Title: knighthood-msg
Subject: Knighthood in period and SCA.
Author: Edited by Mark S. Harris
Last saved by: Mark S. Harris
Keywords: medieval, knights, SCA, period, chivalry

knighthood-msg – 9/17/08

Knighthood in SCA and period.

NOTE: See also the files: squires-msg, Chivalry-art, chivalry-msg, chiv-orders-msg, fealty-art, fealty-msg, 25-years-late-art, Fealty-n-t-SCA-art.

************************************************************************
NOTICE -

This file is a collection of various messages having a common theme that I have collected from my reading of the various computer networks. Some messages date back to 1989, some may be as recent as yesterday.

This file is part of a collection of files called Stefan's Florilegium. These files are available on the Internet at: http://www.florilegium.org

I have done a limited amount of editing. Messages having to do with separate topics were sometimes split into different files and sometimes extraneous information was removed. For instance, the message IDs were removed to save space and remove clutter.

The comments made in these messages are not necessarily my viewpoints. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the information given by the individual authors.

Please respect the time and efforts of those who have written these messages. The copyright status of these messages is unclear at this time. If information is published from these messages, please give credit to the originator(s).

Thank you,
    Mark S. Harris                  AKA:  THLord Stefan li Rous
                                          Stefan at florilegium.org
************************************************************************

From: L6PJDU%IRISHMVS.BITNET at MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Cathy Lindsay 239-6679, 219)
Date: 26 Nov 90 21:42:00 GMT

Greetings from Katherine of Constantinople (mundanely Cathy
Lindsay the Library Technical Assistant - don't ask what that means)
Our library just received a new book that may be of interest
to some readers on the Rialto:
The Ideals and practice of medieval knighthood. Ed. by C.
Harper-Bell and R. Harvey, Boydell Press, 1990.
It looks pretty good.  I don't have time to read it now, so
don't look to me for a review!  I'd be interested in hearing
from anyone who does read it!

From: L6PJDU%IRISHMVS.BITNET at MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Cathy Lindsay 239-6679, 219)
Date: 26 Nov 90 21:42:00 GMT

Greetings from Katherine of Constantinople (mundanely Cathy
Lindsay the Library Technical Assistant - don't ask what that means)
Our library just received a new book that may be of interest
to some readers on the Rialto:
The Ideals and practice of medieval knighthood. Ed. by C.
Harper-Bell and R. Harvey, Boydell Press, 1990.
It looks pretty good.  I don't have time to read it now, so
don't look to me for a review!  I'd be interested in hearing
from anyone who does read it!

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: Knightly virtues?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 17:10:58 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval!  In the thread about men dancing, Carolus Malvoix
wrote: 
> Dancing is not a knightly virtue. I will go one step further, and say
> that *nothing* not connected to military service to the crown should ever
> be considered a knightly virtue.  Chivalry and honour upon the field of
> battle, enough courtesy to ensure you ere not a black mark on your
> kingdom, and a great deal of martial skill are in my opinion the only
> appropriate factors to consider in the creation of a knight.

Unless you are thinking of some pre-Carolingian notion of knighthood, I am
afraid you are simply wrong.  Both historically and in the SCA, courtliness
has _always_ been considered one of the components of chivalry.  The
virtues of chivalry include prouesse (prowess), franchise (noble bearing),
largesse (generosity), and courtoisie (courtliness).  NB: The last term is
not properly translated by the modern word "courtesy," though it includes
some elements of the modern and SCA concepts covered by that word.  These
virtues are described in every treatise on chivalry that I have
encountered, dating back to the 12th century.  To cite a few examples that
have not already been mentioned: L'Histoire de Guillaume le Marechal makes
especial note of the Marshal's ability as a dancer.  Every treatise on the
tournament which I have read includes dancing as a _major_ part of the
festivities surround the tournament.  Andif you don't prefer Ramon Llull,
suggested by Strykar, you might try Tirant lo Blanc, a description of the
ideal knight written by a 15th century knight; on Honor Bonet, "The tree of
battles".  I think you will find that none of these authors agrees with you.

Looking later in history, the great Renaissance treatise on chivalry is
Castiglione's Book of the Courtier, and as Hope Greenberg noted,
Castiglione would not have given the time of day to a man who couldn't
dance.

Turning to the SCA concetp of knighthood, Christofer de Hoyland made an
excellent point:

> Knighthood, in the SCA, is not just a fighting award. It is a Peerage.
> These people are looked on to be examples to others.

Exactly.  SCA knighthood is not just a merit badge for the toughest stick
jock; it is a recognition of general achievement equivalent to that of
every other peer in the Society.  I doubt you could find many knights,
Carolus, who would support your tunnel-view of SCA knighthood, and a simple
glance at Corpora makes it clear that the rules of the SCA don't either.

