It's funny how a word sometimes leaps off a page, just for the sole purpose of smacking you in the face. Such is the case with "chivalry", having left a stinging hand print across my cheek a little earlier today. A word like that evokes a clear image, the breadth and depth of which are unfortunately a little harder to define. Scenes of gallant knights clad in gleaming armor certainly are a cornerstone of the concept. But in their off-time, they become beacons of romanticism and courtly love. Even the word 'courtesy' comes from the behavior one is expected to exhibit in court, which is to say 'in the presence of the King or his retinue'.
Chivalry then most accurately includes elements, not just of romance (which itself includes adventure by definition), but of propriety, social station and consciousness. In other words, chivalry is less passionate than proper, ritualistic and measured. Read a Jane Austen novel and you will see an exhaustive depiction of what this is.
What I find interesting is that chivalry is an idyllic exercise in this day and age. The world almost mockingly adores such grand gestures of love, knowing that they are at once impractical and long since out of practice, but still highly desirable. What woman would not like to have a man ride up, mounted high on a gleaming steed with roses in hand? But moreover, what woman actually wants it?
The march women have made towards equality has been hard fought. Such simple things as land-ownership were not even legally recognized for women less than two-hundred years ago. Eventually, it came to pass, as did voting rights, reproductive rights, equal employment and compensation protections. Women have in fact affirmed repeatedly and progressively over the generations their independence from the protection and guidance of men, and rightfully so. While chivalry insulated women from the unsavory dealings of many daily concerns, it also left wide gaps in the protections they were offered in the untimely absence of men.
As a woman, does it make sense to return to a time when concepts of courtly obligation and love governed everything, including one's choice of a mate? It is simply not a viable option any longer. Now, am I saying that romance and grandeur have no place in the modern relationship? Hardly! In fact, a spouse that sees that they are worth the trouble and forethought of such a display are likely to feel more cherished than in a business-sensed marriage.
But where it was once the only way to gain favor with the ladies without being tossed out of court on your ear, it is now an unsustainable and misleading display that does little more that build up person for epic disappointment. Chivalry may not be dead, but keeping it on life support is hardly a reason to say it's still alive.
The socio-political implications of chivalry have long since turned to dust. Thus, the pomp-and-circumstance that accompanied it has given way to simply being able to say "I love you" without the proper permissions, hoop jumping, and royal endorsements. Patents of nobility be damned, flowers can just be to show someone that they are worth the effort. The death of chivalry has, in my humble view, released its choke-hold on love and allowed romance to flourish as never before.
I bid fond farewell to knightly duty and courtly love, as it is an uncomfortable vestige of a time when appearances and ritual were more important than useful action. I don't care what love looks like. I care what it accomplishes.
A peacock may be lovely, but strip away the garb and its just a chicken underneath.
