SOCIETY ā 178/262 ā The concept of honour
The meaning of the word honour in the Middle Ages encompassed not only honesty but particularly living in accordance with the conventions of oneās status. An honourable craftsman was one who followed the guildās rules, attended church, and had no disreputable remarks made about him. Honour was sacred, and preserving it was a matter of prestige and social status. Losing oneās honour meant ending up on the fringes of society. Thus, honour had to be not only built but also fiercely defended. Honour could be lost not only by transgressing social norms (such as having an illegitimate child or losing virginity before marriage) but also by violating unwritten conventions (such as shaking hands with an executioner, handling a dead body or carcass) or simply by failing to defend oneās honour when it was challenged. In medieval perception, there were also so-called dishonourable people, those who had no honour at all. This group included executioners, knackers, prostitutes, and beggars. At certain times in history, millers were also considered dishonourable. Calling someone a sexual organ or an animal was not nearly as insulting as calling them dishonourable. Such insults often ended up before the bailiff, the court, or even in a duel. A special chapter is devoted to knightly honour, which was often a theme in literary works and, from todayās perspective, can seem almost comical.
TRIVIA
ā Although craftsmen were generally expected to maintain their honour by following guild regulations and behaving respectably within the community, certain professions earned a less palatable reputation. Among them were millers, whose occupation often attracted suspicion among commoners.
The mistrust stemmed largely from the nature of their work, because millers commonly received payment not in coin but by keeping a portion of the grain or flour they produced with customer's own supply. Because the grinding process took place inside the mill and could not easily be observed by the farmer who brought the grain, it was difficult to verify whether the correct amount had been taken. This part of the process became a subject of scrutiny because of its private nature, which easily led to people casting doubt on the fairness of said process, making people assume the millers kept more than their earned share.
In The Canterbury Tales, the miller is potrayed as such;
No man dared a hand on him to lay, Because he swore heād make the beggar pay. A thief he was, itās true, of corn and meal, And sly at that, accustomed well to steal. His name was known as arrogant Simpkin.
Within a society where honour depended heavily on reputation and public trust, such suspicions could easily damage a craftsmanās standing. Even without formal or public condemnation, the widespread belief that millers might cheat their customers meant that the trade could often be regarded as morally questionable, and even dishonourable.
-> -> ->
