. From that perspective, I agree with the person that posted after you, that whether it is to serve a Higher Being, or to serve a societal ideal, Chivalry involves acknowledgment of a purpose greater than the one, something worthy of one's own service and sacrifice.
But I would argue that purely serving a societal ideal is not much better than serving one's own purpose. If your society benefits, you might also.
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.
I'll echo my response on the other thread to what the person was saying... I'll agree that a person can't truly claim to be chivalrous if they place themselves too high on a pedestal. One can not see themselves as the pinnacle of the pyramid, so to speak. The ideals, and the society at large, at the very least, must be seen as higher than the self. Otherwise, what else is there to strive for?
Don't most 12 step programs (No, I'm not speaking from experience. :P) involve a belief in a higher power as well? The idea that you can't do it on your own? I would argue that "being chivalrous" without belief in a power outside of yourself really isn't. It becomes self serving in a way.
I've never been in a 12-step program, so I don't know. However, there's a part of me that wants to be cautious about saying that it requires something outside yourself and that you can't do it alone. I'm not talking about external ideals and challenges. I think those are a given. And I'm not talking about religious belief as a source of strength and inspiration either. What I mean is, I don't like the thought that one must admit defeat in order to succeed, as if one is not entirely responsible for their own actions. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation, but I'm having difficulty escaping that line of thought.
This was too quick of a response and I didn't take time to formalize my thoughts completely, for that I apologize. I was just eager to start getting some of my thoughts down.
Thanks, Ed. Good topic! (Those hornets are buzzing now I'm sure!)
No problem, always glad to kick up the bee hive! :)
-
I've never been in a 12-step program, so I don't know. However, there's a part of me that wants to be cautious about saying that it requires something outside yourself and that you can't do it alone. I'm not talking about external ideals and challenges. I think those are a given. And I'm not talking about religious belief as a source of strength and inspiration either. What I mean is, I don't like the thought that one must admit defeat in order to succeed, as if one is not entirely responsible for their own actions. Perhaps that's a misinterpretation, but I'm having difficulty escaping that line of thought.
I see it more as you are responsible for more than yourself. You have Someone/Something to answer to.
buzz.
-
I see it more as you are responsible for more than yourself. You have Someone/Something to answer to.
buzz.
Ah, I see :) I think we can agree on that.
-
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=83604 (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?
-
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.
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 :)
-
I think this thread is dead :)
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Talk about "kicking the hornet's nest"... On the Armour Archive, this message I'm quoting below takes it to a whole different level!
(http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1146118#1146118 (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1146118#1146118))
Chef, unless I misunderstand you, I find your conception of chivalry to be hidebound, rigid, antiquated, regressive, and yes, vile.
For you, as best I can tell, to be chivalrous, one must be Christian, European, of Noble Birth, and quite willing to victimize anyone who is not those things.
Chef, in your opinion, can a Jew be chivalrous? An Episcopalian? A Lutheran? A Baptist? A Lollard? A woman?
Chef, do you consider yourself chivalrous?
Do you eat meat on Friday?
Do you beat your children?
I'm amused. :)
Just a side note, as this is probably a good time to mention this. If the subject of this thread (on this forum), or any other topic ever makes anyone uncomfortable, everyone is always free to message me privately, as I'm the moderator. My intention is to allow civil discussion of a wide range of topics. A heated debate is fine, but the message I quoted above is perhaps getting a bit too personal, and if it were on this forum, I'd probably be posting reminders as such at this point.
-
I just wanted to quote one more fragment from the Armour Archive's discussion, then I'll shut up for a while. I really enjoyed these paragraphs. Very well said:
(http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1147103#1147103 (http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1147103#1147103))
Not being a man braver -or less brave- than anyone, I am always drawn to a chuckle when I read about valour in the SCA field. I find it immensely easy to charge three or four fighters VASTLY superior to me technically (but then who is not superior to me technically) with complete knowledge that I am about to get creamed. If you look at Urusus pics of me at events, you can see I have a large, sh** eatin grin every time too.
Nothing is going to happen to you! except a bruised ego if you allow yours to be bruised by something as obvious as losing to a technically superior fighter. Or a bunch of them. Valor in the field is no different than lack of hesitation in a Football quarterback, or a fierce dive by baseball player. It shows commitment and determination, but not courage in the narrow sense.
One offends REAL war veterans by the comparison.
No Sir , your chivalry, or your assumption of it must come from somewhere else. You must develop your knowledge of a just, gentle and morally and ethicall corageous living. And choose how you behave according to that knowledge.
If faith helps you develop that knowledge, I salute you. If you reach it by other means, I salute you as well. The important part is the final result.
