Chivalry, or thechivalric language, is an informal and varyingcode of conduct that developed in Europe between 1170 and 1220. It is associated with themedievalChristian institution ofknighthood, with knights being members of variouschivalric orders,[1][2] and with knights' and gentlemen's behaviours which were governed by chivalrous social codes. The ideals of chivalry were popularized inmedieval literature, particularly the literary cycles known as theMatter of France, relating to the legendary companions ofCharlemagne and hismen-at-arms, thepaladins, and theMatter of Britain, informed byGeoffrey of Monmouth'sHistoria Regum Britanniae, written in the 1130s, which popularized the legend ofKing Arthur and hisknights of the Round Table.[3]
The code of chivalry that developed in medieval Europe had its roots in earlier centuries. It arose in theCarolingian Empire from the idealisation of thecavalryman—involving military bravery, individual training, and service to others—especially inFrancia, amonghorse soldiers inCharlemagne's cavalry.[4]: 2 [5] Over time, the meaning of chivalry in Europe has been refined to emphasize more general social and moral virtues. The code of chivalry, as it stood by theLate Middle Ages, was a moral system which combined awarrior ethos,knightly piety, andcourtly manners, all combining to establish a notion ofhonour andnobility.[Note 1]
The term "chivalry" derives from theOld French termchevalerie, which can be translated as "horse soldiery".[Note 2] Originally, the term referred only to horse-mounted men, from the French word for horse,cheval, but later it became associated with knightly ideals.[8] The French wordchevalier originally meant "a man of aristocratic standing, and probably of noble ancestry, who is capable, if called upon, of equipping himself with a war horse and the arms of heavy cavalryman and who has been through certain rituals that make him what he is."[9] Therefore, during theMiddle Ages, the pluralchevalerie (transformed in English into the word "chivalry") originally denoted the body of heavy cavalry upon formation in the field.[10] In English, the term appears from 1292 (note thatcavalry is from the Italian form of the same word).[Note 3]
The meaning of the term evolved over time into a broader sense, because in the Middle Ages the meaning ofchevalier changed from the original concrete military meaning "status or fee associated with a military follower owning awar horse" or "a group of mounted knights" to the ideal of the Christian warrior ethos propagated in theromance genre, which was becoming popular during the 12th century, and the ideal ofcourtly love propagated in the contemporaryMinnesang and related genres.[12]
The ideas of chivalry are summarized in three medieval works: the anonymous poemOrdene de chevalerie, which tells the story of howHugh II of Tiberias was captured and released upon his agreement to showSaladin (1138–1193) the ritual of Christianknighthood;[13] theLibre del ordre de cavayleria, written byRamon Llull (1232–1315), fromMallorca, whose subject is knighthood;[14] and theLivre de Chevalerie ofGeoffroi de Charny (1300–1356), which examines the qualities of knighthood, emphasizingprowess.[15] None of the authors of these three texts knew the other two texts, and the three combine to depict a general concept of chivalry which is not precisely in harmony with any of them. To different degrees and with different details, they speak of chivalry as a way of life in which the military, the nobility, and religion combine.[16]
The "code of chivalry" is thus a product of theLate Middle Ages, evolving after the end of thecrusades partly from an idealization of the historical knights fighting in the Holy Land and from ideals of courtly love.
Pioneering French literary historianLéon Gautier compiled what he called the medieval Ten Commandments of chivalry in his bookLa Chevalerie (1884):[4]
In fact, there is no such medieval list. Gautier's effort was a series of moral bullet points he abstracted from his broad reading of 12th and 13th century romances.
