Oo’re the Britons?

In Arthurian legend the king was the center of justice. His right to administer justice was upheld by his chivalry and nobility. Chivalry was a code of courtesy that recognized the importance of every member of society. It upheld honor and promoted equality. The nobility of the king did not accrue to him from ancestry but rather from action. The king’s acts were noble and thus the king was noble.

Knights and Lords were at the top of feudal society but if they were not to be tyrants they had to be cognizant that their lofty position was on the backs of many other portions of society. To consider a person is partly to scrutinize and partly to be considerate of. The lord of the manor had to consider the gardener and demonstrate understanding of their relative positions by considerate behavior. The gardener may not have a title but the lord eats from his labor. Knowing this is part of what is meant by chivalrous and noble.

One part of society that had to be considered, and thus to be considerate of, was the church. The nobles held their position upon the sufferance of the church. Not directly, of course, directly they were responsible to the king. The king was responsible to the church by the fact that if the church declared him or the country anathema then other kings and countries and even internal lords could count on the support of the church in attacks, usurpations, uprisings and the like. For the king to remain under the grace of the church he had to ensure that his nobles were not angering the church. Thus, a noble that fell afoul of the church might have his place removed by the king.

Another part of society that had to be considered was the merchants. The king was responsible for the wealth of the nation. Building wealth required strong trade. The king could levy taxes and impose tariffs but if these interfered with trade the merchants would just relocate to places with better conditions and the country would suffer. High taxes could reduce the number of markets. Fewer markets would lead to high cost of doing business and low prices. The farmers, miners, crafters, fishers, etc would simply produce less with a net effect of a poorer country. Increasing poverty and misery was a direct reflection on the king. Showing regard for the merchants was self-interest as well as chivalrous.

All of feudal society ran on the engine of work produced by peasants and craftsmen. A wise king ruled with respect for that fact. The glue of feudalism was fealty, but fealty is a two-edged sword. The peasants owed fealty to local lords who in turn owed fealty to earls and barons who owed fealty to the king. This fealty was due in the form of respect, taxes, and ability to contribute to the mutual defense of the country. If the peasants gave their labor and blood, the king gave every moment to making the country better by leading in war, using taxes wisely, forging relationships with foreign nations and many other sacrifices large and small that comprise the noblesse oblige. The king’s fealty was to every crofter, brewer, tanner, woodsman, farmer, blacksmith, teamster and every other person whose lives were given to making the country work.

Nobility is not bound up in titles. To be noble is to possess the characteristics of nobility such as righteousness, graciousness, decency and dignity. The king who would lead must lead in these aspects of nobility. To the degree the king displays them he can require them of his nobles and subsequently of all his subjects. To be deficient of nobility would deal a blow to the king’s ability to govern by undermining justice in the eyes of the populace. Those eyes see pomp and grandeur as part of their heritage and do not begrudge the cost of spectacle. They also see when lords commit crimes that are glossed over while petty thieves who steal for hunger’s sake are remanded to severe punishment. One inequality strengthens national pride but the other generates bitterness and breeds discontent. If the king’s word is law only equal enforcement of the law upholds the dignity of the crown. When this dignity is upheld it sustains the dignity of all whose allegiance is to king and country.

I started with Arthur because like the legendary king who lived in a land that never quite existed, my description is a sort of ideal conception. The ideal of justice upheld by courtesy and nobility is like Plato’s forms, ephemeral enough to elude becoming solid but solid enough to haunt society’s meta-nous. The search for a leader worthy of veneration is basic to human experience. It is not limited to feudalism or any autocratic government. It goes on in democratic venues as well. It is not isolated to national experience. It happens on large and small stages with wars, votes, sects and rebellions. It very much resembles man’s search for God.