HOME | DD

Description
     The notion of chivalry has its roots in the Middle Ages as a philosophy by which the nobility, and particularly the knightly class, lived out their lives. Its application extended to all aspects of life, including romance, warfare, the tournament, and daily activities. To some degree, the concept was universal throughout all of medieval Europe, as emphasized by the distribution of Arthurian Legends and other chivalric manuscripts, which were copied and circulated throughout the continent.(1)  Works featuring exemplary knights performing valiant deeds while leading honorable lives, like Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival and Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan, as well as many French works, would have circulated across Europe.(2)  However, the particular virtues that were emphasized often varied from one kingdom to the next, and shifted over generations. During the thirteenth century, chivalry took a particular form within the two intertwined kingdoms of England and France.(3)  Here as with other eras and regions, chivalry shared an assumed connection to the church and the monarchy, but within those assumptions there was a gradual, if subtle turn toward individual, secular philosophy.
     No single or official "code of chivalry" existed during the thirteenth century, or at least none that knights swore by uniformly. However, trends do emerge across various works, suggesting that there was at least some standard of behavior people of the day viewed as ideal. One major work is the Romance of the Rose, written primarily by Jean de Meun, around 1275. The poem is primarily about love and romance, but one passage does act as something of a guide for knights, stating that "A knight should never shame his sword / Nor ever let unseemly word / Escape his lips, of honor fain / And scorning sloth, like good Gawain."(4)  This poem was quite widely circulated, and its popularity suggests that it was a fairly accepted view of knightly chivalric virtues emphasized during the period, as was the Arthurian figure the poem mentions.(5)  Another popular work by Catalan knight and writer Ramon Lull attempts to place chivalric characteristics in list form. In his Libre qui es de l'Ordre de Cavalleria, written around 1280, Lull defines the seven virtues of chivalry as faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, strength, and temperance.(6)  Arthurian legend also provided a characterized view of the traits present in the ideal knight, and the number of stories gives insight into the variations in what was most prized over a chronological and geographical spread. The model knight of King Arthur's court according to an unknown Englishman, writing around 1270, is described in the story Of Arthour and of Merlin: "At that table non sitt might / Bot he were noble and douhti knight / Strong and hende and hardi and wise… No never fle out of bataile."(7)  Here again are allusions to strength, prudence and justice, and sources like these demonstrate that knights did have a set of traits and behaviors to strive for. But hypothetical stories and guides to not determine how knights actually behaved and whether they met these standards, or if they were even expected to.
     Although a knight could apply those virtuous traits outside of combat, thirteenth century knighthood was above all else a military profession, and his philosophy developed along that lifestyle. "To be soaked in one's own sweat and blood," wrote Frenchman Henri de Laon in his Le Dit des Hérouts,  "that I call the true bath of honor."(8)  De Laon viewed combat as an integral part of knighthood, alluding to the point during the knighting ceremony where the knight-aspirant is literally washed clean of his sins, which was itself a reference to Christian baptism.(9)  The battlefield was certainly a chaotic place, where the ideals of chivalry could be easily abandoned in favor of self-preservation. However, a knight who maintained his sense of honor in the midst of combat may not have been performing for entirely altruistic reasons, as virtues like courage and prowess had some practical benefit as well. In his Life of St. Louis, Joinville mentions several "worthy knights… all good men who had won rewards for gallant conduct in the field."(10)  Many viewed such valor as quite chivalrous, but some contemporary critics argued that it was just the opposite: "It is not love that makes young knights brave," said one French scholar, "it is poverty."(11)  This may have been true to some degree, as many of the knights who did not join the Fifth Crusade of 1218-21 found alternate work in Spain and Portugal as mercenaries.(12)  Still, some knights seemed to feel at least a retroactive sense of chivalry, even if it did not always directly affect their actions. Nobles generally attempted to avoid killing one another in battle if it cold be helped, and when knights were killed, the aristocracy on both sides viewed it as a tragedy, as the author of the Histoire de Gillaume le Marechal stresses during his account of the English civil war of 1215. After an enemy knight was fatally struck in the battle of Lincoln in 1207, he wrote, "It was grievous that he should die in this way."(13)
     Although such seeming tenderness may have had more pragmatic motivation, such as lamenting the loss of a potential ransom, it blends with a more altruistic ideal not forgotten even on the battlefield.