Supporters of chivalry have assumed since the late medieval period that there was a time in the past when chivalry was a living institution, when men acted chivalrously, the imitation of which period would much improve the present.[citation needed]
However, with the birth of modern historical and literary research, scholars have found that however far back in time "The Age of Chivalry" is searched for, it is always further in the past, even back to theRoman Empire.[17] FromJean Charles Léonard de Sismondi:
We must not confound chivalry with thefeudal system. The feudal system may be called the real life of the period of which we are treating, possessing its advantages and inconveniences, its virtues and its vices. Chivalry, on the contrary, is the ideal world, such as it existed in the imaginations of theromance writers. Its essential character is devotion to woman and to honour.[18]: I, 76–77
Sismondi alludes to the fictitiousArthurian romances about the imaginaryCourt of King Arthur when taken as factual presentations of a historical age of chivalry. He continues:
The more closely we look into history, the more clearly shall we perceive that the system of chivalry is an invention almost entirely poetical. It is impossible to distinguish the countries in which it is said to have prevailed. It is always represented as distant from us both in time and place, and whilst the contemporary historians give us a clear, detailed, and complete account of the vices of the court and the great, of the ferocity or corruption of the nobles, and of the servility of the people, we are astonished to find the poets, after a long lapse of time, adorning the very same ages with the most splendid fictions of grace, virtue, and loyalty.... we are forced to confess that it is necessary to antedate the age of chivalry, at least three or four centuries before any period of authentic history.[18]: I, 79
Prior to codified chivalry, there was the uncodified code of noble conduct that focused on thepreudomme, which can be translated as a wise, honest, and sensible man. This uncodified code—referred to as the noblehabitus—is a term for the environment of behavioural and material expectations generated by all societies and classes.[19] As a modern idea, it was pioneered by the French philosopher/sociologistsPierre Bourdieu andMaurice Merleau-Ponty, even though a precedent exists for the concept as far back as the works of Aristotle.[20] Crouch in 2019 argued that thehabitus on which "the superstructure of chivalry" was built and thepreudomme was a part, were recognised by contemporaries as components ofcourtoisie (from Latincurialitas) which was defined as superior conduct appropriate to the aristocratic hall (court orcuria). He saw it as being taught within the confines of the hall by its senior figures to youths confided to the lord and his household for their social upbringing. Crouch suggested courtliness had existed long before 1100 and preceded the codified medieval noble conduct we call chivalry, which he sees as beginning between 1170 and 1220.[21]
The pre-chivalric noblehabitus as discovered by Mills and Gautier and elaborated by Stephen Jaeger and David Crouch are as follows:
From the 12th century onward, chivalry came to be understood as a moral, religious, and social code of knightly conduct. The particulars of the code varied, but codes would emphasise the virtues of courage, honour, and service. Chivalry also came to refer to an idealisation of the life and manners of the knight at home in his castle and with his court. The code of chivalry, as it was known during the late medieval age, developed between 1170 and 1220.[31]
Courtliness remained a recognised form of superior conduct in medieval European society throughout the middle ages. Courtly behaviour was expected of all aristocrats and its norms were integrated into chivalric literature. But as Crouch demonstrated courtliness (unlike chivalry) was not confined to noble society. There are examples of servants, merchants, clergy and free peasants being commended for their 'courtly' behaviour in medieval literature.[32] His explanation for the appearance of chivalry as a recognisable and prescriptive code of behaviour is tied into the more exclusive definition of nobility that appears in the late 12th century. This had a particular impact on the professional horse warrior, the knight. Retained knights were a prominent feature of the households of barons, counts and princes, and were thought to be proper associates of their lords. As such knights adopted the fashions and behaviours of their lords. In many cases knights were often drawn from the younger sons of noble families so they would regard themselves as being noble too, if less noble than their lords. Crouch locates the tipping point of the nobilising of the knight as in the households of the sons of KingHenry II of England, and in particular his eldest son, theHenry the Young King (died 1183). Young Henry lived a lavish lifestyle of unprecedented expense focussed on the great northern French tourneying society of the 1170s and 1180s. Since Young Henry had no domains to rule, his father was willing to fund the itinerant playboy lifestyle of his son to distract him from meddling in his realms, and also to stake a claim to the cultural high ground over the other European princes of the day.[33] Young Henry was nonetheless heavily criticised for his wasteful and hedonistic life, and Crouch finds it significant that the first known work which used the knight as a moral exemplar and as a definitive nobleman, theDe Re Militari ofRalph Niger (c. 1187) was written by the young man's former chaplain, in part as a moral defence of the knightly lifestyle.[34]
Crouch suggests another reason why chivalry coalesced as a noble code in the late 12th century in his analysis of conduct literature. He suggests that the courtly habitus underwent a crisis as its moral failure became obvious to writers, particularly in the materialism that motivated courtly society. Crouch sees theRoman des Eles of the poet-knightRaoul de Houdenc, as a critique of courtliness and its failures. Raoul's solution is to focus moral eminence on the figure of the knight, who is to be the avatar of a new moral nobility, set above all other males. A knight was to eschew materialism (envie) and to embrace noble generosity (largesce).
Inmedieval literature, chivalry can be classified into three overlapping areas:
Different weight given to different areas produced different strands of chivalry:
Emerging with theknight's character and the chivalric ethos were novel elements: revised social status, innovative military tactics, and fresh literary themes.[35] Chivalric codes encompassed regulations such as pledging loyalty to the overlord and upholding warfare rules. These rules dictated refraining from attacking a defenseless opponent and prioritizing the capture of fellow nobles for later ransom instead of immediate harm, akin to adhering to a perceived codified law.[36] The chivalric ideals are based on those of the early medieval warrior class, and martial exercise and military virtue remain integral parts of chivalry until the end of the medieval period,[37] as the reality on the battlefield changed with the development ofEarly Modern warfare, and increasingly restricted it to thetournament ground andduelling culture. Thejoust remained the primary example of knightly display of martial skill throughout theRenaissance (the last ElizabethanAccession Day tilt was held in 1602).
The martial skills of the knight carried over to the practice ofthe hunt, and hunting expertise became an important aspect of courtly life in the later medieval period (seeterms of venery). Related to chivalry was the practice ofheraldry and its elaborate rules of displaying coats of arms as it emerged in theHigh Middle Ages.
Christianity had a modifying influence on the classical concept of heroism and virtue, nowadays identified with the virtues of chivalry.[38][39] ThePeace and Truce of God in the 10th century was one such example, which placed limits on knights to protect and honour the weaker members of society and also help the church maintain peace. At the same time the church became more tolerant of war in the defence of faith, espousing theories of thejust war; andliturgies were introduced which blessed a knight's sword,and a bath of chivalric purification[clarification needed]. In theGrail romances andChevalier au Cygne, it was the ethos of the Christian knighthood that its way of life was to please God, and chivalry was an order of God.[40] Chivalry as a Christian vocation combinedTeutonic heroic values with the militant tradition ofOld Testament.[23]
The first noted support for chivalric vocation, or the establishment of a knightly class to ensure the sanctity and legitimacy of Christianity, was written in 930 byOdo, abbot ofCluny, in theVita of St. Gerald of Aurillac, which argued that the sanctity of Christ and Christian doctrine can be demonstrated through the legitimate unsheathing of the "sword against the enemy".[41] In the 11th century, the concept of a "knight of Christ" (miles Christi) gained currency in France, Spain, and Italy.[37] These concepts of "religious chivalry" were further elaborated in the era of theCrusades, with the Crusades themselves often seen as a chivalrous enterprise.[37] Themilitary orders of the crusades which developed in this period came to be seen as the earliest flowering of chivalry,[42] and some of their opponents likeSaladin were likewise depicted as chivalrous adversaries. It remains unclear to what extent the notable military figures of this period—such as Saladin,Godfrey of Bouillon,William Marshal, orBertrand du Guesclin—actually did set new standards of knightly behaviour, or to what extent they merely behaved according to existing models of conduct which came in retrospect to be interpreted along the lines of the "chivalry" ideal of the Late Middle Ages.[37] Nevertheless, chivalry and crusades were not the same thing. While the crusading ideology had largely influenced the ethic of chivalry during its[ambiguous] formative times, chivalry itself was related to a whole range of martial activities and aristocratic values which had no necessary linkage with crusading.[43]
TheVirgin Mary was venerated by multiple chivalric orders, including theTeutonic Knights, who honored her as their patroness.[44] The medieval development of chivalry, with the concept of the honour of a lady and the ensuing knightly devotion to it, not only derived from the thinking about Mary, but also contributed to it.[45] Although women were at times viewed as the source of evil, it was Mary who as mediator to God was a source of refuge for man. The development of medievalMariology and the changing attitudes towards women paralleled each other.[46]
