ANST - Fealty

[Dennis Grace]

Salut, Cozyns,

Lyonel aisai.

The subject of fealty again raises it's many-faceted head.  Master Ioseph
of Locksley in Atenveldt has taken this topic on a number of times over the
years--less than satisfactorily in my estimation--and I believe one of his
articles is on-line and reachable through Stefan's Florilegium.  Alina
raises a number of questions, but each of these questions seems to raise
more questions, so I'd like to take a moment to discuss the issue of fealty
as it applies to knights, historically as well as within the large and
somewhat fluid context of the SCA.

Fealty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "The obligation of
fidelity on the part of a feudal tenant or vassal to his lord."  If we
examine actual fealty oaths of the middle ages, we can get an even larger
view of what exactly this means, but the OED's statement is fairly
straightforward:  a feudal tenant owes fidelity to his/her feudal lord.  In
other words, the oath of fealty acknowledges that the tenant is getting
something from the feudal lord (land and security) and agrees to repay this
something with loyalty.  The oath Amra posted to the list "As it is between
thee and the Almighty, [name of recipient], so be it between me and thee,"
provides an example of one form of amplification on this rather
non-specific oath.  What we can see clearly from this sort of oath is that
fealty operated in two directions.  The metaphoric oath says the vassal
will be faithful to the lord but implies that the lord will reciprocate by
providing security.  We should forego, however, the SCA tendency to
generalize in this case and say, "Well, oath's of fealty weren't too
specific."  Many fealty "contracts" have survived from the tenth century
onward in which the individuals swearing fealty promised specific services
(within often stringent limits) in return for being allowed to hold
particular plots of land.  

A medieval oath of fealty from a knight usually included a promise to
provide military service in support of his lord.  The oath frequently
specified what the knight was swearing to protect (his liege lord's lands,
castles, family members) in what cases the knight could be expected to
provide money (if the liege lord were captured and required ransom, for
example) how far the knight would go in support of his liege lord's
military ventures (some specified only Crusades, others agreed to "press
the King's cause in lands foreign and domestic") and exactly how much
military support the knight would provide (how many men, how much weaponry,
how many days per year the knight and his men would fight) and a little
thing the SCA usually ignores called "scutage" (the amount of money the
knight could pay in lieu of actually going off to war).  Likewise, the
fealty contract would often describe precisely what the knight was to get
in return.  The liege lord might offer, in addition to whatever lands the
vassal was alotted, to provide X amount of rations for the knight and his
troops during times of military service, to utilize other vassals to
protect the knight's lands from invaders.  A liege lord might also agree to
front the cost of knighting the vassal's eldest son (when he came of age),
agree to pay part of the cost of the vassal's daughter's marriage, or even
agree to provide x a set number of recommendations (typically one,
sometimes two) to the church for the vassal's children.  

So what does all of this have to do with the SCA knight and his requisite
oath to the crown?  Generally, most of the knights I've known in the SCA
tend to read the oath thus:  I have agreed to fight on the side of my liege
lord (lady) in any SCA battles and I have recognized him (her) as my
rightful sovereign.  Now, at first glance the first part of this agreement
might seem a fairly clearcut matter.  The King wishes to fight in Gulf
Wars, and I will fight in support of His Majesty.  But how simple is it
really?  Not all of the Ansteorran knights will be able to make it to Gulf
Wars.  Are these knights then foresworn?  I don't want to start a flame war
on this matter, but I know KSCAs who hold cast-iron convictions with
respect to this issue--on *both* sides of the argument.  Some will tell
you, as a knight it is your obligation to go where His Majesty sends you.
I know men who elected to take the MSCA baldric because they did not
believe they could fulfill this particular duty.  Others will argue that
such a belief lacks perspective, that an SCA oath must be limited in
context by the bounds of the SCA.  Yes, an SCA war is within those bounds,
but the days off from work and the cost of travel to and from the war are
not.  

Also, what of "practice" wars?  At Fall Melees the knights were fairly
divided between two sides:  one led by the king, the other by the crown
prince.  Were the knights who fought with the crown prince then foresworn?
Of course, the fact that *all* our wars are "practice" (hey, nobody dies)
further muddles this issue.

Now, I haven't yet addressed the latter part of the knight's oath--what it
means to recognize a individual as rightful sovereign of an SCA kingdom.
Perhaps I can touch on this matter after a bit more rumination, or perhaps
another will take up this topic for me.  Sorry, Alina, I know how little
this actually answers of your initial questions, but those are some mighty
large questions.

lo vostre por vos servir
Sir Lyone Oliver Grace


________________________________
Dennis Grace
Assistant Instructor
Recovering Medievalist
Department of English
University of Texas at Austin

mailto:amazing at mail.utexas.edu

Micel yfel deth se unwritere.
	--AElfric of York
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.