The Chautauquan, Vol. 03, December 1882: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Promotion of True Culture.; Organ of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific CircleChautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Religion
The Chautauquan, Vol. 03, December 1882: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to the Promotion of True Culture.; Organ of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle
Chautauqua Institution -- Periodicals; Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle -- Periodicals
The vulgar and repulsive features of Richard Cœur de Lion’s career
did not detract at all from his character as a hero in the days
of chivalry. Indeed, the minstrels sang admiringly of Richard’s
atrocities: of how he supped gayly on a fat Saracen baby when he could
not get roast pig; and caused a Saracen’s head to be roasted and served
up to the courtly ambassadors of Saladin; and butchered his prisoners
by the thousands. If the troubadours do not truly set forth Richard’s
achievements, they truly mirror the spirit of chivalry in the imputed
attributes of its most perfect champion. Comparing the character of
this lion-hearted Plantagenet, as thus reflected, with that of Robin
Hood, the Saxon hero, as pictured in the popular ballads, we must
feel that the common people’s idea of manliness and virtue, though
personified in a bandit, was higher than that of the Norman chivalry,
and we justify Knight in saying:
“The outlaw had the same attributes of bravery and
generosity with which the character of Richard the Lion
Hearted has been invested, without exhibiting those
ferocious traits which belong to the chivalric worship of
mere brute courage and blind fanaticism. The popular notion
of a hero is the more refined one, although Robin be merely
‘a good yeoman.’”
“So curtyous an outlawe as he was one
Was never none yfounde.”
[To be continued.]
FOOTNOTES:
[A] “Ivanhoe,” chapter vii.
[B] Knight.
STUDIES IN ANCIENT GREEK LIFE.
By J. P. MAHAFFY, A.M.
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE GREEK HOUSEHOLD.—While the citizen prized
above all things his liberty and his rights as a member of the state—a
feeling which produced in many cases a citizen democracy—this principle
was unknown within the household, in which he was a despot, ruling
absolutely the inferior members, who had no legal grades except as
distinguished into free and slaves. The laws were very cautious about
interfering with his rights, and he was permitted to exercise much
injustice and cruelty without being punished. If in such a case he was
murdered by his dependants, the whole household of slaves was put to
death, unless the culprit was detected. Nor could a household exist
(except perhaps in Sparta) without the master. If he died, his widow
became again the ward of her father or eldest brother, or son; and so
strongly was this sometimes felt that men on their death-beds betrothed
their wives to friends, who were likely to treat them and their orphan
children with kindness. Of course clever women and servants often
practically had their own way, and ruled their lord or master; but the
theory of the Greek home was nevertheless always that of an absolute
monarchy, if not a despotism.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account