Recently my cousin posted a link on facebook to an article about chivalry which sparked a bit of a long comment thread on the subject. There were numerous pro and con arguments, but the only con argument against chivalry that seemed any good to me was the question my cousin had, that if chivalry is simply a matter of courtesy and serving other people, then how is it any different from Christian Charity? It is a just question, and I have been thinking about it quite a bit in the weeks since. Most of this post comes from that thread, but some is the result of those weeks of thought.
First of all, it is important to understand that they are not the same thing. Charity is supernatural, and
the culmination of all virtues at their essence. Chivalry is a humanly defined
collection of virtues. An analogy would be the difference between “Star” and
“the big dipper.” “Star” is a concept which includes all possible aspects of
the true essence of star, from the scientific to the poetic, discovered and
undiscovered. “Big dipper” on the other hand, is our word for a specific group
of stars which bear a certain relationship from our two dimensional view, but
which would be meaningless viewed from nearly any other point in three
dimensional space. This does not mean that the concept of “big dipper” is
useless, especially for someone trying to find polar north without a compass,
but if we ever go to another solar system and search the night sky for
directions we may find ourselves hopelessly lost.
Chivalry is the same way. It is a
human concept with a specific historical origin and evolution. It is also a
word for a specific collection of virtues. These virtues differ from one time
and place to another, but they historically have always included at least these
three: some martial or at least athletic connotation; the idea of scholarly
excellence in a general, non-specialized sense; and a certain mannerly and
respectful way of treating others, with an emphasis on those in positions of
vulnerability.
Chivalry is not about holiness; it
is about self-improvement. It will not get you to heaven. (See John Cardinal
Newman’s “
Idea of a University.”) It may make earth more enjoyable but it will
not save your soul. If diligently followed it will make you respectful,
athletic, a respectable fighter, interesting, sophisticated, dignified and a
great conversationalist (already we are far removed from the idea of chivalry
as a portable doorman for highly manicured ladies). These are all good things,
and well worth pursuing if you have the time and inclination. However, chivalry
will not make you humble or compassionate. It is no guarantee that you will
ever learn how to love.
Chivalry is particularly interested
in the relation of men and women because of its origin in the middle ages. It
originated (according to Brad Miner in “
The Compleat Gentleman”) specifically
as a means to teach big, rough, tough, skull-crushing, Saracen-gutting, half-barbarian
warrior types to regard women as people with rights, rather than merely as
property. The element of service to women is an attempt to subdue the
aggressive, lawless and particularly masculine to service of order, beauty and
peace. Holding doors for women is a somewhat pathetic remnant of that.
Since it is a man-made concept, it
must evolve with the times, something that most of the “bringin’ chivalry
back!” (BCB) crowd does not realize. A lot of BCB-ers lament the absence of
damsels in distress because they feel that distressed damsels are necessary for
them to be chivalrous. As long as the damsels get through life steadfastly
refusing to be distressed, you can’t blame the boys in cardboard armor for
being a little put out.
The fact is that somehow or other,
women do in fact manage to get through doors, get into and out of cars, and
procure food items for themselves, even when men are not around. They seem to
do it rather well. Therefore, if holding doors and paying for dates is seen as
the measure of what chivalry is, well, thanks but I have better things to do
A more mature chivalry sees women
with a critically balance poetry. He sees what is, namely, that women now-a-days are not as exaggeratedly
vulnerable and crying out for a rescuer as Sleeping Beauty and his behavior
towards them respects that. On the other hand he also recognizes that the
vulnerability that the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale symbolizes is not a bad thing. Vulnerability is worth fighting for. It is worthwhile to cherish and value
that side of a woman, while recognizing that it is not her only side. She is a
fellow shipwrecked passenger, just like I am, and her ability to be vulnerable
and beautiful is one of the most powerful strengths she brings to this lonely
island. It would be a shame if that were lost because there was no one around
to value it.
You see, a truly chivalrous man
knows that it is a good thing to treat a lady like a lady, and knows also that
a “lady” is not a euphemism for spoiled brat. A true lady is a very dangerous
and powerful person indeed. She is not a Disney princess. She is not a tame
lioness.
But that is the long way round. At
its best, chivalry like all other virtues must first resemble and then finally
be drawn into charity if it is not to become obsolete. Charity is better. While
chivalry is an exclusive virtue in that some people can develop it and some
people cannot, charity requires only that you be willing to know and love the
other and be known and loved. It is open to man, woman, child, old person,
scholar and day worker, athlete and invalid, fat, skinny, strong, weak, genius
or dunce. It is better to be even the littlest of lovers than it is to be the
greatest of knights.
However, in the last year or so I have not thought about practicing chivalry at all. I have gradually been shifting my focus towards striving after charity. This does not mean I think that my previous focus on chivalry is superseded. I think it was valuable and worthwhile, for several reasons.
Firstly, it was the search for chivalry that brought me to the point where I could recognize that charity is superior. That was the most powerful draw for a man of my personality, and I think it could draw other men just as strongly. That is why I will certainly teach it if I ever have sons, or am in any way in charge of the education of boys.
Secondly, I do not think that concentrating more on charity will make me less chivalrous. Quite the contrary, I believe it will fulfill and make complete the chivalry that I have been practicing for years, but, alas, have still not mastered.
And thirdly, charity is as individual as people are. Every human's love is different from every other human's love. Chivalry was the most influential part of the raw material, and it imparts a strong flavor or color to the shape that my charity will take, when by God's grace it is full grown.
To balance out my last post, I have always been an
advocate of a modern chivalry, going so far as to write a book and a
surfeit of blogs about it. Despite the fact that it is no longer a primary focus of mine, I still think it is both good and necessary.
Make no mistake, the need
for chivalry, for protection of women by men, is still very real in this
world. However, a fake chivalry that thinks its duty fully discharged
by having held the door or paid for a meal is not going to cut it. The
only solution for a crime against women like that pictured to the left,
is a real chivalry, with brains and balls, muscle and a soul of steel, and the
willingness to suffer (or perhaps inflict) violence if necessary to protect the
innocent. 
