PROGRESS OF CHIVALRY IN ENGLAND, FROM THE NORMAN CONQUEST TO THE CLOSE OF
THE REIGN OF EDWARD II.
_Chivalry connected with Feudalism ... Stipendiary Knights ...
Knighthood a compulsory Honour ... Fine Instance of Chivalry in the
Reign of Edward I ... Effect of Chivalry in Stephen's Reign ...
Troubadours and Romance Writers in the Reign of Henry II ... Chivalric
Manners of the Time ... Coeur de Lion the first Chivalric King ... His
Knightly Bearing ... John and Henry III ... Edward I ... His Gallantry
at a Tournament ... His unchivalric Cruelties ... He possessed no
knightly Courtesy ... Picture of ancient Manners ... Edward II ...
Chivalric Circumstance in the Battle of Bannockburn ... Singular
Effect of Chivalry in the Reign of Edward II._
In the first chapter we traced, by the help of the few lights which yet
remain, the rise of chivalry in Europe. We may now mark its progress, and,
in order to avoid the inconvenience of frequent transitions, it will be
better to follow the historical train in each chivalric country, than to
attempt to form one general collection of knightly events. And first, of
its influence in England.
* * * * *
Many chivalric principles and customs were known to the Anglo-Saxons[378],
and affected, in some degree, the character of the nation.[379] Many of
the elements of chivalry were brought into England by the Normans, and, in
the course of time, they were framed, by the energy which was involved in
them, into a fair and noble system. The adventurousness of knighthood
comported well with a people who, quitting the inhospitable shores of
Scandinavia, had impressed their conquests on France, Italy, and even
Greece. The Norman nation was one vast brotherhood, and therefore it was
natural for them to nourish the principles of chivalric fraternity.[380]
It is recorded of them that they brought from the north a love of
splendor, and having learnt courtesy of manner from the French, they were
fitted to admire the shows and the gallantry of knighthood.[381] They
affected, indeed, to despise the religious parts of the Saxon ceremonies
of initiation into knighthood, but they soon adopted them; for we find
that William Rufus himself was knighted by Archbishop Lanfrank.[382]
[Sidenote: Chivalry connected with feudalism.]
[Sidenote: Stipendiary knights.]
Chivalry became established as part of the national constitution when
William the Conqueror divided the country into about sixty thousand
knights' fees, with the tenure of military service. The clergy, as well as
the laity, were compelled to furnish armed knights, on horseback, as the
price of their possessions, when the king went abroad against his enemies;
and, consequently, knights became attached to every ecclesiastical
foundation. These servants of the church were generally younger members of
baronial families; and as there was constant occasion for them, chivalry
became a military profession. In England, as in every country, the feudal
array was found insufficient for foreign wars, and wide-spread domestic
rebellions; for few contests could be finished in forty days,--and that
was the brief space which, in the earliest simplicity of feudal times, had
been fixed for the duration of military service. As petty states swelled
into kingdoms, and their public operations became extensive, many a
martial enterprise was broken up before achievement, because the time of
service had expired. So frequent were the calls on the holders of knights'
fees, that they were glad to compromise for attendance by pecuniary
penalties. The sovereigns were exorbitant in their exactions, in order to
be able to pay the stipendiary substitutes; but one of the most important
provisions of Magna Charta gave to parliament alone the power of imposing
this escuage or military tax.[383] When the custom of escuage arose is a
matter which no antiquarian researches have settled. The clause in Magna
Charta shows not only its existence, but its being used as an instrument
of tyranny; and under this aspect of chivalric history, the reign of John
is important. Most of these stipendiary subsidiaries were knights, with
their equipments of men-at-arms and archers; and the sovereign was
accustomed to contract with his barons for their attendance upon him in
his foreign expeditions. Chivalry and feudal tenure were, therefore, no
longer convertible terms; yet the spirit of knighthood long survived the
decay of the forms of feudal obligation; for the practice of escuage was
fully established in the days of Edward III.; and that was the brightest
era of English chivalry.
[Sidenote: Knighthood a compulsory honor.]
