There’s a lot to take in here. My first thought is your observation that “a man is properly a father.” Even if not biological, like a priest. Our culture hasn’t just forgotten this—there’s been a concerted effort to deconstruct fatherhood and mock fathers as idiots or brutes. This is a key driver of today’s confusion about masculinity, and young men not even knowing what it means to be a man. Turning to pick-up artists (or worse) only deepens the crisis. We need more work like yours.
Great points. Thankfully, there are many good men today, especially Substacks like Simple Men and Catholic Manhood, training men in authentic masculinity - whereas others like Andrew Tate confuse childish barbarism with true chivalry.
Do you mean the Western novel? Unfortunately not, but it sounds interesting. Have you ever watched the TV series The Rifleman? Chuck Connors's character is one of the best models of chivalry I've seen.
Wondering in the Post Modern world here, how to approach the reality that actual knights and kings were a bunch of crass, violent, connivers. This is true as History "a catalog of crimes", (and continues to this day). At the same time, Chivalry is not Roman Virtue and I believe it DID have a broad, deep, strong influence on behavior, both for men and women, high and low.
So the question is, "What is an ideal literally no one lives up to? Is it real?" I'd say yes, but if no one lives up to it, is it really? And that goes with the next problem: okay, if you say in history people didn't do this, how do you measure it? No one issues a 15th c questionnaire.
We also aspire to all sort of things we don't do. All Liberalism, for example, seems anti-liberalism (famously). But Roman Stoics or Virtue were no different. We all aspire to things we don't achieve, yet they are the signature tone, the culture of the age.
I would say chivalry is not an ideal but a moral code, one which is not limited to 'the culture of the age' but has values which are perennial. The perfectly chivalrous man is the ideal realization of chivalry, and while this ideal man has never lived, except for Jesus Christ, medieval knights were not as bad as you make out. Many were even saints, like St. Louis IX and St. Ferdinand, and others were great men, like William Marshall, George Kastrioti and Don Juan of Austria. Although these men weren't perfect, they still provide an example of chivalrous masculine virtue which men today can strive to imitate. To shrink from this task is only a sign of pusillanimity, not 'realism.'
Amazing piece of work, my friend. Lots of good insights and great citations here I’m going to be coming back to glean from more. Subscribing for more quality content like this!
My only critique is the rejection to the way of the Oxford comma 😉 (a petty and subjective critique I know haha).
Thank you, sir! And I think my neglect of the Oxford comma is a side effect of my schoolwork at college - they don’t allow it. I imagine Tolkien supported it though!
I can only imagine that in the many ways Tolkien and Lewis displayed their friendship, debating over their personal usage of the Oxford might’ve been one of them (since Lewis tended toward using it, but not rigidly)! Haha
There’s a lot to take in here. My first thought is your observation that “a man is properly a father.” Even if not biological, like a priest. Our culture hasn’t just forgotten this—there’s been a concerted effort to deconstruct fatherhood and mock fathers as idiots or brutes. This is a key driver of today’s confusion about masculinity, and young men not even knowing what it means to be a man. Turning to pick-up artists (or worse) only deepens the crisis. We need more work like yours.
Great points. Thankfully, there are many good men today, especially Substacks like Simple Men and Catholic Manhood, training men in authentic masculinity - whereas others like Andrew Tate confuse childish barbarism with true chivalry.
I read CS Lewis’s chivalry essay. Have you read the novel Shane? It’s a good example of what Lewis is talking about.
Do you mean the Western novel? Unfortunately not, but it sounds interesting. Have you ever watched the TV series The Rifleman? Chuck Connors's character is one of the best models of chivalry I've seen.
I’ll have to check that out.
Wondering in the Post Modern world here, how to approach the reality that actual knights and kings were a bunch of crass, violent, connivers. This is true as History "a catalog of crimes", (and continues to this day). At the same time, Chivalry is not Roman Virtue and I believe it DID have a broad, deep, strong influence on behavior, both for men and women, high and low.
So the question is, "What is an ideal literally no one lives up to? Is it real?" I'd say yes, but if no one lives up to it, is it really? And that goes with the next problem: okay, if you say in history people didn't do this, how do you measure it? No one issues a 15th c questionnaire.
We also aspire to all sort of things we don't do. All Liberalism, for example, seems anti-liberalism (famously). But Roman Stoics or Virtue were no different. We all aspire to things we don't achieve, yet they are the signature tone, the culture of the age.
I would say chivalry is not an ideal but a moral code, one which is not limited to 'the culture of the age' but has values which are perennial. The perfectly chivalrous man is the ideal realization of chivalry, and while this ideal man has never lived, except for Jesus Christ, medieval knights were not as bad as you make out. Many were even saints, like St. Louis IX and St. Ferdinand, and others were great men, like William Marshall, George Kastrioti and Don Juan of Austria. Although these men weren't perfect, they still provide an example of chivalrous masculine virtue which men today can strive to imitate. To shrink from this task is only a sign of pusillanimity, not 'realism.'
Amazing piece of work, my friend. Lots of good insights and great citations here I’m going to be coming back to glean from more. Subscribing for more quality content like this!
My only critique is the rejection to the way of the Oxford comma 😉 (a petty and subjective critique I know haha).
Thank you, sir! And I think my neglect of the Oxford comma is a side effect of my schoolwork at college - they don’t allow it. I imagine Tolkien supported it though!
I can only imagine that in the many ways Tolkien and Lewis displayed their friendship, debating over their personal usage of the Oxford might’ve been one of them (since Lewis tended toward using it, but not rigidly)! Haha