Arnae And Prevenier's Honor And Venge Have In Common
In Arnade and Prevenier’s Honor, Vengeance, and Social Trouble, the petitions from common people reveal the most important concerns and values to society during the late middle ages in the Burgundian Low Countries. In particular, the rationale behind the supplicants’ criminal activities, how the supplicant’s framed their actions in their petitions, and the potential reasons why their petitions were granted are especially revealing. Through the pardon letters, it is evident that society valued honor, wealth, and social order during this period. Through the pardon letters, one can infer that honor was one of the most important values to society because it greatly impacted one’s place in society. One example of one using violence to defend
…show more content…
This is evident in the way that the supplicants attempted to frame their murderous behaviors as self-defense. One example of this is Clais van Reimerswall, who sketched his tale as “. . . a night of fun and noble conviviality inexplicably morphed into a fight for his very life” (62). Other times they would attempt to explain their violent actions as spontaneous episodes of “hot anger” and the accidental one-time drunken confrontations as opposed to premeditated and prolonged conflict (63). In order to receive a pardon, one would attempt to present themselves as good townspeople; for example, although Zoetart resorted to violence, in his petition, he “cast himself as a good townsman” compared to his neighbors and adversaries who were “. . . shadier sorts: a married man and woman living with one another rather than their spouses and with an illegitimate daughter” (47). Another example is Cricke, who when petitioning a pardon for abduction, portrayed himself as “a right-minded and “hard-working citizen of honorable intentions” with altruistic intentions towards Maria van der Hoeven, the former prostitute whom he had kidnapped (177). Because these men took care to portray themselves as good members of society, the victims of extreme circumstances, and not systematic disruptions to society, one can ascertain that although social order was not always present, it was
This is evident in the way that the supplicants attempted to frame their murderous behaviors as self-defense. One example of this is Clais van Reimerswall, who sketched his tale as “. . . a night of fun and noble conviviality inexplicably morphed into a fight for his very life” (62). Other times they would attempt to explain their violent actions as spontaneous episodes of “hot anger” and the accidental one-time drunken confrontations as opposed to premeditated and prolonged conflict (63). In order to receive a pardon, one would attempt to present themselves as good townspeople; for example, although Zoetart resorted to violence, in his petition, he “cast himself as a good townsman” compared to his neighbors and adversaries who were “. . . shadier sorts: a married man and woman living with one another rather than their spouses and with an illegitimate daughter” (47). Another example is Cricke, who when petitioning a pardon for abduction, portrayed himself as “a right-minded and “hard-working citizen of honorable intentions” with altruistic intentions towards Maria van der Hoeven, the former prostitute whom he had kidnapped (177). Because these men took care to portray themselves as good members of society, the victims of extreme circumstances, and not systematic disruptions to society, one can ascertain that although social order was not always present, it was