or the purposes of this essay, we must make distinction between the Noble and Chivalric class. While some Knights did spring from the noble class, such as Edward the black prince, the consensus is that in the English Medieval social structure, the two classes were distinct. The ideology of chivalry, moulded the characters, attitudes and structures of the nobility. The Knightly class not only affected the etiquette and behaviour of the nobility, it also created within the nobility a concern for control, given the power of the knights and their unpredictable behaviour. Furthermore, the nobility itself also moulded the knightly code. Chivalric literature was fostered in the courts of the nobility, and the ruling powers of the nobility desired to control it. Chivalry, therefore, did affect the life of the nobility but the relationship worked in both directions.
The historiography surrounding Chivalry, especially regarding the 12th century, is problematic. Chivalry as a concept is clearly established in contemporary literature and within its purview is both a set of values and customs, and a knightly class. The greatest issue facing historians is that the literature surrounding chivalry was written in the following few centuries. The literature of the 12th century is Chivalry in its infancy as compared to the 14th or 15th centuries. Nevertheless, 12th century literature remains crucial to our understanding as successive literature kept to the style established in the 12th century, that of the Chanson de Geste and the romance. It may seem as if a Chanson, which is a sort of knightly biography, would be more useful than the fiction of the romance. However as Richard Kaeuper argues “we need to remember that these works are, in conscious intent at least, more often prescriptive than descriptive; they advance ideals for what chivalry should become, in other words, more often than they mirror an ideal already transformed into social reality”. Furthermore, our own notion of objectivity is not reflected in the Chanson biography of the Medieval era, as the non-fiction works dramatize. Any understanding of the shaping force of chivalry can only be drawn from sources later than the period in question.
Chivalry, per the literature, presents us with two core values. One is that of prowess on the field of battle, and the other is the devotion to women. The concept of prowess doubtlessly affected the outlook of the nobility. This value is demonstrated well in Geoffrey of Charny’s 1350s treatise on the duties of knighthood. Charny drew heavily on the 12th century romantic literature of the courts of Provence and Champagne and, therefore, is both an example of chivalry in the 14th century as well as it’s nascent forms. He describes in detail the ranks of honour that a knight can achieve – even setting different honourable activities such as the tournament and actual warfare against each other – and commends knights who ceaselessly pursue greater and greater honour through demonstrations of their prowess. Prowess as a distinct notion developed over the 10th and 11th centuries as demonstrated by comparisons between representations of it across the medieval era. The Chanson de Roland presents Roland as a hero for choosing to stand his ground against the forces of Marsile without the support of Charlemagne’s army. It revels in depictions of his violence – one particularly gory verse even celebrating Roland splitting an enemy knight from head to groin with his sword as he sat on his horse – and the narrator is deeply saddened by his death. Archbishop Turpin argued that a knight without the ability to fight was worth “not four pennies..instead he should be in one of those monasteries, praying for all of our sins”. Conversely, the 10th century Battle of Maldon poem presents a remarkably different take on the prowess of the individual. Byrthnoth is almost presented as having failed to defend the shores of Etherald against the invaders. He is not the hero of the poem when he dies but, instead, its fool. Only the men that stayed loyal to him, despite the incoming Vikings, are presented as heroes. A comparison between the two poems, therefore, reveals the growth of the importance of individual prowess, the value of chivalry. Maldon’s greater focus on the importance of loyalty, rather than the individual pursuit of honour, serves only to sharpen the divide further.
The lives of noble figures such as William Marshall seem to have been influenced by the concept of prowess. William Marshal provides great utility as the apotheosis of the chivalric knight, described by his contemporary Stephen Langton as “the greatest knight who ever lived” . Marshall made much of his fortune from ceaselessly pursuing victories in tournaments, became the most honoured knight of the 12th and early 13th centuries. However, the concept of loyalty was also a keen factor in Marshal’s pursuits, Marshal’s actions in the First Baron’s war were exemplary. Marshall’s loyalty to King John was not of an expedient nature, John had humiliated Marshal in 1208 for his perceived disloyalty in paying homage to the French King Phillip, which was made necessary by John’s own abandonment of Marshal’s lands and failures during the war. And yet, Marshal stayed steadfastly loyal to the King when the First Barons war broke out six years later, and he inspired the dissenting barons to rally against Louis. The greatest indication of personal honour for Marshall was John’s wish that he become regent for his son Henry. John must have had faith that Marshall’s honour would not become corrupted by power and that he would be a good example for Henry. Marshall managed to fulfil both the values of loyalty and prowess, which explains the celebration of his life throughout the later Medieval period.