In England, knighthood was always regarded as the necessary distinction of
people of some substance and estate.[384] In the reigns of our three first
Edwards the qualification for knighthood varied from land of the yearly
value of forty to that of fifty pounds. The King was the sovereign and
supreme judge of chivalry, and he might confer knighthood on whomsoever he
chose. He could compel men of worth to be knights, for knighthood was
honourable to the kingdom. Like the performance of every other duty in all
states of society, that of knighthood could be commuted for by money; and
the royal invitation to honour was so extensive as to be inconvenient; for
a statute was passed in the reign of Edward II. whereby the King respited
for some time the payment of the fines of such persons whose station in
the world made knighthood a necessary part of their consequence. Besides
all these ways of forming the knighthood of England, must be added the
custom of elevating to chivalric dignities men who had gained renown by
martial exploits. This was indeed a mode more pure in principle, and,
therefore, more honourable than any we have mentioned.
The military necessities of many of our sovereigns favoured the growth of
chivalry. William Rufus invited to his court the prowest cavaliers from
every country[385]; for as his father had effected the subjugation of
Harold not merely by the feudal force of Normandy, but by hired soldiers,
it was the natural policy of the kings of the Norman line to attach to
their person valiant men who were not connected by ties of nature with the
people.
[Sidenote: Fine instance of chivalry in reign of Henry I.]
The principles and feelings of chivalry were firmly established in England
in the reign of Henry I., and gave the tone and character to our foreign
military warfare. This state of things is proved in an interesting manner
by a circumstance that occurred during the war of Henry with Louis the
French king. The reader remembers that the latter had espoused the cause
of William the son of Robert, Henry's elder brother, who was kept by his
uncle from his rightful inheritance of Normandy. The chivalric anecdote is
this: The two armies were approaching each other near Audelay, when,
instead of rushing to the conflict with their whole masses, five hundred
knights on the English side and four hundred on the French prepared for an
encounter, a joust to the utterance. About eighty Normans, friends of the
French king, charged the centre of Henry's line with true chivalric fire.
The English monarch was severely wounded in the head, but the Normans
could not pierce the firm line of the English, and they were all taken
prisoners. The three hundred remaining knights of Louis made a fine
attempt to redeem their companions in arms. Again the English line was
impenetrable, and the recoil of the shock scattered the French. Henry's
soldiers now were assailants; and so fiercely did they press their
advantage, that even the French king scarcely escaped with life.[386]
[Sidenote: Effect of chivalry in Stephen's reign.]
The knightly character had an important effect on England during the
troublous reign of Stephen. As he was deserted by his barons, he called
in foreign cavaliers to assist him in his resistance to the Empress Maud.
Their valour was rewarded by the grant of estates; and thus a new order of
nobility arose to shake the arrogance of the old; and new opinions,
feelings, and manners, became blended with English habits.
[Sidenote: Troubadours and romance writers,--reign of Henry II.]
[Sidenote: Chivalric manners of the time.]
The arms of chivalry grew rusty in the long and unwarlike reign of Henry
II.; but many of the milder graces of knighthood were cultivated in
consequence of the love of letters entertained by the sovereign and his
queen. The Troubadours found royal and, from the force of example, noble,
patronage in England; and, however offensive to a classic ear their
conceits and bombast may sound, yet, since they treated love as an affair
of the fancy rather than as an appetite, they contributed to purify the
manners of the age. By another channel literature promoted the cause of
arms. Romance with her bold fictions and splendid colouring inspired the
tamest hearts with the love of adventure. Such of the traditions and
fables regarding Arthur and the knights of the Round Table as dwelt in the
memory of the people of Britanny (that ancient colony of England) were
collected by an Archdeacon Walter, of Oxford, and formed part of a Latin
history of Great Britain that was written in the time of Henry I. by
Jeffry of Monmouth. Wace, the translator-general of the age, turned it
into Anglo-Norman verse, mingling with it all the stories of his hero that
were floating in the English mind. The subject was fitted to the martial
taste of the time; and as the book was now rendered into the language of
the upper classes of life, it found its way into the baronial hall and the
lady's bower. This was the earliest of the French metrical romances; and
before the close of the twelfth century nothing was read by the nobility
but romances of Arthur and his knights. And the sports and exercises of
the time nourished the chivalric spirit. A writer of those days has given
us a graphic description of them. "Every Sunday in Lent, immediately after
dinner, crowds of noble and sprightly youths, mounted on war-horses,
admirably trained to perform all their turnings and evolutions, ride into
the fields in distinct bands, armed with lances and shields, and exhibit
representations of battles, and go through all their martial exercises.
