Skip to main content

True Manhood, True Honor

September 15, 2022 10 min read
A suit of armor

By worthy deeds in every folk is a man ennobled (Beowulf).


The past forty years have seen a massive shift, for good and for ill, in our understanding of manhood. I recently re-watched Top Gun with my eight-year-old son. I was struck when Tom Cruise’s character held back his tears after his best friend died. I got into a conversation with my boy about how things have changed.

I worry about many of the changes in our perception of manhood. Is there no distinctively masculine approach to bravery, to discipline, to provide for one’s family? Most of us are repelled by the depictions of lecherous corporate men of the 1950s and their wives’ quiet lives of desperation found in shows such as Mad Men.

Where, then, can we go for a model? Is there nothing other than the machismo of the past and the image of the emasculated men of today? An author from the twentieth century may help us here. Evelyn Waugh’s World War II The Sword of Honour trilogy (1952-1961) avoids both pitfalls and presents a view that is strikingly in line with the apostle St. Paul.

Guy Crouchback, the protagonist, is a wealthy Englishman. At the beginning of the novel he is childless, middle-aged, and a cuckold. When the novel opens in the late summer of 1939, we learn that Guy’s beautiful wife had left him for another man about a half dozen years ago. As a Catholic, Guy cannot remarry and has spent those years loafing about at his family’s summer home in rural Italy. Guy loved his wife and, as she moves from husband to lover to husband, feels the shame of the cuckold’s horns. His family has held the same manor since the twelfth century and Guy is resigned to what he perceives as the dishonor of ending the male line.

At the end of August, Guy hears of the Soviet-German alliance, an alliance of two godless mass-murdering nations in the heart of what was once Christendom. War is imminent and Guy sees an opportunity to shake off his acedia and shame, and of winning honor in battle. This is his view of manhood and it might seem familiar. We even see some version of this in Ephesians 6:11: “Put on the whole armor of God.” We will learn in the course of the trilogy that St. Paul has a different understanding of this than Guy did at the beginning of the story.

Guy joins the Halbediers, an honorable regiment with a storied history. As Guys grows into a soldier he begins to disdain those who are not brave men such as he hopes himself to be. He reflects on the soldier-gym instructor who has been trained in modern physiology: “This man would never fight, Guy thought. He would stay in his glaring shed, rippling his muscles, walking on his hands, bouncing about the boards like an india-rubber ball, though the heavens were falling.”

Guy believes that, like the medieval knight Sir Roger of Waybroke, he will attain honor by heroism in battle.

As his training progresses Guy meets and comes to be in awe of Brigadier Ritchie-Hook, an audacious soldier who lost most of a hand and an eye by bravely (recklessly?) running into enemy lines during World War I. Guy begins to make judgments about various soldiers he encounters: Hook is the epitome of soldierly honor; Trimmer is a cowardly, sniveling buffoon; Apthorpe follows rules rather than think independently; de Souza is disillusioned; and Ivor Claire, a wealthy, attractive young aristocratic soldier who earned a Victoria Cross for bravery, exemplifies the virtue of soldiering and attains honor by it. Guy, like all of us, learns what it is to be excellent at something, or at life in general, by avoiding those who fail at it and imitating those who excel.

As the novel progresses, however, Guy becomes disillusioned with both army life and the war. He is at first shocked by the cowardice, incompetency, and lack of purpose he sees in those around him. And yet he clings to the images of Hook and Ivor Claire as he goes into a bumbling beach raid and later endures the retreat of the British army from Crete. But in Crete he discovers that Ivor Claire is a fraud and a coward.

Ivor, his men, and Guy and his men, were ordered to defend the retreating soldiers and then surrender to the Germans the next morning (or find a way to flee themselves). Ivor intends to shirk his orders and slip away. At night Ivor asks Guy what he would do if he were challenged to a duel and Guy responds “Laugh.” Ivor responds:

I was thinking about honor. It’s a thing that changes, doesn’t it? I mean, a hundred and fifty years ago we would have had to fight if challenged. Now we’d laugh… And in the next war, when we are completely democratic, I expect it will be quite honorable for officers to leave their men behind. It’ll be laid down in the King’s Regulations as their duty - to keep a cadre going to train new men to take the place of prisoners.
Guy responds, “Perhaps men wouldn’t take kindly to being trained by deserters.”

Ivor, as you might guess, slips away in the night and boards a troop ship without his men, all of whom are killed or taken prisoner. Guy escapes, honorably, after having defended the retreating army and becomes thoroughly disillusioned with the honor of a soldier.

Later Guy comes to realize that Ivor and Hook, in different ways, lack what he has learned is the key to honor:

“Ivor doesn’t believe in sacrifice. Who does nowadays? But he had the will to win...” When Ian left, Guy brooded about the antithesis between the acceptance of sacrifice and the will to win. It seemed to have personal relevance, as yet undefined, to his own condition. He re-read the letter from his father which he carried always in his pocket-book: “The Mystical Body doesn’t strike attitudes or stand on its dignity. It accepts suffering and injustice… Quantitative judgments don’t apply.”
Guy’s disillusionment with the war and with soldiering reaches its climax near the end of the war in a conversation with Madame Kanyi, a Jewish refugee. Madame Kanyi asks:
Is there any place that is free from evil? It is too simple to say that only the Nazis wanted war. These communists wanted it too. It was the only way in which they could come to power. Many of my people wanted it, to be revenged on the Germans, to hasten the creation of the national state. It seems to me there was a will to war, a death wish, everywhere. Even good men thought their private honor would be satisfied by war. They could assert their manhood by killing and being killed… I knew Italians - not very many perhaps - who felt this. Were there none in England?
“God forgive me,” said Guy. “I was one of them.”
And yet, seeking honor in battle was not entirely wasted, for Guy learned what true, manly honor is by looking at its counterfeit. But to learn what a man’s honor really is we must return to Guy’s wife, Virginia, who has been divorced by her third husband. She is now homeless, penniless and pregnant by the despicable Trimmer.

