Societal civility is the extension and expansion of individual gallantry: it’s all about—or ought to be about—balance and restraint

I do not believe our gentleman Boy Scout should obsess about combat. I do think he ought to be concerned about combat readiness. A man, however hard he works for peace, must always be ready for war.

The cherished assumption in teaching has always been that truth is what matters, and until the last decade no one would have thought the truth should be denied because some consider it offensive or ‘triggering.

I do confess that I bring to the study of history the prejudices born of my experiences and imagination—who doesn’t—but I will not admit that this disqualifies me from seeing some bit of the truth about the past, even if only a bit.

There have always been two senses of the word gentleman: the fine man of high birth and the fine man of good character.

Chivalry was more an ambition than an accomplishment, but—and this is the important thing—it was the common ambition of increasing numbers of men, and it had the effect of elevating and concretizing their civil righteousness. Religion also did this.

Chivalry combined military, religious, and social concepts into a unified way of life.

Chivalry is first and foremost the worldview of fighting men, and I am convinced that the decline of the gentlemanly ideal has occurred at least in part because men really are flabby—physically and spiritually.

The egalitarianism that is the most offensive is the notion, whether embodied in opinion or law, that every way of behaving is as good as any other and that the man who stands apart by reason of his dignity, restraint, and discernment is somehow an Enemy of the People