Additionally, though victory in battle might demonstrate prowess or bring renown, it was not the last chance to demonstrate a sense of chivalry. Ransoms were a common method of profiting from a victory, a seemingly selfish act, but such actions were often viewed not as defying chivalry, but rather as promoting it. Adhering to the unwritten "laws of war" was viewed as a sign of discipline, and may even have reflected a certain respect for the enemy. The ablitty to demonstrate self control and restraint even in the midst of battle, some argued, was chivalrous indeed.(14)  Behavior after victory was also a time when some failed to uphold the knightly ideal. King John mistreated many of his prisoners at Mirebeau in 1202, and the Histoire criticized the knights who assisted him for "[bringing] shame upon themselves,"(15)  suggesting that even if chivalry did not always find application, it was not completely ignored by all.
     The tournament was common method of demonstrating chivalry by prowess, especially during peacetime.(16)  By the thirteenth century the tournament had become closely tied to chivalric ideals, to the point where many were themed to reenact famous scenes from Arthurian legends.(17)  Bouts of peace could still be brutal affairs, however, and casualties were commonplace, suggesting that chivalry may not have affected the method of obtaining victory so much as the reason for fighting, and what the knight did with the victory once he had attained it.(18)  Eventually Edward I began enacting regulations, such as those in 1267 requiring that only blunted weapons be used, although this rule seems to have remained unique to England for some time. Still, tournaments in both England and France generally became more organized over the thirteenth century, at least to the point where it was distinguishable from war.(19)  In this setting chivalry demonstrates its place as a purely knightly philosophy, since the values it promoted clearly did not appeal to all, as demonstrated by repeated - though generally unsuccessful - attempts to ban it by both the church and the monarchy.(20)
     Involvement in tournaments aided in securing a growing trend of the exclusivity of the knightly class, and with it the concept of chivalry.(21)  By the thirteenth century, armor in the Northern Kingdoms had developed to the point where it was often impossible to identify the knight beneath it, and thus the heraldic devices that had seen artistic use since the eleventh century became items of necessity. As knights began to uniformly carry coats-of-arms, the coat-of-arms became more uniformly knightly, until it became a mark of nobility and a clear symbol to set its wearer apart from the lower classes.(22)  This publicized mark of identity became quickly tied to chivalry, for as Ramon Lull wrote, "the knight's heraldic device symbolizes his renown earned, fair or foul."(32)  Gradually, heraldry had also become not only an individual badge of personal identity and social status, but also the symbol of his entire family. By this time, a knight's performance was tied to something bigger than himself, instilling a sense of pride in "birth, station and culture."(24)  The importance of chivalry increased with this, since praiseworthy actions now bestowed not just personal glory, but also family honor. Indeed, a knight's heraldry soon developed to the point where knights began adding symbols not only representing family and class, but also the virtues they wished or claimed to exemplify. In French author Huon de Méry's Tournoi d'Antechrist, written around 1230, the heraldry of the knight Ywain is described as bearing a shield "party of love and of franchise, a lioncel of prouesse with open hands of largesse."(25)  Heraldry was often a requirement for tournament entry, and its rise in popularity made heraldry - and therefore heredity - more valued, adding still to the isolation and exclusivity of the knightly class. (26)
     The majority of knights were of noble birth prior to the thirteenth century, but it was only after that point that knighthood itself, by definition, implied nobility.(27)  The extent of chivalry, therefore, while still including protection of the weak in some sources, was not always expected to extend far beyond the social position of those who practiced it.(28)  However, while inherited aristocracy increasingly marked the knightly class, some still argued that chivalry, not lineage, was the key to nobility. The Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian legend questioned the roots of nobility by way of Sir Lancelot, who said: "They tell me that all peoples are descended from one man and one woman. So I do not understand how one can have more gentility in him than another… unless he earns it for himself by his prowess in the same way as men win lands and honors."(29)  This concept, echoed later by John Ball during the Peasant's Revolt in England two centuries later,(30)  suggests that chivalry - and even nobility - transcended class in some respects. However, in a society with such rigid social systems, it is more likely that emphasis was placed instead on the already noble knight demonstrating that he was "worthy of the blood that bore him."(31)  Jean de Meun seconds this thought, writing, "He who strives to come at truth must agree that in all of gentility there's no good unless a man seeks to emulate the prowess of his noble ancestors. This should be the quest of everyone who calls himself a gentle,"(32)  as did Ramon Lull, claiming that "Peerage and chivalry accord together, for peerage is nothing but honor anciently accustomed."(33)  This hybrid of heredity and virtuous behavior was a key argument in favor of the elevated status of the nobility, working in favor of inherited social rank without it appearing undeserved.