-
Hi Ed,
Great comments. It reminds me of a piece of advice I was given long ago, I don't even remember by whom, and I passed it on my Cub Scouts many times when I was den mother. You can't be brave, unless you are scared. That doesn't mean going out and doing something risky just to prove you are brave. It means soldiering on when faced with your fears. (This was usually in reference to spiders in the cub's tent.) :)
-
That's true, and that was something I had to figure out for myself a long time ago. Courage is not a lack of fear, but rather an ability to face it. IMHO, fear is healthy and makes us strong, as long as it doesn't take over. Doing what must be done, despite those fears, is what makes one brave.
-
IMO the entire concept of Christianity being a requirement for Chivalry is a bit absurd because
both ideals are so dynamically opposed to each other. TRUE faith in the teachings of Jesus, in no
shape or form condones violence. The stronghold of Christianity during the middle ages, which
coincides with the advent in the modern conceptions of the chivalric (Bushidō) code, was the
Catholic Church whose foundation in the teachings of Jesus was dubious at best and for sale to
the highest bidder at the worst. :(
The ministry of Jesus was far more than just pacifistic teaching. His pacifism wasn’t based solely on
mankind having a spiritual love for each other but also upon a de-emphasis of our flesh and earthly
lives, including the very preservation of our earthly lives.
Here is some relevant scriptures if anyone would like to check them out here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/ (http://www.biblegateway.com/)
Luke 22:35-38
Matthew 26:52-53
John 18:36
Matthew 10:16
Matthew 10:39
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.
and then there were four! ;)
-
This is a very interesting topic.
First, the equation of Christ with pure pacifism has some challenges. Jesus violently overthrows the money changes' tables, scatters their coins, and drives away livestock with a whip in the incident in the temple. He also instructs his followers to arm themselves in the garden of Gethsemane.
The knight's role as an agent of violence can also be excused in Scripture because of their service: "Render unto Caesar..."
Regarding the broader scope of the topic, the medieval knight in the image handed down to our time is the product of diverse forces, and these were layered into the concept across a span of centuries. The earliest knights, or miles, were elite soldiers. The Peace and Truce of God movements connected this elite with the concept of defense of church and keeper of God's peace. Still later, the courtly love movement and chansons de geste gave him his romantic aspect as champion of ladies.
It is the Church that 'civilizes' knighthood, taking a warrior elite and giving them an even more sacred charge. Without the Church, knighthood would doubtless have been a very differnent institution.
All the best,
Christian
-
Hi Sir Ed,
As to your remarks about who is the more noble, the chivalrous Christian or the chivalrous atheist, from my own admittedly faith based point of view, I would argue that just because the atheist doesn't believe in a higher power, doesn't mean he isn't being guided by it, though unknowingly.
This comes from someone who has felt the beatings of a guardian angel's wings on more than one occasion.
Buzz. :)
-
That's a good point, but allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The atheist could make the same argument in reverse, that the devout Christian is really just (unknowingly) following a set of philosophical ideals that aren't actually driven by an external force. :)
Just covering all the angles. :)
This reminds me of a bumper-sticker I once saw, which read "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"
But getting back to the religious acceptance of the violent nature of a knight's duties, one of the points that was also brought up on the Armour Archive was that there are forms of acceptable killing (particularly in the medieval mindset), not the least of which is self-defense or saving the life of an innocent. Perhaps war can thus be justified as an extension of these.
That also brings up an interesting point. There are many who feel that killing is never justified. Many others would accept killing in self-defense as justified. Personally, I think defending oneself steps into the realm of being your duty. To allow yourself to be killed, when you had the means to prevent it, is allowing evil to prevail. Thoughts?
-
This reminds me of a bumper-sticker I once saw, which read "Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you!"
How about the dyslexic agnostic who wonders if there is a dog?
To allow yourself to be killed, when you had the means to prevent it, is allowing evil to prevail. Thoughts?
I agree there absolutely.
-
In an attempt to revive this most interesting discussion I shall add my two cents. I do not think that it is necessary to have a christian or even a traditional organized religious base for the broader use of Chivalry. In the historical context, then I believe that an organized religious base must be applied for the term to apply. I do believe that chivalry requires some belief in an external power, God, for lack of a better term. It is my experience that there are very few people who are actually atheists. Most are more like myself in that they may not believe in the traditional organized religions but do embrace the idea of a God. I refer to this as spirituality. I follow a Judao-christian God and idealology without belonging to any particular faith. I would argue that the Warrior Code or Bushido, while similiar to Chivalry is different because it lacks that intermingling of religion. Both were developed by the powers that be to control the warrior classes and ensure their loyalty. In the wrong hands, both have also been used for ill as well as good. Ok, well I guess now I will sit back and see if I have stirred up any hornets.
-
Very well said Sir Brian.
i would concur most definitely. :)
-
Better late than never (slap his visor down and hides behind his horse).
I believe the Subject is: Religion and Chivalry and not: Christianity and Chivalry :-*
For myself; although the medieval knight has it's history tied to the church, I myself am 50/50 about religion and chivalry tied to each other. To me chivalry is many things; gallantry to ladies, doing the right thing, obeying the law to ones best ability, being a benefit to society and not a menace, a shoulder to cry on, an open ear, community involvment, protection of children, unjudgemental eyes, and standing up for those who can't stand up for themselves.
In doing the above mentioned things, religion has no part for me, however, I am a pagan, and when I kneel before a bout, say at a Selohaar Gathering or at my home, than religion does play a part.
If someone is to say "For me, as a modern knight, holding true and reviving chivalric value, YES my religion has much to do with it" than I say "well done and I understand" and support that person's view. When it comes to religion and strong beliefs a man/women can and will take a strong stance for thier belief, up and too the point of strapping a bomb to thier chest, while I would not go to that extreme I will step into harms way to defend a women who gets slapped across the face by a drunk boyfriend and religion will have no part.
Hope I'm not confusing?
Cheers,
Todd
-
I think chivalry was also very much about having an excuse to just up and challenge someone to fight to the death in the name of chivalry, for any perceived insult. Back in the Middle Ages, conflicts could ignite from something like a mild insult or perceived slight, and each side would feel justified to pursue conflict in order to be "chivalrous" and maintain their honour.
Chivalry also had some pretty warped ideals that are pretty hard for me to understand. For example, if a knight caught two lovers eloping without the consent of their parents, he would let them go but not without taking all their money first (supposedly so they wouldn't have any outside help on their escape and prove that their love was strong) then going to the pub and buying his friends drinks.
That seems very odd to me.
-
I personally don't think that religion is a necessity for chivalry. To be chivalrous is a choice. A person should have a desire to be chivalrous of their own accord, not solely because they are bound by a higher power. Thats just my opinion though.
-
I agree this is an interesting thread. Allow me to take a different spin on this subject.
Historically, Chivalry has been associated with the Christian Church and its values pertaining to the elite warrior (best book on the subject in my opinion is Richard Kreuper's Holy Warriors).
From the viewpoint of Jewish Chivalry, religion plays the part of the balance between the Two Services (Avodat Hashem Service to the Eternal and Avodat Ben Adam Service to one's fellow. Religion touches both and Jewish Chivalry is focused on both of them in ideal and application.
In addition, Jewish Chivalry never sees a separation between the ideal and the faith (Judaism in this case). An example of this can be found in Pirkei Avot or Ethics of the Fathers with statements such as "Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of a reward; instead be like servants who serve their master not for the sake of a reward." "Who is wise? He who learns from every person." "Who is strong? He who subdues his personal inclination." "Who is honored? He who honors others." (Translation: Selflessness go along way. Wisdom and learning doesn't end with a university diploma. Inner Moral Strength counts. Honoring others forms a basis for personal Honor).
In a way, religion helps to form the moral standard which is the influence for one's Chivalric conduct. While the argument of no need for religion to be chivalrous can be seen as valid from a etiquette or conduct based perspective. I see the picture as both sides of the discussion as two sides of one coin.
-
I command thee to rise! ;)
Interesting perspective on this topic Joshua. I’m completely un-versed in ancient Jewish chivalry. Can you recommend any reading for me?
-
Sir Rodney, the sources for this ideal can be found within Literature. Here are the two texts I have that show this ideal.
http://www.amazon.com/Elia-Levita-Bachurs-Bovo-Buch-Introduction/dp/1587361604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461591275&sr=1-1&keywords=bovo+buch (http://www.amazon.com/Elia-Levita-Bachurs-Bovo-Buch-Introduction/dp/1587361604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461591275&sr=1-1&keywords=bovo+buch)
http://www.amazon.com/King-Artus-Arthurian-Romance-Medieval/dp/0815630115/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461591782&sr=1-1&keywords=king+artus (http://www.amazon.com/King-Artus-Arthurian-Romance-Medieval/dp/0815630115/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1461591782&sr=1-1&keywords=king+artus)
In addition, I will post some articles that help to explain its presence in Jewish Literature.
http://davidwacks.uoregon.edu/2012/01/02/translation/ (http://davidwacks.uoregon.edu/2012/01/02/translation/) Article on the Hebrew Amadis of Gaul.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01382.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01382.html)
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/hebfiction.html#7 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/hebfiction.html#7) Romances in Hebrew Literature.