===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle at watson.ibm.com

From: shick at europa.eng.gtefsd.com (Steve Hick)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Knightly virtues?
Date: 5 Jan 1994 14:56:03 GMT
Organization: GTE GSC FSD

In article <9400057577.AA757732773 at smtpgate.cccpp.com>, ALFRED at cccpp.COM
(ALFRED) wrote:

>           Good Carolus,
> 
>           You passionately rebutt Sir John's posting:
> 
>           >> Countess Elena of Beckingham ... announces that dancing
>           >> is a knightly virtue in such a fashion that the local
>           >> fighters hear it....
>           >> John Theopholis
> 
>           > I disagree. Dancing is not a knightly virtue. I will go
>           > one step further, and say that *nothing* not connected
>           > to military service to the crown should ever be
>           > considered a knightly virtue.
> 
>           It has long been the belief of the SCA chivalry that we are
>           trying to emulate the knights of literary romance, rather
>           than any historical model.  As such, a set of criteria,
>           albeit arbitrary, was set down some time ago as a guideline
>           for elevating candidates to the order.  This is not unlike
>           Castiglione's ideal gentleman in _The Book of the Courtier_.
>           Thus, dancing is an _SCA_ knightly virtue, regardless of its
>           relevance to historical elevation criteria.

I also recommend that all should read Ramon Llull's Boke of the Ordre of
Chivalry and Knighthode. Llull was a very significnat Catalonian author
whose book was translated into almost every western european language
during the middle ages (You've got your choice of language - english,
french, spanish, italian, or catalan) , and many important magnates (e.g
the Dukes of Burgundy) had copies in their personal libraries.

Llull doesn't speak much to the 'courtly arts' but speaks more about
service, gentleness, etc., other attributes which are also precluded by Sir
John's statement about "military service"  (I believe by accident of
over-inclusiveness).

ST
Llull, Ramon, d. 1315.; The book of the Ordre of chyualry, translated and
printed by William Caxton from a French version of Ramon Lull's "Le libre
del orde de cauayleria", together with Adam Loutfut's Scottish transcript
(Harleian ms. 6149) ed. by Alfred T. P. Byles. -- London, Pub. for the
Early English Text Society by H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1926.

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: tbarnes at silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: More Men Dancing (was: Women in SCA)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 01:38:01 GMT

In article <Jan5.002512.36552 at acs.ucalgary.ca> parr at acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:
>
>I disagree. Dancing is not a knightly virtue. I will go one step
>further, and say that *nothing* not connected to military service
>to the crown should ever be considered a knightly virtue.
>
>Chivalry and honour upon the field of battle, enough courtesy
>to ensure you ere not a black mark on your kingdom, and a great
>deal of martial skill are in my opinion the only appropriate
>factors to consider in the creation of a knight.
>

	Greetings from Lothar,

	I will let a better author than I speak for me:

	"Once, there was a notable captain who had returned from his
campaigns to court. In honor of the gentleman, the ladies of the court
proposed many diverse amusements to the brave soldier, so that he might
enjoy himself. The soldier refused each activity in turn - singing,
playing chess, telling stories, poetry, dancing, and so on he refused in
turn. Finally, a brave lady approached the soldier and asked; "Milord,
you neither dance, nor sing, nor play on an instrument, or play at
games, or care to practice any other courtly art, what DO you do?" To
this, the soldier bellowed "I fight!" 
	The lady, then demurely said, "Well my lord, since there is no
war to be had, and you neither dance, nor sing, nor do any courtly art
at all, I suggest that you oil yourself, and hang yourself up in the
closet next to your armor until war breaks out again and your lord has
need of you, again." 

	The words are mine, but the story is Balthazare Castiglione's
from his 1476 book "Book of the Courtier".

	Lothar \|/
		  0 

From: meg at tinhat.stonemarche.org (meg)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Female knights
Date: Tue, 03 May 94 11:15:30 EDT
Organization: Stonemarche Network Co-op

gunwaldt at astro.dasd.honeywell.com writes:

> Eros writes:
> > As far as I am aware, to this very day (and people are still knighted 
> > occaisionally in this century) a woman has never been knighted. I have done
> > some research into this topic. 
> 
> I thought the Queen knighted Margaret Thatcher after she was no longer
> Prime Minister.
> 
> Gunwaldt

