Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Chivalry as “Art” Rather Than “Nature”
The medieval ideal brought together two things which have no natural tendency to gravitate towards one another. It brought them together for that very reason. It taught humility and forbearance to the great warrior because everyone knew by experience how much he usually needed that lesson. It demanded valour of the urbane and modest man because everyone knew that he was as likely as not to be a milksop.
I can’t help thinking, when I read this passage from C.S. Lewis’s short essay, “The Necessity of Chivalry,” (now published as part of a collection titled Present Concerns), of a few of my favorite war movies, some of which feature heroes of extraordinary bravery and fortitude combined with a sense of “humility and forbearance,” and some of which feature everyday men and women engaging in, however small or local, acts of “valor.” (The fact that these sorts of movies are my favorites probably explains why I’m not wild about movies that, start to finish, are nothing more than unremitting violent bloodbaths.) As Lewis puts it:
If we cannot produce Launcelots, humanity falls into two sections–those who can deal in blood and iron but cannot be “meek in hall”, and those who are “meek in hall” but useless in battle–for the third class, who are both brutal in peace and cowardly in war, need not here be discussed. When this disassociation of the two halves of Launcelot occurs, history becomes a horribly simple affair. The ancient history of the Near East is like that. Hardy barbarians swarm down from their highlands and obliterate a civilization. Then they become civilized themselves and go soft. Then a new wave of barbarians comes down and obliterates them. Then the cycle begins over again. Modern machinery will not change this cycle; it will only enable the same thing to happen on a larger scale. Indeed, nothing much else can ever happen if the ‘stern’ and the ‘meek’ fall into two mutually exclusive classes. And never forget that this is their natural condition. The man who combines both characters–the knight–is a work not of nature but of art; of that art which has human beings, instead of canvas or marble, for its medium.
Lewis’s essay hasn’t had an airing on Ricochet (at least according to our valiant search engine) for quite a while. So perhaps it’s time for another look at the great man’s view of it which, in my estimation, is refreshing principally because it frames the matter, not in the narrow terms in which it’s often discussed, those of relations between the sexes and how men treat women–in which Launcelot may not be mentioned without Guinevere in the same breath, and we may not talk about the “knight” without his “lady.” (I think Lewis is probably smart enough to spot both the snare for a twentieth-century Christian apologist there as well as what I’ll call “the feminist/patriarchy trap,” which is why he refers to it in the first sentence of his essay, apparently dismisses it, and never mentions it again):
The word chivalry has meant at different times a good many different things–from heavy cavalry to giving a woman a seat on a train. But if we want to understand chivalry as an ideal distinct from other ideals–if we want to isolate that particular conception of the man comme if faut which was the special contribution of the Middle Ages to our culture…
Lewis’s concept of chivalry goes deeper, explores the dichotomy of human nature, and speaks of the complexities of reconciling them into an honorable and knightly whole. He foreshadows the increasing difficulties of doing just that in the modern world. And he gives us hope (I think), that if we can only continue/find our way back to doing so, we will not only find ourselves, but we will also treat each other more fairly, justly, and mercifully. And perhaps we will find that there may be a little bit of chivalry in all of us.
I can’t find the entire essay in print anywhere on the web, but there’s a reading of it here. It’s only about nine minutes:
What do you think? Has Lewis hit the nail on the head? Is he wandering off point? Or have we, indeed, reached a place where we’ve reverted so far to the “natural” state that the “stern and the ‘meek’ fall into two mutually exclusive classes,” never to be reconciled in our psyches again? (If so, on that last point, I think Lewis thinks it’s the end.)
Published in General
I like Barbara too. She has an interesting take on things. Sometimes she’s wrong (there are some points of 18th century naval combat that she didn’t think through) but I still appreciate the writing and the research that went into it.
The French knights didn’t always have things their own way. After the civilians of Bruges conducted the Bruges Matins and practically annihilated their French garrison, Philip II sent Count Robert II of Artois to settle their business. Robert took an army primarily consisting of heavy cavalry to the town of Courtrai into battle against town militias who bought their own mail and made their own weapons. Due to excellent terrain preparation and utilization, the Flems handed the French their heads – and took their golden spurs.
I didn’t know this story, or don’t remember it. Thanks. I’m going to read up.
She:
“I think what you’re describing is more along the lines of emotionally unhealthy, isolated, confused and traumatized young people of both sexes seeking the attention, affection, and security they’ve missed out on in life, and essentially self-medicating by experimenting with drugs and/or sex and/or other transgressive behaviors in order to try to find oblivion and release. Very often (if they survive) they can overcome such behavior, and many (not nearly enough) do.”
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I blame women. I don’t. It’s just that the commentary to that point blamed the degradation of society largely on the behavior of men. To me, it’s a 50/50 proposition in a very complex dynamic between the sexes, but what I was also trying to make clear is how truly traumatized millions of young people are today and that there are some very serious consequences because of that. Many young people who have been abused mentally by their dysfunctional families all too often as adults go on to abuse others in a very similar way.
Chivalry was a code of conduct that the good forces of society wanted people to aspire to, not that many did depending on the influence the good people of society had on that society at that point in time. In today’s society that is largely spinning out of control due to the purposeful destruction of the nuclear family unit, Chivalry has almost become a dead issue, sadly.
Here’s a list: Destruction of the nuclear family unit, same for Christianity and Judaism, indoctrination in education, propaganda in media news and entertainment, and lies and corruption in government. Men are not masculine and women are not feminine to the degree that honor requires.
Anything else?
Thanks for clarifying. I don’t think we’re too far apart on the matter, although I’m still hopeful for a course correction in the not-too-distant future.
I don’t know what the solution is, but as a woman who’s pretty traditionally-minded when it comes to how relations between the sexes can or should operate, my view of the problem is that we have to find a modern blueprint to define it, both within and without the context of what constitutes chivalrous behavior. What’s I’ve so often seen used as the “gold standard” on Ricochet (usually–I think–jokingly), that “a woman needs a man in the house otherwise who’s going to get the lid off the pickle jars?” is really a 21st-century irrelevancy. There’s a tool (and probably even an app) to help me do that, or to do that for me. Just as many other conveniences of modern life have leveled the ‘physical strength’ differential to a point where, for most of life’s circumstances, careers, paths (there are exceptions), it’s a non-issue. In the age of the ubiquitous GPS, we don’t even need a man to help us find our way to the hairdressers or the nail salon.
So, on to the next thing. Are men just more intelligent than women, and should we (women) simply admit that and get back in the kitchen (She said, lightheartedly)? Not so fast. I have no difficulty acknowledging that women are wired, and approach problems and solutions differently, than do men. As with the strength differential, there are exceptions. And even without the exceptions, do I think one way is ‘better,’ or makes one sex ‘smarter’ than the other, or an object of ridicule to the other? I do not. And whether or not one is a fan of career women, or women managers, or female executives, it’s hard not to acknowledge that the majority of them do their jobs very well, to the point where it doesn’t occur to us any more to wonder if a man might have done them ‘better.’ (We are not all bimbos on the make, and, unlike the current Vice-President of the United States, we didn’t all sleep our way into our careers or positions of influence, I assure you.)
I’ve been lucky in my life in that most of my relations with the men in it, both on the home front and on the job front, have been healthy and complementary. Yes, I’ve been #MeToo-ed a couple of times by [expletive]s. But by and large my managers (all men with one exception) have treated me as a valued employee, and I’ve always tried to respond in kind and show my worth (which I, perhaps vainly, believe to be considerable) to the organization. On that home front, my father always encouraged me to strive for excellence in whatever I was doing or wanted to do, and Mr. She and I had a healthy respect for each other’s strengths and weaknesses, for what we could do as a team, and for what we needed to do to shore each other up when that was necessary or when either of us faltered. And I’ve never been more glad of how we were with each other than when he became so ill the last few years of his life. Because we’d always been equal (not talking about equity) partners, I was able to step in and carry on without missing a beat, just as I know he’d have done for me had the situation been reversed.
Did I, during my marriage, feel special, loved, and protected? You bet. Was I sure that he’d step in front of a bullet headed in my direction? Yes, I was. Would I have dared to do many of the things I did, and was able to do in my life without his encouragement and support? Probably not. Did I respect him as a man? Of course. And the fact that I rarely asked him to take the lid off the pickle jar, but usually got out my handy-dandy tool and did it myself has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Did I, at any time, feel inferior, or even submissive or dominated by him? No, I did not. You may decide if that makes me a nitwit, a loon, a joyless scold, or perhaps a pragmatic, complementary, rational and loving spouse. All I know is that it worked for me.
I don’t know how (or if) there’s a way to get past the pointless shrieking from the Left about toxic masculinity and the patriarchy, but I’m pretty sure that trotting out past shibboleths as to how things should work, in an age where many of them are no longer relevant, or having one or the other side give what my family calls “the Dobby speech” (after that pathetic little house elf in Harry Potter who’s always banging his head on the wall and assuming blame for everything that happens whether it’s his fault or not) isn’t the way to go about it. I think one of the people who’s doing his best to address this issue is Jordan Peterson, and although I’m not in lockstep with everything he says, I applaud him for the effort, and for the fact that he’s having some success.
The whole comment, but that in particular.
They are creating Jordan Peterson with this CRT nonsense, and there will be more. Some of them won’t be as civic-minded. They sow the wind, and they will not fancy the reaping when it begins.
I wrote about this back in 2019.
One thing to keep in mind is that Chivalric tales were often about the contradictory standards for a proper knight. The knight is placed in a dilemma where both options will cause a problem. They had to balance the chivalric virtues. Chivalry was an ideal, something impossible to reach but important to strive for
On the subject of tyrannical lords, if you enough of a jerk, you might get excommunicated. That’s a problem, since any oath now becomes invalid – all of you vassal or peasants can now quit work, or become vassals of the bishop who excommunicated you.
Also, if you want you some proper chivalrous action, I recommend the Knight of Hope, by the Adorea Olomouc team. They are some of the best historical fighting choreographers out there, so even the bad guys use intelligent tactics. C.S. Lewis had a famous description of Aslan “Is he scary? Of course he’s scary, but he’s good.” Around 6 minutes in, that description comes into effect big time.
@percival you absolutely should see this, if you haven’t already
I will bet that after “The Song of Roland” was performed, lords would turn to their knights and ask: “What did Roland do wrong?”
“Why nothing, milord.”
“Incorrect! Charlemagne gave him a horn and told him to use it. He didn’t. He decided on his own that his honor was more important than Charlemagne keeping his forces intact. Follow orders!“
Okay, it was fun to watch, but pretty silly if anyone thinks it’s supposed to be realistic. First, if they were smart, they could have just all attacked at the same time, knocked him over and held his arms long enough for someone to poke a blade through a chink in the armor or in his face. Second, once he took a couple bad guys out, the rest would have run away. It’s almost unheard of for a group to not flee or retreat after suffering great losses and fighting to the last man when they are able to retreat or run away is stupid and almost non-existent. But it did look cool
I’ve been admiring the growing popularity of HEMA (historical European martial arts) and have long wondered why we think of the Ninjas and other eastern martial artists as somehow superior. Europe had its own martial arts with which they mastered the world. Their methods were not at all lacking.
They did attack at once – the problem was they were un-drilled bandits, who would not know a formation from a hole in the ground. They pin him and go for a throat attack at one point, and the dude with a polearm lays him out. (People seriously underestimate the effectiveness of polearms) Fighting to the last man is somewhat justified by the knight getting more and more exhausted over the battle, but realistically if they were a disordered mob of bandits, they are going to run for their camp and take off with their loot.
HEMA is really cool. It’s also a huge area, with tons of weapons. Officers were being trained on saber combat until around WWI, and we have references to ancient Greek martial practice and the training of the Roman legionaries. Two millennia of knowledge in close combat is a lot to take in. I think the issue with HEMA is that almost all HEMA works are not mystical. You are not becoming an enlightened guru, your are becoming a lethal weapon.
The few guys with polearms closed too fast. Once your opponent is in past your point, you are in a world of trouble.