![]() ![]() Hence churchmen usually forbore to attack war itself but instead denounced its concomitants-homicide and rapine. Although practically all mediaeval warfare was unjust according to the church’s teaching, it was the traditional occupation of the dominant class of contemporary society. While both nobles and ecclesiastics admired prowess as a knightly quality, their respective attitudes toward the practice of that virtue differed widely.Īnother circumstance which tended to conceal the true relation between feudal chivalry and Christian ethics was the church’s inclination to compromise as much as possible with the political and economic conditions of the lay world. But war was the principal function of the feudal class, and the ability to fight well was the chief virtue of feudal chivalry. In short if the teachings of the church had been strictly observed, there would have been little fighting during the Middle Ages. Even then the motive had to be the desire for justice not the hope of profit. A war was just when it was conducted by a sovereign prince in defense of his patrimony or to suppress evil-doers. The mediaeval church had no objection to just wars, but its definition of legitimate warfare if taken literally would have banned practically all contemporary military activities except the crusades. The divergence between the two points of view became apparent only when these virtues were concretely interpreted and translated into practice. Prowess, loyalty, generosity, and the desire for glory could be admired by both churchmen and laymen. In analyzing the ecclesiastical attitude toward feudal chivalry it is necessary to bear in mind that the precepts of the latter in the abstract did not conflict in any way with the teachings of the church. Hence when we examine the ecclesiastical views, we deal with fine, strong trumpet blasts, but the opposition can be heard only in soft defiant whistles. Not until the Renaissance did one dare to attack chastity openly. Andrew the Chaplain placed his general assault on women and love in a separate section of his book under the title De reprobatione amoris, but his direct attacks on the moral teachings of the church were carefully tucked away in his imaginary colloquies. ![]() The opinions of the churchmen about feudal and courtly chivalry were openly expressed and can easily be found by the historian, but the replies of the other side must be pieced together from sly, fugitive passages scattered through the mass of contemporary literature. These traditional custodians of the truth considered it their privilege and even their duty to denounce their opponents while those who disagreed with them hesitated to incur the wrath of the church. In short I hope to demonstrate the essential irreconcilability of the three types of chivalry and to show how this difficulty was solved by the men of mediaeval France.Īs one would expect, the largest volume of criticism of chivalric ideas and practices came from the pens of ecclesiastics. ![]() My object in this chapter is to glance at some of the criticisms which churchmen and protagonists of courtly love made of each other’s theories and of those of feudal chivalry and then to examine some of the composite ideals which may be found in contemporary literature. When trouvères described the heroes of their tales or didactic writers propounded codes of conduct for young nobles, they constructed perfect knights to suit their own tastes. But while the three sets of chivalric ideas were irreconcilable as a whole, one could easily choose elements from each to form a consistent composite ideal. Churchmen and trouvères paused now and then in the midst of propagating their own theories to take a shot at those of their rivals, and knightly writers did not hesitate to criticize both the religious and the courtly ideals. The fact that these three sets of chivalric ideas were mutually exclusive was fully realized during the Middle Ages. Léon Gautier performed to his own satisfaction the rather astonishing feat of fitting Raoul de Cambrai and Roland, feudal and religious chivalry, into one pattern, but he was forced to consign Lancelot and the courtly ideal to the outer darkness. ![]() The three types of chivalry were to some extent at least irreconcilable. THE reader who has perused the last three chapters must realize that mediaeval France knew neither a single ideal of knighthood nor a universally accepted code of chivalry. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |