Editing Chivalry (section)

=== Europe before 1170: Courtliness and the noble ''habitus'' ===
Prior to codified chivalry, there was the uncodified code of noble conduct that focused on the {{lang|fro|preudomme}}, which can be translated as a wise, honest, and sensible man. This uncodified code—referred to as the noble {{lang|la|habitus}}—is a term for the environment of behavioural and material expectations generated by all societies and classes.<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=52}}</ref> As a modern idea, it was pioneered by the French philosopher/sociologists [[Pierre Bourdieu]] and [[Maurice Merleau-Ponty]], even though a precedent exists for the concept as far back as the works of Aristotle.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Malikail|first=Joseph|url=http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol7/moral.html|title=Moral Character: Hexis, Habitus, and 'Habit'|access-date=25 May 2015|archive-date=15 December 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151215020431/http://www.minerva.mic.ul.ie/vol7/moral.html|url-status=live|journal=Minerva: An Internet Journal of Philosophy|volume=7|year=2003}}</ref> Crouch in 2019 argued that the {{lang|la|habitus}} on which "the superstructure of chivalry" was built and the {{lang|fro|preudomme}} was a part, were recognised by contemporaries as components of ''courtoisie'' (from Latin ''curialitas'') which was defined as superior conduct appropriate to the aristocratic hall (''court'' or ''curia'').  He saw it as being taught within the confines of the hall by its senior figures to youths confided to the lord and his household for their social upbringing.  Crouch suggested courtliness had existed long before 1100 and preceded the codified medieval noble conduct we call chivalry, which he sees as beginning between 1170 and 1220.<ref>D. Crouch, ''The Chivalric Turn'' (Oxford, 2019), 39-145</ref>

The pre-chivalric noble {{lang|la|habitus}} as discovered by Mills and Gautier and elaborated by Stephen Jaeger and David Crouch are as follows:
# '''Loyalty''': It is a practical utility in a warrior nobility. [[Richard Kaeuper]] associates loyalty with ''prowess''.<ref name="Crouch_56">{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=56}}</ref> The importance of reputation for loyalty in noble conduct is demonstrated in {{clarify|text=William Marshal biography|reason=how is it demonstrated? is this a biography of William Marshal or by William Marshal? Who was he?|date=July 2023}}.<ref name="Crouch_56"/>
# '''Forbearance''': knights' self-control towards other warriors and at the courts of their lords was a part of the early noble {{lang|la|habitus}} as shown in the {{lang|la|Conventum}} of [[Hugh IV of Lusignan|Hugh de Lusignan]] in the 1020s.<ref name="auto">{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=63}}</ref> The nobility of mercy and forbearance was well established by the second half of the 12th century long before there was any code of chivalry.<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=65}}</ref>
# '''Hardiness''': Historians and social anthropologists{{who|date=March 2020}} documented that in the early stages of 'proto-chivalry,' physical resilience and prowess in warfare were almost prerequisites for chivalry-associated knighthood. For warriors, regardless of origin, displaying exceptional physical prowess on the battlefield often led to attaining noble-knightly status or immediate nobilitation. To deliver a powerful blow in Arthurian literature almost always certifies the warrior's nobility. This view was supported by formal chivalric authorities and commentators: the anonymous author of ''La vraye noblesse'' states that a person of 'low degree' with martial bearing should be elevated to nobility by the prince or civic authority, "even though he be not rich or of noble lineage". Scholastic analyst Richard Kaeuper summarizes the matter: "A knight's nobility or worth is proved by his hearty strokes in battle".{{r|Kaeuper|page=131}} The virtue of hardiness, aligned with forbearance and loyalty, was a key military virtue of the {{lang|fro|preudomme}}. According to Philip de Navarra, a mature nobleman should possess hardiness as part of his moral virtues. Geoffrey de Charny also underscored the importance of hardiness as a masculine virtue tied to religious sentiments of {{lang|la|[[contemptus mundi]]}}.<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=67}}</ref>
# '''Largesse''' or '''Liberality''': generosity was part of a noble quantity. According to [[Alan of Lille]], largesse was not just a simple matter of giving away what he had, but "{{lang|la|Largitas}} in a man caused him to set no store on greed or gifts, and to have nothing but contempt for bribes."<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|pp=69–70}}</ref>
# '''The Davidic ethic''': encompasses the noble qualities of {{lang|fro|preudomme}} derived by clerics from [[Bible|Biblical tradition]]. This concept aligns with the classical Aristotelian notion of the "magnanimous personality" and the early Germanic and Norse tradition of the war-band leader as a heroic figure. The Christian-Davidic guardian-protector role of warrior-leadership emerged from the Frankish church to legitimize authority based on ethical commitment to safeguarding the vulnerable, ensuring justice for widows and orphans, and firmly opposing cruelty and injustice by those in power. This opposition extended to sub-princely magistrates and even monarchs who violated ethical principles of {{lang|la|lex primordialis}} or {{lang|la|lex naturae}}.<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|pp=71–72}}</ref> At the heart of the Davidic ethic lies the idea of the strong demonstrating benevolence towards the weak.<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=78}}</ref> John of Salisbury imbibed this lineage of philosophico-clerical, chivalric justifications of power, and describes the ideal enforcer of the Davidic ethic in this way: {{blockquote|The [warrior-]prince accordingly is the minister of the common interest and the bond-servant of equity, and he bears the public person in the sense that he punishes the wrongs and injuries of all, and all crimes, with even-handed equity. His rod and staff also, administered with wise moderation, restore irregularities and false departures to the straight path of equity, so that deservedly may the Spirit congratulate the power of the prince with the words, 'Thy rod and thy staff, they have comforted me.' [{{bibleverse|Psalm|23:4}}] His shield, too, is strong, but it is a shield for the protection of the weak, and one which wards off powerfully the darts of the wicked from the innocent. Those who derive the greatest advantage from his performance of the duties of his office are those who can do least for themselves, and his power is chiefly exercised against those who desire to do harm. Therefore not without reason he bears a sword, wherewith he sheds blood blamelessly, without becoming thereby a man of blood, and frequently puts men to death without incurring the name or guilt of homicide.<ref name="Sourcebook">{{cite web |title=Medieval Sourcebook: John of Salisbury: Policraticus, Book Four (selections) |work=[[Fordham University]]) |last=Halsall |first=Paul |access-date=February 20, 2021 |date=October 1998 |url=https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/salisbury-poli4.asp |archive-date=10 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201210091345/https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/salisbury-poli4.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
# '''Honour''': [[honour]] was achieved by living up to the ideal of the {{lang|fro|preudomme}} and pursuing the qualities and behaviour listed above.<ref name="auto1">{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=79}}</ref> [[Maurice Keen]] notes the most damning, irreversible mode of "demoting" one's honorific status, again humanly through contemporary eyes, consisted in displaying pusillanimous conduct on the battlefield. The loss of honour is a humiliation to a man's standing and is worse than death. [[Bertran de Born]] said: "For myself I prefer to hold a little piece of land in ''onor'', than to hold a great empire with dishonor".<ref name="auto1"/>

From the 12th century onward, chivalry came to be understood as a moral, religious, and social code of knightly conduct. The particulars of the code varied, but codes would emphasise the virtues of courage, honour, and service. Chivalry also came to refer to an idealisation of the life and manners of the knight at home in his castle and with his court. The code of chivalry, as it was known during the late medieval age, developed between 1170 and 1220.<ref>{{harvp|Crouch|2005|p=80}}</ref>