The works of Roman poets likeOvid andCicero bore some similarities to the typical depiction of romance in chivalric literature during the Middle Ages. In Ovid's works, lovers "became sleepless, grew pale, and lost their appetite," while Cicero's works celebrated the "ennobling power of love". Some scholars also point to the romantic poetry of the Arabs as antecedents to the depiction of courtly love in medieval European literature. In the works of the Cordoban authorIbn Hazm, for example, "lovers develop passions for slave boys as well as girls, interchangeably, and the slave is recognized as now the master of his beloved." Ibn Hazm'sThe Ring of the Dove is a noteworthy depiction of a lover's extreme submissiveness.[47]
Medieval courtly literature glorifies the valour, tactics, and ideals of bothMoors and ancient Romans.[37] For example, the ancient handbook of warfare written byVegetius calledDe re militari was translated into French in the 13th century asL'Art de chevalerie byJean de Meun. Later writers also drew from Vegetius, such as Honoré Bonet, who wrote the 14th centuryL'Arbes des batailles, which discussed the morals and laws of war. In the 15th century,Christine de Pizan combined themes from Vegetius, Bonet, andFrontinus inLivre des faits d'armes et de chevalerie.[48]
In the 14th century,Jean Froissart wrote hisChronicles which captured much of theHundred Years' War, including theBattle of Crécy and later theBattle of Poitiers both of which saw the defeat of the French nobility by armies made up largely of common men usinglongbows. The chivalric tactic employed by the French armoured nobility, namely bravely charging the opposition in the face of a hail of arrows, failed repeatedly. Froissart noted the subsequent attacks by common English and Welsh archers upon the fallen French knights.
Chronicles also captured a series of uprisings by common people against the nobility, such as theJacquerie andThe Peasant's Revolt and the rise of the common man to leadership ranks within armies. Many of these men were promoted during the Hundred Years' War but were later left in France when the English nobles returned home, and became mercenaries in theFree Companies, for exampleJohn Hawkwood, the mercenary leader ofWhite Company. The rise of effective, paid soldiery replaced noble soldiery during this period, leading to a new class of military leader without any adherence to the chivalric code.
Chivalry underwent a revival and elaboration of chivalric ceremonial and rules ofetiquette in the 14th century that was examined byJohan Huizinga inThe Waning of the Middle Ages, which dedicates a chapter to "The idea of chivalry". In contrasting the literary standards of chivalry with the actual warfare of the age, the historian finds the imitation of an ideal past illusory; in an aristocratic culture such as Burgundy and France at the close of the Middle Ages, "to be representative of true culture means to produce by conduct, by customs, by manners, by costume, by deportment, the illusion of a heroic being, full of dignity and honour, of wisdom, and, at all events, of courtesy.... The dream of past perfection ennobles life and its forms, fills them with beauty and fashions them anew as forms of art".[49]
In the later Middle Ages, wealthy merchants strove to adopt chivalric attitudes. The sons of the bourgeoisie were educated at aristocratic courts, where they were trained in the manners of the knightly class.[37] This was a democratisation of chivalry, leading to a new genre called thecourtesy book, which were guides to the behaviour of "gentlemen". Thus, the post-medieval gentlemanly code of the value of a man's honour, respect for women, and a concern for those less fortunate, is directly derived from earlier ideals of chivalry and historical forces that created it.[37]
Japan was the only country that banned the use offirearms completely to maintain ideals of chivalry and acceptable form of combat. In 1543, Japan established a governmentmonopoly on firearms. The Japanese government destroyed firearms and enforced a preference for traditional Japanese weapons.[50]
