Corvo Is Not An Honorable Man
- Thread starter Robert Rath
- Start date
This article caught my eye and caused me to stray away from my usual corner of the Escapist and I'm rather pleased it did. Fair play to you for the well thought out and evidently well researched article. While I picked up on a few of the things you mentioned it seems I overlooked quite a bit.
Had you approached the topic with the opinion that your interpretation was perfect I would have been somewhat reluctant in my embracing of the piece, but your acknowledgement of your interpretations limitations is rather refreshing. I'll be sure to loiter around the Critical Intel section more often.
Had you approached the topic with the opinion that your interpretation was perfect I would have been somewhat reluctant in my embracing of the piece, but your acknowledgement of your interpretations limitations is rather refreshing. I'll be sure to loiter around the Critical Intel section more often.
Thank you for the article! That was very interesting and informative reading.
I've always assumed that Corvo belongs to a very high nobility because of his "Lord Protector" title. After all, in history of England this title was used for nobles exercising regency while the monarch was unable to rule (e.g., too young). I assume, in normal circumstances if the Empress was absent or dead, Corvo would become the Regent until Emily is old enough to rule (and he takes this position in the good ending of the game). In this case he is not just Lord Protector of the Empress or the royal family, but he is the Lord Protector of the State.
That would also explain why Corvo was sent to the diplomatic mission of critical importance. There is no sense in sending personal bodyguard or even head of the royal guards, no matter how much he is trusted by the Empress, - in fact, it could be even treated as offense by foreign governments. But if the second important man in the state presents his country while trying to gain some favors - that would add a lot of weight to his words. That's why the Empress had to send Corvo, though very reluctantly, judging by her letter.
I've always assumed that Corvo belongs to a very high nobility because of his "Lord Protector" title. After all, in history of England this title was used for nobles exercising regency while the monarch was unable to rule (e.g., too young). I assume, in normal circumstances if the Empress was absent or dead, Corvo would become the Regent until Emily is old enough to rule (and he takes this position in the good ending of the game). In this case he is not just Lord Protector of the Empress or the royal family, but he is the Lord Protector of the State.
That would also explain why Corvo was sent to the diplomatic mission of critical importance. There is no sense in sending personal bodyguard or even head of the royal guards, no matter how much he is trusted by the Empress, - in fact, it could be even treated as offense by foreign governments. But if the second important man in the state presents his country while trying to gain some favors - that would add a lot of weight to his words. That's why the Empress had to send Corvo, though very reluctantly, judging by her letter.
Great article. The only thing it seemed to miss is that although "gentleman" seemed to have a strict code of honour, there was very little honourable about them. It was a social tool used by the haves to suppress the have-nots. There are remarkable stories of what gentleman did for "honour" but they are rareities not the rule, and there are just as many stories of people who were not considered gentleman doing the same things.
The main emphasis when someone was described as a gentleman was to convey they were a "better" person. And not by choice but by inherited right. You didn't become a gentleman, you were born a gentleman, and that gave you the right to subjugate others. Hence the reason that allowing yourself to be subjugated was a blemish on your honour. If you weren't born a gentleman, even the most exemplary behaviour wouldn't make you one, or if it did (as Sharpe does in the Bernard Cornwell novels) it was still known you were not a real gentleman.
As someone said above, the Flashman novels are brilliant and fascinating, but there perspective of honour is very different. This is Victorian England we are talking about, a drive towards an ideal of moral purity. When in truth it became a social tool to surpress both the poor, women, and anything that would challenge the status quo. You have to remember that this was also the age of industrialisation, at a time where technology was making new millionaires. No longer was it the simple case of Title=land=money. Now there were richer people who had no land, no title but an awful lot of money. Factories required workers, cheap workers, so woman became income earners, not just assets men kept at home. The fought for a voice and a right to vote. Workers were being made redundant by factories and rioted.
There was no excuse to deny workers their rights, or women the vote, or the new rich a right to enjoy their wealth. Except for one excuse. None of them were "gentleman" or contained "honour". It was the last pathetic excuse of a group of people who through one method or another had held all the power up until then. It's no different from 1950's men saying "women get emotional so are no good at business" or "black people are uneducated therefore can't do the same work as white men". "Gentleman" was the last desparate prop.
I've not played the game but "honour" seems an odd theme to include in the title.
The main emphasis when someone was described as a gentleman was to convey they were a "better" person. And not by choice but by inherited right. You didn't become a gentleman, you were born a gentleman, and that gave you the right to subjugate others. Hence the reason that allowing yourself to be subjugated was a blemish on your honour. If you weren't born a gentleman, even the most exemplary behaviour wouldn't make you one, or if it did (as Sharpe does in the Bernard Cornwell novels) it was still known you were not a real gentleman.
As someone said above, the Flashman novels are brilliant and fascinating, but there perspective of honour is very different. This is Victorian England we are talking about, a drive towards an ideal of moral purity. When in truth it became a social tool to surpress both the poor, women, and anything that would challenge the status quo. You have to remember that this was also the age of industrialisation, at a time where technology was making new millionaires. No longer was it the simple case of Title=land=money. Now there were richer people who had no land, no title but an awful lot of money. Factories required workers, cheap workers, so woman became income earners, not just assets men kept at home. The fought for a voice and a right to vote. Workers were being made redundant by factories and rioted.
There was no excuse to deny workers their rights, or women the vote, or the new rich a right to enjoy their wealth. Except for one excuse. None of them were "gentleman" or contained "honour". It was the last pathetic excuse of a group of people who through one method or another had held all the power up until then. It's no different from 1950's men saying "women get emotional so are no good at business" or "black people are uneducated therefore can't do the same work as white men". "Gentleman" was the last desparate prop.
I've not played the game but "honour" seems an odd theme to include in the title.
Thanks for the reply, and my compliments, that you did schlager fencing!Robert Rath said:
The schlager-fencing still exists today, although it changed a lot since the pre WWI times. In the southern regions, and especially in Austria, they even still do saber-fencing.
The movie 'The Duellists' was a great recommendation and I am planning to get the book next, but all examples are not exactly modern as in 'hot and up-to-date'. So I think, I can still make a point that 'honour-based-plots' are not as much present in the everyday media as 'vendetta-driven' although a lot of stories try to cover a vendetta in the disguise of honour... sometimes just by naming it 'Dishonored'.
So long.
Shendril
The latter would be the most accurate historical interpretation. It literally means 'The Lord who is Protector of the Realm', and was typically given to a regent.wintercoat said:
However, the position of 'Lord Protector' was not necessarily reserved for nobles. Oliver Cromwell, the most famous Lord Protector, was gentry, not nobility. Gentry were not necessarily of noble descent. His family's membership of the gentry was through the knighthood various ancestors, not through nobility.
Corvo, however, was not a 'Lord Protector' in this sense. I think the term 'Lord' in his title refers to the office, not the man holding the office, much as one doesn't need to be nobility to be First Lord of the Treasury (Prime Minister) in the UK. That would explain why he could have held the title 'Lord Protector' while still being a commoner.