What think you, my good friend, of this learned deduction? Do not you
begin to favour my conjecture, as whimsical as it might seem, of the
_rise and genius_ of Knight-errantry.
And yet (so slippery is the ground, on which we system-makers stand)
from what I observed of the spirit, with which the Crusades were
carried on, a hint may be taken, which threatens to overturn my whole
system.
It is, “That, whereas I derive the Crusades from the spirit of
Chivalry, the circumstances attending the progress of the Crusades, and
even as pointed out by myself, seem to favour the opposite opinion of
Chivalry’s taking its rise from that enterprize.”
For thus the argument is drawn out by a learned person[45], to whom I
communicated the substance of my last Letter.
“On the crumbling of the Western empire into small states, with regular
subordinations of vassals and their chiefs, who looked up to a common
sovereign, it was soon found that those chiefs had it in their power
to make themselves very formidable to their masters; and, just in that
crisis of European manners and empire, the _Saracens_ having expelled
Christianity from the East, the Western Princes seized the opportunity,
and with great craft turned the warlike genius of their feudataries,
which would otherwise have preyed upon themselves, into the spirit of
Crusades against the common enemy.
But when, now, the ardour of the Crusades was abated in some sort,
though not extinguished, the _Gothic_ princes and their families
had settled into established monarchies. Then it was, that the
restless spirit of their vassals, having little employment abroad,
and being restrained in a good degree from exerting itself with
success in domestic quarrels, broke out in all the extravagances of
KNIGHT-ERRANTRY.
Military fame, acquired in the Holy land, had entitled the adventurers
to the _insignia_ of arms, the source of Heraldry; and inspired
them with the love of war and the passion of enterprize. Their late
expeditions had given them a turn for roving in quest of adventures;
and their religious zeal had infused high notions of piety, justice,
and chastity.
The scene of action being now more confined, they turned themselves,
from _the world’s debate_, to private and personal animosities.
Chivalry was employed in rescuing humble and faithful vassals, from the
oppression of petty lords; their women, from savage lust; and the hoary
heads of hermits (a species of Eastern monks, much reverenced in the
Holy land), from rapine and outrage.
In the mean time the courts of the feudal sovereigns grew magnificent
and polite; and, as the military constitution still subsisted, military
merit was to be upheld; but, wanting its old objects, it naturally
softened into the fictitious images and courtly exercises of war,
in _justs and tournaments_: where the honour of the ladies supplied
the place of zeal for the holy Sepulchre; and thus the courtesy of
elegant love, but of a wild and fanatic species, as being engrafted on
spiritual enthusiasm, came to mix itself with the other characters of
the Knights-errant.”
In this way, you see, all the characteristics of Chivalry, which I had
derived from the essential properties of the feudal government, are
made to result from the spirit of Crusades, which with me was only an
accidental effect of it: and this deduction may be thought to agree
best with the representation of the old Romancers.
This hypothesis, so plausible in itself, is very ingeniously supported.
Yet I have something to object to it; or rather, which flatters me
more, I think I can turn it to the advantage of my own system.
For what if I allow (as indeed I needs must) that _Chivalry_, such as
we have it represented in books of Romance, so much posterior to the
date of that military institution, took its colour and character from
the impressions made on the minds of men by the spirit of crusading
into the Holy land? Still it may be true, that Chivalry itself had,
properly, another and an earlier origin. And I must think it certainly
_had_, if for no other, yet, for this reason: that, unless the seeds
of that spirit, which appeared in the Crusades, had been plentifully
sown and indeed grown up into some maturity in the feudal times
preceding that event, I see not how it could have been possible for
the Western princes to give that politic diversion to their turbulent
vassals, which the new hypothesis supposes.
In short, there are TWO DISTINCT PERIODS to be carefully observed, in a
deduction of the rise and progress of Chivalry.
The FIRST is that in which the empire was overturned, and the feudal
governments were every where introduced on its ruins, by the Northern
nations. In this æra, that new policy settled itself in the West, and
operated so powerfully as to lay the first foundations, and to furnish
the remote causes, of what we know by the name of Chivalry.
