From: zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: what is chivalry? Date: 29 Dec 1997 21:15:15 GMT Organization: Zip Internet Professionals Pty Ltd Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <19971229151100.KAA28238@ladder02.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.12.97.1 X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.0.0 (BETA) UNIX) Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.flash.net!news.mira.net.au!news.mel.ausbone.net!news.syd.ausbone.net!the-fly.zip.com.au!zebee On 29 Dec 1997 15:11:01 GMT, Rshan10674 wrote: >WooHoo! Therion! > >You're right. Chivalry has nothing to do with belts. And many SCA publications >encourage everyone to behave chivalrously to everyone else. Seems sort of basic >behavior when none of us are considered in the peasant class, except of course, >those who choose to be. My personal rule of thumb is that EVERYONE should be >treated with respect until an individual shows me good reason why he/she should >not be treated this way. It's gotten me burned a few times but more often, it's >led me to some very wonderful people. Hmm... would someone kindly explain to me the difference between chivalry and courtesy? Seems to me that the two concepts are getting very confused. I'm not sure I can define the difference well, but it seems to me that chivalry was a subset of courtesy in a way, it governed the conduct of fighting men towards other fighting men. Whereas courtesy is the calm good manners I think most people are thinking of. And courtesy is what peers are supposed to have, indeed what we are all supposed to have. Chivalry is what armed nobility are supposed to have, relating to their ability to use those arms and how that is governed. I suspect that *our* concepts of chivalry are possibly irredeemably tainted by the Victorian ideal. That's not a bad thing in many ways but it is important to know when you are thinking of the period mindset, and when you are thinking of the Victorian one. Be interesting to have someone give a summary of the difference between the two. Silfren ###### From: tadhg@bigfoot.com (Tim of Angle) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: what is chivalry? Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 03:24:55 GMT Organization: EDS Lines: 26 Message-ID: X-Orig-Message-ID: <34aa682f.486295249@news.airmail.net> References: <19971229151100.KAA28238@ladder02.news.aol.com> Reply-To: tadhg@bigfoot.com NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Mon Dec 29 21:25:45 1997 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp13-1.ght.iadfw.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news.igateway.net!news.pagesat.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.he.net!news-feeder.onramp.net!news-f.iadfw.net!usenet Scripsit zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) : > I'm not sure I can define the difference well, but it seems > to me that chivalry was a subset of courtesy in a way, it governed > the conduct of fighting men towards other fighting men. Well, not exactly. "Chivalry" is the sort of conduct expected of those who belong to the social order of knights, and is functionally equivalent to the modern standard "conduct becoming and officer and a gentleman". In period this included loyalty to one's lord, observance of the tenets of one's religion, protection of the weak from the depredations of the strong (of particular importance in days when the Rule of Law wasn't so deeply ingrained in the culture) as exemplified by the defense of widows and orphans. "Courtesy" is the sort of conduct expected by those who frequent a court, typically a royal court, and is an outgrowth of the chivalric code as massaged through the Provencal troubador tradition and the shift in emphasis from the political to the social aspects of "knighthood". (Sorry I'm not grumpy today, but the Valium from the eye surgery is still in effect. I'll be better tomorrow, I promise.) ================================================================================ Fra Tadhg Liath OFT tadhg@bigfoot.com The Grumpiest Pelican ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: what is chivalry? Date: 31 Dec 1997 00:33:16 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 57 Message-ID: <3ejammo3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> References: <19971229151100.KAA28238@ladder02.news.aol.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >Hmm... would someone kindly explain to me the difference between >chivalry and courtesy? I will try (and perhaps make a fool of my self:-)) zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >Seems to me that the two concepts are getting very confused. Perhaps that is because they are closely related. From The Concise Oxford Dictionary: - chivalry: medieval knightly system with its religious, moral and social code; ideal knights characteristics, courage and courtesy; inclination to defend or help weaker party - courteous: polite, kind, considerate in manner and approach zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >I'm not sure I can define the difference well, but it seems >to me that chivalry was a subset of courtesy in a way, it governed >the conduct of fighting men towards other fighting men. IMHO (and the OED seems to see it so also) it is the other way round. Courtesy (which is actual behaviour in society) is one expression of chivalry (which is a the ideology that the behaviour comes from). zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >Whereas courtesy is the calm good manners I think most people are thinking >of. And courtesy is what peers are supposed to have, indeed what >we are all supposed to have. Full on the point. zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >Chivalry is what armed nobility are supposed to have, relating to their >ability to use those arms and how that is governed. Chivalry was surely first practitioned by nobility, but anyone can do it. And it has nothing to do with arms, more with ones thoughts/feelings. zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >I suspect that *our* concepts of chivalry are possibly irredeemably >tainted by the Victorian ideal. Directly sure. But they derived them from late medieval ideas. zebee@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote: >Be interesting to have someone give a summary of the difference >between the two. I hope to have served you. -- Neil.Franklin.nospam@ccw.ch (remove .nospam), http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### From: seaanmcay@aol.com (SeaanMcAy) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: what is chivalry? Date: 31 Dec 1997 02:35:34 GMT Lines: 7 Message-ID: <19971231023501.VAA03392@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com References: <3ejammo3.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch> Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!newstf02.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail This topic has been much discussed (and I think it is worthy of further discussion). I would suggest taking a look at "http://www.chronique.com/". The site is run by the people who produce the Chronique newsletter, and organize "The Company of St. George". Seaan McAy Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West (Santa Cruz, CA) mckay_michael@tandem.com or seaanmcay@aol.com