I want to tip my hat to you folks, who have generated a fine discussion in not just one but several of the comment threads below. I'd like to draw attention to a few of the remarks.
Fiacha has some advice for wife-seekers:
An old man told me how to find a good woman, ask, Can she ride? Can she dance? Can she shoot? Sounds terribly sexist, I am afraid, but its not about her capabilities nor is it a vetting process so I find someone that enoys my hobbies.I'm not sure I can improve upon that. If any of you would like to try, however, have at it.
A gun means many things to many people, to me it means the ability to stand up and protect,
A horse is a symbol of dealing wiht and utilizing that which can be both dangerous and intimidating but is very useful.
The ability to dance is about confidence and trust.
Meanwhile, The Lady of the Lake thread is still going on. Lumpenscholar and I had an exchange this morning that seems fruitful:
Well, I am late to this meeting of the Hall, it seems, and what a wonderful discussion it was to read.This has been one of the finest discussions we've had, and I want to thank all of you for participating in it. There is much here to consider even yet.
In hopes someone is tending the coals, restless of mind, and may be around to listen, and I hope to reply ...
Regarding Jeff's argument:
Grim, when we have a code for men, but for women you say "One of the chief things to understand about chivalry (and courtly love) is how heavily women influenced the ethic to begin with", it does indeed make it sound like men are servants and women can do whatever they please.
When I enlisted in the military, I signed a contract. I knew what was expected of me (even if only in ideal terms at the time), and I knew what I could expect. When a knight swore fealty, he had that same assurance: he knew what he gave, and he knew what he received in return. In an age and nation when men are routinely taken advantage of, and in a society that sees that abuse as proper revenge for historical wrongs, it is hard to embrace a moral contract of service that does not come with some clearly defined expectations.
douglas speaks to this, and I hope he can in some way communicate how he handles this with his daughter.
My answer, as far as I've thought it out to date, is that it is a lady's responsibility to be worthy of any service she may require of a knight. Likewise, when the roles are reversed and it is the lady who renders service to a knight (as also happened in the old stories), the knight can do no less than ensure he is worthy of such service. Indeed, receiving such service can be a great motivator to be worthy.
At the same time, a knight and a lady are both free to ignore those they consider unworthy of service. Not all women in distress are ladies worth rescuing, and not all men in armor are knights worth guiding.
In that vein, Grim, you wrote: "We've discussed Eleanor of Aquitaine... She was accused of every sort of unchastity in her lifetime ... and never lacked for knights ready to declare themselves her willing servants and true lovers."
Setting aside the guilt or innocence of the lady, I think that pointing out an action and saying a knight did it does not make for a valid exemplar. There were Good knights and Evil knights, true knights and false. If chivalry is to mean anything, it must give us virtue, it must point out the actions of true, Good knights and give them honor, and it must also point out the actions of false, Evil knights and damn them. If it is the case that virtuous knights rose to her defense, then it tells us something indirectly about her. On the other hand, she was a powerful, beautiful woman and there were enticing, less-than-virtuous reasons for knights to come to her defense.
Not all those who bear arms are virtuous, and while it may be best for us to see our enemies as fellows in chivalry who have agreed to this bloody contract, it does not make it true.
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 12:08 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still reading.
As to your first point:
In a more recent post, we've been talking about oaths: the oath of enlistment, the pledge of alliegence. None of them posit what you are asking for here: none of them say, "I promise X, and in return, I realize I shall receive Y."
Rather, they say, "I promise X." Your reasons for taking the oath are in a sense your own: the oath is about service, though, not benefits.
Why do you take the pledge, or swear the oath of enlistment?
Why would you pledge love to a lady?
De Charny's response is excellent here. I mentioned it above, as re: marriage, but it applies to love of this chivalrous kind also.
De Charny says -- not just here, but throughout his work -- that there are many kinds of good men; but then he tries to separate out the good from the better, and the better from the best, and says consistently: "He who does best is most worthy."
So in marriage, he notes that there are those who enter into the oath of love in expectation, and that is fine; but these are unlikely to have happy marriages. Their reasons to serve are not really based in love, but in considerations of gain, and therefore they will be unhappy 'for the devils must be at their wedding.'
Then there are some who marry for children, or to have company in their age, or for other good reasons; and they will be happy, and are doing better.
But the best of all are those who with their wives "live joyfully and pleasantly."
If love is true, it seeks no reward but itself. There is no greater reward to be had.
Yet if love is true, it is rewarded. Though not sought, all these things that a man might seek do come: for a true lover will give not only generously, but even of her last penny of money and her last ounce of strength.
The place to focus your mind and heart, then, is not on the gains you expect or demand. It is on finding what you love.
To your second point:
De Charny agrees -- and so do I -- that bearing arms is not virtuous in itself. He devotes a page to "those unworthy to be men at arms," which include: those who wage war without a good reason; those who attack without warning; those who are dishonorable, or cowards; and those who allow men under their command to behave in such ways, even if they would not personally.
Eleanor of Aquitaine was accused of very many things. She never lacked for defenders, and perhaps some of them were like the suitors who marry for money or gain. Yet perhaps the charges were false, given by the sort of men who seek through slander to hurt those whom they cannot hope to best in any honorable contest.
The old way to deal with such claims was in trial by combat, "And may God defend the Right." We have other ways, though I sometimes wonder if we have better ones. We have a media that chases madly after slanders against Gov. Palin, excusing themselves by claiming that they have no choice given their refusal to chase after John Edwards. These things are tried in a court of media, with no final end to the claim possible -- you can still today read conspiracy theories about every politician and public figure of the last decade. The proven ones are still denied; the disproven ones are still believed.
Much is made of the fact that, under the old system, a strong man might spread lies and simply kill those who dared to challenge him. Yet not enough is made of the fact that such lies carried a price, and a danger. Now they are free, and as numerous as a plague of frogs. In Eleanor's day, at least there was a brake on the tongues of cowardly men.
Grim | 09.08.08 - 1:01 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In writing a draft of a post on this topic, I re-read Grim's original post. It seems he answered Jeff's concern and gave my own answer here:
The key things that matter are these: the lady is noble of spirit ... she is morally worthy of service ...
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 1:02 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite right. And if she is worthy of love, and you love her, you and she will find "joyful and pleasant" rewards. :)
Grim | 09.08.08 - 1:05 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your replies, Grim.
First, a point of disagreement. My point about Eleanor's defenders was simply that, unless we know why they defended her, we cannot say it was virtuous behavior. When you put them forth as an example, I took it to mean that because knights did it, it was chivalrous, which I disagree with. Although of course I might have misunderstood your example.
On to more profitable points.
If love is true, it seeks no reward but itself. There is no greater reward to be had.
But-but-but, that takes COURAGE!
:-D
I have to laugh at myself, else I'll soon call myself a coward.
Yet if love is true, it is rewarded.
And that takes faith, and hope, to go with the charity of seeking to love in the first place.
As the Go players say, "Victory lies in the attack," i.e., you can't win if you're focus is only on not losing.
Thank you for posting on this. It is exactly what I needed right now. It is late and I need to move on, but I will revisit this thread soon.
From Ecclesiastes 9:7-10: "Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun ... Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."
lumpenscholar | Homepage | 09.08.08 - 2:46 am | #
No comments:
Post a Comment