-
I believe that chivalry is inextricably linked to Christianity because the Church was such a part of the formative process of chivalry that it would not have been chivalry without it.
After the collapse of the Carolingian Empire in 888, France, Germany, and Italy fragmented into a feudal mess. Local lords and knights struggled to maintain their demesnes while vying for power over their peers. Internecine feuding resulted in raids on each other, with the peasantry and the clergy feeling the brunt of these attacks. As a result, in 989 the Synod of Charroux issued the Pax Dei or Peace of God, under the authority of Archbishop Gombald of Bordeaux and Gascony, with agreement from the bishops of Poitiers, Limoges, Perigueux, Saintes, and Angouleme. It declared the nobility, including the knights, were to refrain from robbery of the poor and defenseless (the peasantry) of their provender and livestock, robbing or assaulting the godly (the Clergy) who were not bearing arms, and the plundering of Church property, upon pain of Excommunication. To this were added assaulting or robbing women (especially virgins and widows) and children, burning houses, beating the peasantry, and robbing merchants. The Pax Dei spread into all of Western France, including Aquitaine, Burgundy, and Languedoc by the early eleventh Century, and was strongly supported by King Robert II of France.
While the effectiveness of the Pax Dei was limited at its inception, it led to the Church issuing various decrees, including the Treuga Dei (Truce of God), which prohibited fighting by knights and nobility on Sundays, Holy (Feast) Days, all of Advent, Lent, certain other days of the week (Thursday, in memory of the Ascension; Friday, in memory of the Passion; and Saturday, in memory of the Resurrection), and the days between April 25 to Ascension Thursday, and the eight days leading up to and including Pentecost. Also, that all church personnel and property, pilgrims, women, merchants and their servants, and peasants working in the fields and their livestock were under permanent peace.
During the eleventh century, the Church pressured the nobility to accept trappings of piety regarding knights. Building off of St. Augustine of Hippo's City of God, where the idea of a just and godly war to defend God, if no other means of conflict resolution was available, was just and right; Odo of Cluny wrote the Life of St. Gerald of Aurillac, which described the perfect "knight of Christ". Chansons de geste, such as the Song of Roland, showed how noble knights lived their lives not only as fierce warriors but paragons of spiritual virtue. Knights were encouraged to turn over spoils of war to the local church or monastery as offerings in thanks of God's divine protection on the battlefield. The second son of a noble family was often destined for service in the Church, strengthening the bond between the nobility and the clergy. Squires (in the sense of knights in training) were to hold vigil, praying and fasting the night before his accolade, his armor and weapons on the altar to be dedicated in service to God. Homage oaths were sworn with God as witness, as breaking said oaths would invite divine retribution. Sword blades, crosses, and pommels were engraved with Scripture or dedications to various saints. Many knights upheld the Virgin Mary as a paragon of virtue and dedicated themselves to her, which influenced courtly love and honorable treatment of women. God was always watching, providing protection for those who were virtuous and providing retribution against those who were evil.
Even with all this, the nobility were often flirting with disaster for their souls. Finally, Pope Urban II declared a Crusade to the Holy Land, to wrest Jerusalem from "the grasp of the infidel". Tens of thousands took the Cross and made their way to Outremer at the close of the eleventh century. It not only solved Europe's problem with excess bored knights with nothing better to do than to fight each other by sending them to the Holy Land with promises of wealth and righteousness in the eyes of God, it also cemented the Church's influence on the knighthood. With the victory of the Crusade and the establishment of the kingdom of Jerusalem under the Cross of Christ, that influence was now adamant.
As chivalry evolved during the twelfth century, certain people were deemed by medieval Christian authors as exemplars of knightly conduct: Godfrey of Bouillon, Sir William Marshal, Bertrand du Guesclin, even Saladin, who was deemed chivalrous, regardless of his religion. The development of military orders in the Crusades, themselves founded by the Church, influenced chivalry during this time. Arthurian legend changed in the hands of Chretien de Troyes and others to the medieval romance, where the characters of Gawain, Percival, Galahad, and Lancelot as definitions of chivalry became popular. Chivalry eventually came to be accepted as duty to God, King, Liege, fellow Christians, and women.
While one can argue that codes of conduct can be established without religious influence, it would be difficult to prove that what we know of as chivalry would have come about without the efforts of the Church. Compared to other codes of conduct, such as bushido, the code of chivalry maintains an air of virtuousness that still inspires today, even in a society where such ideals are often considered passe.
-
Now that is one hell of a book report. A +!!! Good job, Jon!!!
-
Now that is one hell of a book report. A +!!! Good job, Jon!!!
Thank you, Lord Dane, I try to be thorough. ;D
-
Well done Jon.
-
Well said Jon!