I’ve mentioned that Loyalty is a tough concept. As a lawyer, a husband, and a squire, one fact is never far from my mind—Loyalty cannot mean very much if it binds one only when it is convenient. To the ancient warriors and their chroniclers, this was also evident.
In the Hagakure, Nakano Jin’emon is quoted as having “constantly said, ‘A person who serves when treated kindly by the master is not a retainer. But one who serves when the master is being heartless and unreasonable is a retainer.”
And in The Poem of The Cid, Ruy Diaz repeatedly reaffirms his loyalty to King Alfonso, even though the latter has unjustly exiled him from the kingdom. The first major instance is just after his exile, when the Campeador and his small band capture the keep of Castejon, just across the border from King Alfonso’s domain. Even though this is safety, and hard won, Ruy Diaz abandons his prize after only one night: “[F]or King Alfonso is close by and may attack us… We will depart in the morning, for I will not fight my lord King Alfonso.”
To these warriors, loyalty to their lords was not severed by even extreme behavior. Notice how serious these situations are. Tsunetomo speaks of the master as “heartless” and El Cid was forced to flee a decree making him an outlaw and placing him at risk of robbery and death. But still, these extremes do not release them from their bonds of loyalty. In the second canto, Ruy Diaz even declares:
For the love of King Alfonso who banish me no scissors shall touch my beard, nor shall a single hair of it be cut, let Moors and Christians say what they will.
The Poem of El Cid, Canto Two: The Wedding
It would be easy to interpret these stories as reinforcing the power structure. In a modern view, this kind of loyalty is toxic. Loyalty is a duty. Duties are generally reciprocal and a breach of that arrangement by one person releases the other. In medieval terms, this was also legally true; a lord and vassal exchanged promises and the lord gave property to secure the vassal’s loyalty. A political interpretation of both examples would be that the religious (Tsunetomo had given up being a samurai and become a monk after being forbidden to practice seppuku) and artistic elite must reinforce the power structure.
But Tsunetomo lived in hermitage and was beyond the usual reach of secular authorities and was largely irrelevant to them. And Ruy Diaz conquered in battle after battle; in the poem he is unsurpassed in battle. Neither had any reason to reinforce the power structure. And El Cid is presented in a way that makes it clear it would be within his power to overcome King Alfonso in a military struggle. So what is it that causes these people to prize loyalty so highly?
I think one way to understand this behavior is to consider Loyalty as a virtue to possess, rather than a duty to uphold. One can be released from or can discharge a duty. It is possible to be “loyal enough” or for the law and society to find a clean boundary for the end of a duty of loyalty. In that model, abuse can justify a breach of loyalty (consider the model of the American Declaration of Independence for example, under which the actions of the Crown were argued to be so egregious that those colonies had been released from their duty of loyalty).
But if Loyalty is a virtue, then the law and custom cannot set the bounds. If we take as true that perfect virtue is a rare standard to meet, then we have to understand that a person pursuing that virtue will strive for a standard beyond the ordinary. To that person, although the release of the bounds of duty is sufficient for others, it is not the personal standard. To remain loyal in the face of hardship is, for this person, not because of the relationship or duty; it is a personal obligation. To remain loyal in the face of injustice or heartlessness isn’t about the relationship with the master or the king. It is about the journey and the striving of the warrior toward perfect Loyalty.
This raises questions: For Tsunetomo and Ruy Diaz, there seems to be no limit to their loyalty. But where is my limit, if any? Is it an objective rationale that can be applied without regard to the personalities involved, or is that a natural impossibility or a fundamental injustice? But those questions are for another day.
Quills and Quintains 