Medieval historianRichard W. Kaeuper saw chivalry as a central focus in the study of the European Middle Ages that was too often presented as a civilizing and stabilizing influence in the turbulent Middle Ages. On the contrary, Kaueper argues "that in the problem of public order the knights themselves played an ambivalent, problematic role and that the guides to their conduct that chivalry provided were in themselves complex and problematic."[25]: 3 Many of the codes and ideals of chivalry were contradictory: when knights did live up to them, they did not lead to a more "ordered and peaceful society". The tripartite conception of medieval European society (those who pray, those who fight, and those who work) along with other linked subcategories of monarchy and aristocracy, worked in congruence with knighthood to reform the institution[ambiguous] in an effort "to secure public order in a society just coming into its mature formation."[25]: 4
Kaeuper says that knighthood and the worldview of "those who fight" was pre-Christian in many ways and outside the purview of the church, at least initially. The church saw it as a duty to reform and guide knights in a way that weathered the disorderly, martial, and chauvinistic elements of chivalry.[25]: 62–83 Royalty also clashed with knighthood over the conduct of warfare and personal disputes between knights and other knights (and even between knights and aristocracy).[25]: 93–97 While the worldview of "those who work" (the burgeoning merchant class and bourgeoisie) was still in incubation, Kaeuper states that the social and economic class that would end up defining modernity was fundamentally at odds with knights, and those with chivalrous valor saw the values of commerce as beneath them. Those who engaged in commerce and derived their value system from it could be confronted with violence by knights.[25]: 121–139
According to British historianDavid Crouch, many early writers on medieval chivalry cannot be trusted as accurate sources, because they sometimes have "polemical purpose which colours their prose".[51] As forKenelm Henry Digby and Léon Gautier, chivalry was a means to transform their corrupt and secular worlds.[52] Gautier also emphasized that chivalry originated from the Teutonic forests and was brought up into civilization by theCatholic Church.[53]Charles Mills used chivalry "to demonstrate that the Regency gentleman was the ethical heir of a great moral estate, and to provide an inventory of its treasure".[52] Mills also stated that chivalry was a social, not a military phenomenon, with its key features: generosity, fidelity, liberality, and courtesy.[54]
Chivalry was dynamic; it adjusted in response to local situations, and this probably led to its demise. There were many chivalric groups inEngland as imagined bySir Thomas Malory when he wroteLe Morte d'Arthur in the late 15th century;[55] perhaps each group created its own chivalric ideology. Malory's perspective reflects the condition of 15th-century chivalry.[56] WhenLe Morte d'Arthur was printed,William Caxton urged knights to read the romance with an expectation that reading about chivalry could unite a community of knights already divided by theWars of the Roses.[57]
During the earlyTudor rule inEngland, some knights still fought according to that ethos. Fewer knights were engaged in active warfare because battlefields during this century were generally the arena of professional infantrymen, with less opportunity for knights to show chivalry.[58] It was the beginning of the demise of the knight. The rank of knight never faded, butQueen Elizabeth I ended the tradition that any knight could create another, making this exclusively the preserve of the monarch.[59] Christopher Wilkins contends thatSir Edward Woodville, who rode from battle to battle across Europe and died in 1488 inBrittany, was the last knight errant who witnessed the fall of the Age of Chivalry and the rise of modern European warfare. By the time the Middle Ages came to an end, the code of chivalry was gone.[60][61]
.jpg)
Chivalry!—why, maiden, she is the nurse of pure and high affection—the stay of the oppressed, the redresser of grievances, the curb of the power of the tyrant—Nobility were but an empty name without her, and liberty finds the best protection in her lance and her sword.
