The chivalrous ideal is the acme of the influence of women's sentimentson the moral cultivation of mankind: and if women are to remain in theirsubordinate situation, it were greatly to be lamented that the chivalrousstandard should have passed away, for it is the only one at all capable ofmitigating the demoralising influences of that position. But the changesin the general state of the species rendered inevitable the substitutionof a totally different ideal of morality for the chivalrous one. Chivalrywas the attempt to infuse moral elements into a state of society in whicheverything depended for good or evil on individual prowess, under the softeninginfluences of individual delicacy and generosity. In modern societies, allthings, even in the military department of affairs, are decided, not by individualeffort, but by the combined operations of numbers; while the main occupationof society has changed from fighting to business, from military to industriallife. The exigencies of the new life are no more exclusive of the virtuesof generosity than those of the old, but it no longer entirely depends onthem. The main foundations of the moral life of modern times must be justiceand prudence; the respect of each for the rights of every other, and theability of each to take care of himself. Chivalry left without legal checkall forms of wrong which reigned unpunished throughout society; it only encourageda few to do right in preference to wrong, by the direction it gave to theinstruments of praise and admiration. But the real dependence of moralitymust always be upon its penal sanctions -- its power to deter from evil.
The security of society cannot rest on merely rendering honour to right,a motive so comparatively weak in all but a few, and which on very many doesnot operate at all. Modern society is able to repress wrong through all departmentsof life, by a fit exertion of the superior strength which civilisation hasgiven it, and thus to render the existence of the weaker members of society(no longer defenseless but protected by law) tolerable to them, without relianceon the chivalrous feelings of those who are in a position to tyrannise. Thebeauties and graces of the chivalrous character are still what they were,but the rights of the weak, and the general comfort of human life, now reston a far surer and steadier support; or rather, they do so in every relationof life except the conjugal.
At present the moral influence of women is no less real, but it is nolonger of so marked and definite a character: it has more nearly merged inthe general influence of public opinion. Both through the contagion of sympathy,and through the desire of men to shine in the eyes of women, their feelingshave great effect in keeping alive what remains of the chivalrous ideal --in fostering the sentiments and continuing the traditions of spirit and generosity.
In these points of character, their standard is higher than that of men;in the quality of justice, somewhat lower. As regards the relations of privatelife it may be said generally, that their influence is, on the whole, encouragingto the softer virtues, discouraging to the sterner: though the statementmust be taken with all the modifications dependent on individual character.
In the chief of the greater trials to which virtue is subject in the concernsof life -- the conflict between interest and principle -- the tendency ofwomen's influence -- is of a very mixed character. When the principle involvedhappens to be one of the very few which the course of their religious ormoral education has strongly impressed upon themselves, they are potent auxiliariesto virtue: and their husbands and sons are often prompted by them to actsof abnegation which they never would have been capable of without that stimulus.
But, with the present education and position of women, the moral principleswhich have been impressed on them cover but a comparatively small part ofthe field of virtue, and are, moreover, principally negative; forbiddingparticular acts, but having little to do with the general direction of thethoughts and purposes. I am afraid it must be said, that disinterestednessin the general conduct of life -- the devotion of the energies to purposeswhich hold out no promise of private advantages to the family -- is veryseldom encouraged or supported by women's influence. It is small blame tothem that they discourage objects of which they have not learnt to see theadvantage, and which withdraw their men from them, and from the interestsof the family. But the consequence is that women's influence is often anythingbut favourable to public virtue.
Women have, however, some share of influence in giving the tone to publicmoralities since their sphere of action has been a little widened, and sincea considerable number of them have occupied themselves practically in thepromotion of objects reaching beyond their own family and household. Theinfluence of women counts for a great deal in two of the most marked featuresof modern European life -- its aversion to war, and its addiction to philanthropy.