     Chivalry was almost always closely tied to Christianity, with knightly codes often closely mirroring the Cardinal Virtues of the church, redefined in the thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas.(34)  The process of knighting, too, included symbolic rituals both secular and Christian in nature: a bath to wash away sin, laying in a white bed to signify heaven, and donning a white belt to represent chastity.(35)  However, while knighting and education in chivalry both had religious overtones, they were nevertheless secular in nature. Faith played a role in chivalry not because it was a Christian philosophy but because faith played a great part in nearly all aspects of life, to the point where it is impossible to completely separate the religious and the secular. Priests were often involved in knighting, but as several ceremonies indicate, they were not required.(36)  Several songs and romances further demonstrate the secular roots of chivalry. In The Romance of King Alisaunder, an account of the life of Alexander the Great written around 1275, the author describes Alexander and his knights as embodying many of the qualities of chivalry. The story is highly anachronistic in many respects, from the armor Alexander and his retinue wears to the description of him and his comrades as "knights." However, in spite of the many social and technological inaccuracies, historians and writers were still aware that Alexander predated Christianity, and yet he was still described as chivalrous, demonstrating that the thirteenth-century mind did not necessarily consider chivalry to be tied to Christianity. Contemporary accounts of other classical figures such as Aeneas and Julius Caesar are likewise quick to compliment the chivalry of pagan heroes.(37)  Even medieval non-Christians could become knights without seeming contradiction. The anonymous Ordene de Chevalrie tells a fictional story in which a captured knight bestows the right of knighthood upon Saladin. Although he is reluctant to do so, arguing, "Nor faith nor Baptism hast thou,"(38)  he ultimately proves both willing and able to perform the ceremony for the Muslim ruler, saying, "Sir, since ye drive me to the thing / And nought avails my nay-saying / Then riskless I the work shall earn,"(39)   and dubs Saladin a knight, with all the lessons on chivalrous behavior the ceremony implies. This again shows that no particular religious belief was required to be considered a worthy knight.
     Arthurian legend in thirteenth century England and France also showed a shift from previous themes, reflecting a change in philosophy and priorities. One new development in Arthurian lore that would become the hallmark of the stories of the Knights of the Round Table was the quest for the Holy Grail. Now called the Vulgate Cycle, this compilation of French works, spanning throughout the thirteenth century, retells the Arthurian tale from a more individual standpoint. Stories of claiming a kingdom and narratives of the king himself are dropped in favor of tales of the heroic deeds of individual knights. Sir Lancelot also makes his first appearance as a major character; a knight whose chivalry is undisputed, but whose conduct is not always in line with the wishes of his king.(40)  The knights involved in this quest, while maintaining their allegiance to Arthur, seem to fight for personal renown rather than expressly for their lord, and their quest to uphold justice seems a very personal one; expressing chivalric virtues, but often toward no clear outside source.(41)  Similarly, while the quest for the grail confirms Christian devotion, it is less directed toward any organized church than it would have been if the knights had pursued a different course of piety through arms, such as by participating in a crusade. The knights of the Vulgate Cycle maintain a strong sense of chivalry, and the writers praise these virtues as much as they did in any other century, but their motivation here is based on a very personal sense of faith and righteousness. This ideology is best characterized by an inscription beneath a sword embedded in a chunk of marble on the bank of a river in the beginning of La Queste del Saint Grall, written between 1210 and 1225. It read: "None Shall Take Me Hence But He At Whose Side I Am To Hang. And He Shall Be The Best Knight In The World."(42)  A very different message on the etched inscription of the last stone-wedged blade that focused around Arthur, mentioned in the Vulgate Cycle's first book, Merlin, read "Who taketh this swerde out of this ston sholde be kynge by the eleccion of Jhesu Criste."(43)  The difference in both the backgrounds and the mindsets of King Arthur and his Round Table Knights only grows as the Vulgate Cycle continues, and it is notable that Arthur himself is a relatively minor character for the vast majority of the work, perhaps reflecting the changing level of connection or interest contemporary readers had in the different heroes of the Arthurian world as time passed.
