[Ansteorra] In defense of courtesy

James Crouchet james at crouchet.com
Wed Oct 4 21:16:15 PDT 2006


Continuing our discussion...

Marc Carlson wrote:
>> James Crouchet james at crouchet.com
>>     
>> While it is true that we take some
>> of our models of courtesy from the Victorians and we obviously have our
>> own priorities, fashions of speech and behavior, and prejudices, in the
>> main we would recognize and respect the themes of courtesy from the past.
>>     
>
> I believe that I may not have been as clear as I should have been.  My 
> statement was regarding what we consider chivalric courtesy and proper 
> behavior being Victorian, not that there weren't standards for courtesy and 
> behoavior.
>   
The central question is how the SCA sees courtesy. I think we can agree
that the Victorians only play into it to the degree to which they
influence the SCA's ideas of courtesy. I cannot deny there is some
effect but I think it is small. I disagree with the idea that the SCA
has adopted those Victorian ideals wholesale. I contend that the origins
of our ideas of courtesy owe more to the ideals of the 20th Century.

I think this is the crux of our different views.
>> As evidence I offer "The Book of the Courtier" by Baldesar Castiglione,...
>>     
>
> I have read it, or rather I have read English translations, and I agree that 
> people might recognize the essence of courtesy that is described, the 
> question is whether that portrait is the same as that painted by the 
> chivalric mythology of the Victorian era.
Again, the central question is how the SCA -- not the Victorians -- see
courtesy.
>   For example, when Castiglione 
> describes performing acts of Chivalry, I think he's talking about something 
> related to horses :)
>   
Chivalry is a tricky word, which is why I have avoided it. Our most
common meaning for this term is not the same the the most common period
use of the word. As such, it tends to lead us into false arguments. I
agree that a period discussion of horsemanship is not relevant to our
ideas of courtesy.

> To be fair, yes, there are a number of similarities in what Castiglioni 
> describes and how I was taught a "Gentleman" ought to behave.  So let's 
> tighten our focus to treatment of women as prescribed by SCA "chivalric" 
> standards.  Castiglioni says that men should be of meek, gentle, sober etc 
> conversation with women, and love them honestly more for their minds than 
> their bodies.  I'm not seeing anywhere that women are weak and inferior and 
> must be protected, and kept from working too hard.
I'm not sure how you came to believe that is the SCA ideal of courtesy.
Our women are as strong and capable as they choose to be. I would be
amused to see a man try telling Sir Britta she is weak and needs to
shelter behind him in a battle; more to the point, it would be
considered rude. I was happy that a young lady offered to help me the
other day when I was trying to carry too much from the hall at Crown;
more to the point it was clearly courtesy on her part.
>   Much less, demonstrating 
> our defacto ownership over the weaker sex through an array of bizzare 
> rituals such as escorting them into court, opening doors for them, and so 
> on.
>   
I think you read too much into those rituals. That may have been their
origin but much like saying "Bless you!" to someone who has sneezed,
they have long since lost their original meaning and are now done only
as traditional ways of showing courtesy. Examining the prevalence of
these rituals will tell you little about how we regard women.

Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Christian Doré





More information about the Ansteorra mailing list