Megan here. Well, I retrieved the Tome from the shelf. Muckin' big book.
 'The Institution, Laws, and Ceremony of theMost Noble Order of the 
Garter" by Ashmole, first published in London 1672 (yes OOP) and my copy 
is the facsimile of 1971.
Chapter 111, section 111 speaks of The Feminine Cavaliers of the Torch in 
Tortosa.
I quote:
"And now, in close of our discourse of the orders of Knighthood, give us 
leave to bring up the rere, with a memorial relating to Feminine Valour, 
and of the Later Age (for we shall not need to instance in the Amazons of 
old, whose fame in Arms is so generally known) since some of that Sex, 
having aquired honour and renown, by their personal courage and valiant 
exploits, have had bestowed on them the priviledge of living after the 
manner, and i the esteem of Knights.
"The example is of the Noble Women of Tortosa in Aragon, and recorded by 
Josef Micheli Marquez, who plainly calls them Cavalleros or Knights, or 
may I not rather say Cavalleras, seeing I observe the words Equitissae 
and Militissae (formed from the Latin Equites and Milites) heretofore 
applied to Women, and sometimes used to express Madams or Ladies,though 
now thesse Titles are not known.
"Don Raymond, last Earl of Barcellona (who by intermarriage with 
Petronilla, only Daughter and Heir of King Ramiro the Monk, united that 
principality to the Kingdom of Aragon) having in the year 1149, gained 
the City of Tortosa from the Moors, they on the 31 of December following, 
laid a new Siege to that place, for the recovery of it out of the Earls 
hands. The Inhabitants being a length reduced to gread streights, desired 
relief of the Earl, but he, being not in a condition to give them any, 
they entertained some thoughts of making a surrender. Which the Women 
hearing of, to prevent the disaster threatning their City, themselves, 
and Children, put on mens Clothes, and by a resolute sally, forced the 
Moors to raise the Siege.
"The Earl, finding himself obliged, bythe gallentry of the action,  
thought fit to make his acknowlegements thereof, by granting them several 
Privileges and Immunities, and to perpetuate the memory of so signal an 
attempt, instituted an Order, somewhat like a Military Order, into which 
were admitted only those Brave Women, deriving the honor to their 
Descendants, and assigned them for a Dadge, a thing like a Fryars 
Capouche, sharp at the top, after the form of a Torch, and of a crimson 
colour, to be worn upon their Head-clothes.  He also ordained, that at 
all publick meetings, the women should have precedence of the Men.  That 
they should be exempted from all Taxes, adn that all the Apparel and 
Jewels, though of never so great value, left by their dead Husbands, 
should be their own.
"These Women (saith our Author) having thus aquired this Honor by their 
personal Valour, carried themselves after the Military Knights of those 
days."

There's more, if you would like it. I changed the f to s where it 
applied, to make it more readable. (all s's not ending a word were 
printed as f's. Not eafy to tranfribe, I affure you!) Also, many words 
were italicised, impossible in ASCI (or is that AFCI?)

Well, the source I quoted is secondary, but he directly translated a 
primary source, which I can hunt up and quote if you _really_ need it.
That's about all I have ever found about female orders, but I have seen 
mentioned an occasional woman fighter. I think you would have to read the 
rolls of each order to find female names to substantiate a claim for a 
female knight, however. Not impossible, just time consuming. I have the 
rolls of the Garter up to the publication of this book...I will look at 
it later.

In defence of Feminine Valour,

Megan, not ever likely to be a Knight, even if they do eventually admit 
archers and fencers.:-)

== 
In 1994: Linda Anfuso
In the Current Middle Ages: Megan ni Laine de Belle Rive  
In the SCA, Inc: sustaining member # 33644

                                YYY     YYY
meg at tinhat.stonemarche.org      |  YYYYY  |
                                |____n____| 

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
From: mittle at watson.ibm.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Subject: Re: Female knights
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 14:50:36 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval!

Megan Laine quoted a passage from Elias Ashmole, "The Institution, Laws,
and Ceremony of the Most Noble Order of the Garter", in which he discussed
the Noble Women of Tortosa, which he construed to be women knights.  I am
not familiar with that passage, but I have studied much of Ashmole's book
and have read modern analyses of it.  Modern scholars consider his
historical material to be thoroughly unreliable: He is known to have
included incorrect information and to have invented details.  I have not
encountered description of this order of women knights before; it may well
have some basis in fact, but Ashmole's account cannot be taken as
definitive proof of anything.

> Well, the source I quoted is secondary, but he directly translated a 
> primary source, which I can hunt up and quote if you _really_ need it.

We have no way to know whether the source mentioned by Ashmole is primary
or secondary or tertiary, only that Ashmole based his account on that one.  

> That's about all I have ever found about female orders, but I have seen 
> mentioned an occasional woman fighter. I think you would have to read the 
> rolls of each order to find female names to substantiate a claim for a 
> female knight, however. Not impossible, just time consuming. I have the 
> rolls of the Garter up to the publication of this book...I will look at 
> it later.

There were women associated with the Order of the Garter, though I have
never found specific names.  However, even if they are mentioned as
"companions of the order", that does not imply that they were knighted:
Women were admitted to the order under a different set of rules than men,
and knighthood was not a pre-requisite as it was for men.  Companionship in
the order did not confer knighthood; rather, male candidates had to be
knighted before they could be considered.

