| Author |
Message |
Ed Toton
|
 Posted: Tue 10 Feb, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Christopher Lee wrote: |
A belief in the ideal of chivalry, the cliches of parfait gentle knights and all that does not necessarily make a person chivalrous and vice versa in the same way that morality and ethics can exist without religion, truthfulness and courtesy can exist quite well without king arthur or the chevalier bayard; "chivalrous" behaviour and just basic good manners can exist without knights, indeed those qualities existed well before knights were around and can be found in societies that never had knights. It may be easier for some to aspire to be like such and such fictional or historical exemplars, i prefer to find my own way to that point without having to "try and be like someone".
|
Thank you for your clarification. The way your previous post read, it sounded like you were discounting the possibility that striving towards chivalrous ideals could provide a positive influence for anyone today, simply because they weren't always exemplified back then.
While it's true that many (perhaps most) knights did not fully live up to chivalrous ideals, that in no way diminishes their value, IMHO. Modern people tend to consider it to be antiquated, or they buy into the Victorian vilification of it. But so long as people hold in high esteem virtues such as truth, justice, honor, and integrity, there will always be a place for it in our modern world, even if it is no longer called Chivalry.
It's part of our heritage, so it's up to us to decide its value. 
But one point I wanted to make, is that I see no harm in having role-models, even fictitious ones. Heck, Captain Kirk and Duncan McLeod where some of mine for a while there. Are they necessary for one's personal growth? Perhaps not. But people often need to find inspiration where they can, and historically, the knights were inspired by fiction as well, in the form of the Arthurian romances for example.
-Ed T. Toton III
ed.toton.org | ModernChivalry.org
My armor photos on facebook
|
|
   |
 |
|
Eric Allen
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Feb, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ed Toton wrote: |
But one point I wanted to make, is that I see no harm in having role-models, even fictitious ones. Heck, Captain Kirk and Duncan McLeod where some of mine for a while there. Are they necessary for one's personal growth? Perhaps not. But people often need to find inspiration where they can, and historically, the knights were inspired by fiction as well, in the form of the Arthurian romances for example. |
In a way, that is the purpose of fictional heroes. Captain Kirk, the Knights of the Round Table, because they are fictitious they can exemplify a cultural ideal more easily.
My take on things is that while striving to exemplify our heroes is often a desirable thing and can serve as a personal anchor of sorts, sometimes we need to be careful about just how far we take our reverence. Fictional characters are easy to uphold as wonderful examples of an ideal, be it ideals of chivalry or anything else. But when we do this with historical persons, sometimes we start to lose sight that these people were only human--just like us--with their own failings and often the mythos we've built up around them turns out to not quite be who the person really was.
I hate to break it to anyone, but George Washington probably never chopped down his father's cherry tree as a boy.
Someone is, naturally, free to exemplify what they see as the qualities of a historical figure, but often what people will do is pick out the good qualities of their chosen hero and ignore the bad--essentially turning a real-life person into a fictional character. At times like these, I think it is helpful to remember the humanity of our historical heroes--see them for who they really were. To put it in a literary sense, Keats once accused Isaac Newton of diminishing the beauty of the rainbow with his experiments with prisms reducing light to its constituent colors. However, i feel that Newton did the exact opposite. By investigating and increasing our understanding of the phenomenon, he only enhanced the beauty and wonder of it all and opened the door for even more amazing inquiry.
I feel the same applies to our historical heroes. By laying bear their flaws, we enhance their intrigue. Some may object, like Keats, claiming this robs us of the heroic mantle in which we have draped these figures, but I feel it is the opposite; by exposing their failings and their true actions even at the expense of stripping away the layers of myth we have built around them, we expose their humanity which makes them even more intriguing. We may find that characters such as William Marshal, Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, Edward the Black Prince, and such fall short of the chivalric ideals that have been built up around them (both by us and those that came before us dating all the way back to their contemporaries).
Chivalry was a product of the times--and its definition varied across Europe and time meaning everything from simply bravery on the battlefield to incorporating ideals of courtly love. saying someone is a good example of a chivalric knight could mean they are an absolute terror on the battlefield or that they are a pious, gentle, generous person who always holds open doors for the ladies depending on who is saying it and when.
In a post-enlightenment society some of the details of some of the versions of knightly codes of conduct, and some of the actions historically performed by persons claiming to have been adhering to the codes may strike us as downright barbaric. Some--perhaps many--of the knightly class failed miserably in adhering to the ideal (the outlawed Folville brothers come to mind). But in a way, exposing the failings of the actual medieval knights in regard to their own ideal of chivalric behavior tells us more about who the knights really were than just chivalry itself ever could.
just my $.02
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Tue 10 Feb, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I was young, I wanted to be like the chivalrous knights of "old". In my younger youth, this ideal caused me to never take up smoking, never steal, never cheat, never get drunk, never use someone for my own gain, never use a woman for sex, never let someone down, never break a promise, and never forget a debt. I was ignorant, then, of reality I believe.
