An old post from email.

Backround: I'm in the SCA, and a member of the Order of Chivalry, so one of the things I do is sit around and wank about "chivalry", what it means, how to get it, etc.

Then came the events of 9/11/2001.

And Chivalry, suddenly, seemed to have meaning.

Here's a response to a hysterical post I found at that time:



It's a good article. It's worth hearing, and
remembering. It's from Salon, and was published there
originally, I believe (www.salon.com)

I want to take another tack on this issue. I don't
want to talk about America's courage; but I do want to
question America's chivalry.

Now, chivalry is something we discuss a lot in the
SCA, and as a member of the order dedicated to it, I'm
supposed to know something about it. I was never able
to articulate what chivalry was until after the most
recent atrocity.

Chivalry is appropriateness. Chivalry is responding
in the correct manner--to speak, and to be silent, to
strike, and to let be, to succor the defenseless, and
let this be the last blow you take unanswered. And,
in this case, it means approaching this crime, this
grand vandelism, this horror with the same idea--to
protect the innocent, to succor the defenseless, to
answer the blow.

To do all of those means striking the right blow.
Bombing Afghanistan, I think, is not it. Forcing a
war isn't it, perhaps. Letting whoever did this--and
I've not heard any conclusive prove that anyone is
behind it yet--escape is not it. Answering a horror
with horror is not it at all.

I'm not sure what the truely chivalrous response is.
But I know that courtesy and prowess and service
dictate to me to keep on living a full life, aware,
without undue fear.


Anyway, that's my soapbox. Thanks for listening.
Perhaps this should be off list...but it's strange,
how it's clearly illuminated the virtue I strive for
to me. I'd be happy to discuss it offlist with
anyone.

Sir John Theophilous


(There was an article about the courage of America on Salon at the time that sparked this.)