9 June 2009

S. Hayes-Healy

Chivalry: A Real or Literary Construct?

Was chivalry, the idealized knightly code of conduct, an actual social force in the
Middle Ages, or was it more widely represented in the pages of the wildly popular
romantic literature? Did chivalric literature simply mirror or actively shape constructions
of chivalric behavior? What effect did this behavior have on medieval society? It will be
argued that chivalric literature functioned as a two-way conduit, reinforcing ideals while
attempting to critique and improve the system, and that the very real effect chivalry had
was one of distinct ambivalence. While it refined the social hierarchy so that the knightly
class (chevalrie) stood alongside the clergy (clergie) and royalty (royauté) as the three
buttresses of medieval society, its glamorization of “heroic violence” contributed to,
rather than solved, the problems of public unrest and disruptive aggression. 1
How to approach a definition of the word chivalry? Derived from the French for
knight, chevalier, 2 it encapsulates both a social order and the specific code of ethics to
which that order is expected to adhere. Maurice Keen sees difficulties in precise
characterization, arguing that it is best described as “an ethos in which martial,
aristocratic, and Christian elements were fused together.” 3 However, Richard Kaeuper
finds it easier. His one-word definition, “prowess,” 4 hints at the problems which chivalry
caused when integrated into medieval society. Since “prowess,” in the context of
chivalric behavior, is explicitly identified with martial abilities and the causing of
gruesome injury, it necessitates the “privileged practice of violence.” 5 In fact, it formed a
keystone of their identity. 6 Tournaments and jousts were created as a way of restraining
and reducing this violence, 7 but war was regarded as the desirable, even natural
condition. 8 One romance went so far as to characterize those who prefer peace as “mean-
spirited and cowardly.” 9
Here, we are given our first opportunity to inspect the crossroads of chivalric
literature and chivalric behavior. Is this a mutually reinforcing cycle, the romances’
dramatic exaltations of blood and dismemberment feeding into the knights’ personal
mythology and giving them justification for whatever acts of war they could dream up? 10
1
See Richard W. Kaeuper, Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. (Oxford; Oxford University Press;
1999.
2
Maurice Keen, Chivalry. (New Haven, CT; Yale University Press; 1984), 1.
3
Keen, 16.
4
Kaeuper, 135.
5
See Kaeuper, Chapter 7: “The Privileged Practice of Violence: Worship of the Demi-God Prowess.”
6
Kaeuper, 143.
7
Keen, 86. See Chapter 5, “The Rise of the Tournament.”
8
Kaeuper, 162-63.
9
Kaeuper, 163.
10
See Kaeuper, “The Role of Chivalric Mythology,” 199.
Or is it, perhaps, drawing attention to the social problems that arise when a highly trained
subset of warriors is encouraged to employ vivid, gratuitous violence? 11 Kaeuper cites an
example from the popular Arthurian legends, in which Sir Lancelot (often called the
“flower of chivalry”) is haunted by a pack of “demon knights,” black and menacing,
“who fight each other furiously, and their combat is long.” 12 Lancelot sees them in a
graveyard, “mounted on horseback, ready for combat, and they seemed to be staring at
him, watching him.” 13 Is this, as Kaeuper suggests, a manifestation of the “dark side” of
the order of which Lancelot himself is a part? It’s certainly possible to read it with a
psychological bent, cautioning him to recognize and avoid it in himself.
Was the martial element of chivalry completely negative? In the struggle between
militia and malitia, or “ideal service” weighed against simply “badness,” 14 was the
destructive force given too much weight? The answer is complex. An essential
component of chivalric warfare was honorable conduct, and the spread of chivalry
introduced a civilizing element for the knights themselves, increasing truces and safe-
conducts and reducing the torture and murder of prisoners. 15 Chivalric literature
sustained a spirited debate about what was “fair” and “unfair” within combat. 16 But
again, questions are raised. Was the emphasis on “restraint, balance, and reason” included
