_General Nature of Chivalry ... Military and Moral Chivalry ... Origin
of Chivalry ... Usages of the Germans ... Election of Soldiers ...
Fraternity ... Dignity of Obedience ... Gallantry ... The Age of
Charlemagne ... Chivalry modified by Religion ... Ceremonies of
Anglo-Saxon Inauguration ... Chivalry sanctioned by Councils, and
regarded as a Form of Christianity ... Nature of Chivalric Nobility
... Its Degrees ... Knight Banneret ... His Qualifications ... By whom
created ... His Privileges ... His relation to the Baron ... And
incidentally of the War-Cry and the Escutcheon ... The Knight ...
Qualifications for Knighthood ... By whom created ... The Squirehood
... General View of the other Chapters on the Institutions of
Chivalry._
There is little to charm the imagination in the first ages of Chivalry. No
plumed steeds, no warrior bearing on his crested helm the favour of his
lady bright, graced those early times. All was rudeness and gloom. But
the subject is not altogether without interest, as it must ever be curious
to mark the causes and the first appearances in conduct of any widely
spread system of opinions.
[Sidenote: Nature of Chivalry.]
The martial force of the people who occupied northern and central Europe
in the time of the Romans, was chiefly composed of infantry[8]; but
afterwards a great though imperceptible change took place, and, during all
the long period which forms, in historic phrase, the middle ages, cavalry
was the strongest arm of military power. Terms, expressive of this martial
array, were sought for in its distinguishing circumstances. Among the
ruins of the Latin language, _caballus_ signified a horse, _caballarius_ a
horseman, and _caballicare_, to ride; and from these words all the
languages that were formed on a Latin basis, derived their phrases
descriptive of military duties on horseback. In all languages of Teutonic
origin, the same circumstance was expressed by words literally signifying
service. The German _knight_, the Saxon _cnight_, are synonymous to the
French _cavalier_, the Italian _cavaliere_, and the Spanish _caballero_.
The word _rider_ also designated the same person, preceded by, or standing
without, the word _knight_.
[Sidenote: Military and Moral Chivalry.]
In the kingdoms which sprang from the ruins of the Roman empire, every
king, baron, and person of estate was a knight; and therefore the whole
face of Europe was overspread with cavalry. Considered in this aspect, the
knighthood and the feudalism of Europe were synonymous and coexistent. But
there was a chivalry within this chivalry; a moral and personal
knighthood; not the well-ordered assemblage of the instruments of
ambition, but a military barrier against oppression and tyranny, a
corrective of feudal despotism and injustice. Something like this
description of knighthood may be said to have existed in all ages and
countries. Its generousness may be paralleled in Homeric times, and vice
has never reigned entirely without control. But the chivalry, the gallant
and Christian chivalry of Europe, was purer and brighter than any
preceding condition of society; for it established woman in her just rank
in the moral world, and many of its principles of action proceeded from a
divine source, which the classical ancients could not boast of.
[Sidenote: Origin of Chivalry.]
[Sidenote: Usages of the Germans.]
[Sidenote: Election of Soldiers.]
Some of the rules and maxims of chivalry had their origin in that state of
society in which the feudal system arose; and regarded particularly in a
military light, we find chivalry a part of the earliest condition of a
considerable part of the European world. The bearing of arms was never a
matter of mere private choice. Among the Germans, it rested with the
state to declare a man qualified to serve his country in arms. In an
assembly of the chiefs of his nation, his father, or a near relation,
presented a shield and a javelin to a young and approved candidate for
martial honours, who from that moment was considered as a member of the
commonwealth, and ranked as a citizen. In northern as well as in central
Europe, both in Scandinavia and Germany, the same principle was observed;
and a young man at the age of fifteen became an independent agent, by
receiving a sword, a buckler, and a lance, at some public meeting.[9]
[Sidenote: Fraternity.]
