Arguing the Chivalry as a Stratum

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

Our contemporary notion about the chevaliers is formed mostly by the books about noble and courageous medieval aristocrats who defended their ideals and performed exploits. As a rule, chivalry is supposed to have existed during at least 7 centuries, from nearly 800 to nearly 1500. However, this period can be considered quite long in the historical context; it was full of dramatic changes. That is why it is difficult to imagine that some phenomenon existed for such a long time, not evolving. Thus, it is interesting to analyze whether it is possible to speak about chivalry as a real phenomenon of medieval society.

Main body

Besides the fact that the idea about chivalry evolved significantly through the centuries, it is necessary to argue the fact of the existence of chivalry itself. Many historians have disputed this fact in their works. First of all, Bloch proved in his (I949) that chivalry evolved differently in different countries. In Western Europe since the times of Carolingians belonging to Cavalry did not mean being an aristocrat.

During several centuries there was no hereditary aristocracy; instead, there was chivalry, characterized by a certain way of life and special military function. However, during the XII century the circle of chivalry became isolated, which implied that without being a descendant of a chevalier, one could not enter the chivalry. This situation was more typical for France, while in Germany chivalry included several subdivisions, which means that not all the chevaliers were noble (particularly, the lowest subdivision not belonging to the nobility was called “Ministerialen”).

The question of the chevaliers’ nobility is still not solved completely. For example, during Charlemagne’s epoch chevaliers were simply the warriors of Cavalry. During the government of William, the Conqueror chivalry became closer to the traditional understanding; however, it could hardly be called homogeneous. On the one hand, it was widely represented by minor warriors. They were the descendants of the Scandinavian Vikings who moved to Normandy in the IX century. At the same time, it is known that William was knighted by Henry I in 1042 (Safra 666).

Burke investigated the history of using the word “ritter” (a chevalier) in the XII-XIII centuries. According to his research, this word was brought into use in the second half of the XI century, and for a long was mainly used for calling ministerial and servants, but not the nobility. First cases of calling an aristocrat a “ritter” refer to the 13th century. In fact, before the XIII century, there was no word to define chivalry: different kinds of soldiers were called “Herman”, “degan”, “kempfo”, “wigant” et al (Bumke 48).

The next step was glorifying chivalry using romances. In these stories, chevaliers were performed rather flattering. Paul Zumthor, said, “Romance incarnates a dream of happiness, a feeling of strength, and a will to triumph over a particular evil. That was doubtless its original social function. It outlived by some centuries the conditions that had given it birth” (Zumthor 305). When the spirit of chivalry was glorified, aristocrats also began to endorse calling them “ritter”.

The spirit of chivalry seems to be its main distinctive feature. Knox argued that it “inspired the nobles of Europe with more liberal and generous sentiments than had formerly prevailed. This institution … had a very serious influence in refining European manners” (Knox 14). Though being initially exaggerated by the tales of chivalry, the chevaliers’ spirit nevertheless began to correspond to its literary prototype to some extent.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is difficult to talk about a single correct definition of chivalry. This phenomenon had been evolving, and different epochs witnessed this evolution. Time should be always taken into account when talking about chivalry, its composition, and its function.

Bibliography

Bloch, Marc. La Societe Feodale, Les Classes et le Gouvernement des Hommes. Paris: Michel, 1949. Print.

Bumke, Joachim. Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991. Print.

Knox, Vicesimus. Elegant Extracts: a Copious Selection of Instructive, Moral, and Entertaining Passages, from the Most Eminent Prose Writers. Vol. 4. Boston: Wells and Lilly – State Street, 1826. Print.

“William the Conqueror”. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ed. Safra, Jacob E. Vol. 12. 15th ed. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2003. Print.

Zumthor, Paul. Toward a Medieval Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. Print.

Click Here To Order Now!

Arguing the Chivalry as a Stratum

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)