===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle at watson.ibm.com

From: ansteorra at eden.com (3/22/95)
To: ansteorra at eden.com
knighthood

I was trading e-mail with Sir Ches, who was recently knighted in Amtgard
(in the SCA she's Lady Chiara), and she asked my opinion of a question
that was asked her at her vigil.  It seems a couple of Amtgard knights
had asked her "why do you want to be a knight".  She was not satisfied
with her answer, and asked me what I thought.

I told her that I no longer have any particular wish to be a knight.
On the other hand, I do still want to live up to the ideals of knight-
hood as best I can.  Wearing the belt & chain, much as I enjoy it
sometimes, is less important to me than knowing that I'm still doing
my best to be as chivalrous, honorable, courteous, puissant, etc. as
I can.

At the party for Sir Conor's knighting, Earl Kien and I were sitting
out back with someone who is not a knight, and Conor's lady stuck
her head out the door to suggest that the non-knight go inside, and
Conor come outside so it would be a belted circle.  I laughed and 
assured her that we had only to slap a white belt on the non-knight
and then he'd be a knight.  It was a great opportunity for him to
say something modest like he wasn't ready for such a thing, but
he just laughed and agreed.

I really feel that while knights cannot always be the most chivalrous,
courteous, honorable, etc. people around, knights _can_ be the ones
trying the hardest.  And my most common complaint about my fellow
knights is that some of them seem to think that, having been knighted,
they are therefore now certified "chivalrous enough".

- Viscount Galen of Bristol
  "noblesse oblige"

From: mittle at panix.com (Arval d'Espas Nord)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Features of Society knighthood 
Date: 30 Sep 1996 10:13:14 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

Greetings from Arval! 

Cariadoc wrote:

> Knighthood:
> 
> 1. Is only conferred by the sovereign
> 2. Requires one to be in direct allegiance to the sovereign
> 3. Is recognized chiefly by the wearing of a white belt, something
> forbidden to everyone else.
> 4. Is an order which, within each kingdom, has a corporate existence and
> the duty to advise the sovereign on adding new members to it, and the
> right to be consulted upon adding new members.
> 5. Is conferred upon that small minority of potential candidates who are
> especially skilled in combat, as well as at least minimally cultured and
> possessed of the relevant virtues.
> 
> Which of these is true of medieval knighthood?

Obviously, none of these is true of medieval knighthood.  However, it is
worth noting that items (1), (2), and (5) are all true of 14th and 15th
century chivalric orders founded by great princes.  The use of a white belt
as the symbol of the order, (3), is quite consistent with the type of
insignia used by these orders, though the absolute reservation to
companions of the order is not.  Having a single order with branches sworn
to different kings is a thing without period precedent, but the rest of
item (4) is typical of monarchical chivalric orders.

In short, Society knighthood is not at all structurally similar to medieval
knighthood, but it is quite similar to late medieval & renaissance
chivalric orders like the Garter, the Star, the Collar, etc.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                         mittle at panix.com

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:10:23 -0600 (CST+
To: ansteorra at eden.com
From: amazing at mail.utexas.edu (dennis grace)
Subject: Re: Prowess

Lady Deirdre wrote:
>Did anyone take the time to read the introduction in the newest "Complete
>Anachronist", vol 88-- "Beyond Prowess"?? 
>I did. Found out that according to Maurice Keen in his book "Chivalry",
>prowess, skill at arms and strength of body, is only the first of six
>virtues necessary to become a knight.
>Very interesting. Subconsciously, I thing i knew this.  Made me rather
>curious though. Prowess is the only one mentioned. What are the other
>five?

No, I haven't read the latest CA, but the author has oversimplified Keen's
explanations.  The majority of Keen's text _Chivalry_ is dedicated to
determining the various virtues that comprised the evanescent idea we call
"chivalry."  Early in his text, Keen remarks, "From a very early stage we
find the romantic authors habitually associating together certain qualities
which they clearly regarded as the classic virtues of good knighthood:
prouesse, loyaute', largesse (generosivy), courtoisie, and franchise (the
free and frank bearing that is visible testimony to the combination of good
birth with virtue).

Keen later cites sources which list:  
        "those who are bons, saiges et cortois, preux et vaillans" [good,
wise, courteous, martially competent, and valiant].
        "Manheit, Milte, Zuht, and Trowve. . . the direct analogues of
French prouesse, largesse, courtoisie and loyaute'." [In the German cult of
Ritterschaft and Ere.]

Keen talks about the church's gradual encroachment upon the rites of
knighthood, but he never discusses the virtue "piety."

Keen's _Chivalry_ is probably the most frequently cited source on ceremonies
and virtues of knoghthood, but the work is rather thinly encyclopedic.  It
does, however, reference some terrific primary sources. 

Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 17:06:15 -0600
To: markh at risc.sps.mot.com (Mark S. Harris)
From: Hollie Hoffman <hhoffman at uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: Delemma for a new Autocrat

At 23:16 12-29-96 -0600, Mark S. Harris wrote:
>>  If Sir
>> Kopel can be awarded a knighthood for something _he_ did mundanely
>> (risking his life to help a rape victim),
>
>This is not something I have heard of. Can you give me more details,
>please?
>
>  Stefan li Rous

I don't have a lot a details as it happened before I joined the SCA.  From
what I know, many years ago he heard a woman screaming and upon
investigation found her being raped. He fought off her attacker and was hurt
badly enough to be hospitalized in the process. The knights in the kingdom
he lived in at the time (I think it was the East, but I could be wrong) felt
that this act was a true example of chivalry and knighted him for it even
though he wasn't a fighter. He lives in southern Trimaris last I heard,
though I'm not sure how active he is these days. From what I was told when I
lived there, since he doesn't have much experience with heavy combat what he
concentrates on teaching his squires is the concepts of chivalry and peerage.

Ananda

Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 17:30:47 -0800
From: Galen of Bristol <pmitchel at flash.net>
Organization: Incipient College of Three Bridges
To: ansteorra at eden.com
Subject: (Long reply regarding chivalric philosophy) Re: Alexis's List

Forgive the quote in full, but it's been awhile, and I've let this 
percolate through my brain a bit...

Baronman at aol.com wrote:
>   Concerning all the work it take to become a knight in thus kingdom reminds
> me of  a list compliles by our baronial senacheal Ld. Alexis-  the list is
> compiled from a conversation he had  (supposedly) with an on looker at
> fighter practice.
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group.
> Alexis: You have to spend lots of money and get you armor together.
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group. When I get my armor
> together then I can be a knight?
> Alexis: No- you then have to come to fighter practice
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group. When I get my armor
> together and come to fighter practice, then I can be a knight?
> Alexis: No- you have to get noticed by a knight and become his squire.
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group. When I get my armor
> together and come to fighter practice, and become a squire, then I can be a
> knight?
> Alexis: No- you have to win some major tounaments and alot of minor
> tournaments before you can become a knight.
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group. When I get my armor
> together and come to fighter practice, and become a squire, and win alot of
> tournaments, then I can be a knight?
> Alexis: No- you have to be voted upon by alot of other knights who all have
> to like you even though you have beaten them in the tournaments.
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group. When I get my armor
> together and come to fighter practice, and become a squire, and win alot of
> tournaments, and be voted upon by the other knights all of whom have to like
> me, then I can be a knight?
> Alexis: No-the King has to approve of you .
> Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group. When I get my armor
> together and come to fighter practice, and become a squire, and win alot of
> tournaments, and be voted upon by the other knights all of whom have to like
> me, and approved by the king, then I can be a knight? How long is this going
> to take?
> Alexis:About 2 to 10 years.
> Observer: Goodby---
> 
>                                                         Baron Bors
>                                                     ex-kight wannabe
> soon to be ex- squire to Sir Ruric ( alias the party knight- now
> known as Ruric the invisable)  free at last- free at last-thank God