I met many others, some older, some younger, who aspired to "greater" things, but used the "still human" excuse to cover for deplorable behavior, much like we have seen politics, religion, and science abused for the same reasons. Sometimes, fictional characters are better role models than the real deal.
Or at least this one thinks.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
    |
|
|
F. Carl Holz
|
| Posted: Wed 11 Feb, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric Allen is right, real or fictional we must see both the flaws and strengths of the character. The catch it to see them and say not "yes they have so much right, if only they didn't have this or that flaw," but instead "and even with these short comings they have still managed all this!"
the real trouble is finding a way to balance the world with the ideal. I will one day let someone down (indeed I, as most of us, have already) but I must continue to try not to non the less. in spite of the improbability of achieving it in whole we must still work toward the ideal. Giving up is worse than failing.
|
|
 |
|
Gene Green
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Feb, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I read the history of the Crusades, I couldn't help but notice that the crusaders - who represented the entire knightly class of Europe - were barbaric bloodthirsty murderers with seemingly no ethic code whatsoever, not only by modern standards but also when compared to their contemporaries on other side (e.g. the Saracens).
I wonder to which extend the "chivalrous knight" ideal was made up after the passing of the knightly era, or at least at the very end of it. Such knights seemed to be in short supply in XI-XIII centuries.
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Feb, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | When I read the history of the Crusades, I couldn't help but notice that the crusaders - who represented the entire knightly class of Europe - were barbaric bloodthirsty murderers with seemingly no ethic code whatsoever, not only by modern standards but also when compared to their contemporaries on other side (e.g. the Saracens).
I wonder to which extend the "chivalrous knight" ideal was made up after the passing of the knightly era, or at least at the very end of it. Such knights seemed to be in short supply in XI-XIII centuries. |
May I suggest you read Tyerman rather than Runciman before accepting popular assumptions in re: the Crusades. The former (who authored God's War) provides a much more nuanced account of the motivation, background and intrigues surrounding these campaigns than some (Ridley Scott notwithstanding). Comparisons between Richard I and Saladin (for example) are often based upon faulty understandings regarding protocols for the taking of a city that has surrendered vs one that has not surrendered. However we might judge these men from a modern point of view we should at least be careful to judge them aright in light of contemporary rules of engagement.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Feb, 2009 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gene Green wrote: | When I read the history of the Crusades, I couldn't help but notice that the crusaders - who represented the entire knightly class of Europe - were barbaric bloodthirsty murderers with seemingly no ethic code whatsoever, not only by modern standards but also when compared to their contemporaries on other side (e.g. the Saracens).
|
Not just the Saracens but the Byzantines too. Which is why they asked the Pope for help. The Byzantines quickly found out that they got more then then bargained for when the Crusaders refused to honer their deal of returning recaptured lands to the Byzantines.
Back on topic...
I have been studying the history of the English Language. I am now focusing on the development of Middle English out of old English. It is interesting to note that in Chaucer's time (1343-1400) English was not the high language in England. French was stemming from the 1066 conquest. Latin was the language of the learned. Chaucer, would have been schooled in all three. It is interesting that he even wrote in English in his time... but.... and here is something interesting.... There are no original manuscripts from Chaucer's time. All the surviving works are from a later period and appear edited.
One professor, whose lecture I attended, said that it seems like at a later time when English was accepted as the high language, they may have edited the literature of Chaucer and destroyed the earlier works in an effort to formalize English. Furthermore, in Chaucer's time it would have been hard to identify what English was, since it was not the official language in the Kings court. English spoken throughout England was so different that people from the north of England could barely communicate with people of the south of England. The same could be said of east and west.
The works of Chaucer as it survives is Chancery English. This was a formal writing convention developed by Chancery Clerks for official use. It was a speaking, writing and spelling convention not actually in use anywhere. Out of these conventions, and thanks to the printing press, we get the beginnings of modern standardized English. Amazingly, and unlike what I expected, English as we know it and the spelling was created rather then naturally evolved. We do not know the extent to which the clerics in the Chancery edited Chaucer's works for the sake of promoting their own version of English...
Here is something interesting. "thou" was informal and "you" is the formal.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Feb, 2009 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | [
Here is something interesting. "thou" was informal and "you" is the formal. |
Sort of like in French where TU is informal and impolite to use with new acquaintances and is normally used between people who are friends or at least have had some sort of regular friendly contact.
VOUS is the " polite " and respectful form and also can be the plural form of TU which is always one person.
Might just be a coincidence but THOU and TU seem related as far as sound is concerned.
VOUS and YOU also sound similar: Influence of French on English in this time period is far from improbable.  
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sun 01 Mar, 2009 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, they were very closely related indeed--"you" was also the plural as well as the polite form of the second-person pronoun. English is rather unusual among European languages in that its current form has lost the singular vs. plural distinction in the second person pronoun. Even non-Romantic tongues like German generally still retain the distinction (between non-capitalized "du" and capitalized "Sie" in this case).
(This page: http://www.bardweb.net/content/thou.html has a decent explanation of the messy distinction in English.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic