Defending Chivalry...

In My Humble Opinion
1

In this thread, Blue John said something that bothered me, namely:

“Chivalry should have ended with the nineteenth century.”

It got me thinking about what people view as chivalry. Oft times in the past, the word “Chivalry” has been used to replace the word “Chauvinist” as an explanation for the actions of arrogant men, seeking to brag about their accomplishments.

As one who believes strongly in chivalrous ideals, it pains me to see the concept of Chivalry being abused and despised by those who do not understand it, and so I thought to post the following, an interpretation of the “Code of Chivalry”, that I attempt to live by every day. Please note that this is paraphrased, as the original had references to knights and such that were not relevant to the expression of “modern” chivalry.

Goals when striving for Chivalry

Prowess: To seek excellence in all endeavors, martial and otherwise, seeking strength to be used in the service of justice, rather than in personal aggrandizement.

Justice: Seek always the path of ‘right’, unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Recognize that the sword of justice can be a terrible thing, so it must be tempered by humanity and mercy. If the ‘right’ you see agrees with others, and you seek it out without bending to the temptation for expediency, then you will earn renown beyond measure.

Loyalty: Be known for unwavering commitment to the people and ideals you choose to live by. There are many places where compromise is expected; loyalty is not amongst them.

Defense: Seek always to defend your nation, your family, innocents, and those to whom you believe worthy of loyalty.

Courage: Chivalry often means choosing the more difficult path, the personally expensive one. Be prepared to make personal sacrifices in service of the precepts and people you value. At the same time, onc should seek wisdom to see that stupidity and courage are cousins. Courage also means taking the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief.

Faith: One must have faith in his beliefs, whatever they are, for faith roots him and gives hope against the despair that human failings create.

Humility: Value first the contributions of others; do not boast of your own accomplishments, let others do this for you. Tell the deeds of others before your own, according them the renown rightfully earned through virtuous deeds.

Largesse: Be generous in so far as your resources allow; largesse used in this way counters gluttony. It also makes the path of mercy easier to discern when a difficult decision of justice is required.

Nobility: Seek great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight, realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens. Nobility also has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in the service of rightness.

Franchise: Seek to emulate everything above as sincerely as possible, not for the reason of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and virtue.
Tell me, are these ideals that should be forgotten?

Are these virtues no longer valuable in today’s world?

As I said above, I endeavor to follow the ideals of Chivalry every day. Perhaps I am just a dinosaur of ancient thinking, or an unwelcome anachronism in this modern world…but I hope I am not alone. I welcome your opinions and discussions.

Yours,

Woeg

(original source of the Code of Chivalry:
Chronique )

2

I’m on your side in that chivalry should live on, and I agree with your code as expressed here.

3

Yes but you must realize that WOMEN can and do possess these qualities. That they can strive to live up to these standards and still be women.

4

Considering that most people these days are selfish, lazy, and stupid, good luck!

5

I never once said that women can’t or don’t posess these qualities. That, I think, is one of the problems. People say they believe in chivalry, and others automatically assume that said person thinks it’s a “men’s only” club. I know many chivalrous and noble women whom I see as role-models for chivalrous behaviour.

6

While I consider the stated values to be slightly outdated and inspired solely by vanity, these aren’t what I was attacking when I criticised chivalry. I was attacking chivalry as I believe it is defined by most now, based on opinions such as yours in the Women and Children First thread.

When I object to chivalry I object to the female chauvinist opinion that women are more deserving or life, as was voiced in the other thread, or that men should perform servitude such as opening doors for women. It’s no different to white people, or any other biogroup, being favoured. It’s sexism and I want no part of it.

I don’t object to your other ideas of chivalry, I don’t care for them either, but it’s only this chauvinism I find offensive about chivalry.

7

Woeg you must admit that most people think of chivalry as a strictly male quality. It is also historically linked to a time where men ejoyed much more freedom, rights and responsibilities.

The classic image of a woman sitting there, fainting from her uncomfortable and medically damaging corset, whilst her knight did everything for her is what comes to mind to most people when that word is used.

The ideals in your OP, can you tell me when people generally lived up to those? The middle ages seem to me to be a pretty brutal time. (I know there are many people more expert than to comment on the subject so I hope they show up)

How do you expect people today to really accept that the definition of chivalry is as you put it and not how it is commonly viewed?

8

Well that is rather inherent in the meaning of the word. Unless you feel some need to usurp the word and explain to a lot of people your new usage of it, you should probably pick a less loaded word to describe your unisex code of ethics. At the very least, you should not treat people who immediate associate chivalry with men as though they were making undue assumptions about what you mean.

9

To love one maiden only, cling to her
and worship her by years of noble deeds,
until they won her, for indeed I know
of no more subtle master under heaven
than is the maiden passion for a maid,
not only to keep down the base in man,
but teach high thought and amiable words
and courtliness and the desire of fame
and love of Truth, and all that makes a man.
IDYLS OF THE KING By Tennyson

10

If chivalry weren’t so associated with rescuing damsels in distress, it would be a perfectly good word. Meanwhile, I find most of the tenets to be a description of the way to live a noble life.

As for defending a nation, I would prefer to extend that to all the peoples of the world. Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations are a good way of defending our nation. I wonder what King Arthur would have thought of that…

“Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?
Where are all those adoring, daring boys?
Would two knights never tilt for me
Or let their blood be spilt for me?”
- Alan J. Lerner, lyricist, Camelot

No…I think not.

11

Good topic, I also agree that chivalry “should” live on.

12

Depends on which King Arthur you mean. T.H. White’s King Arthur (from The once and future king, which Camelot was based upon) spends most of his adult life trying to get rid of the “might makes right” idea and instead institute ideals of protecting the weak. Camelot dissolves in war despite his efforts. Guinevere, who sings those lyrics above, doesn’t care quite so much. White himself was a pacifist, IIRC.

As for chivalry, you guys forgot the adultery part! What about that, huh? (Chivalry was first invented by the women and poets of the French court, as diversion for themselves and civilizing influence upon the really horribly violent and destructive men. The idea was that a man would pine away for an unattainable woman and do lots of good deeds, etc. in her honor–but she had to be married to someone else. She, in turn, might allow him to pine for her and obey her every whim, or she might squash him flat; it gave her all the power she didn’t have in her marriage. Marriage and love were two completely seperate concepts. Or at least that’s how I’ve come to understand it in a general way.)

13

Did you really think anyone was going to object to your principles? They are all the type of statement that nobody would dare to argue with and therefore useful only to the clueless. Since here on SDMB you are not dealing with the clueless, what is the point?

14

I agree with kniz. You’ve somply redefined chivalry in a way almost no one would object to.

What you’ve said is, “People should lead moral, courageous lives”. No offense, but – Duh.

15

“redefined”?

Wait a minute, are y’all claiming that the accepted meaning of “chivalrous” IS “condescendingly sexist”?

16

Not exactly. More like taking away some objectionable sexist elements, adding some ennobling ones, and saying “Ain’t chivalry grand?”

17

Yes, but… all my life (b. 1961) I had heard the term “chivalrous” as meaning conduct reflecting all those OP-mentioned virtues, plus maybe some quaintly old-fashioned manners about how to behave around women. So it does not sound like a “redefinition” to me.

18

“Of or relating to chivalry” is but one of the definitions of “chivalrous”, and not the most common one.

19

Sorry for the length of time in replying to those who have asked me questions…I have been busy, and it took me a while to find the thread again.

Zebra, I guess that my answer to the question “How do you expect people today to really accept that the definition of chivalry is as you put it and not how it is commonly viewed?” is that I was unaware that Chivalry was commonly viewed as something other than a code of morality, courtesy, and respect.

As for naming a time when people *generally[/] lived up to the ideals of Chivalry, of course I can’t name one. If people actually did live up to them, there would be no need for a Code of Conduct, would there? :wink: But there are many stories of individuals who displayed great chivalry in their lives. A good example would be William Marshal.

I do admit that the concept of chivalry as a “manly” endeavour is apparrantly very prominent…but I wonder why such ideals would be denied to a woman, when there is nothing which keeps a woman from following them.

Achernar, I disagree that the inherent meaning of Chivalry implies it being “for men only”. In truth, the actual word itself means “skilled with a horse”. That it came to be used to describe the attributes of nobility is related to the fact that nobles were expected to be competant with horses. If there is any inherent meaning to the word, it is that.

That said, I agree with you. I should not treat others as if they are making undue assumptions of my meaning when I say chivalry. Pride is but one of the many flaws I struggle with daily, but at least I try. My sincere apologies to anyone I have offended because of it.

Zoe, I agree with you that the word nation would be best changed with world, but I did not write the above code, and wanted to change as little as possible in relaying it. As for how Arthur would feel…historically, the “real” Arthur likely did not follow any code of ethics. Fictionally, I think Arthur was, in most tellings, very much a man of peace, who tried to have a kingdom of peace, but against whom circumstances failed.

Genie, I think you are confusing Chivalry with Courtly Love, two seperate, though often linked, sets of ideals. It is a common mistake, and one I myself have made in the past. Chivalry has nothing to do with the pining of love or such; that is a matter of Courtly Love. However, those who practiced Courtly Love were expected to also be chivalrous.

Kniz, I did not expect anyone to argue with them; but I was trying to make a point. In the above mentioned post, it was stated that “Chivalry should have ended with the nineteenth century.” My post was made because it was clear that the concept and ideals of Chivalry seemed, to me, misunderstood, and so I asked the rhetorical question of what was wrong with them. There are obviously people who do not know what Chivalry means (to me, at least, and to many others), and thus a definition by way of a code is a way of clarifying what I was saying.

You said, “They are all the type of statement that nobody would dare to argue with and therefore useful only to the clueless.”

The Magna Carta is basically a declaration of equal and common rights and freedoms. So is the Constitution of the United States. It could be said that they are statements that no one would argue with. Are they, therefore, only useful to the clueless? Speaking of which, how would one become “clueful” without a point of reference?

Great as the SDMB is, not everyone here knows everything. If we did, why would this place exist?

Yojimboguy (cool handle, BTW), where has it been redefined? What sexist elements do you refer to? What enobling elements have I added? Where is the source for your claims?

I do not ask this to be an ass, or because I am being close-minded. I ask out of honesty, because I have never heard it honestly defined differently than I have stated, and am curious to other interpretations.

Achernar, I take you are referring to this meaning of chivalry, from your cite:

Characterized by consideration and courtesy, especially toward women.

Chivalry means consideration and courtesy to all, but it is seen as “especially towards woman” because, until fairly recently in history, women were treated as lesser individuals then men. In the past, noble men would often only treat other noble men as equals, doing such things as opening doors for them, or performing other hostly duties. Chivalry encouraged treating women as you would another man, with dignity, respect, and consideration. How is this sexist? It seems to me to be very anti-sexist…but perhaps that is just my view of things.

Thank you all for participating thus far in this thread. Regardless of whether we agree or disagree, I do appreciate and respect your points of view.

20

Screwed up the coding somewhere in there. My apologies…next time I’ll preview first!