The concept of prowess is also presented in the literature of Chretien de Troyes in a negative light suggesting that, while some nobles enjoyed being knights, many nobles were concerned by their lack of grasp on the use of violence within their realms. Both Kraeuper and Gravdal have explored the negative portrayal of violence in the Arthurian Romances and have concluded that there was a genuine fear amongst the nobility of the knight errant. Gravdal focuses on the instances of rape, or allusions to it, committed by uncontrollable knights. One of her key examples is from the Chretien’s story of Lancelot in which he is faced with the moral dilemma of leaving a maiden in distress, clearly about to become the victim of sexual violence committed by a bad knight, to chase after the kidnapped Queen Guinevere or to take on the large number of knights surrounding the immediately threatened maiden. This story symbolises the issue that faced the nobility of the knight errant, a knight searching for purpose. Kraeuper, using the same tale, focuses on the prominence of dark knights – knights in black with flaming lances – that he traces back to Orderic’s Ecclesiastical History. These knights, he claims, also represent the powerlessness of the nobility over some knights. It is unsurprising therefore, that Henry II chose to ban the knights tourney up until the end of the 12th century at which point Richard I reinstated them, but with severe restriction. The message was clear, that the nobility had to reign in the excesses of the knightly order. William Marshal at the age of 55, climbed a siege ladder into combat for his own personal vanity despite overwhelming danger against the express wishes of Richard Lionheart. Marshall’s identity within the culture of Chivalry was as an exceptional individual fighter, and his desire to fulfil this contradicted the designs of the nobility. Over the course of the period, and after the death of Marshal, the utility of an individual knight was diminished. Andrew Ayton argues that an “infantry revolution” took place in the early 14th century due to the success of massed infantry against the horsed knight in battles such as Crécy. As the strategic advantage became to focus on foot soldiers, who were cheaper to train, the utility of a knight as a fighting force came into question. Thus, to best serve as a successful warrior in the field of war required expedient tactical action and not simply combat prowess. The value of prowess in chivalry, therefore, was double-edged in its shaping of the nobility. On the one hand, it inspired the nobility to action, whilst also creating a political issue which required close governance.
Love as a concept also affected the lifestyle of the nobility. Romantic literature, the poems of the jongleurs of Provence and then later of the troubadours of Champagne provide useful evidence for the nature of the chivalric attitude towards women. Barber argues that prior to the onset of chivalry love had been viewed cynically and the cynicism towards it and degradation of women present in Ovid’s works still dominated court culture. Whilst Before the rise of chivalric romanticism women had been treated much in the tradition of the fall of Grace. As such women were supposedly seen as the downfall of man and a source of weakness thereafter. However, love became elevated in its status to something worthy of protection, fighting for and dying for. Of course, the Arthurian legends provide evidence of the value of romance in a manifest manner, in the sense that they are Romantic fiction. The more valuable evidence regarding romance is its presence in the manuals of chivalry that were written both for and by the nobility. Ramon Lull’s book on the knighthood & Chivalry makes a great deal of the knight’s duty to protect the vulnerable and innocent as much as the knight’s temporal lord He writes that it is, in fact, through the love of the vulnerable and innocent that the knight takes strength and receives honour. There is historiographical issue when considering whether the nobles for whom these manuscripts written acted upon these instructions, simply because the nature of their love lives were so private but their prevalence in the literature, literature which especially in the case of prowess was clearly as much prescriptive as it was descriptive, suggests that they did.