The spirit of clanship, or fraternity, which ran through the chivalry of
the middle ages, is of the remotest antiquity. It existed in Germany, in
Scandinavia, and also in Gaul.[10] In all these countries, every young
man, when adorned with his military weapons, entered the train of some
chief; but he was rather his companion than his follower; for, however
numerous were the steps and distinctions of service, a noble spirit of
equality ran through them all. These generous youths formed the bulwark of
their leader in war, and were his ornament in peace. This spirit of
companionship shewed itself in all its power and beauty in the field. It
was disgraceful for a prince to be surpassed in valour by his companions;
their military deeds were to be heroic, but the lustre of them was never
to dim the brightness of his own fame. The chief fought for victory, the
followers fought for their chief. The defence of the leader in battle, to
die with him rather than to leave him, were, in the minds of the military
fathers of Europe, obvious and necessary corollaries of these principles.
The spirit of companionship burnt more fiercely in remote ages, than in
times commonly called chivalric; for if, by the chance of war, a person
was thrown into the hands of an enemy, his military companions would
surrender themselves prisoners, thinking it disgraceful to live in
security and indolence, when their chief and associate was in misery.[11]
And to bring the matter home to English readers, it may be mentioned, that
in the history of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, many instances are recorded
where vassals refused to survive their lord. Cyneheard, brother of the
deposed king Sigebyrcht, slew the usurper Cynewulf; and though he offered
freedom to the attendants of the slain, yet they all preferred death to
submission to a new lord, and they died in a vain and wild endeavour to
revenge him. Immediately afterwards fortune frowned on Cyneheard, and his
eighty-four companions, save one, were slain, though liberty had been
offered to them; but declaring that their generosity was not inferior to
the generosity of the attendants of Cynewulf, they perished in a hopeless
battle.[12]
[Sidenote: Dignity of obedience.]
The feeling which, in chivalric times, became designated as the dignity of
obedience, may be traced in these circumstances, but it is more clearly
shewn in a singular record of the domestic manners of ancient Europe; for
we learn from Athenæus, in his treatise of the suppers of the Celts, that
it was the custom of the Gaulish youths to stand behind the seats, and to
attend upon their fathers during the principal daily meal.[13] Here we see
the germ, if not of the duties of the squire to the knight, yet of the
feeling which suggested their performance. The beautiful subordination of
chivalry had its origin in the domestic relations of life; obedience
became virtuous when nature sanctioned it, and there could be no loss of
personal consideration in a youth performing services which his own father
had performed, and which, as years and circumstances advanced, would be
rendered to himself.
[Sidenote: Gallantry.]
The gallantry of knighthood, that quality which distinguishes, and
distinguishes so much to its advantage, the modern from the ancient world,
was not created by any chivalric institution. We know indeed that it was
cradled in the same sentiments which nursed the other principles of
chivalry, but its birth is lost in the remoteness of ages; and I would
rather dwell in my ignorance of the precise period of its antiquity, than
think with Plutarch that the feeling arose from a judicious opinion
delivered by some women on occasion of a particular dispute between a few
of the Celtic tribes.[14] It was in truth the virtue of the sex, and not
any occasional or accidental opinion, that raised them to their high and
respectful consideration. The Roman historian marked it as a peculiarity
among the Germans, that marriage was considered by them as a sacred
institution[15], and that a man confined himself to the society of one
wife. The mind of Tacitus was filled with respect for the virtuous though
unpolished people of the north; and, reverting his eyes to Rome, the
describer of manners becomes the indignant satirist, and he exclaims, that
no one in Germany dares to ridicule the holy ordinance of marriage, or to
call an infringement of its laws a compliance with the manners of the
age.[16] In earlier times, when the Cimbri invaded Italy, and were
worsted by Marius, the female Teutonic captives wished to be placed among
the vestal virgins, binding themselves to perpetual chastity, but the
Romans could not admire or sympathize with such lofty-mindedness, and the
women had recourse to death, the last sad refuge of their virtue. Strabo
picturesquely describes venerable and hoary-headed prophetesses seated at
the council of the Cimbri, dressed in long linen vestments of shining
white. They were not only embassadresses, but were often entrusted with
the charge of governing kingdoms.[17] The courage of the knight of
chivalry was inspired by the lady of his affections, a feature of
character clearly deducible from the practice among the German nations, of
women mingling in the field of battle with their armed brothers, fathers,
and husbands. Women were always regarded as incentives to valour, and when
warring with a nation of different manners, the German general could
congratulate his soldiers on having motives to courage, which the enemy
did not possess.[18] The warrior of the north, like the hero of chivalry,
hoped for female smiles from his skill in athletic and martial exercises;
and we may take the anecdote as an instance of the general manners of
European antiquity, that the chief anxiety of a Danish champion, who had
lost his chin and one of his cheeks by a single stroke of a sword, was,
how he should be received by the Danish maidens, when his personal
features had been thus dreadfully marred.--"The Danish girls will not now
willingly or easily give me kisses, if I should perhaps return home," was
his complaint.