     The recorded actions of knights throughout thirteenth century England and France as well as the romances and biographies of the heroes they used as models both demonstrate a shifting sense of values and morals. And while those values continued to fall under the meaning of the word "chivalry," its definition was a flexible one, designed to fit the realities of its particular society and day. The same characters of Arthur and Gawaine, Alexander, Aeneas and Caesar, and Roland and Charlemagne(44)  were not the same "knights" as described in centuries past or hence. But while sources depict a multitude of instances of amoral behavior within the noble class, chivalry remained present, if only in concept, within the minds of the knights who heard its praise sung in the stories of heroes and the words of the chroniclers, scholars and writers of the day. Cynicism with regards to the application of chivalrous behavior existed, but so too did historic examples of individual demonstrations of faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, strength, and temperance, valor, sagacity and loyalty.(45)  The shift toward individualism made knights no less chivalrous in their own eyes, and if their demonstrations of chivalry came with worldly benefits like ransoms or the attention of a potential patron, they were the happier for it. However, regardless of the motivation behind it or the frequency of its application, chivalry remained a pervasive ideal throughout the Middle Ages, and a source of inspiration and hope to look toward. For as the damsel in distress cried out; "Noble knight… remember that without you there is no pity, compassion or generosity."(46)

Description
     The notion of chivalry has its roots in the Middle Ages as a philosophy by which the nobility, and particularly the knightly class, lived out their lives. Its application extended to all aspects of life, including romance, warfare, the tournament, and daily activities. To some degree, the concept was universal throughout all of medieval Europe, as emphasized by the distribution of Arthurian Legends and other chivalric manuscripts, which were copied and circulated throughout the continent.(1)  Works featuring exemplary knights performing valiant deeds while leading honorable lives, like Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival and Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan, as well as many French works, would have circulated across Europe.(2)  However, the particular virtues that were emphasized often varied from one kingdom to the next, and shifted over generations. During the thirteenth century, chivalry took a particular form within the two intertwined kingdoms of England and France.(3)  Here as with other eras and regions, chivalry shared an assumed connection to the church and the monarchy, but within those assumptions there was a gradual, if subtle turn toward individual, secular philosophy.
     No single or official "code of chivalry" existed during the thirteenth century, or at least none that knights swore by uniformly. However, trends do emerge across various works, suggesting that there was at least some standard of behavior people of the day viewed as ideal. One major work is the Romance of the Rose, written primarily by Jean de Meun, around 1275. The poem is primarily about love and romance, but one passage does act as something of a guide for knights, stating that "A knight should never shame his sword / Nor ever let unseemly word / Escape his lips, of honor fain / And scorning sloth, like good Gawain."(4)  This poem was quite widely circulated, and its popularity suggests that it was a fairly accepted view of knightly chivalric virtues emphasized during the period, as was the Arthurian figure the poem mentions.(5)  Another popular work by Catalan knight and writer Ramon Lull attempts to place chivalric characteristics in list form. In his Libre qui es de l'Ordre de Cavalleria, written around 1280, Lull defines the seven virtues of chivalry as faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, strength, and temperance.(6)  Arthurian legend also provided a characterized view of the traits present in the ideal knight, and the number of stories gives insight into the variations in what was most prized over a chronological and geographical spread. The model knight of King Arthur's court according to an unknown Englishman, writing around 1270, is described in the story Of Arthour and of Merlin: "At that table non sitt might / Bot he were noble and douhti knight / Strong and hende and hardi and wise… No never fle out of bataile."(7)  Here again are allusions to strength, prudence and justice, and sources like these demonstrate that knights did have a set of traits and behaviors to strive for. But hypothetical stories and guides to not determine how knights actually behaved and whether they met these standards, or if they were even expected to.
     Although a knight could apply those virtuous traits outside of combat, thirteenth century knighthood was above all else a military profession, and his philosophy developed along that lifestyle. "To be soaked in one's own sweat and blood," wrote Frenchman Henri de Laon in his Le Dit des Hérouts,  "that I call the true bath of honor."(8)  De Laon viewed combat as an integral part of knighthood, alluding to the point during the knighting ceremony where the knight-aspirant is literally washed clean of his sins, which was itself a reference to Christian baptism.(9)  The battlefield was certainly a chaotic place, where the ideals of chivalry could be easily abandoned in favor of self-preservation. However, a knight who maintained his sense of honor in the midst of combat may not have been performing for entirely altruistic reasons, as virtues like courage and prowess had some practical benefit as well. In his Life of St. Louis, Joinville mentions several "worthy knights… all good men who had won rewards for gallant conduct in the field."(10)  Many viewed such valor as quite chivalrous, but some contemporary critics argued that it was just the opposite: "It is not love that makes young knights brave," said one French scholar, "it is poverty."(11)  This may have been true to some degree, as many of the knights who did not join the Fifth Crusade of 1218-21 found alternate work in Spain and Portugal as mercenaries.(12)  Still, some knights seemed to feel at least a retroactive sense of chivalry, even if it did not always directly affect their actions. Nobles generally attempted to avoid killing one another in battle if it cold be helped, and when knights were killed, the aristocracy on both sides viewed it as a tragedy, as the author of the Histoire de Gillaume le Marechal stresses during his account of the English civil war of 1215. After an enemy knight was fatally struck in the battle of Lincoln in 1207, he wrote, "It was grievous that he should die in this way."(13)
     Although such seeming tenderness may have had more pragmatic motivation, such as lamenting the loss of a potential ransom, it blends with a more altruistic ideal not forgotten even on the battlefield.
Additionally, though victory in battle might demonstrate prowess or bring renown, it was not the last chance to demonstrate a sense of chivalry. Ransoms were a common method of profiting from a victory, a seemingly selfish act, but such actions were often viewed not as defying chivalry, but rather as promoting it. Adhering to the unwritten "laws of war" was viewed as a sign of discipline, and may even have reflected a certain respect for the enemy. The ablitty to demonstrate self control and restraint even in the midst of battle, some argued, was chivalrous indeed.(14)  Behavior after victory was also a time when some failed to uphold the knightly ideal. King John mistreated many of his prisoners at Mirebeau in 1202, and the Histoire criticized the knights who assisted him for "[bringing] shame upon themselves,"(15)  suggesting that even if chivalry did not always find application, it was not completely ignored by all.