As much as this undoubtedly informed the life of the nobility, this sort of literature having been widely circulated amongst elites and often deliberately emulated, however, one must remember where the values of love came from: the nobility themselves. While Barber argues that attitudes were changed by chivalry, for example, he also traces the initial move towards the deifying of women back to the increased wealth and leisure of the courts of Provence in particular. This atmosphere, one of new ideas, wealth and freedom to enjoy that wealth with a relative absence of conflict, meant that by the 12th century the nobles themselves were ready for the rise of romance and the rejection of Ovid’s cynicism Returning to the literature surrounding the Arthurian legends, Chretien, at the beginnings of both the tales of Lancelot and of Perceval dedicate the works to the Lady of Champagne and Phillip of Flanders respectively. In the case of the Lady of Champagne’s dedication, Chretien even says that he is writing the romance because of the Lady’s personal “request” for him to do so, clearly indicating the two way relationship between the author and his subject, of love.
However, the supposed edification of the knight by chivalric love alone seems to be lacking, as presented by contemporary sources. One such source is the esteemed Chaucer; whose bawdy tale of the Wife of Bath is essential to any analysis of women’s role in Medieval society. The wife makes reference to how a knight “saugh a mayde walkynge hym biforn, Of which mayde anon, maugree hir heed By verray force, he rafte hire maydenhed;” meaning that he raped a maiden. As the tale continues, it appears as if our own modern view of justice would be enacted, as the knight is brought to the court of Camelot to face trial for his actions. However, the conclusion of the tale, is that the Knight is rewarded with a young woman “That she so fair was, and so yong therto,” for learning the lesson that to achieve true happiness as a man, one must submit to the power of women as this is what they most desired. Regardless of the positive outcome of the story, Chaucer is touching upon the issue of the knight errant, and suggesting with the Wives tale that the knights themselves were not in truth as chivalric and romantic as the codes desired of them. Rather, the fact that Arthurs court, the Queen, takes the effort to change the views of the knight on women and to correct his behaviour, is further evidence of a two-way relationship between chivalry and the nobility. The wife of Bath’s tale, whether by accident or design, serves as a metaphor for the corrective curtailment of the chivalric order by the nobility.
This relationship between the nobility and love is far more indicative of the importance of chivalry than the notion of prowess. The distinction between the mind-set of Ovid towards women and that of the Chivalric courtly love is enormous, and represents a great intellectual rupture from the past. Surely, the same could not be said for elements of prowess within Chivalry. Prowess as a value far predates the Medieval period, going as far back to antiquity. One commonality between the Medieval period and antiquity is the concept that a warrior’s prowess could be divine intervention. In Homer’s Iliad Achilles prowess is derived from the fact that he is “loved by heaven” and Diomedes prays to Jove to “grant be to be within a spear’s throw of that man and kill him”. Erstwhile Kaeuper refers to moments of the Medieval period such as Prince Edward before his battle at Crécy calling to his “True, Sovereign Father, who hast made and created us, as truly as Thou dost know that I am not come here save for the maintenance of right, and for prowess and nobility which urge and incite me to gain a life of honour, I beseech Thee that Thou wilt this day guard me and my men”. The parallel can even be found in the literature of Arthurian legend. Robert de Boron’s Didot Perceval features Arthur striking down an emperor “with the aid of God”. Prowess is a constant, even a trope, throughout all literature which seeks to depict young men on the battlefield, and its introduction by chivalry cannot be considered a radical change to the nobility. Courtly love, however, is such a break from the traditions of antiquity, it must be seen as having a greater effect on the nobility of Medieval Europe.
Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the revolution in France, is memorably quoted as stating that “The age of Chivalry is gone” in the context of the disestablishment of the French Monarchy. This relationship which Burke suggests between the Noble monarchs and the virtues of loyalty, prowess and love is supported by the evidence. It would however be a mistake to view the nobility as a passive actor in the relationship, as the evidence suggests their own keen influence on the shaping of Chivalry, both its values and its curtailment in society, showing that the nobility were not a wholly passive player but, instead, active in their own shaping as much as the aspects of chivalry beyond their control.