Many of the young nobility, who have not yet received the honour of
knighthood, issue from the king's court, and from the houses of bishops,
earls, and barons, to make trial of their courage, strength, and skill in
arms. The hope of victory rouses the spirits of these noble youths; their
fiery horses neigh and prance, and champ their foaming bits. At length
the signal is given, and the sports begin. The youths, divided into
opposite bands, encounter one another. In one place some fly, and others
pursue, without being able to overtake them. In another place, one of the
bands overtakes and overturns the other."[387]
[Sidenote: Coeur de Lion, the first chivalric king.]
Martial daring, thus fostered and promoted, broke out with fresh vigour in
the reign of Richard Coeur de Lion; and England, which hitherto had but
partially and occasionally engaged in the crusades, now took up those
sacred and perilous enterprises with the ardour of the French. Richard was
the first king of England of knightly character; for I cannot, with some
writers, place William Rufus among our chivalric sovereigns. I cannot with
them see any thing magnanimous in his receiving under his banners an
enemy's soldier who had unhorsed him, and who had foreborne to slay him
because he declared himself king of England. The conduct of the soldier
merited reward; and William acted only with common selfishness in taking
so good a soldier into his service. Rufus had mere brutal courage, but
that quality was not the character of chivalry. His bravery was not
directed either by religion or the love of fame, nor was it tempered into
virtue by the charities of life. When with Robert he besieged his brother
Henry in his castle, Rufus was guilty of one of the most unchivalric acts
on record. Henry's supply of water was exhausted, and he solicited some
from his brothers on the true knightly principle that valour should decide
a triumph, and that it was unworthy of a soldier's pride to gain a victory
merely by the circumstance of his antagonists being in want of the common
necessaries of life. Robert, with fine chivalric generosity, supplied his
brother, much to the regret of William, who ridiculed and was angry at his
simplicity.[388]
[Sidenote: His knightly bearing.]
But in Richard the whole knightly character appeared in all its martial
dignity and splendor. His courage was not the mere savage confidence in
superior strength, but the fine display of chivalric exercises. Such was
the might of his arm, and such the fierceness of his spirit, that he could
sweep from the field whole squadrons of knights. When we see his javelin
transfixing a Turk on the walls of Acre[389], the exploits of Grecian
heroes appear to be no longer poetical fictions; and when he appears on
the plains of Palestine, grasping his lance and riding from wing to wing
of the Saracenian host without meeting an enemy who dared to encounter his
career, the stories of Arthur and the Round Table seem the calm relations
of truth.
No one was more attentive than Richard to the regulations of chivalry. In
the course of his crusade he was assailed by some rustics, against whom it
was unlawful for a knight to use his sword. He beat them with the flat
part of it till it broke, and he then took up stones, and drove them
away.[390] Richard's mind was framed in the finest spirit of chivalric
liberality. His largesses, both to his own soldiers and those of his ally,
Philip Augustus, while in Sicily during their voyage to Palestine, were
so magnificent, that it was acknowledged he had given more treasure in a
month than his predecessors in a year.[391]
Like the knights of romance, he revelled in gorgeousness and splendour,
and his court resounded with the minstrel's lay. One of the Provençal
poets followed him into Palestine: nor did he entirely want the minds of
others to soften into grace his martial spirit; for often his own fancy
played with poetical images. In the history of chivalric amusements,
Richard is an important character. All his predecessors in sovereignty had
forbidden jousts and tournaments; and their absurd regulations had only
been violated in the time of Stephen. When Richard was in the Holy Land,
he observed the inferiority of the English chivalry to that of the French:
his own knights were rude soldiers, with none of the dexterity and skill
of their crusading brethren, which could only be acquired in tournaments,
the schools of war. Richard broke through the jealousy of adopting foreign
customs, and, like a politic monarch, he allowed and encouraged his
soldiers to practise martial exercises.[392]
These circumstances and the various other events of his chivalric life,
which I have described at length in another work complete the authentic
character of our lion-hearted King, for I dare not invest the severe
simplicity of history with those golden fictions, which romance has
delighted to throw over the story of his Eastern atchievements.
[Sidenote: John and Henry III.]
There was nothing chivalric in the character and conduct of his brother
and successor King John, or he would not have suffered the foreign
possessions of England's crown to be wrested from it. In the reign of
Henry III. the flame of chivalry was kept alive by some English knights,
who assisted the Emperor in his Milanese wars, and whose prowess was the
most distinguished of the day. The crusades to the Holy Land were not
altogether forgotten; but the page of our history is marked with the
peculiar disgrace that English knights assisted the French in their
inhuman war on the Albigenses.
[Sidenote: Edward I.]