specifically, taking advantage of the popularity of chivalric literature in an attempt to
counteract a dangerous tendency? 17 18 Did this honor fail to be extended beyond the
knightly ranks? And if so, was it simply a case of “might makes right,” or was there
another social bedrock that justified this state of affairs? To find the answer, we must
examine Keen’s second component of chivalry: the aristocratic.
Before the formalization of the chivalric order, fighting men were simply that –
known as miles (plural milites), or “professional soldier(s).” 19 The word connoted
subservience and low social standing, was not indicative of landholders or even
freedmen, 20 but nonetheless, as warriors, the milites were recognized as a class separate
from the general public. 21 Chivalry drastically sharpened these distinctions, and here
again we can specifically point to the influence of its literature.
In essence, the chivalric literature helped to create a self-fulfilling state of affairs.
By glamorizing the practice of valiant warfare by young men of good stock, it
encouraged these young men to do just that. 22 However, it is important to emphasize that
11
Kaeuper, 24.
12
Kaeuper, 23.
13
Kaeuper, 24.
14
Kaeuper, 64.
15
Kaeuper, 169.
16
Kaeuper, 170.
17
Kaeuper, 145.
18
Chivalric literature was widely read and referred to among men of “war, law, and politics.” If it justified
their actions, it also provided inspiration and guidance. Kaeuper, 145.
19
Keen, 27.
20
See Kaeuper, Chapter 9, “Social Dominance of Knights.”
21
Keen, 28.
22
Keen, 10. See also Kaeuper, 190.
these conceptions had certainly not grown exclusively in the garden of imaginative
fiction. Some of the most influential works – the History of William Marshal, the Book of
the Ordre of Chyvalry, and the Book of Chivalry – were written by or about men who had
spent their lives as knights, and whose experiences were held up as the standard. 23
It was not responsible for launching the mythos single-handedly, as the
commencement of the Crusades had sharply increased the visibility and moral
desirability of knighthood, 24 but it fit into the emerging pattern of mutual reinforcement,
helping to refine knighthood into a much more difficult and praiseworthy achievement.
The ceremony of dubbing came to represent entry into this rarefied realm, and
accordingly, aristocratic lineage became a prerequisite. In William the Conqueror’s day,
there were almost 6,000 knights in England, some of which had to be specified as “free
knights,” but by the 1200s, there were half that number, with half that number again –
about 1,250 – having been formally dubbed. 25 Chivalry, in both status and ethos, had
come to forcefully represent the third governing branch, the warriors, as a counterpoint to
the royalty and the clergy. It is the latter, Keen’s third defining criteria, that must be
examined to see how its influence came to be cemented: the strongly Christian aspect,
and chivalry’s ascent to not merely an order of warriors with a dash of idealistic polish,
but to an all-consuming culture that was practiced as devotedly as a religion in itself.
The relationship between clergy and chivalry is again complex. Chivalric
literature lauded intense personal piety as a vital component of the chivalric identity, with
heroes never failing to hear mass or engage in their daily devotions, injecting religious
language even into more secular situations. 26 This can in some part be traced to the
emerging social influence of the Crusades, and the conception of knights as holy
warriors, 27 but herein we come across the central tension. The Church by nature had to
sanction the violence the Crusaders used to defend the Holy Lands, but that left them
with a delicate line to walk when it came to restraining the violence the knights employed
domestically – which the knights themselves considered just as divinely approved. 28
Kaeuper cites an example from the romances that makes a startling point:
And when Sir Gawainet saw what [an enemy king] was doing, and the great
slaughter of his people, he was certain that he was a highborn man of mighty
stock, and he showed by the way that he fought that he was a king or prince; Sir
Gawainet highly esteemed him, and would have been glad if he was a Christian. 29

