What Kind of Knight? A Philosophical Discussion

Before this continues, a note about names.  Throughout this, I refer to SCA folks by their SCA names.  This isn't because you can't figure out who they are, that's easy enough, but out of a combined respect for their privacy, and because that is the context where this happens.  I realize it lends the entire proceeding an air of the ridiculous, but context is important even if the consequences apply outside context.  Second, despite the fact that this is 100% about Colin Darby, I will try to make it as broadly applicable as I can, because I'm not writing this for Colin.  I already know this.

Before I became a squire to Sir Maelgwyn, or even a man-at-arms, before I was ever part of their household, Mistress Willoc asked me why I wanted to do it.  My answer, which seemed simple and straightforward, was "I want to be a knight."  That took her aback.  Apparently most people are supposed to reply with "I want to learn," or some more humble response than "I want to be a knight."  The way she took it, which was part, but only part, of what I meant, was "I want to wear a white belt and a chain at SCA events."

That was a long time ago, especially in the compass of my life, which has in that period seen me buy a house, have that house burn, spend years living in a trailer, replace that house, have several serious depressive episodes, take up the seneschalate of Hellsgate, run an event, flame out on the seneschalate... it has been a character-defining period.  During that time, my basic answer has not changed.  I want to be a knight, same as I answered that day, and she heard an implied "of the Society."  It is not a matter of "I want to be a knight of the Society."  I want to be a knight.

So what is a knight?

The following characteristics are generally knightly: A knight is familiar with the ability to do violence in service of a cause.  This requires them to be in service to a cause, and requires them to be familiar with violence.  Further, a knight should follow a recognizable code of behavior that gives them a decision-making framework.  Without the framework, the decision to do violence becomes too comfortable.

By this standard, it is easy to become a knight; indeed, historically, it merely required the right income or even the right person's eye at the right time.  That isn't the desired end state, though, that is an entry level description.  In a perfect world, that devotion to a moral framework, a cause, and a familiarity with violence could (and, I would argue, should - that's a time for idealism) be met by a private fresh out of basic training.  Many reach that point and are willing to stop there, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.  To me, though, it fails to answer a question: What sort of knight am I? Or more importantly, what sort of knight do I want to be? Do I want to be, in SCA terms, a hot stick whose commitment begins and ends at being very good at winning tournaments? That's a cause, it's a recognizable code of behavior, and it's comfort with violence, after all.

I personally find that answer dissatisfying, because there will come a day where a younger, faster fighter will not merely beat you, but destroy you in a tournament, and if your identity is built around winning tournaments... what then? Instead, I find the answer is to be the kind of knight that other knights want to be - a knight who makes more knights.  I had an exceptionally good model there; my knight was not a top-flight tournament fighter even when he became a knight, but the thing that he does better than any other knight of my acquaintance is that he teaches.  I don't mean that other knights don't teach - I've learned from every one I can lay hands on - but that his entire "thing" in the SCA, if it can be called such, is to get new folks on the field, either literally or metaphorically.  I know, because I've seen it, that he isn't the greatest fighter ever, but at the same time, I know that there are half a dozen SCA fighters on multiple fields that are there, if not only because of him, then at least partially because he created the conditions that allowed them to grow.

This is, I suspect, a function of his lineage - his knight, when he comes out, teaches even when he'd rather just be a giant man-bear with a stick; the closest "uncle" in the lineage is a curmudgeonly man who can't not try to teach people even when he looks like he'd rather be beating you with a stick without armor, and one of my defining "I want to be like that" moments was when he called someone over to help teach them how to teach me; the farthest back that I've actually met in the lineage is still teaching any time he can get an audience, and my proudest moment in the SCA was hearing him call out my son in court after having worked with him at an event.  Culturally, they wind up attracting a following of people who do not merely share their values, but are also interested in passing on what matters to them in the SCA.

But it is also not merely a product of lineage.  One of the reasons I have been writing my critique of the Bellatrix book is because not only can Duke Paul fight, he can teach, even where I disagree with him or wish he'd do things differently.  His points, or Dave Lowry's, make me think and consider the value of what he has to say even if I discard it for my circumstances.  Being able to elaborate your viewpoint so that it's worth consideration even when it's not the one we choose is a vital skill for a knight who makes more knights.

It is also not merely an SCA issue.  The supervisors who I have consciously tried to follow in "real life" are also not the ones who express at best benign indifference, at worst downright abuse.  They are the ones who have a vision of the organization and how it functions, and do their best to elaborate that vision both at their level, and to those who work for them.  They establish an office culture and actively promote it (though, to be fair, so do the abusive ones), and encourage their subordinates to outgrow them rather than trapping them.  This means that, for instance, ten years after he retires, the man who hired me when he was Chief of Engineering will still be felt in the office at Ft. Hood, because he was, in the terms of this discussion, a knight who made more knights.

So then, my answer remains: I want to be a knight.  But what kind of knight do I want to be? I want to be the kind of knight who makes more knights.  Not whose students wear belts and spurs - those are just trappings.  But the kind of knight who knows the tools of his trade well enough to teach others, and who by his conduct and behavior inspires others to be more knightly.