[Sidenote: His gallantry at a tournament.]
There was much of the chivalric character in Edward I. He was a diligent
reader of the ancient romances; and, as soon as he was invested with
knighthood, he went to foreign courts, in order that he might display his
prowess.[393] For the sake of acquiring military fame, he exposed his
person in the Holy Land, and, during his journey homeward, though ill and
forespent with travel, he displayed remarkable heroism at a tournament in
Savoy.[394] The challenger was the Count of Chalons; but if pontifical
authority could have destroyed chivalry, the knights never would have met.
The pope feared that some hostility was menaced, and earnestly dissuaded
Edward from the tournament. He warned him of his danger: he exhorted him,
as a son of the church, to decline these encounters, which the church had
forbidden; and he added, that as Edward now was king, he might decline the
challenge, as kings were not wont to risk their persons in these perilous
shocks. But most of these reasons were so many stimulants of his courage:
the more danger, the greater share of honour, and it was beneath the
gallantry of his bearing to have thrown his rank as a shield before his
knighthood. Followed by a thousand men-at-arms, and archers on horseback
and on foot, Edward pressed his bounding steed upon the chosen plain, and
the Count of Chalons met him with equal spirit, and nearly twice the
number of companions. The English king soon found that no lofty courtesy,
no love of chivalric exercises, had influenced the French lord. The
graceful tournament soon became a deadly fray. The cause of honour
triumphed, and the knights of Chalons were either slain or driven from the
field. After many cavaliers on each side had been disabled, the lords of
either host encountered. Their lances met and shivered; and if Chalons had
been a courteous knight, he would have passed to the other end of the
plain, and seized a new lance to continue his emprise; but, maddened at
his weapon failing, he threw himself upon Edward, endeavouring to crush
him by his prodigious weight. At that moment Edward's horse started
forwards, and the Count was thrown on the ground. His companions raised
him; but he was so much bruised by the fall that he cried for mercy. His
conduct had put him without the pale of chivalry, and Edward, therefore,
treated him like a base-born churl. He beat him with the flat part of his
sword; and, refusing to take him as his prisoner, he compelled him to
surrender himself to a man of mean condition.[395]
[Sidenote: His unchivalric cruelties.]
[Sidenote: He possessed no knightly courtesy.]
Edward's love of chivalric exercises was imitated by his nobility.
Tournaments and jousts were held in various parts of the country; and
Kenilworth is particularly marked as famous for its Round Table, to which
knights from every nation flocked.[396] In his Scotch wars, therefore,
his armies were not deficient in chivalric bravery. At the battle of
Falkirk the strength of the Scots was foot, as that of the English was
horse; and the repeated charges of Edward's chivalry decided the fate of
that memorable day. In his Welsh wars he had sullied his reputation for
knightly generosity by making a public exhibition of the head of his
worsted foe, Llewelyn ap Gryffyth, the last sovereign of Wales[397]; and
his well-known conduct to Wallace betrayed such an absence of all
nobleness of mind, that he forfeited his claims to knightly consideration.
The beautiful parts, the embellishments of chivalry, were subservient to
his ambition. Before his second war in Scotland he vowed, in Wesminster
Abbey, by God, and also by two swans which were introduced into the
assembly with great pomp and splendour, that he would punish the Scottish
nation for their breach of faith, and for the death of Comyn. Nor did any
of the courtesies of chivalry grace Edward: the queen of Bruce and her
ladies fell into his power, and in defiance of all chivalric gallantry,
he treated them as prisoners. There was something peculiarly ferocious in
his treatment of the Countess of Buchan, who was also his captive. Her
offence was, that she had crowned Bruce. Edward exclaimed, with the
deliberation of malignity, "As she has not used the sword, she shall not
perish by the sword; but for her lawless conspiracy, she shall be shut up
in a stone and iron chamber, circular as the crown she gave; and at
Berwick she shall be suspended in the open air, a spectacle to travellers,
and for her everlasting infamy."[398] And the English Tamerlane did not
relent.[399]
[Sidenote: Picture of ancient manners.]
The close of the reign of Edward I. is remarkable for a very splendid
scene illustrative of the ancient mode of creating knights, and of the
chivalric manners of our forefathers. Before his last and fatal journey
to Scotland, Edward caused proclamation to be made throughout England,
that all persons who were entitled to the honour of knighthood by custom
of hereditary succession, or who had estates sufficient to support the
dignity, should, at the next feast of Pentecost, repair to Westminster,
and that to every one would be delivered out of the King's wardrobe, at
the King's expence, the festive and inauguratory dress of a knight.