Harald the Valiant was one of the most eminent adventurers of his age. He
had slain mighty men; and after sweeping the seas of the north as a
conqueror, he descended to the Mediterranean, and the shores of Africa.
But a greater power now opposed him, and he was taken prisoner, and
detained for some time at Constantinople. He endeavoured to beguile his
gloomy solitude by song; but his muse gave him no joy, for he complains
that the reputation he had acquired by so many hazardous exploits, by his
skill in single combat, riding, swimming, gliding along the ice, darting,
rowing, and guiding a ship through the rocks, had not been able to make
any impression on Elissiff, or Elizabeth, the beautiful daughter of
Yarilas, king of Russia.[19]
[Sidenote: The Age of Charlemagne.]
Such were the features of the ancient character of Europe, that formed the
basis of the chivalry of the middle ages; such was chivalry in its rude,
unpolished state, the general character of the whole people, rather than
the moral chastener of turbulence and ferocity. From receiving his weapons
in an assembly of the nation; associating in clans; protecting and
revering women; performing acts of service, when affection and duty
commanded them: from these simple circumstances and qualities, the most
beautiful form of manners arose, that has ever adorned the history of man.
It is impossible to mark the exact time when these elements were framed
into that system of thought and action which we call Chivalry. Knighthood
was certainly a feature and distinction of society before the days of
Charlemagne, and its general prevalence in his time is very curiously
proved, by the permission which he gave to the governor of Friesland to
make knights, by girding them with a sword, and giving them a blow.[20]
[Sidenote: Chivalry modified by Religion.]
But the key-stone of the arch was wanting, and religion alone could
furnish it. A new world of principles and objects was introduced. The
defence of the church was one great apparent aim of knightly enterprise,
and on this principle, narrow and selfish as it was, many of the
charities of Christianity were established. The sword was blessed by the
priest, before it was delivered to the young warrior. By what means this
amalgamation was effected, we know not; the less interesting matter, the
date of the circumstance can be more easily ascertained. It was somewhere
between the ninth and the eleventh centuries. It surely was not the custom
in the days of Charlemagne, for he girt the military sword on his son
Louis the Good, agreeably to the rude principles of ancient Germanic
chivalry[21], without any religious ceremonies; and a century afterwards
we read of the Saxon monarch of England, Edward the Elder, cloathing
Athelstan in a soldier's dress of scarlet, and fastening round him a
girdle ornamented with precious stones, in which a Saxon sword in a sheath
of gold was inserted.[22] In the century following, however, during the
reign of Edward the Confessor, we meet with the story of Hereward, a very
noble Anglo-Saxon youth, being knighted by the Abbot of Peterborough. He
made confession of his sins, and, after he had received absolution, he
earnestly prayed to be made a legitimate _miles_ or knight.
[Sidenote: Ceremonies of Anglo-Saxon inauguration.]
It was the custom of the English, continues the historian, for every one
who wished to be consecrated into the legitimate militia, to confess his
sins to a bishop, abbot, monk, or other priest, in the evening that
preceded the day of his consecration, and to pass the night in the church,
in prayer, devotion, and mortifications. On the next morning it was his
duty to hear mass, to offer his sword on the altar, and then, after the
Gospel had been read, the priest blessed the sword, and placed it on the
neck of the _miles_, with his benediction. The sacrament of the Lord's
Supper was then communicated to the knight.[23] This passage, though
professedly descriptive only of the military customs of England, may be
applied to the general state of Europe, with the exception of Normandy,
whose people despised the religious part of the ceremony. But this feeling
of dislike did not endure through all ages, for there is abundant evidence
to prove, that in the reign of the Norman dynasty in England, the
ceremonies of knighthood were religious as well as military; and in the
same, the eleventh, century, the usage was similar over all Continental
Europe.