The OTHER period is, when these causes had taken a fuller effect, and
shewed themselves in that signal enterprize of the Crusades; which not
only concurred with the spirit of Chivalry, already pullulating in the
minds of men, but brought a prodigious encrease, and gave a singular
force and vigour, to all its operations. In this æra, Chivalry took
deep root, and at the same time shot up to its full height and size. So
that now it was in the state of VIRGIL’S Tree—
—Quæ quantum vertice ad auras
Æthereas, tantum radice in Tartara tendit.
Ergo non hiemes illam, non flabra, neque imbres
Convellunt: immota manet, multosque per annos
Multa virûm volvens durando sæcula vincit.
From this last period, the Romancers, whether in prose or verse, derive
all their ideas of Chivalry. It was _natural_ for them to do so; for
they were best acquainted with that period: and, besides, it suited
their _design_ best; for the manners, they were to paint, were then
full formed, and so distinctly marked as fitted them for the use of
description.
But that the former period, notwithstanding, really gave birth to this
institution may be gathered, not only from the reason of the thing, but
from the surer information of authentic history. For there are traces
of Chivalry, in its most peculiar and characteristic forms, to be found
in the age preceding the Crusades; and even justs and tournaments, the
_image_ of serious Knight-errantry, were certainly of earlier date than
that event, as I had before occasion to observe to you.
Though I think, then, my notion _of the rise of Chivalry_ stands
unimpaired, or rather is somewhat illustrated and confirmed, by what
the excellent person has opposed to it, yet I could not hold it fair to
conceal so specious and well supported an objection from you. You are
too generous to take advantage of the arms I put into your hands; and
are, besides, so far from any thoughts of combating my system itself,
that your concern, it seems, is only to know, where I learned the
several particulars, on which I have formed it.
You are willing, you say, to advance on sure grounds; and therefore
call upon me to point out to you the authorities, from which I pretend
to have collected the several marks and characteristics of true
Chivalry.
Your request is reasonable; and I acknowledge the omission, in not
acquainting you that my information was taken from its proper source,
the _old Romances_. Not that I shall make a merit with you in having
perused these barbarous volumes myself; much less would I impose the
ungrateful task upon you. Thanks to the curiosity of certain painful
collectors, this knowledge may be obtained at a cheaper rate. And I
think it sufficient to refer you to a learned and very elaborate memoir
of a _French_ writer, who has put together all that is requisite to
be known on this subject. Materials are first laid in, before the
architect goes to work; and if the structure, I am here raising out
of them, be to your mind, you will not think the worse of it because
I pretend not, myself, to have worked in the quarry. In a word, and
to drop this magnificent allusion, if I account to you for the rise
and genius of Chivalry, it is all you are to expect; for an idea of
what Chivalry was in itself, you may have recourse to tom. xx. of the
_Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres_.
And with this explanation I return, at length, to my proper business.
Supposing my idea of Chivalry to be fairly given, the conjecture I
advance on the _origin and nature_ of it, you incline to think, may
deserve to be admitted. But you will, perhaps, admit it the more
readily, if you reflect, “That there is a remarkable correspondency
between the manners of the old heroic times, as painted by their great
romancer, HOMER, and those which are represented to us in books of
modern knight-errantry.” A fact, of which no good account, I believe,
can be given but by the assistance of another, not less certain, “That
the political state of _Greece_, in the earlier periods of its story,
was similar in many respects to that of _Europe_, as broken by the
feudal system into an infinite number of petty independent governments.”
It is not my design to encroach on the province of the learned
person[46], to whom I owe this hint, and who hath undertaken, at his
leisure, to enlarge upon it. But some few circumstances of agreement
between the _Heroic_ and _Gothic_ manners, such as are most obvious and
occur to my memory, while I am writing, may be worth putting down, by
way of specimen only of what may be expected from a professed inquiry
into this curious subject.
And, FIRST, “the military enthusiasm of the Barons is but of a piece
with the fanaticism of the Heroes.” Hence the same particularity of
description, in the account of battles, wounds, deaths, in the _Greek_
poet, as in the _Gothic_ romancers: hence that perpetual succession
of combats and deeds of arms, even to satiety, in the _Iliad_: and
hence that minute curiosity, in the display of the dresses, arms,
accoutrements of the combatants, which we find so strange, in that
poem. The minds of all men being occupied and in a manner possessed
with warlike images and ideas, were much gratified by the poet’s
dwelling on the very slightest circumstances of these things, which
now, for want of their prejudices, appear cold and unaffecting to
modern readers.