Accordingly, at the time and place appointed, there was a fair and gallant
show of three hundred young gentlemen, sons of earls, barons, and knights,
and among these aspirants to chivalry were distributed in ample measure,
according to their different ranks, purple, fine linen, furs, and mantles
embroidered with gold. The royal palace, though magnificently spacious,
could not accommodate all these young esquires with their retinue of
yeomen and pages. Many of them repaired to the New Temple, where, cutting
down the trees and levelling the walls of the garden, they set up their
tents and pavilions in brave emulation of actual war. They performed their
vigils in the Temple church, while the Prince of Wales, by command of the
King his father, passed the night in prayer in Westminster Abbey.
On the following day, the King invested his son with the military belt,
and assigned to him the duchy of Aquitaine. The Prince, being knighted,
went to the Abbey that he might confer the like military honor on his
companions. So close was the press of spectators round the high altar,
that two knights were stifled, and several fainted, though each was
supported by three knights of experienced prowess. The Prince, accompanied
by his father and the chief nobility, at length reached the altar, and his
guards made a passage for his friends to receive knighthood at his hands.
After he had dubbed and embraced them all, his attendants introduced two
swans covered with golden nets, which were adorned and embossed with studs
of gold. This was the most joyous part of the ceremony in the eyes of the
people, and their rude and joyous shouts drowned the clangor of the
trumpets. The King, as before stated, vowed by heaven and the swans that
he would go to Scotland; and even if he should die in the enterprise, he
would avenge the death of Comyn and the violated faith of the Scots. He
then adjured the Prince and the nobles, and his band of knights by their
fealty and chivalry, that if he should die in his journey to Scotland,
they would carry his body forwards, and never bury it till his son had
established his dominion. Every heart assented to this high resolve, and
the ceremony closed. The knights were feasted that day at the royal
palace; and while they were quaffing muscadel in honour of chivalry and
the ladies, the minstrels in their songs reminded them of their duty to
pledge themselves before the swans to perform some rare feats of arms. The
Prince vowed that he would never rest two nights in one place until he had
performed his father's high behests; and the other knights made various
fantastic vows for the promotion of the same object.[400]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Edward II.]
[Sidenote: Chivalric circumstances in the battle of Bannockburn.]
The defeat of the English chivalry at the battle of Bannockburn, (24th
June, 1315,) was the most remarkable circumstance in the reign of Edward
II. On the preceding day, Douglas[401] and Sir Robert Keith, marshal of
Scotland, were dispatched by Robert Bruce from the main body of his army
to descry whether the enemy was approaching.
"And soon the great host have they seen,
Where shields shining were so sheen,
And basinets burnished bright,
That gave against the sun great light.
They saw so fele[402] brawdyne[403] baners,
Standards, and pennons, and spears,
And so fele[402] knights upon steeds,
All flaming in their weeds.
And so fele[404] bataills[405], and so broad,
And too so great room as they rode
That the maist host, and the stoutest
Of Christendom, and the greatest
Should be abaysit[406], for to see
Their foes into such quantity."
The Bruce, vol. ii. p. 111.
The English vanguard, commanded by the Earls of Gloucester and Hereford,
soon came in general sight. The appearance of Edward's army is described
by Barbour in a rich chivalric style.
"The sun was bright, and shined clear,
And armouris that burnished were,
So blomyt[407], with the sun's beam,
That all the land was in a leme[408],
Banners right fairly flawinand[409],
And pensels to the wind wawand."[410]
Barbour, xi. 188-193.
Bruce was riding on a palfrey and marshalling his men, when Sir Henry de
Bohun started from the opposite host, and careered his horse against him.
Sir Henry was a fierce rather than a gallant knight, or he would not have
pressed his war-steed upon a foe who was riding on a palfrey.[411] But
his want of chivalric gallantry was justly punished.
"And when Glosyter and Hertfurd were,
With their battle approaching near,
Before them all there come riding,
With helm on head and spear in hand,
Sir Henry Boune, the worthy,
That was a wight knight, and a hardy;
And to the Earl of Hertfurd cousin;
Armed in arms good and fine;
Come on a steed, a bow-shot nere,
Before all other that there were.
And knew the King, for that he saw
Him so range his men in row;
And by the crown, that was set
Also upon his bacinet,
And towards him he went on haste.