Observer:  I would like to be a knight in your group.
Galen:	Why?
Observer:  Because I think it would be cool.
Galen:  Trust me:  if I can do it, it isn't cool.  Look at us, a bunch of
aging, often overweight guys, who have "laid down the melancholy burden of
our sanity", running around spouting pious and pompous speeches and pretending
that we're real "knights"!  That's not cool by any definition I ever heard.
Observer:  But it looks like fun!
Galen:  Which part?  The fighting?  Go fight!  You don't have to be knight
for that!  Get your armor together -- it won't even cost as much as many other
sports you might take up.  Duke Inman will still sell a helm, knee & elbow cops,
basket hilt and shield basket for just about $100 for new fighters.  The rest
you can make yourself.
Observer:  But isn't there more to it than that?  What about honor?  And
chivalry?
Galen:	What do you think those words mean, anyway?
Observer:  Well, I guess honor would have to do with being honest, and trying
to do things for other people, and chivalry would be ... what?  Is that like
good sportsmanship?
Galen:	Not a bad beginning.  Do you think you'd like to be with a group of 
people who respect your behaviour for being honorable and chivalrous?  Do you
think you'd respect yourself for always being like that?
Observer:  Always?
Galen:  You'd always need be doing your best to be honorable and chivalrous,
even when you're in a hurry, or tired, or drunk.  You can never say, "I don't
need to be like that _now_."
Observer:  Nobody can do that!
Galen:  Nobody can do it perfectly.  But anyone can try.  Some come closer
to success than others.  The question is, how successful can _you_ be?
Observer:  So, all the knights do that?  And are mostly successful?
Galen:  I wish I could tell you yes to that.  But the truth is, sometimes
a person gets knighted and stops trying; he thinks "I've made it, I'm 
chivalrous enough now."  Other times, someone who never really did try might
get knighted.  But just because they were knighted, doesn't mean they're 
knights, really.  Some would tell you that I'm not _really_ a knight, even
though I was knighted.  You'll have to learn to judge each knight for yourself,
to decide if he's really trying his best to be knightly; because that, more
than anything else, is what makes a person a knight.  The belt, the chain,
the ceremony, that's all for show; it doesn't change what you are.
Observer:  Only Superman could do that!
Galen:  Being a knight in the SCA is the closest thing I know to being
a comic book superhero, in many ways.  Belted circles often resemble a
meeting of the Justice League.
Observer:  Oh, please!  The Avengers at least!
Galen:  I told you it wasn't cool.
Observer:  So if I'm trying all the time to be as chivalrous and honorable
as I can, then can I be a knight?
Galen:  When you are not only trying, but succeeding as well as a knight
should succeed, and still trying harder, then I'll bring you up in the
circle myself.  If you've shown enough of the other knights that you are
already their equal on or off the field, and you're still trying to improve
yourself, they'll advise the king that it'd be a good idea to knight you.
If the king agrees, then he'll knight you.
Observer:  How long does this take?  
Galen:  That depends on you.  I've seen it done in three years.  A friend of 
mine just got knighted in another kingdom after 20 years of trying.  But the
hard part is after you're knighted.  Then you have to keep working to still
be more knightly, keep your skills up, and speak your mind whenever you see 
the circle going wrong, even if the rest of the knights disagree.  And some
people will tell you they look up to you, that you're the epitome of knighthood,
and others, including some knights, will say you never should have been
knighted, so you can never be sure how well you're doing, unless you can
say that you're doing your best.
Observer:  That's heavy!
Galen:  It is.  Tell you what:  don't worry about it now.  Let me get the
knight marshal over here, we'll get you into the loaner armor, and I'll give
you a lesson or two and see how you like the fighting.
Observer:  Sure!  That sounds great!

Bors -  

You guys have _got_ to quit letting cynical Seneschals -- or Barons -- talk
to your newcomers.  You'll lose more people that way...!

- Galen
-- 
Viscount Galen of Bristol, KSCA, CSM, etc.
Paul Mitchell, pmitchel at flash.net / "noblesse oblige"

Subject: Re: ANST - Re: BG - Tourney d'Amore
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 98 09:32:28 MST
From: zarlor at acm.org (Lenny Zimmermann)
To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 00:23:02 -0600, Ritter Dietrich wrote:
>I was actually there for the tourney and was witness to several of the
>actual reasons that the barrier was set aside when the rapier combatants
>took the field.  The main reason I heard from three of the combatants was
>that it was essentially quite absurd to use it.
>
>To elucidate: even though barrier combat was, in fact, at the height of it's
>popularity in the time of Elizabeth, the fact is that anyone competing in
>combat *at* a barrier in one of those tourneys would have been in a full
>cuiraiss and using a greatsword.

Broadsword or spear was also very common.

>  Additionally, when fighting at the barrier
>it was/is considered to be rude if one uses a thrust- this makes it somewhat
>difficult when using a rapier, does it not?

By the rules we use for rapier combat, yes. (Rapiers were not a thrust
only weapon, but for safety reasons we don't allow "hacking" with the
weapons.)

>  These facts combined to make a
>fairly strong case for fighting to first blood as well as not using the
>barrier.
>
>I'm certain that we could have come up with a sort of premise for using the
>barrier (fighting ship to ship over a railing or something) but no one at
>the time could think up anything plausible.  Perhaps next year we'll be more
>prepared and think up a suitable scenario but in the meantime please know
>that there was some sound judgement for not using that wonderful piece of
>wood for trials of fence.

Of course, the fighting a boarding action with rapiers is not really
all that plausible, by this reasoning, either, as someone else
dutifully pointed out. Come to think of it, unless we are recreating
the Prize Fights of the London Masters of Defence (who used far more
than just Rapiers and is a Middle Class construct, anyway) or are
recreating a sparring match in a school of fence or are competing in
the period sport of fencing (which many of us are still researching),
none of the things we do on the field are "right".

They are all constructs. I will say, however, that I prefer to look to
the methods used in our studied time periods to use as the basis for
recreation. And in that sense a barrier combat is probably far more
acceptable than a "boarding action". (What can I say, my persona is a
land-lubbing noble who doesn't have a clue what an "Elizabethan" court
is, since it's a few decades past his time.) I guess what it comes
down to is that any group of combatants, be they armored or unarmored,
will decide to try and play at what they think will be most enjoyable
for them and help them in their attempts at recreation.

So I guess I've just made a non-argument. :-) I'd just have to guess
that they didn't want to fight the barriers because they thought it
wouldn't be fun. (Pure conjecture on my part, here, as I was not
there.)

