There is little to dispute in the realm of ideas, but some care
must be taken in their interpretation.
First of all, ideals can be compared to other ideals, but it is
illegitimate to compare the ideal to the actual, as if they were on the same
plane. The actual embodies the ideal (or principle), to a greater of lesser
degree of fidelity. This requires judgment – we can focus on the fidelity
or on the infidelity of a particular civilisation to a set of principles, but
to understand the principles probably requires both.
For example, rather than looking at the “chivalric code”
(is there a Latin version available?) through modern eyes, we can look through
medieval eyes.
Dedication to feudal duties, not lying, begin loyal, unceasing
war, love of country --- there is nothing at all to dispute here.
As for (1) and (2) – devotion to church teachings and its
defence -- we can consider that to be a manifestation of the virtue of “piety”,
a virtue even to the Romans. (As to the relative dominance of the pope and the
sovereign, that will have to wait for a discussion of de Maistre and Donoso
Cortes in relation to Evola.)
As for “respect” for weakness, that is either a
mistranslation or misunderstanding. Yet, of course it is a duty to protect the
weak. What Roman father would fail to protect his wife and children? Wasn’t
it an obligation for the lord to protect his serfs? The King to protect his
subjects? Did not even the Romans supply bread to the poor? Or, to be a man,
does it mean one should kick a beggar in the street while walking by? Protecting
the weak maintains the proper relationship between the strong and the weak and
makes clear their hierarchical relationship. It was not the Medieval civilisation
that reversed that … it was the (pseudo)Reformers and Jacobins.
To be generous and give largesse? This is nothing but the Roman
virtue of hospitas, or hospitality. To give largesse -- when it is not a duty --
is magnanimity, another virtue.
As mentioned, the relationship between the Knight and Lady does
indeed reflect Hindu and Buddhist Tantrism. If it eventually assumed a sentimental
attitude, that is indeed unfortunate, but that does not indicate the complete absence
of Principle … only its imperfect or incomplete application.
It is hardly obvious that a “flesh and blood” woman was
considered to be required for spiritual fulfilment. We can start with the
Knightly devotion to Mary – hardly “flesh and blood”. For the
Knights and troubadours, as a matter of fact, a “Platonic” love was
considered superior. At a time of arranged marriages, this sort of love was
allowed, and did not manifest erotically. To criticise it when it did become
sexual and sentimental, is again to attempt to compare the actual to the ideal.
In its higher manifestations, it remained unrequited. We need not go further
than Dante and Beatrice or the Persian poet Hafiz and the princess to see that
spiritual realisation does not depend on a “flesh and blood” woman.
Closer to our own time, one should track down Leopardi’s “Dialogo
di Torquato Tasso e del suo genio familiare” – if one has a sense
of humour -- but that will take as a little far from the subject at hand.
The only real objection I hear is that the Middle Age was not the
Roman Empire, but neither was the Roman Empire the Vedic civilisation. Both
Evola and Guénon had high regard for Medieval Europe. In our era, which is
absolutely devoid of virtue, it behooves us to look very carefully at the most
recent period in European history when an authentic civilisation did manifest.