[Sidenote: Chivalry sanctioned by Councils, and regarded as a form of
Christianity.]
The eleventh century is a very important epoch in the history of chivalry;
for it was declared by the celebrated Council of Clermont, (which
authorised the first Crusade) that every person of noble birth, on
attaining twelve years of age, should take a solemn oath before the bishop
of his diocese, to defend to the uttermost the oppressed, the widows, and
orphans; that women of noble birth, both married and single, should enjoy
his especial care; and that nothing should be wanting in him to render
travelling safe, and to destroy tyranny. In this decree we observe, that
all the humanities of chivalry were sanctioned by legal and ecclesiastical
power; and that it was intended they should be spread over the whole face
of Christendom, in order to check the barbarism and ferocity of the times.
The form of chivalry was martial; but its objects were both religious and
social, and the definition of the word from military circumstances ceased
to express its character. The power of the clergy was shewn in a singular
manner. Chivalry was no longer a soldierly array, but it was called the
Order, the Holy Order, and a character of seriousness and solemnity was
given to it.[24] It was accounted an honourable office, above all offices,
orders, and acts of the world, except the order of priesthood, for that
order appertained to the holy sacrament of the altar. The knightly and
clerical characters were every where considered as convertible, and the
writers of romances faithfully reflected manners, when their hero at the
commencement of the tale was a Sir Knight, and when at the close of his
quests, we find him a Sir Priest;
"And soothly it was said by common fame,
So long as age enabled him thereto,
That he had been a man of mickle name,
Renowned much in arms and derring do.
But being aged now, and weary too
Of war's delight, and world's contentious toil,
The name of Knighthood he did disavow;
And hanging up his arms and warlike spoil,
From all this world's incumbrance did himself assoil."[25]
[Sidenote: Nature of Chivalric Nobility.]
Knighthood was an institution perfectly peculiar to the military and
social state of our ancestors. There was no analogy between the knights of
chivalry and the equites of Rome, for pecuniary estate was absolutely
necessary for the latter; whereas, though the European cavalier was
generally a man of some possessions, yet he was often a person promoted
into the order of chivalry, solely as a reward for his redoubted behaviour
in battle. The Roman equites discharged civil functions regarding the
administration of justice and the farming of the public revenue; but the
chivalry of the middle ages had no such duties to perform. Knighthood was
also distinct from nobility; for the nobility of Europe were the governors
and lords of particular districts of a country, and although originally
they held their dignities only for life, yet their title soon became
hereditary. But knighthood was essentially and always a personal
distinction. A man's chivalry died with him. It was conferred upon
noblemen and kings, not being like their other titles, the subject of
inheritance. It was not absorbed in any other title of rank, and the
common form of address, Sir[26] King, shews its high consideration. In the
writs of summons to parliament, the word _Chevalier_ sometimes followed
the baronial title, and more frequently the barons were styled by their
martial designation, than named by the titles of their baronies.[27]
[Sidenote: Its degrees.]
There were three degrees in the Chivalry of Europe, Knights-Banneret,
Knights, and Esquires.
[Sidenote: Knight-Banneret.]
[Sidenote: His qualifications.]
[Sidenote: By whom created.]
A soldier must have passed through the ranks of esquire and knight, before
he could be classed with the knights-banneret. That high dignity could
only be possessed by a knight who had served for a length of years in the
wars, and with distinction, and who had a considerable retinue of
men-at-arms, and other soldiers. To avoid the inconveniences of too minute
a division of the martial force of a country, every knight-banneret ought
to have had fifty[28] knights and squires under his command, each being
attended by one or more horse soldiers, armed with the cross-bow, or with
the long-bow and axe. Several followers on foot completed the equipment.