Honos Servio,
Lionardo Acquistapace, Bjornsborg
(mka Lenny Zimmermann, San Antonio)
zarlor at acm.org

"A soldier uses arms merely with skill, whereas a knight uses them
with virtuous intention. Mercenaries may be excellent soldiers; but
an action which may be praised in a soldier may be blamed in a
knight. For a soldier, the goal is victory: for the knight, since he
is ready to go, if necessary, to certain destruction, the goal is
honor."   - Pomponio Torelli, 1596.

Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] newcomer thanks
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:16:10 -0600
From: "Elisabeth B. Zakes" <ezakes at austin.rr.com>
To: <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>

> a. almost exclusively, a knight in the time period
> which the SCA recreates, had to own a horse and had to
> be able to field that horse - it was one of the
> primary distinguishing characteristics of being a
> knight -

That all depends on your time period. In the Elizabethan period, which I
follow, people were knighted and given peerages for civil service. Sir
Francis Drake was knighted for his service to the Crown as a mariner and
adding to the kingdom's coffers. William Cecil Lord Burleigh was granted his
peerage for serving the crown as Principal Secretary and Lord Treasurer.
Neither of these positions required a horse. Knighthood in the SCA is a
peerage (which is why I cited both examples) that requires exceptional
fighting ability and the "bearing of a peer," among other requirements. The
"knighthood" that would be equivalent to Sir Francis' would be the Order of
the Pelican, also a peerage, which would fit both Sir Francis and Lord
Burleigh.

The *structure* of the SCA isn't period--far from it--but some of us try to
be period is certain aspects of our personal lives. Some do it more than
others, some less, but each to his own taste and financial ability.

If you want to make the SCA structure more period, I'd love to discuss it
with you. I'd also love to have Master Tadgh and Master Daniel in on that
discussion! :)

Aethelyan Moondragon
Bryn Gwlad

From: clevin at ripco.com (Craig Levin)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: History of white belts?
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:54:15 +0000 (UTC)

Chris Zakes  <moondrgn at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>This question came up on another list, and I figured there was a
>pretty good chance that *somebody* here would know the answer.
>
>Is there documentation for the white belt as a symbol of knighthood,
>or is this an SCA-created custom?

Maurice Keen, in his _Chivalry_, talks about an anonymous poem
from the 1200's called L'Ordene de Chevalerie, in which Saladin
interrogates a captive knight about knighthood-specifically, how
a Frank can go from just a normal guy to a great warrior. The
captive knight, Hugh, takes Saladin through the entire dubbing
process, except for the final blow. One of the steps was putting
on a white belt, to symbolize chastity.

It sounds far more likely that this was worn only during the
dubbing, if this was an accurate description of a dubbing during
the High Middle Ages, rather than something which a knight of the
time wore every day.

Pedro

>Did you not ask why against one man they send a hundred swords?
>Because they know this one man for a friend of mine!
>
>		-Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand

From: Faelan Caimbeul <faelancaimbeul at gmail.com>
Date: June 21, 2006 11:40:34 PM CDT
To: "'Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,  Inc.'" <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Spurs (was:Squire belts (was: Sable Thistle...etc.)

I once had a Knight explain all this to me thusly:

The chain is a symbol of fealty and service, nothing more. By that
definition, anyone who sears fealty to their Lord, Baron or King would be
entitled to wear it (yes, I came from one of THOSE kingdoms).

The spurs were nothing more, historically, than a tool used to ride a horse.
The SCA made the association because normally only knights had the money to
afford a riding horse. However, many nobles as well had horses, and many
equestrians today have horses and corresponding horseshoes too, even though
they are not knights; and so the spurs were not indicative of a knight
either.

The white belt is a purely SCA thing. It's in law and the only official
symbol of knighthood. In period, a white belt simply meant you had a white
belt, hopefully matching your ensemble (but more than likely not). 

Therefore, the only true indication of a knight is his heart. How he carries
himself, how he treats others, how he pursues art and culture, protects the
weak, leads and generally makes a good effort to be the best person, the
best warrior, he can be. This means that we can find many a "knight" who has
never had a white belt, spurs or a chain, and should; and several who do
have this things and shouldn't.

Faelan

From: Jean Paul de Sens <jeanpauldesens at gmail.com>
Date: June 22, 2006 12:48:10 AM CDT
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Spurs (was:Squire belts (was: Sable Thistle...etc.)

On 6/21/06, Faelan Caimbeul <faelancaimbeul at gmail.com> wrote:
<<< The white belt is a purely SCA thing. It's in law and the only official
symbol of knighthood. In period, a white belt simply meant you had a white
belt, hopefully matching your ensemble (but more than likely not). >>>

Not true.  Du Charney says that a man about to be made a knight should be dressed for the ceremony in a red tunic (showing his willingness to shed his blood), black hose (to symbolize that he comes from the earth), a white belt (to show purity), and a red cloak (such as was worn in antiquity). At the ceremony he's given spurs and the accolade is performed. 
 