And the King so apertly
Saw him come, forth all his feres[412]
In hy[413] to him the horse he steers.
And when Sir Henry saw the King
Come on forouting abaysing,[414]
To him he rode in full great hy[415]
He thought that he should well lightly
Win him and have him at his will,
Since he him horsed saw so ill.
Sprent[416] they came unto a ling,[417]
Sir Henry missed the noble king.
And he, that in his stirrups stood,
With the axe, that was hard and good,
With so great mayn[418] reached him a dint,
That neither hat nor helm might stynt,
The hewy dusche[419] that he him gave,
That near the head to the harness clave.
The hand-axe shaft fruschyt[420] in tow;
And he down to the yird gan go
All flatlyngs[421], for him failed might.
This was the first stroke of the fight."
Barbour, vol. ii. p. 122.
The fine generousness of chivalry was very nobly displayed in another
circumstance which preceded the great battle. It was a main object with
the English to throw succours into the castle of Stirling; and Edward,
therefore, commanded Sir Robert Clifford and eight hundred horsemen to
make a circuit by the low grounds to the east, and approach the castle.
Bruce, in anticipation of the Englishmen's purpose, had charged Randolph
who commanded his left wing to prevent Stirling from being relieved; and
when he saw the English troops holding on their gallant course unchecked,
he cried, "A rose has fallen from thy chaplet, Randolph,"[422] and
bitterly reproached him for his want of vigilance. Nothing but the utmost
desperateness of valour could efface this shame; and gathering round him a
few hundred bold spirits, the Scottish General advanced against the
English. Clifford, in his pride of chivalry, thought that he could soon
disperse a band of lightly armed troops of foot-soldiers, who were now
being marshalled into a circle with their spears resting on the ground,
the points protruded on every side. The English charged, but the
resistance was more gallant than what they had foreseen. Still, however,
the Scots seemed gradually sinking under the force of numbers; and
Douglas, who saw the peril, requested the King's permission to go and join
him. "You shall not move from your ground," cried the King: "let Randolph
extricate himself as he best may. I will not alter my order of battle, and
lose the advantage of my position." But Douglas reiterated his request,
and wrung leave from the King. He flew to the assistance of his friend.
But before he reached him he saw that the English were falling into
disorder, and that the perseverance of Randolph had prevailed over their
impetuous courage. "Halt," cried Douglas, like a generous knight, "these
brave men have repulsed the enemy; let us not diminish their glory by
sharing it."
Of the battle of Bannockburn itself little need be said by me, because
there was not much chivalric character about it. Some historians describe
the defeat of the English as having been principally occasioned by the
Scottish cavalry throwing the rear of their archers into confusion. Others
affirm that Bruce, seeing the inadequacy of his own cavalry to cope with
that of the English, formed the battles or divisions of his army entirely
of foot-soldiers, and dug trenches before his line, slightly covering them
with turf and hurdles. The gallant knights of England, with the sun
streaming on their burnished helms and gilt shields, advanced to charge
the bristled front of the Scots: but the turf sunk beneath the pressure of
their horses' feet, and men and their steeds lay at the mercy of their
enemy. One or other of these circumstances turned the event of the battle,
and the Scotch reserve being judiciously brought up, completed the
victory. In every way the generalship of Bruce was admirable: but the fate
of the battle reflects nothing on the personal character of the English
chivalry; for they were not worsted in an encounter of lance to lance, and
horse to horse. The bravery of one English knight must not pass
unrecorded. Sir Giles D'Argentyn, upon seeing some of his friends around
him pause in alarm, cried that he was not used to fly, and spurring his
war-steed into the thickest of the press, gallantly perished. Nor was this
a solitary instance of courage; and even Edward seemed for a moment to be
inspired with the fire of the Plantagenets. He dashed into the enemy's
lines, and was by force drawn away by the Earl of Pembroke, when courage
was evidently unavailing.[423]
[Sidenote: Singular effect of chivalry in his reign.]
Though the chivalric character was only for one moment of his life
sustained by Edward II., yet it was too deeply fixed in the national mind
to die on account of its neglect by any particular monarch. There is a
singular circumstance on record illustrative of the power of this feeling.
During his war with the barons, which his system of unprincipled
favouritism had provoked, one of the lords refused the Queen the
hospitality of his castle. This act of individual insult had general
consequences. Disgusted with a cause which was blended with so much
uncourtesy, barons and knights immediately flocked round the standard of
the King; his arms completely triumphed, and the Spencers were
recalled.[424]