Steeped as most of this site's community are in the ideals as practiced within various tournament re-enactments, it is perhaps a good thing from time to time to take another look at the medieval reality.

Richard Kaeuper, whose previous work on the Geoffrey de Charnay's Book of Chivalry brought him to the attention of students of chivalry, brings a considerable amount of experience and dedication to his topic, both in terms of the romances and the historical studies of knighthood. He documents his points well and argues strongly that chivalry as it was seen by medieval knights was far more violent than subsequent scholarship as believed. Not only was violence the reality; Dr. Kaeuper goes further and argues that it was inherent also in the ideal.

Recognizing the current scholarly fashion of analyzing the chivalric ideals as generated by three main forces (the knights themselves, the courtly influence, and the religious influence), Dr. Kaeuper cites example after example where chivalry as a term raised the virtue of prowess as a pinnacle above which all other virtues were arrayed. Prowess, in this view, is a demi-god upon which honor is won, and that prowess was the capstone virtue, never softened even in the ideal.

Relying heavily on the very sources we would expect to argue differently--the romances--he makes his case from all three points of view. His quotes--ranging from Ramon Llull to Geoffrey de Charny to Chretien de Troyes--seem to support his case, yet for all this book's value, I think the point is overstated.

Although I do not have Dr. Kaeuper's breadth or depth in terms of the romances, I am very familiar with the work of Llull in particular, and Llull is clear on the point that 'chivalry of the spirit' is paramount to 'chivalry of the body' as practiced through jousts, tournaments and warfare. I think Llull argues convincingly that a knight's duty is to act with justice, not merely to exercise himself in arms. Llull was, as Dr. Kaeuper rightly observes, one of the chivalric reformers, intent on helping to raise the knight's gaze from what is worldly to what is divine--and that entails justice, piety, and secular duty; prowess and the other virtues are to be used in this service.

Geoffrey de Charny argues clearly that prowess is the highest virtue, but what is virtue without love? He who fights for love, according to Charny, is greater than one who does not. It would seem from this sentiment that Love is a higher virtue, not prowess; though Charny would likely argue that prowess is themeasure of a knight.

Although deeply appreciative of Dr. Kaeuper's work for renewing the real politic vision of what chivalry actually was amongst most practicing knights, I found myself wondering not at what was included, but what was ommitted. Where was King Rene and the Duc of Burgundy? Jean le Bon? Certainly Dr. Kaeuper's view applies to chivalry in the time of William Marshall, but I wonder if it applies equally to the changing culture of the Hundred Years War.

The book is valuable from this perspective and also because of the myriad sources it includes. The bibliography is excellent, and I for one will read the romances differently--at least for a while--while I digest these ideas.

Perhaps it is the very civilizing nature of the chivalric ideals that have sustained them through time. Certainly their violence has been diluted over time, a process I think was in place during the 12th century and continued apace until the current day.

Chivalry and Violence in Medieval Europe
Richard W. Kaeuper
Oxford University Press
ISBN 0-19-820730-1

Available through most booksellers