But as we often meet with instances of elevating men of very few
followers[29] to the rank of knights-banneret, it is probable that kings
usurped the right of conferring the distinction upon their favorites, or
men of fame, not chusing that any title of merit should be demanded as a
right, or that the royal name should be used only as a passive instrument;
for a knight who had proved his chivalry and power, could demand from his
sovereign the distinction of banneret. The laws and usages of the world
allowed the well-tried and nobly attended soldier to carry his emblazoned
pennon to the constable or marshal of the army before or after a battle,
and in the field of contest itself, and require leave to raise his banner.
A herald exhibited the record of his claim to the distinction, and the
leader of the forces cut off the end of the pennon, and this military
ensign then became a square banner. A brief exhortation to valiancy and
honour was generally added by the constable or herald. These were the
whole ceremonies of creation.
[Sidenote: His privileges.]
The privileges of a knight-banneret were considerable. He did not fight
under the standard of any baron, but he formed his soldiers under his
own. Like the rest of the feudal force, he was subject to the commands of
the king; but his pride was not galled by being obliged to obey the
behests of men of his own rank.
[Sidenote: His relation to the Baron.]
[Sidenote: The war-cry.]
Every Baron had his banner, and a feudal array of knights, men-at-arms,
and others, was numbered by its banners. The banneret and the baron were
therefore soldiers of equal authority. The banneret, too, like the baron,
had his words of courage, his cry of arms, which he shouted before a
battle, in order to animate his soldiers to the charge, and whose sound,
heard in the moment of direst peril, rallied the scattered troops by the
recollection of the glories of their commander's house, and their own
former achievements. The war-cry was also the underwritten ornament of the
armorial shield, and worked on the surcoat and banner, and was carved on
the tomb both of the knight-banneret and the baron. Each of these
representatives of chivalry and nobility had his square escutcheon. The
wife of a banneret was styled _une dame bannerette_, and the general title
of his family was a _hostel bannière_.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: The Knight.]
The second and most numerous class of chivalric heroes consisted of
Knights, who were originally called Bas-Chevaliers, in contradiction to
the first class, but in the course of time the word bachelor designated
rather the esquire, the candidate for chivalry, than the cavalier himself.
These knights of the second class were in Spain called _Cavalleros_, in
distinction from the _riccos hombres_, or knights-banneret; and in France,
the illiberal and degrading title of _pauvres hommes_ was sometimes
applied to them, to mark their inferiority to the bannerets.
[Sidenote: Qualifications for knighthood.]
A general qualification for knighthood was noble or gentle birth, which,
in its widest signification, expressed a state of independence. Noblemen
and gentlemen were words originally synonymous, describing the owners of
fiefs. In countries where there were other forms of tenure, some military
merit in the occupiers of land seems to have been necessary for elevation
to the class of gentlemen. The mere frankelein was certainly not entitled
to the designation of gentle; but if he became a distinguished man, an
honorary rank was given to the family, and they were esteemed noble.[30]
It is scarcely necessary to mention, that that distinction could alone be
obtained by military achievements; for in the early periods of society,
the only path to glory was stained with blood. The gentility of a father
was more regarded than that of a mother[31]; and in strictness, if a man
were not noble on his paternal side, his lord might cause his spurs to be
cut off on a dunghill.[32] The amount of estate necessary for knighthood
was not regulated by any chivalric institution. But the expence of the
order was by no means inconsiderable. His inauguration was a scene of
splendour; and liberality was one of the chiefest duties of his character.
He could not travel in quest of adventures without some charge[33], and
his squire and other personal attendants were of course maintained by him.
Though a man, says Froissart, be never so rich, men of arms and war waste
all; for he that will have service of men of war, they must be paid truly
their wages, or else they will do nothing available.[34] The knight's
harness for the working day was not without its ornaments; and the
tournament was rendered splendid by the brilliancy of his armour and his
steed's caparisons. There was always a rivalry of expence among knights
who formed an expedition; and of all the recorded instances of this
feeling, perhaps the most interesting one is furnished by Froissart.