But the correspondency holds in more particular considerations. For,
2. “We hear much of Knights-errant encountering _Giants_, and quelling
_Savages_, in books of Chivalry.”
These Giants were oppressive feudal Lords; and every Lord was to be met
with, like the Giant, in his strong hold, or castle. Their dependants
of a lower form, who imitated the violence of their superiors, and
had not their castles, but their lurking-places, were the Savages of
Romance. The greater Lord was called a Giant, for his power; the less
a Savage, for his brutality.
All this is shadowed out in the _Gothic_ tales, and sometimes expressed
in plain words. The objects of the Knight’s vengeance go indeed by the
various names of Giants, Paynims, Saracens, and Savages. But of what
family they all are, is clearly seen from the poet’s description:
What Mister wight, quoth he, and how far hence
Is he, that doth to travellers such harms?
He is, said he, a man of great defence,
Expert in battle, and in deeds of arms;
And more embolden’d by the wicked charms
With which his daughter doth him still support;
Having _great Lordships got and goodly farms
Thro’ strong oppression of his power extort_;
By which he still them holds and keeps with strong effort.
And daily he his wrong encreaseth more:
For never wight he lets to pass that way
Over his bridge, albee he rich or poor,
But he him makes his passage penny pay.
Else he doth hold him back or beat away.
Thereto he hath a _Groom of evil guise_,
Whose scalp is bare, that bondage doth bewray,
Which polls and pills the poor in piteous wise,
But he himself upon the rich doth tyrannize.
SPENSER, B. V. C. ii.
Here we have the great oppressive Baron very graphically set forth:
and the _Groom of evil guise_ is as plainly the Baron’s vassal. The
Romancers, we see, took no great liberty with these respectable
personages, when they called the one a Giant, and the other a Savage.
“Another terror of the _Gothic_ ages was, _Monsters_, _Dragons_, and
_Serpents_.” These stories were received in those days for several
reasons: 1. From the vulgar belief of enchantments: 2. From their being
reported, on the faith of Eastern tradition, by the adventurers into
the Holy Land: 3. In still later times, from the strange things told
and believed, on the discovery of the new world.
This last consideration we find employed by SPENSER to give an air of
probability to his _Fairy Tales_, in the preface to his second book.
Now in all these respects _Greek_ antiquity very much resembles the
_Gothic_. For what are HOMER’S _Læstrigons_ and _Cyclops_, but bands
of lawless savages, with, each of them, a Giant of enormous size at
their head? And what are the _Grecian_ BACCHUS and HERCULES, but
Knights-errant, the exact counter-parts of Sir LAUNCELOT and AMADIS DE
GAULE?
For this interpretation we have the authority of our great poet:
Such first was BACCHUS, that with furious might
All th’ East, before untam’d, did overcome,
And wrong repressed and establish’d right,
Which lawless men had formerly fordonne.
Next HERCULES his like ensample shew’d,
Who all the West with equal conquest wonne,
And monstrous tyrants with his club subdu’d,
The club of justice drad, with kingly pow’r endu’d.
B. V. C. i.
Even PLUTARCH’S life of THESEUS reads, throughout, like a modern
Romance: and Sir ARTHEGAL himself is hardly his fellow, for righting
wrongs and redressing grievances. So that EURIPIDES might well make
him say of himself, _that he had chosen the profession and calling
of a Knight-errant_: for this is the sense, and almost the literal
construction, of the following verses:
Ἔθος τόδ’ εἰς Ἕλληνας ἐξελεξάμην
Ἀεὶ ΚΟΛΑΣΤΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΚΑΚΩΝ καθεστάναι.
Ἱκέτιδες, ver. 340.
Accordingly, THESEUS is a favourite Hero (witness the _Knight’s Tale_
in CHAUCER) even with the Romance-writers.
Nay, could the very castle of a _Gothic_ giant be better described than
in the words of HOMER,
High walls and battlements the courts inclose,
And the strong gates defy a host of foes.
