Assessment of "Code..."
Note: It is not my intent to spend a significant quantity of time or energy on topics of this nature, however some discussion has arisen concerning chivalry; specifically in relation to the ideas presented in a certain website. I have, therefore, felt that at least one post on the subject would be prudent.
I am indebted to my dear friend for directing my attention to this most interesting presentation of chivalry. (I highly recommend reading both The Code of Chivalry and the Rules of Courtly Love found in that link before venturing into the thoughts I pose here.)
At a glance, the ideas may seem quite noble, or they may seem rather revolting. I expect that, for most of my readership, the Code of Chivalry will prove the former, and the Rules of Courtly Love will tend toward the latter. While I may go into some depth on all of the lists and points included, I desire first to consider "The Twelve Chief Rules in Love"; the first list of the Rules of Courtly Love and the third list in all.
Probably the most distressing of these are Rules 3, 4, 6, & 10, which possess the indeed distressing implication that the Love discussed is not one of Godly relations between Husband and Wife, but rather an extra-marital affair. There is a distinct and disturbing fixation on secrecy pervading the rules which can lead the reader to no other conclusion than that the relationship is clandestine, rank with adulterous implications.
As our moral Sensibilities are offended, however, let us not abandon our sensibilities as students of Culture and, in essence, History. "The Twleve Chief Rules in Love" were written (or compiled, as the case may be) by Andreas Capellanus between 1174 and 1186. At this time, extra-marital affairs were not uncommon; one might even call them a social norm. Of course, by no means do I wish to condone an action simply by it's status as a cultural norm. Adultery and fornication are, in all cases, deplorable acts; however, such knowledge does afford us greater perspective when considering these Rules. Having addressed this, I would venture to propose that this list is not one to be disregarded as a vicious code for a perverse society, but rather a list of noble aspirations which have been compromised by the perverse premises that are wont to feed on virtue in any society. The first Rule discourages avarice; the fifth promotes Integrity. Many of the following Rules require Humility and Honour. I would futher contend that the Rules neither recommend, nor condone immorality. That which we have come to know to be immoral was merely an assumed practice, and the rules naturally fall within the cultural boundaries. Again, I do not condone such actions, I only contend that these Rules deserve to be viewed with due respect and consideration.
Your servant,
Aurenande
I am indebted to my dear friend for directing my attention to this most interesting presentation of chivalry. (I highly recommend reading both The Code of Chivalry and the Rules of Courtly Love found in that link before venturing into the thoughts I pose here.)
At a glance, the ideas may seem quite noble, or they may seem rather revolting. I expect that, for most of my readership, the Code of Chivalry will prove the former, and the Rules of Courtly Love will tend toward the latter. While I may go into some depth on all of the lists and points included, I desire first to consider "The Twelve Chief Rules in Love"; the first list of the Rules of Courtly Love and the third list in all.
Probably the most distressing of these are Rules 3, 4, 6, & 10, which possess the indeed distressing implication that the Love discussed is not one of Godly relations between Husband and Wife, but rather an extra-marital affair. There is a distinct and disturbing fixation on secrecy pervading the rules which can lead the reader to no other conclusion than that the relationship is clandestine, rank with adulterous implications.
As our moral Sensibilities are offended, however, let us not abandon our sensibilities as students of Culture and, in essence, History. "The Twleve Chief Rules in Love" were written (or compiled, as the case may be) by Andreas Capellanus between 1174 and 1186. At this time, extra-marital affairs were not uncommon; one might even call them a social norm. Of course, by no means do I wish to condone an action simply by it's status as a cultural norm. Adultery and fornication are, in all cases, deplorable acts; however, such knowledge does afford us greater perspective when considering these Rules. Having addressed this, I would venture to propose that this list is not one to be disregarded as a vicious code for a perverse society, but rather a list of noble aspirations which have been compromised by the perverse premises that are wont to feed on virtue in any society. The first Rule discourages avarice; the fifth promotes Integrity. Many of the following Rules require Humility and Honour. I would futher contend that the Rules neither recommend, nor condone immorality. That which we have come to know to be immoral was merely an assumed practice, and the rules naturally fall within the cultural boundaries. Again, I do not condone such actions, I only contend that these Rules deserve to be viewed with due respect and consideration.
Your servant,
Aurenande
posted by Aurenande | 2:00 PM
4 Comments:
You'll find my response to you on my site in a bit.
It was not my intent to imply that I accept chivalry as an editted whole; I meant only to say that I don't think the fundamental ideas behind the "Rules" were particularly perverse; but that the list was corrupted by societal norms. I was not addressing chivalry in general. My apologies for any confusion my wording may have caused.
I think this is less accepting what we do or don't think about the code itself but rather agreeing on what the definition on "chivalry" even is- I proposed that it should be viewed simply by our modern defintion, with due attention paid to the classical definition where merited. It think that the classical definition is probably more accurate, for lack of a better term, but the modern is clearly the better version. So we have to choose between historical accuracy and clarity. Either that or come up with some other term for it.
I suppose, Curtis, that I have largely left you to lead the discussion where you will (the direction you indicate thus far seems an excellent one), while I return to my earlier pursuits, namely the exploration of the facets and traits of the modern gentleman. Our discussions will without a doubt cross paths and lend themselves quite handily one to the other, but I feel that I must maintain my original 'charter', if you will. I look forward to reading and providing my perspective on your future posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home