What exactly were the "rules" of Chivalry in detail? Or as much detail as possible.
Was there ever an actual contemporary piece of writing describing exactly what it is, maybe even point by point?
As I'm on my lunch break at work, I can only offer a partial (historiographical) answer with the intention of returning later to flesh it out with some medieval examples.
I’m rather wary of offering a ‘definition’ of chivalry, as will be explored at length below the historiographical authorities on the subject frequently comment on the elusiveness of the concept best expressed by Maurice Keen:
Chivalry - the word itself demands definition, but at the same time eludes it. It is a vague word, with tonal, rather than precise, implications
Maurice H. Keen, 'Huizinga, Kilgour, and the Decline of Chivalry', Medievalia et Humanistica, New Series, no.8 (1979), pp.1-20, quote at p.1.
Understanding what historians mean when they use chivalry comes first and foremost as you will still be some way from tackling the sources themselves (although it is always highly recommended!). In a typically succinct manner Nigel Saul's recent book summarised what most modern scholars mean when they discuss chivalry:
Chivalry was the value system and behavioural code of the secular aristocratic elite of the Middle Ages.
Nigel Saul, For Fame and Honour: Chivalry in England, 1066-1500, (London, 2011), p.viii Published in the United States as Chivalry in Medieval England, (Harvard, 2011).
Saul puts his finger on the great tension within the topic of chivalry, was it a code and was it systematic? He expands on this in his introduction:
Yet if we recognise chivalry when we see it, it is tantalisingly hard to define precisely. Indeed, it is tempting to say that it is almost beyond definition. Medieval chivalry was more an outlook than a doctrine, more a lifestyle than an explicit ethical code. It embraced both ideology and social practice. Among the qualities central to it were loyalty, generosity, dedication, courage and courtesy, qualities which were esteemed by the military class and which contemporaries believed the ideal knight should possess. Chivalry meant different things to different people; like beauty, it was found in the eye of the beholder.
There is little original in Saul’s definition. It is primarily a synthesis of other studies, but cannot capture the whole. In what follows we shall examine the concept from a longer perspective, both historical and historiographical, but for the sake of utility this will get you by in your reading of chivalry during a course on the Hundred Years War. To end with a quick anecdote, my undergraduate dissertation supervisor, who also ran a module on ‘Chivalry and the Hundred Years War’, was in the latter stages of publishing his new study on chivalry and knighthood. His advice to me on defining chivalry was to not do it. He explained that he had been unable to do so in an entire chapter, let alone in the paragraph my definition might occupy. In his book he elided the issue by focusing on ‘chivalry’ instead as the expression of the ideals of knighthood and chivalry, as a term, was used to denote a particular social group:
In this book, I prefer to use the term ‘chivalry’ as a proper noun, to refer to the people who formed the knightly or aristocratic class, rather than to chivalric culture in its broadest sense or to the ideals, norms or ethos of knighthood. Most importantly of all, I resist using the term ‘chivalry’ as a theoretical term in the way that some military historians have employed it recently. As [Richard] Kaeuper has ably demonstrated, to define chivalry in terms of the more romantic and civilized messages that were supposedly offered by chivalric literature would be to ignore the overwhelming presence of contradictory themes in exactly the same texts, especially the powerful encouragement of violence and aggression. Indeed, the crucial point is that medieval commentators were far less certain and definite about the ideal values and behaviour of knights than modern audiences might imagine.
Craig D. Taylor, Chivalry and the Ideals of Knighthood during the Hundred Years War, (Cambridge, 2013), pp.5-6.
Historians, and contemporaries discussing chivalry, will typically fall into one of three broad rubrics, these rubrics are merely guides – they are very fluid:
What did medieval people mean when they used the word “chivalry” (Latin, militia, French, chevalerie)? The simplest sense was hardy deeds in a fight with edged weapons. A second meaning was social, the body of knights in one place or even all knights, thought of as a distinct group. The third meaning, more abstract, referred to their ideas and ideals, to chivalry as the ethos of the knights. All three senses of the word appear (often intertwined) in romance literature, one of our best (if least used) sources on medieval society.
Richard W. Kaeuper, 'The Societal Role of Chivalry in Romance', in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Romance, ed. R.L. Kreuger, pp.97-114, (Cambridge, 2000), p.97.
hi! new information is always welcome, but fyi, there have been a few posts discussing chivalry, so you can get started here
Sorry, I will try and get the 'medieval examples' section written up this weekend - been slammed at work this week. I'll let you know when it's done.