Od. B. XVII. ver. 318.
And do not you remember that the _Grecian_ Worthies were, in their day,
as famous for encountering Dragons and quelling Monsters of all sorts,
as for suppressing Giants?
——per hos cecidere justâ
Morte Centauri, cecidit tremendæ
Flamma Chimæræ.
3. “The oppressions, which it was the glory of the Knight to avenge,
were frequently carried on, as we are told, _by the charms and
enchantments of women_.”
THESE _charms_, we may suppose, are often metaphorical; as expressing
only the blandishments of the sex, by which they either seconded
the designs of their Lords, or were enabled to carry on designs for
themselves. Sometimes they are taken to be real; the ignorance of those
ages acquiescing in such conceits.
And are not these stories matched by those of _Calypso_ and _Circe_,
the enchantresses of the _Greek_ poet?
Still there are conformities more directly to our purpose.
4. “Robbery and piracy were honourable in both; so far were they from
reflecting any discredit on the ancient or modern _redressers of
wrongs_.”
What account can be given of this odd circumstance, but that, in the
feudal times and in the early days of _Greece_, when government was
weak, and unable to redress the frequent injuries of petty sovereigns,
it would be glorious for private adventurers to undertake this work;
and, if they could accomplish it in no other way, to pay them in kind
by downright plunder and rapine?
This, in effect, is the account given us, of the same disposition of
the old _Germans_, by CÆSAR: “Latrocinia,” says he, “nullam habent
infamiam, quæ extra fines cujusque civitatis fiunt.” And the reason
appears from what he had just told us—“in pace, nullus est communis
magistratus; sed principes regionum atque pagorum inter suos jus
dicunt, controversiasque minuunt.” _De Bello Gall._ l. vi. § 21.
5. Their manners, in another respect, were the same. “Bastardy was
in credit with both.” They were extremely watchful over the chastity
of their own women; but such as they could seize upon in the enemy’s
quarter were lawful prize. Or, if at any time they transgressed in this
sort at home, the heroic ages were complaisant enough to cover the
fault by an ingenious fiction. The offspring was reputed divine.
Nay, so far did they carry their indulgence to this commerce, that
their greatest Heroes were the fruit of Goddesses approached by
mortals; just as we hear of the doughtiest Knights being born of
Fairies.
6. Is it not strange, that, together with the greatest fierceness and
savageness of character, “the utmost generosity, hospitality, and
courtesy, should be imputed to the heroic ages?” ACHILLES was at once
the most relentless, vindictive, implacable, and the friendliest of men.
We have the very same representation in the _Gothic_ Romances, where it
is almost true what BUTLER says humorously of these benign heroes, that
They did in fight but cut work out
T’ employ their courtesies about.
How are these contradictions, in the characters of the ancient and
modern men of arms, to be reconciled, but by observing that, as in
those lawless times dangers and distresses of all sorts abounded, there
would be the same demand for compassion, gentleness, and generous
attachments to the unfortunate, those especially of their own clan, as
of resentment, rage, and animosity against their enemies?
7. Again: consider the martial _Games_, which ancient _Greece_
delighted to celebrate on great and solemn occasions: and see if they
had not the same origin, and the same purpose, as the _Tournaments_ of
the _Gothic_ warriors.
8. Lastly, “the passion for adventures, so natural in their situation,
would be as naturally attended with the love of praise and glory.”
Hence the same encouragement, in the old _Greek_ and _Gothic_ times, to
panegyrists and poets; the BARDS being as welcome to the tables of the
feudal Lords, as the ΑΟΙΔΟΙ of old, to those of the _Grecian_ Heroes.
And, as the same causes ever produce the same effects, we find that,
even so late as ELIZABETH’S reign, the savage _Irish_ (who were much
in the state of the ancient _Greeks_, living under the anarchy, rather
than government, of their numberless puny chiefs) had their Rhymers in
principal estimation. It was for the reason just given, for the honour
of their panegyrics on their fierce adventures and successes. And thus
it was in _Greece_:
For chief to Poets such respect belongs,
By rival nations courted for their Songs;
These, states invite, and mighty kings admire,
Wide as the Sun displays his vital fire.
Od. B. XVII.