It is nothing to be proud about. it was just a terrible barbaric tradition that the Church had to sanctify if it wanted to survive in the West.
They vowed to protect the weak and serve the Church, but what they did was rape and pillage abroad, opression and exploitation at home while being allways ready to fight against anyone, their own king or the Pope himself, if they were well payed. And they did all this with an attitude.
To appreciate the value of the concept of chivalry, one need only look to those contemporary societies that were without it. The Muslims, the Golden Horde, the states in the Far East--all were places where life was cheap, to be a woman was to be a chattel, and the concept of inalienable and universal human rights would have been laughed at. A peasant in medieval Europe may have had a hard life, but unlike his fellows overseas, he was never a slave--and he had rights.
That said, I'll agree with Dorothy Sayers, who in one of her mystery novels had her famous character Lord Peter Whimsey remark that "nine-tenths of chivalry is men wanting to have all of the fun".
I don't think that the first commenter was faulting so much the concept of chivalry, as he was the actual practice, or rather, non-practice of it that often prevailed.
As for the fourth commenter, please, contribute a thought, not what appears, at least, to be an emotionally out-of-control snarl.
Many authors that pushed chivalry were clerics as a means to civilize barbaric soldiers, in order to channel their virile energies into morally good actions. Chivalry had a good effect, even if not always effective. You cannot tame the warlike soul in a few years, human culture does not work that way, something modern social engineers should keep in mind. In the end chivalry was a very good thing, an evangelization of culture.
Image from the Internet.
It is nothing to be proud about. it was just a terrible barbaric tradition that the Church had to sanctify if it wanted to survive in the West.
ReplyDeleteThey vowed to protect the weak and serve the Church, but what they did was rape and pillage abroad, opression and exploitation at home while being allways ready to fight against anyone, their own king or the Pope himself, if they were well payed. And they did all this with an attitude.
I love this. :)
ReplyDeletewww.corpuschristianum.org
ReplyDeleteThe "rape and pillage" and "terrible barbaric tradition" is nothing but anti-Catholic garbage.
ReplyDeleteTo appreciate the value of the concept of chivalry, one need only look
ReplyDeleteto those contemporary societies that were without it. The Muslims,
the Golden Horde, the states in the Far East--all were places where
life was cheap, to be a woman was to be a chattel, and the concept of
inalienable and universal human rights would have been laughed at.
A peasant in medieval Europe may have had a hard life, but unlike his
fellows overseas, he was never a slave--and he had rights.
That said, I'll agree with Dorothy Sayers, who in one of her mystery
novels had her famous character Lord Peter Whimsey remark
that "nine-tenths of chivalry is men wanting to have all of the fun".
I don't think that the first commenter was faulting so much the concept of chivalry, as he was the actual practice, or rather, non-practice of it that often prevailed.
ReplyDeleteAs for the fourth commenter, please, contribute a thought, not what appears, at least, to be an emotionally out-of-control snarl.
Many authors that pushed chivalry were clerics as a means to civilize barbaric soldiers, in order to channel their virile energies into morally good actions. Chivalry had a good effect, even if not always effective. You cannot tame the warlike soul in a few years, human culture does not work that way, something modern social engineers should keep in mind. In the end chivalry was a very good thing, an evangelization of culture.
ReplyDeleteNothing at all wrong with chivalry, we need more manners. Just remember that some women are not called to marriage or religious life, OK?
ReplyDelete