Today's material.
Jan. 3rd, 2005 04:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptMay as well get to typing up the daily deterministic drivel. Actually, it's really just a bunch of stuff, but the alliteration helps to keep me on top of my game. Assuming I had a game to start with, that is.
Early reviews indicate that the performances at the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade and the snippet given during the halftime presentation of the Rose Bowl were of extraordinary quality - having seen both raw from the skybox, I agree, but I wonder how the regular cameras presented us. I'll know later tonight, when I watch the footage myself.
And wonderful things crossed my inbox again - again in connection with the Knights, and again someone accusing us of not holding true to chivalry's ideals. Since I might get wound up over this, I'll put the offense and the rebuttal both under cut:
Subject: "C.E."
I know that you will probably not give me an answer for this, but I must as a chivalrous and Christian person mention the Original code of chivalry. It states that(and I quote):
"Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions. Thou shalt defend the Church."
The use of C.E. instead of A.D. conflicts with the obvious intent of the code of chivalry that is closely tied with the church. If you are truly chivalrous, why have you strayed from chivalrous Christian ideals and phrasing?
This is all I have to say, so I am sorry if I have offended you, but I believe strongly in chivalry.
Sincerely,
In Christ
XXXXXX
(original beatified quite a bit (capitalization, mostly) and given paragraphing)
I trust that you understand what's going on. My first instinct was to wonder when A.D. came about as a phrase - if it were alter than the middle ages, then a simple snap that the time periods were conflicting would solve the problem. Alas, no such luck. It would appear that A.D. was in place by the 7th century C.E. - plenty of time before the first recorded dubbing, about three centuries later. So it's back to the drawing board, I suppose - but this is running right at my strong suit - after all, chivalry is an integral part of making my thesis stand up.
That said, the idea of an original code of chivalry is laughable. No such thing existed at any time. The rules evolved with the times, and the medieval conception of chivalry could sharply differ with what we associate with it now, especially with regard to women and lesser social classes.
The quote looks familiar to me - I may have seen it here and there. The idea being put across is generally correct - there were imperatives to defend the Catholic Church and its teachings. As for observing all its directions, any time the Pope calls Crusades, especially against fellows in Europe, it disproves the idea that the Church had some sort of monopolization on the minds of the knighthood. Kings would just as easily flip off the Pope as follow him. Even the chivalric romance knights aren't always right in line with the whole of the Church's prescriptions (Perceval doesn't go to church, Ywain's an oathbreaker, Lancelot's lusts, etc.).
Chivalry is not Church-all. There were close ties, yes, as both sides helped to foster ideals, but what the writer mistakes as the "obvious intent", I'm finding out in my scholarship, was a much more grey area than even I had imagined. To some degree, this makes those romance heroes that much more interesting. We can still strive to be like them, but we take lessons from them and try to avoid their faults while capitalizing on their strengths.
The last sentence lays bare the writer's thoughts. If you are truly chivalrous, why have you strayed fromchivalrous Christian ideals and phrasing? Just by striking that word makes the sentence much neater and much less misleading, don't you think?
First, I don't recall it ever being un-Christian to use C.E. over A.D. when dating. If you can point that out to me, then you can make a case to me about how it's chivalrous to date A.D. However, you'll have to take into account that chivalry itself was not conforming to Christian ideals. The Wife of Bath's Prologue is a pretty good example of chivalry can be used in a very un-Christian manner. Plus, one of the major plot devices of the chivalric romances is that their paragons of chivalry, either as protagonists or visible secondary characters, ring false in some way to the reader. They may observe the forms, but somewhere along the line, ideal and custom diverge, or the protagonist is able to defeat or outdo the "perfect knight".
And so, it's ultimately pointless, and silly, anyway, to quibble over things like A.D. and C.E., but I really felt like taking my brain out for a spin, and you guys get the results...
After that healthy diet of discourse from my derriere, a deluge of dirty tricks, dastardly deeds, and lovely links awaits... when you're gone for five days, stuff accumulates.
The Brits tell us brains is bad for women. What's my retort? Fuck You. (Actually, that's for anybody who thinks that geek tendencies are bad when it comes to dates) Did I mention that you may already be running Linux?
Some Quake-related news: Quake sped up time and may dump sea monsters out.
From left field to far out: Bumblers break-in but blew it, John puts Johnson and junk in gas tank, Buckminster Fuller rides again, fishing by hand, The Werewolf Solution (V), Coffee!, Liberals supporting the war? This, too, shall pass.
Early reviews indicate that the performances at the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade and the snippet given during the halftime presentation of the Rose Bowl were of extraordinary quality - having seen both raw from the skybox, I agree, but I wonder how the regular cameras presented us. I'll know later tonight, when I watch the footage myself.
And wonderful things crossed my inbox again - again in connection with the Knights, and again someone accusing us of not holding true to chivalry's ideals. Since I might get wound up over this, I'll put the offense and the rebuttal both under cut:
Subject: "C.E."
I know that you will probably not give me an answer for this, but I must as a chivalrous and Christian person mention the Original code of chivalry. It states that(and I quote):
"Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions. Thou shalt defend the Church."
The use of C.E. instead of A.D. conflicts with the obvious intent of the code of chivalry that is closely tied with the church. If you are truly chivalrous, why have you strayed from chivalrous Christian ideals and phrasing?
This is all I have to say, so I am sorry if I have offended you, but I believe strongly in chivalry.
Sincerely,
In Christ
XXXXXX
(original beatified quite a bit (capitalization, mostly) and given paragraphing)
I trust that you understand what's going on. My first instinct was to wonder when A.D. came about as a phrase - if it were alter than the middle ages, then a simple snap that the time periods were conflicting would solve the problem. Alas, no such luck. It would appear that A.D. was in place by the 7th century C.E. - plenty of time before the first recorded dubbing, about three centuries later. So it's back to the drawing board, I suppose - but this is running right at my strong suit - after all, chivalry is an integral part of making my thesis stand up.
That said, the idea of an original code of chivalry is laughable. No such thing existed at any time. The rules evolved with the times, and the medieval conception of chivalry could sharply differ with what we associate with it now, especially with regard to women and lesser social classes.
The quote looks familiar to me - I may have seen it here and there. The idea being put across is generally correct - there were imperatives to defend the Catholic Church and its teachings. As for observing all its directions, any time the Pope calls Crusades, especially against fellows in Europe, it disproves the idea that the Church had some sort of monopolization on the minds of the knighthood. Kings would just as easily flip off the Pope as follow him. Even the chivalric romance knights aren't always right in line with the whole of the Church's prescriptions (Perceval doesn't go to church, Ywain's an oathbreaker, Lancelot's lusts, etc.).
Chivalry is not Church-all. There were close ties, yes, as both sides helped to foster ideals, but what the writer mistakes as the "obvious intent", I'm finding out in my scholarship, was a much more grey area than even I had imagined. To some degree, this makes those romance heroes that much more interesting. We can still strive to be like them, but we take lessons from them and try to avoid their faults while capitalizing on their strengths.
The last sentence lays bare the writer's thoughts. If you are truly chivalrous, why have you strayed from
First, I don't recall it ever being un-Christian to use C.E. over A.D. when dating. If you can point that out to me, then you can make a case to me about how it's chivalrous to date A.D. However, you'll have to take into account that chivalry itself was not conforming to Christian ideals. The Wife of Bath's Prologue is a pretty good example of chivalry can be used in a very un-Christian manner. Plus, one of the major plot devices of the chivalric romances is that their paragons of chivalry, either as protagonists or visible secondary characters, ring false in some way to the reader. They may observe the forms, but somewhere along the line, ideal and custom diverge, or the protagonist is able to defeat or outdo the "perfect knight".
And so, it's ultimately pointless, and silly, anyway, to quibble over things like A.D. and C.E., but I really felt like taking my brain out for a spin, and you guys get the results...
After that healthy diet of discourse from my derriere, a deluge of dirty tricks, dastardly deeds, and lovely links awaits... when you're gone for five days, stuff accumulates.
The Brits tell us brains is bad for women. What's my retort? Fuck You. (Actually, that's for anybody who thinks that geek tendencies are bad when it comes to dates) Did I mention that you may already be running Linux?
Some Quake-related news: Quake sped up time and may dump sea monsters out.
From left field to far out: Bumblers break-in but blew it, John puts Johnson and junk in gas tank, Buckminster Fuller rides again, fishing by hand, The Werewolf Solution (V), Coffee!, Liberals supporting the war? This, too, shall pass.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-03 09:42 pm (UTC)Perhaps if someone sat down and explained to them, preferably in graphic detail, what the knights they believe were following a true chivalrous code got up to on the Crusades it might change their view a little. Perhaps. Although I doubt it.
However, the fact that they have, somehow, managed to completely overlook the statement on the front page that membership is open to any person regardless of religion suggests to me that they haven't grasped the idea of the knights at all. I would suggest* that someone write a full codification of the chivalric code the kights follow rather than the few brief sentences it provides (possibly with explicit notes discussing how it deviates from what some class as the 'real' code) but I don't know if it'd do any good.
* quite out of line cosidering I have no connection with the order, but it's not like I am suggesting it..
no subject
Date: 2005-01-04 12:23 am (UTC)fuck you too.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-04 04:39 pm (UTC)I prefer A.D. to C.E. because it's latin and sounds cooler (and the english "Year of our Lord" sounds charmingly mediæval). However: A.D. explicitly dates from the birth of Christ, but as it's believed to be about 6 years wrong for that anyway, talking about years A.D. is implicitly inaccurate; whereas C.E. is a truer description - "Common Era" basically means "Something that everyone else uses so let's go along with it".
Not that either of those are considerations worth arguing about too much, I agree.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-04 09:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-05 05:50 am (UTC)His response was "As the situation arises."
Codifying much more than general principle might lead to the same sorts of interpretations that brought about the Crusades.
Not to say that it wouldn't help some people make a decision to favor or disfavor us, but we're operating in the Discordian sort of manner - it's a firm belief that mistakes are made by having firm beliefs.
Even my own somewhat limited scholarship shows that the ideals of chivalry were continually in dispute even as they were being put into practice. About all we could safely do is compile a question list, and conviently forget to write the answers. That could be composed, and I'd welcome questions from everyone about something like that.