     The tournament was common method of demonstrating chivalry by prowess, especially during peacetime.(16)  By the thirteenth century the tournament had become closely tied to chivalric ideals, to the point where many were themed to reenact famous scenes from Arthurian legends.(17)  Bouts of peace could still be brutal affairs, however, and casualties were commonplace, suggesting that chivalry may not have affected the method of obtaining victory so much as the reason for fighting, and what the knight did with the victory once he had attained it.(18)  Eventually Edward I began enacting regulations, such as those in 1267 requiring that only blunted weapons be used, although this rule seems to have remained unique to England for some time. Still, tournaments in both England and France generally became more organized over the thirteenth century, at least to the point where it was distinguishable from war.(19)  In this setting chivalry demonstrates its place as a purely knightly philosophy, since the values it promoted clearly did not appeal to all, as demonstrated by repeated - though generally unsuccessful - attempts to ban it by both the church and the monarchy.(20)
     Involvement in tournaments aided in securing a growing trend of the exclusivity of the knightly class, and with it the concept of chivalry.(21)  By the thirteenth century, armor in the Northern Kingdoms had developed to the point where it was often impossible to identify the knight beneath it, and thus the heraldic devices that had seen artistic use since the eleventh century became items of necessity. As knights began to uniformly carry coats-of-arms, the coat-of-arms became more uniformly knightly, until it became a mark of nobility and a clear symbol to set its wearer apart from the lower classes.(22)  This publicized mark of identity became quickly tied to chivalry, for as Ramon Lull wrote, "the knight's heraldic device symbolizes his renown earned, fair or foul."(32)  Gradually, heraldry had also become not only an individual badge of personal identity and social status, but also the symbol of his entire family. By this time, a knight's performance was tied to something bigger than himself, instilling a sense of pride in "birth, station and culture."(24)  The importance of chivalry increased with this, since praiseworthy actions now bestowed not just personal glory, but also family honor. Indeed, a knight's heraldry soon developed to the point where knights began adding symbols not only representing family and class, but also the virtues they wished or claimed to exemplify. In French author Huon de Méry's Tournoi d'Antechrist, written around 1230, the heraldry of the knight Ywain is described as bearing a shield "party of love and of franchise, a lioncel of prouesse with open hands of largesse."(25)  Heraldry was often a requirement for tournament entry, and its rise in popularity made heraldry - and therefore heredity - more valued, adding still to the isolation and exclusivity of the knightly class. (26)
     The majority of knights were of noble birth prior to the thirteenth century, but it was only after that point that knighthood itself, by definition, implied nobility.(27)  The extent of chivalry, therefore, while still including protection of the weak in some sources, was not always expected to extend far beyond the social position of those who practiced it.(28)  However, while inherited aristocracy increasingly marked the knightly class, some still argued that chivalry, not lineage, was the key to nobility. The Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian legend questioned the roots of nobility by way of Sir Lancelot, who said: "They tell me that all peoples are descended from one man and one woman. So I do not understand how one can have more gentility in him than another… unless he earns it for himself by his prowess in the same way as men win lands and honors."(29)  This concept, echoed later by John Ball during the Peasant's Revolt in England two centuries later,(30)  suggests that chivalry - and even nobility - transcended class in some respects. However, in a society with such rigid social systems, it is more likely that emphasis was placed instead on the already noble knight demonstrating that he was "worthy of the blood that bore him."(31)  Jean de Meun seconds this thought, writing, "He who strives to come at truth must agree that in all of gentility there's no good unless a man seeks to emulate the prowess of his noble ancestors. This should be the quest of everyone who calls himself a gentle,"(32)  as did Ramon Lull, claiming that "Peerage and chivalry accord together, for peerage is nothing but honor anciently accustomed."(33)  This hybrid of heredity and virtuous behavior was a key argument in favor of the elevated status of the nobility, working in favor of inherited social rank without it appearing undeserved.
     Chivalry was almost always closely tied to Christianity, with knightly codes often closely mirroring the Cardinal Virtues of the church, redefined in the thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas.(34)  The process of knighting, too, included symbolic rituals both secular and Christian in nature: a bath to wash away sin, laying in a white bed to signify heaven, and donning a white belt to represent chastity.(35)  However, while knighting and education in chivalry both had religious overtones, they were nevertheless secular in nature. Faith played a role in chivalry not because it was a Christian philosophy but because faith played a great part in nearly all aspects of life, to the point where it is impossible to completely separate the religious and the secular. Priests were often involved in knighting, but as several ceremonies indicate, they were not required.(36)  Several songs and romances further demonstrate the secular roots of chivalry. In The Romance of King Alisaunder, an account of the life of Alexander the Great written around 1275, the author describes Alexander and his knights as embodying many of the qualities of chivalry. The story is highly anachronistic in many respects, from the armor Alexander and his retinue wears to the description of him and his comrades as "knights." However, in spite of the many social and technological inaccuracies, historians and writers were still aware that Alexander predated Christianity, and yet he was still described as chivalrous, demonstrating that the thirteenth-century mind did not necessarily consider chivalry to be tied to Christianity. Contemporary accounts of other classical figures such as Aeneas and Julius Caesar are likewise quick to compliment the chivalry of pagan heroes.(37)  Even medieval non-Christians could become knights without seeming contradiction. The anonymous Ordene de Chevalrie tells a fictional story in which a captured knight bestows the right of knighthood upon Saladin. Although he is reluctant to do so, arguing, "Nor faith nor Baptism hast thou,"(38)  he ultimately proves both willing and able to perform the ceremony for the Muslim ruler, saying, "Sir, since ye drive me to the thing / And nought avails my nay-saying / Then riskless I the work shall earn,"(39)   and dubs Saladin a knight, with all the lessons on chivalrous behavior the ceremony implies. This again shows that no particular religious belief was required to be considered a worthy knight.
