A summary of the doctrine of chivalry (and not only towards women)

[fpb]

AS
the purpose of wisdom is to enlighten ignorance
AND AS
the purpose of wealth is to relieve poverty,
SO
the purpose of strength is to defend weakness.

This seems, once stated, all too obvious; but it is really revolutionary as compared with the apparently universal belief that the purpose of strength is to compel weakness.

Comments

[eliskimo.livejournal.com]

An interesting way to state it.

Of course I also find your caveat "and not only towards women" intersting. I've long since stopped thinking of chivalry in terms of opening doors for women, but this reminds me that the rest of the world has not grown along with me.

Have you ever taken a look at Scott Farrell's "Chivalry Today" website?
http://www.chivalrytoday.com/

[starshipcat.livejournal.com]

Through most of human history, the attitude has been that the strong have a right to lord it over the weak and to expropriate the fruits of their labor. Even the enlightened Greeks regarded it as the natural right of the strong to rule over the weak, and to enjoy the privileges thereof.

For that matter, just look at how many people view authority in terms of privilege vs. those who regard authority in terms of obligation.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The interesting thing is that if you went back to just about any pagan society, the other two terms would have been acknowledged. Everyone would agree that rich lords had a duty of generosity, to their subjects and to any stranger who might come their way. And pretty much anyone would agree that, whatever homage might be paid to acknowledged wisdom, the wise had a duty to share their wisdom with others, and especially to help them dodge coming dangers and difficulties which they themselves did not understand. My understanding of certain passages of Celtic literature, for instance, is that the worst thing that Druids - the class of wise men - can do, and the one thing for which they can be punished, is to hide their knowledge from a questioner, especially if the questioner is a king, and especially if they know something to his detriment. The next worse is to abuse their position to manipulate people to cover up this same refusal. So the duties of wisdom and wealth were understood; yet, as you say, a great deal of pagan literature includes the duty of the strong to rule. Not everything - the Romans regarded it as the heart of their imperial mission "to strike down the arrogant and to spare the humble" - but even there the defence of the humble is not quite present. I guess that the temptation of strength is so basic and immediate, going back to our childhood and its rows, that its abuse is more universal and easy to fall in than even the abuse of wealth, let alone of wisdom.

[luckymarty.livejournal.com]

While the wisdom element has been widely recognized, I don't think the second term has been nearly as common. The duty of generosity isn't quite the same thing as saying "the purpose of wealth is to relieve poverty." It is certainly true that it was viewed as improper to use wealth exclusively for your own benefit, but specifically aiming it at relief of the poor is uncommon.

Another example: a Greek would have viewed it as the duty of the rich man to use his wealth to support, strengthen, and glorify the polis -- say, by outfitting a trireme or maintaining a temple. If that happens to benefit the poor members particularly, well and good, but that's more or less incidental.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I disagree. If you read for instance the Mabinogi of Pwyll and Pryderi, or Cullhwch and Olwen, you will find that a prince is expected to give whatever he is asked for, by any beggar who comes around. And alms are a major duty, prescribed in Hindu law (the Manava Dharmashastra). What is misleading is that most of these things were prescriptions for rural societies, where people tended to know each other, and everyone knew who was in need. A class of the poor does not really come into existence until the great cities begin to arise, and even so old values still prevail: Rome at the height of its importance, with more than a million inhabitants, was a network of clientships in which each important citizen gave one meal a day (Juvenal complains of their quality) to literally hundreds of clients. That a lord should be a giver is a commonplace in the Indo-European world at least, and I would be surprised if it were different anywhere else.

Question

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

What is the difference between chivalry and the concept of "noblesse oblige"?

Re: Question

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Not much, but a smaller range of duties could be compassed in the latter. Like an ancient Celt or Germanic lord would of course be expected, because of his noblesse, to be generous to everyone and to support his followers, but not to follow the specific duties of a knight. Let us say that chivalry is a specific sub-section of that larger set that includes the duties of social superiors.

Re: Question

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And let us not forget that the sentence "Noblesse oblige" and the concept and language of chivalry come from the same country.

Re: Question

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

And I think for us anglophones, the word "chivalry" seems less patronizing than "noblesse oblige."

[dustthouart.livejournal.com]

The problem is that to Rand (or to Nietzsche and several other philosophers) and their followers, they deny all three.

Libertarians especially deny the second. If you mentioned the second to most people online today, not only would they not think it was a given, you'd probably give some people heart attacks.

Edit: Basically, I think that if you were to poll people, you'd find people more likely to agree with point 1 and point 3 than point 2. But I think you'd still find a depressingly large amount of people who think, in all three cases, "might makes right." Or that there is no morality at all.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I disagree. I would say that the duty of the rich to care for the poor is a commonplace of current popular culture - think of "we are the world" and so on. Both Rand and Nietzsche are really fringe thinkers, although I think a lot more of him than of her, and even most of their followers do not really try to apply their philosophies in real life. Most of them treat them as a philosophical toy, to be put away with the other toys when real life and real human beings make an appearance.

[thefish30.livejournal.com]

It's important not to confuse individual morality with the politics. Libertarianism is all about what the government should and should not do. It has nothing against personal chivalry. (though Rand does)

Similarly, I think most people today (even online) agree heartily with #2 as governmental policy, but are careful not to count themselves among the wealthy.

[larmer.livejournal.com]

thefish30, I concur with your comments.

fpb I have posted this item into LJ with reference back to this post.
One thing to consider is that the saying makes no reference to who benefits. It does not say, 'the purpose of wealth is to help the poor,' but rather 'the purpose of wealth is to relieve poverty,' The wealth I generate helps to relieve me of poverty. My wisdom to know my lack of knowledge causes me to seek knowledge from others thereby reducing my ignorance. I think most readers consider that it is a third party who benefits but it is implied not stated. So the statement perhaps should be adjusted.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

This is not a lawyer's statement. I think most people who read this will understand what I meant.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I liked this. Thank you. :)