Speaking of a projected invasion of England by the French about the year
1386, he says, that gold and silver were no more spared than though they
had rained out of the clouds, or been skimmed from the sea. The great
lords of France sent their servants to Sluse, to apparel and make ready
their provisions and ships, and to furnish them with every thing needful.
Every man garnished his ship, and painted it with his arms. Painters had
then a good season, for they had whatever they desired. They made banners,
pennons, and standards of silk so goodly, that it was a marvel to behold
them; also they painted the masts of their ships from the one end to the
other, glittering with gold, and devices, and arms; and especially the
Lord Guy de la Tremouille garnished his ship richly; the paintings cost
more than two thousand francs.[35]
[Sidenote: By whom created.]
We have seen that originally a body of soldiers was selected by the state
from the general mass of the people. Afterwards, kings and nobles in their
several jurisdictions maintained the power of creation. It was also
assumed by the clergy, but not retained long; nor were they anxious to
recover it, for, as they assisted in the religious ceremonies of
inauguration, they possessed a considerable share of power by the milder
means of influence. Knighthood never altogether lost its character of
being a distinction, a reward of merit, presumed, indeed, rather than
proved, in the original instances which have been mentioned. But though it
was often bestowed as an ornament of custom on the nobility and gentry of
a state, yet it often was the bright guerdon of achievements in arms. Of
military merit every knight was supposed to be a sufficient judge; and
therefore every knight had the power of bestowing its reward. Men-at-arms
and other soldiers were often exalted to the class of knights, and the
honour was something more than a chimera of the imagination; for the title
and consideration of a gentleman immediately accompanied the
creation.[36] Thus, in the time of Richard II., the governor of Norwich,
called Sir Robert Sale, was no gentleman born, says Froissart; but he had
the grace to be reputed sage and valiant in arms, and for his valiantness
King Edward had made him a knight. The same sovereign also knighted a
man-at-arms, who had originally been a tailor, and who, after the
conclusion of the king's wars in France, crossed the Alps into Italy, and
under the name of Sir John Hawkwood, headed the company of White or
English adventurers, so famous in the Italian wars.[37]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Squirehood.]
The third and last class of Chivalry was the Squirehood. It was not
composed of young men who carried the shields of knights, and were
learning the art of war; but the squires were a body of efficient
soldiers, inferior in rank to the knight, and superior to the
men-at-arms.[38] They had been originally intended for the higher classes
of chivalry, but various considerations induced them to remain in the
lowest rank. It was a maxim in chivalry, that a man had better be a good
esquire than a poor knight. Many an esquire, therefore, declined the honor
of knighthood, on account of the slenderness of his revenues. Edward III.,
during his wars in France, would have knighted Collart Dambreticourte, the
esquire of his own person; but the young man declined the honor, for, to
use his own simple phrase, he could not furnish his helmet.[39] Barons,
knights, and esquires, form Froissart's frequent description of the parts
of an army; and although there were many young men in the field, who,
released from their duties on knights, were aiming at distinction, yet
there were many more who remained squires during all their military
career, and therefore became recognised as a part of the chivalric array.
Some men of small landed estate, wishing to avoid the expences and the
duties of knighthood, remained esquires. They lost nothing of real power
by their prudence, for they were entitled to lead their vassals into the
field of battle under a penoncele, or small triangular streamer, as the
knight led his under a pennon, or a banneret his under a banner. Military
honours and commands also could be reached by the squirehood, as well as
by the knighthood of a country. Both classes were considered gentle, and
were entitled to wear coat armour.
* * * * *
Such was the general form of the personal nobility of Chivalry. Some parts
of the outline varied in different countries, as will be seen when we
watch its progress through Europe; but previously to that enquiry, the
education, the duties, and the equipment of the knight require
description; and as _loyauté aux dames_ is the motto alike of the writers
and the readers of works on Chivalry, I shall make no apology for
suspending the historical investigation, while I endeavour to portray the
lady-love of the gallant cavalier, and delay my steps in that splendid
scene of beauty's power, the Tournament.