This is crucial to understanding the influences that informed a chivalric knight’s

view of himself. It incorporates all the key themes: martial skill, “mighty stock,” and
23
See Keen, “Introduction: The Idea of Chivalry.”
24
Kaeuper, 190.
25
Kaeuper, 189-9 1.
26
See Kaeuper, Chapter 3: “Knights and Piety.”
27
Kaeuper, 46-47.
28
See Kaeuper, Preface to “Part III: The Link with Royauté.”
29
Kaeuper, 131.
divine approval expressed through the successful execution of savagely warlike deeds. In
a sense, chivalry built on the bedrock of religion, but “for its own purposes, virtually on
its own terms.” 30 It provided a useful justification for their violence, their martial
abilities, and their social dominance by linking it to the will of God. 31 It is simple to see
how the men with access to these components could exercise such authority, even as such
a small minority.
In conclusion, the synthesis of our original questions must be considered. Were
the frequent exhortations to reason, prayer, and moderation included in the chivalric
literature in an attempt to address a troubling lack of these qualities among the chivalric
knights of reality? It seems perfectly possible. But a distinction must be made here.
Medieval society did not suffer from unrest because the knights were practicing chivalry
imperfectly, failing to live up to the grandiose expectations laid out in romances. 32
Rather, it is because chivalry was being prescribed as a solution to a problem that it
formed a fundamental part of. 33 It is not because, as Kaeuper points out, that they were
falling short of their own high standards, but rather because chivalry could be defined so
bluntly as skill at physical warfare. “The knight can do chivalry just as he can make love;
it has this dimension as a physical prowess.” 34
When reinforced with aristocratic lineage and ecclesiastical justification, it
became an extremely powerful force, personally and publically. Kaeuper illuminates it
well. “Chivalry created elaborate codes designed to refine knightly behavior and to set
knights apart from others. Showing elegant manners became increasingly important;
knowing how to talk and act in refined company and especially with ladies was added to
knowing how best to drive a sword-edge through a mail coif into a man’s brain.” 35
Encouraged by troubadours to view “courtly love” as the archetype, of chastely longing
from afar without hope of consummation (an argument that nonetheless got them into
trouble with many an irate male relative) medieval knights were certainly no kind of early
feminists. Women could not have chivalry or even aspire to it, and the rigidly hierarchal
nature of medieval society, not systematically questioned until the fourteenth century
with the emergence of John Wycliffe and the Lollards, prescribed them as automatically
and completely inferior to men (a position reinforced by the resurge of Aristotelian
influence in the scholastic theology of the thirteenth century). Moreover, the exhortation

30
Kaeuper, 51.
31
Kaeuper, 50.
32
Maurice Keen does criticize the romances on these premises, arguing that they laid out a reflection of life
that was too idealistic and superb. Certainly it’s clear that no human being could live up to their standards,
but the distinction to be made is that, as laid out, the chivalric literature functioned both as suggestion and
reinforcement. Perhaps its social critiques were even too oblique, so that the chivalrous knight saw himself
reflected only as a paragon of medieval society and failed to appreciate the fact that changes to his
everyday behavior might have been being gently suggested.
33
Kaueper, 125.
34
Kaueper, 139.
35
Kaueper, 7.
for knights to treat women well only extended to noblewomen. A soldier could kill or
rape a common girl, and not be thought to have abrogated his chivalric responsibilities.
In this sense, a comparison can be drawn between medieval chivalric views of
women and early Christian virginity cults. A woman in the second or third century was
celebrated for having chosen to pursue a celibate, ascetic lifestyle to the glory of Christ,
but it categorically failed to develop into a system that valued women as women for
doing so. Christian apologists lauded virgins for being “essentially male” in their
constitution, or that their only “defect’” was being a woman, as Greco-Roman classical
sexual models posited that females were not naturally capable of such restraint. Similarly,
chivalry treated women as demure, submissive, essentially sexless figures used to prove
that a man was worthy of his aristocratic, martial position of power and privilege (since
as mentioned, the ideal courtly love relationship was never consummated). He might
indeed have thrown his cloak over that puddle, but it wasn’t to keep her shoes dry.
 Sources

Kaeuper, Richard W. Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe. (Oxford;

Oxford University Press; 1999