JP

From: Burke McCrory <bmccrory at tax.ok.gov>
Date: June 22, 2006 3:07:50 PM CDT
To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Spurs (was:Squire belts (was: Sable  
Thistle...etc.)

You know this conversation (or one just like it) comes up about once
every year or so and it always ends the same way.  I think that it is
a side effect of a more basic question.  Is the SCA an organization
that re-creates the cultures and lifestyle of a select segment of
Western European life in the period (600 AD to 1600 AD) or is it an
organization that re-enacts that period?

The question is more relevant that some might think.  The SCA was and
is an outgrowth of a costume party and has been for many decades a
re-creation organization that uses the afore mentioned period as its
inspiration.  This has allowed us to mix both period aspects and
modern conveniences together.  It also allowed us to take certain
medieval concepts and organizations and create our own
equivalents.  However over the last few years I have seen an
acceleration of what I will call an attempt to transition us into a
historical reenactment group, where everything has to be period.  I
am not saying that this is universal but the trend does appear to be
there.  So that having been said this discussion about knighthood and
its symbols really can be boiled down to the following.  If we are
using the period organizations and concepts as inspiration to
re-create a noble order then the customs and symbols of the SCA's
Chivalry (a 40 year old order I might point out) are just fine.  But
if we are actually trying to mimic (as in reenact) the period
organizations then we need to choose which one we will re-enact and
completely adjust our symbology and customs as would be appropriate.

Burke

> Lyonel ici.
>
> Sieur Jean Paul has already cited Du Charney on the white belt origin, so I
> won't repeat that. I will add to that point, in all fairness to the
> discussion, the white belt was only worn as part of the ceremony and was
> undoubtedly cloth or woven.
>
> I'm sorry but the "chain is a symbol of fealty" argument doesn't wash. At
> least, not from an historical perspective. The SCA established the chain as
> a protected badge of knighthood and associated it with fealty, and I believe
> the idea was loosely based on the chains of esses worn by member of the
> Order of the Golden Fleece. I'm willing to entertain your argument of the
> chain symbolism if you can show me a period example of a non-knight wearing
> a chain expressly as a symbol of fealty. (Granted, I could be forgetting a
> reference to the chain-as-fealty-symbol from period knighting ceremonies. If
> so, I apologize for that elision, but the argument still works).
>
> As for the discussion of spurs:
>
>> The spurs were nothing more, historically, than a tool used to ride a horse.
>> The SCA made the association because normally only knights had the money to
>> afford a riding horse. However, many nobles as well had horses, and many
>> equestrians today have horses and corresponding horseshoes too, even though
>> they are not knights; and so the spurs were not indicative of a  
>> knight either.
>
> Um, yes and no.
>
> The SCA made the association because Du Charney, Lull, and other period
> sources include strapping on spurs (in some cases specifically spurs of
> golden metal) as part of the knighting ceremony. What the SCA did was
> specifically associate *the wearing of spurs* on an ongoing basis with
> knighthood. The association makes sense in more reasons than just the "only
> knights could afford..." point. Knighthood in the Middle Ages is so closely 
> tied with horsemanship that in every European language but  English 
> (ironically), the word for
> knight means "horseman" (cavalier, chevalier, cavalher, caballero, ritter,
> ridari, und so weiter). For any interested word geeks out  there, "knight"
> is derived from the Anglo-Saxon "cniht" which originally just means "young
> man" but eventually came to mean "warrior."
>
> Frankly, I've never had any objection to anyone wearing spurs. It seems
> pretentious if you're not a rider or a knight, but much of what we do in the
> SCA is pretentious. My apologies to Corwin and Anton, but the squires in
> training spurs always struck me as a bit too precious (YMMV).
>
> So, in all, you can argue that SCA symbols of knighthood are all inventions
> that would not have been valid in the Middle Ages. In most ages and
> locations, you could not tell a knight on sight. Sure, someone in armor,
> armed and bearing arms, was probably a knight. But you never knew for sure.
> Many mercenaries became knights by pretense. No one ever admitted to having
> knighted Robert Knolles or John Hawkwood, but they both styled themselves as
> knights.
>
> Ultimately, though, what argument are you trying to make? Are you saying
> that anyone in the SCA can wear a gold chain, spurs, and a white belt? Yes,
> that's true. I think the reception of such choices at events would make this
> an uncomfortable choice, though. Are you saying that it makes sense from a
> period standpoint to wear these accoutrements? Well, in one of three cases
> (spurs), I agree. I don't think you can find many period examples of white
> belts and gold chains, though.
>
> lo vostre por vos servir
> Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace

<the end>

Edited by Mark S. Harris	knighthood-msg	Page  of