Two years earlier Guy had tried to seduce Virginia, having been told that, as his wife, even if estranged, it would not be a sin to sleep with her. She rebuffed him and assumed he was still in love with her, or at least desired her. Now, near the end of the trilogy, hearing that he has inherited his father’s great wealth, she comes back to him, hiding her pregnancy, and attempts to seduce him and convince him that the child is his. Guy, who is not in love with her and incapable of being seduced due to a broken leg, is not deceived. Virginia then shares her predicament with him. We don’t know with what words Guy responded, but we learn that he agreed to take her back and to take the child as his own.

The next day Guy and Virginia’s friend Kerstie Killbannock have a conversation that is at the heart of the question:

“But, dear Kerstie, do you suppose I didn’t know?”
“Virginia told you?”
“Of course.”
“And you’re marrying her in spite of-?”
“Because of.”
“You poor bloody fool,” said Kerstie, anger and pity and something near love in her voice, “you’re being chivalrous- about Virginia. Can’t you understand men aren’t chivalrous anymore and I don’t believe they ever were. Do you really see Virginia as a damsel in distress?”
“She’s in distress.”
“She’s tough.”
“Perhaps when they are hurt, the tough suffer more than the tender.”
“Oh, come off it, Guy. You’re forty years old. Can’t you see how ridiculous you will look playing the knight errant? Ian thinks you are insane, literally. Can you tell me any sane reason for doing this thing?”
Guy regarded Kerstie from his bed. The question she asked was not new to him. He had posed it and answered it some days ago. “Knights errant,” he said, “used to go out looking for noble deeds. I don’t think I’ve ever in my life done a single, positively unselfish action. I certainly haven’t gone out of my way to find opportunities. Here was something most unwelcome, put into my hands… not the normal behavior of an officer and a gentleman; something they’ll laugh about in Bellamy’s. Of course Virginia is tough. She would have survived somehow. I shan’t be changing her by what I’m doing. I know all that. But you see there’s another-” he was going to say “soul”; then realized that this word would mean little to Kerstie for all her granite propriety- “there’s another life to consider. What sort of life do you think her child would have, born unwanted in 1944?”
“It’s no business of yours.”
“It was made my business by being offered.”
“My dear Guy, the world is full of unwanted children. Half the population of Europe are homeless- refugees and prisoners. What is one child more or less in all that misery?
“I can’t do anything about all those others. This is just one case where I can help. And only I, really. I was Virginia’s last resort. So I couldn’t do anything else. Don’t you see?”
“Of course I don’t. Ian is quite right. You’re insane.”
And Kerstie left more angry than she had come.

It was no good trying to explain, Guy thought. Had someone said: “All differences are theological differences”? He turned once more to his father’s letter: Quantitative judgments don’t apply. If only one soul was saved, that is full compensation for any amount of “loss of faith.”

In the end Guy does find a specifically manly honor, like the knight errant he had been as a soldier. But this is something he did not seek. It was given to him. It is not heroism in battle. It is something the world sees as dishonorable. And yet, this act of, in Flannery O’Connor’s words, passive diminishment, is the most honorable deed in Guy’s life - more honorable than obeying orders and risking his life in Crete. It is not the will to win we see in ambition. It is not the logic of the world: “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Guy, I think, would not have been able to make this sacrifice, do this heroic deed, had he not been prepared by following another model of manhood - the warrior. The sacrifice, bravery, discipline, and obedience of the warrior are real virtues. God has used these virtues of the military to form Guy as a Christian. But ultimately the warrior’s battle is sublimated to a spiritual battle:

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against the flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Guy’s deed is a sacrifice, and like Christ’s sacrifice on the cross true honor often involves being mocked by the world. Guy has done a foolish act and he will lose his friends’ esteem. And yet it is that sacrifice, doing the good for another when asked, and at a cost, that is truly honorable, truly manly. Guy will break eight centuries of the male line of his house and everyone will know it. And he does it for only one soul. Quantitative judgments don’t apply.

Related Articles

A statue of Christ crucified

The Hidden Origins of Victim Culture

Dr. Jordan Almanzar
Director of Alumni and Public Relations, Kolbe Academy
Learn more about The Hidden Origins of Victim Culture
A sunny day at Lake Como

A Vital Encounter With Creation

Prime Matters
Learn more about A Vital Encounter With Creation
Thumbnail for An Unknown Future and a Known God

An Unknown Future and a Known God

Rev. John Riccardo
Executive Director, ACTS XXIX
Mary Guilfoyle
Associate Director for Parish Renewal, ACTS XXIX
Msgr. James P. Shea
President, University of Mary
Learn more about An Unknown Future and a Known God