     Arthurian legend in thirteenth century England and France also showed a shift from previous themes, reflecting a change in philosophy and priorities. One new development in Arthurian lore that would become the hallmark of the stories of the Knights of the Round Table was the quest for the Holy Grail. Now called the Vulgate Cycle, this compilation of French works, spanning throughout the thirteenth century, retells the Arthurian tale from a more individual standpoint. Stories of claiming a kingdom and narratives of the king himself are dropped in favor of tales of the heroic deeds of individual knights. Sir Lancelot also makes his first appearance as a major character; a knight whose chivalry is undisputed, but whose conduct is not always in line with the wishes of his king.(40)  The knights involved in this quest, while maintaining their allegiance to Arthur, seem to fight for personal renown rather than expressly for their lord, and their quest to uphold justice seems a very personal one; expressing chivalric virtues, but often toward no clear outside source.(41)  Similarly, while the quest for the grail confirms Christian devotion, it is less directed toward any organized church than it would have been if the knights had pursued a different course of piety through arms, such as by participating in a crusade. The knights of the Vulgate Cycle maintain a strong sense of chivalry, and the writers praise these virtues as much as they did in any other century, but their motivation here is based on a very personal sense of faith and righteousness. This ideology is best characterized by an inscription beneath a sword embedded in a chunk of marble on the bank of a river in the beginning of La Queste del Saint Grall, written between 1210 and 1225. It read: "None Shall Take Me Hence But He At Whose Side I Am To Hang. And He Shall Be The Best Knight In The World."(42)  A very different message on the etched inscription of the last stone-wedged blade that focused around Arthur, mentioned in the Vulgate Cycle's first book, Merlin, read "Who taketh this swerde out of this ston sholde be kynge by the eleccion of Jhesu Criste."(43)  The difference in both the backgrounds and the mindsets of King Arthur and his Round Table Knights only grows as the Vulgate Cycle continues, and it is notable that Arthur himself is a relatively minor character for the vast majority of the work, perhaps reflecting the changing level of connection or interest contemporary readers had in the different heroes of the Arthurian world as time passed.
     The recorded actions of knights throughout thirteenth century England and France as well as the romances and biographies of the heroes they used as models both demonstrate a shifting sense of values and morals. And while those values continued to fall under the meaning of the word "chivalry," its definition was a flexible one, designed to fit the realities of its particular society and day. The same characters of Arthur and Gawaine, Alexander, Aeneas and Caesar, and Roland and Charlemagne(44)  were not the same "knights" as described in centuries past or hence. But while sources depict a multitude of instances of amoral behavior within the noble class, chivalry remained present, if only in concept, within the minds of the knights who heard its praise sung in the stories of heroes and the words of the chroniclers, scholars and writers of the day. Cynicism with regards to the application of chivalrous behavior existed, but so too did historic examples of individual demonstrations of faith, hope, charity, justice, prudence, strength, and temperance, valor, sagacity and loyalty.(45)  The shift toward individualism made knights no less chivalrous in their own eyes, and if their demonstrations of chivalry came with worldly benefits like ransoms or the attention of a potential patron, they were the happier for it. However, regardless of the motivation behind it or the frequency of its application, chivalry remained a pervasive ideal throughout the Middle Ages, and a source of inspiration and hope to look toward. For as the damsel in distress cried out; "Noble knight… remember that without you there is no pity, compassion or generosity."(46)