—Walter Scott,Ivanhoe (1820)
The chivalric ideal persisted into the early modern and modern period. The custom of foundingchivalric orders by Europe's monarchs and high nobility peaked in the late medieval period, but it persisted during the Renaissance and well into the Baroque and early modern period, with e.g. the TuscanOrder of Saint Stephen (1561), the FrenchOrder of Saint Louis (1693) or theAnglo-IrishOrder of St. Patrick (1783), and numerousdynastic orders of knighthood remain active in countries that retain a tradition of monarchy.[citation needed]
At the same time, with the change of courtly ideas during theBaroque period, the ideals of chivalry began to be seen as dated, or "medieval".Don Quixote, published in 1605–15, burlesqued the medieval chivalric novel orromance by ridiculing the stubborn adherence to the chivalric code in the face of the modern world as anachronistic, giving rise to the termQuixotism. Conversely, elements ofRomanticism sought to revive such "medieval" ideals or aesthetics in the late 18th and early 19th century.[citation needed]
The behavioural code of military officers down to theNapoleonic era, theAmerican Civil War (especially as idealised in the "Lost Cause" mythology), and to some extent even toWorld War I, was still strongly modelled on the historical ideals, resulting in a pronouncedduelling culture, which in some parts of Europe also held sway over the civilian life of the upper classes. With thedecline of the Ottoman Empire, however, the military threat from the "infidel" disappeared. TheEuropean wars of religion spanned much of the early modern period and consisted of infighting between factions of various Christian denominations. This process ofconfessionalization ultimately gave rise to a new military ethos based onnationalism rather than "defending the faith against the infidel".[citation needed]
Social commentators of theVictorian era advocated for a revival of chivalry in order to remedy the ill effects of theIndustrial Revolution.Thomas Carlyle's "Captains of Industry" were to lead a "Chivalry of Labour", a beneficent form of governance that is hierarchical yet fraternal in nature, rather than materialistic.[62]John Ruskin's "Ideal Commonwealth" took chivalry as one of its basic characteristics.[63]
From theearly modern period, the termgallantry (fromgalant, theBaroque ideal of refined elegance) rather thanchivalry became used for the proper behaviour of upper-class men towards upper-class women. In the 19th century, there were attempts to revive chivalry for the purposes of thegentleman of that time.Kenelm Henry Digby wrote hisThe Broad-Stone of Honour for this purpose, offering the definition: "Chivalry is only a name for that general spirit or state of mind which disposes men to heroic actions, and keeps them conversant with all that is beautiful and sublime in the intellectual and moral world."[citation needed]
The pronouncedly masculine virtues of chivalry came under attack on the parts of themasculist and upper-classsuffragettes campaigning forgender equality in the early 20th century,[Note 4] and with the decline of the military ideals of duelling culture and of European aristocracies in general following the catastrophe ofWorld War I, the ideals of chivalry became widely seen as outmoded by the mid-20th century. As a material reflection of this process, thedress sword lost its position as an indispensable part of a gentleman's wardrobe, a development described as an "archaeological terminus" byEwart Oakeshott, as it concluded the long period during which thesword had been a visible attribute of the free man, beginning as early as three millennia ago with theBronze Age sword.[65][66][67][68]
During the 20th century, the chivalrous ideal of protecting women came to be seen as a trope of melodrama ("damsel in distress"). The termchivalry retains a certain currency in sociology, in reference to the general tendency of men, and of society in general, to lend more attention offering protection from harm to women than to men, or in notinggender gaps inlife expectancy,health, etc., also expressed inmedia bias giving significantly more attention to female than to male victims.[Note 5]
According toWilliam Manchester, GeneralDouglas MacArthur was a chivalric warrior who fought a war with the intention to conquer the enemy, eliminating their ability to strike back, then treated them with the understanding and kindness due their honour and courage. One prominent model of his chivalrous conduct was in World War II and his treatment of the Japanese at the end of the war.[70] On May 12, 1962, MacArthur gave a famous speech in front of the cadets of United States Military Academy atWest Point by referring to a great moral code, the code of conduct and chivalry, when emphasizing duty, honour, and country.[71]
With the rise ofmasculism, chivalry was criticized in terms ofmen's rights.[72][73]Ernest Bax described chivalry as "the deprivation, the robbery from men of the most elementary personal rights in order to endow women with privileges at the expense of men" inThe fraud of feminism (1913), and criticized theLadies First that took place in theTitanic sinking.[74]
Miguel de Cervantes, in Part I ofDon Quixote (1605), attackschivalric literature as historically inaccurate and therefore harmful, though he was in agreement with many so-called chivalric principles and guides to behavior. He toyed with but never intended to write a chivalric romance that was historically truthful.[75]
Peter Wright criticizes the tendency to produce singular descriptions of chivalry, claiming there are many variations or "chivalries". Among the different chivalries, Wright includes "military chivalry" complete with its code of conduct and proper contexts, and woman-directed "romantic chivalry" complete with its code of conduct and proper contexts, among others.[76]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
| Distinctions (Lists) |
|    | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ceremonies and events | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Related organisations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Related concepts | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
