The purpose of the casual hints, suggested in my last letter, was
only to shew that the resemblance between the Heroic and _Gothic_
ages is great: so great that the observation of it did not escape
the old Romancers themselves, _with whom_, as an ingenious critic
observes, _the siege of THEBES and TROJAN WAR were favourite stories;
the characters and incidents of which they were mixing perpetually
with their Romances_[47]. And to this persuasion and practice of the
Romance-writers CERVANTES plainly alludes, when he makes Don QUIXOTE
say——_If the stories of Chivalry be lies, so must it also be, that
there ever was a HECTOR, or an ACHILLES, or a TROJAN WAR_[48]—a
sly stroke of satire, by which this mortal foe of Chivalry would, I
suppose, insinuate that the _Grecian_ Romances were just as extravagant
and as little credible, as the _Gothic_. Or, whatever his purpose might
be, the resemblance between them, you see, is confessed, and hath now
been shewn in so many instances that there will hardly be any doubt of
it. And though you say true, that ignorance and barbarity itself might
account for some circumstances of this resemblance; yet the parallel
would hardly have held so long, and run so closely, if the _civil_
condition of both had not been much the same.
So that when we see a sort of Chivalry, springing up among the
_Greeks_, who were confessedly in a state resembling that of the feudal
barons, and attended by the like symptoms and effects, is it not fair
to conclude that the Chivalry of the _Gothic_ times was owing to that
common corresponding _state_, and received its character from it?
And this circumstance, by the way, accounts for the constant mixture,
which the modern critic esteems so monstrous, of Pagan fable with the
fairy tales of Romance. The passion for ancient learning, just then
revived, might seduce the classic poets, such as SPENSER and TASSO
for instance, into this practice; but the similar turn and genius of
ancient manners, and of the fictions founded upon them, would make it
appear easy and natural in all.
I am aware, as you object to me, that, in the affair of _religion_ and
_gallantry_, the resemblance between the Hero and Knight is not so
striking.
But the religious character of the Knight was an accident of the times,
and no proper effect of his _civil_ condition.
And that his devotion for the sex should so far surpass that of the
Hero, is a fresh confirmation of my system.
For, though much, no doubt, might be owing to the different humour and
genius of the East and West, antecedent to any customs and forms of
government, and independent of them; yet the consideration had of the
females in the feudal constitution will, of itself, account for this
difference. It made them capable of succeeding to fiefs as well as the
men. And does not one see, on the instant, what respect and dependence
this privilege would draw upon them?
It was of mighty consequence who should obtain the grace of a rich
heiress. And though, in the strict feudal times, she was supposed to be
in the power and disposal of her superior Lord, yet this rigid state
of things did not last long; and, while it did last, could not abate
much of the homage that would be paid to the fair feudatary.
Thus, when interest had begun the habit, the language of love and
flattery would soon do the rest. And to what that language tended,
you may see by the constant strain of the Romances themselves. Some
distressed damsel was the spring and mover of every Knight’s adventure.
She was to be rescued by his arms, or won by the fame and admiration of
his prowess.
The plain meaning of all which was this: that, as in those turbulent
feudal times a protector was necessary to the weakness of the sex,
so the courteous and valorous knight was to approve himself fully
qualified for that office. And we find, he had other motives to set him
on work than the mere charms and graces, though ever so bewitching, of
the person addressed.
Hence then, as I suppose, the custom was introduced: and, when
introduced, you will hardly wonder it should operate much longer and
further than the reason may seem to require, on which it was founded.
If you still insist that I carry this matter too far, and that, in
fact, the introduction of the female succession into fiefs was too
late to justify me in accounting for the rise of feudal gallantry from
that circumstance; you will only teach me to frame my answer in a more
accurate manner.
First then, I shall confess that the way to avoid all confusion on this
subject would be, to distinguish carefully between the state of things
in the _early_ feudal times, and that in the _later_, when the genius
of the feudal law was much changed and corrupted; and that, whoever
would go to the bottom of this affair, should keep a constant eye on
this reasonable distinction.
But then, _secondly_, I may observe that this distinction is the less
necessary to be attended to in the present case, because the law of
female succession, whenever it was introduced, had certainly taken
place long before the Romancers wrote, from whom we derive all our
ideas of the feudal gallantry. So that, if you take their word for the
gallantry of those times, you may very consistently, if you please,
accept my account of it. For it is but supposing that the feudal
gallantry, such as they paint it, was the offspring of that privilege,
such as they saw the ladies then possess, of feudal succession. And the
connexion between these two things is so close and so natural, that we
cannot be much mistaken in deducing the one from the other.
In conclusion of this topic, I must just observe to you, that the two
poems of HOMER express in the liveliest manner, and were intended to
expose, the capital mischiefs and inconveniencies arising from the
_political state_ of old _Greece_; the _Iliad_, the dissensions that
naturally spring up amongst a number of independent chiefs; and the
_Odyssey_, the insolence of their greater subjects, more especially
when unrestrained by the presence of their sovereign.
These were the subjects of his pen. And can any thing more exactly
resemble the condition of the _feudal times_, when, on occasion
of any great enterprise, as that of the Crusades, the designs of
the confederate Christian states were perpetually frustrated, or
interrupted at least, by the dissensions of their leaders; and their
affairs at home as perpetually distressed and disordered by domestic
licence, and the rebellious usurpations of their greater vassals?
It is true, as to the charge of _domestic licence_, so exactly does
the parallel run between old _Greece_ and old _England_, I find one
exception to it, in each country: and that _one_, a Romance-critic
would shew himself very uncourteous, if he did not take a pleasure
to celebrate. GUY, the renowned earl of _Warwick_, old stories say,
returned from the holy wars to his lady in the disguise of a pilgrim
or beggar, as ULYSSES did to PENELOPE. What the suspicions were of the
Knight and the Hero, the contrivance itself but too plainly declares.
But their fears were groundless in both cases. Only the Knight seems to
have had the advantage of the Prince of ITHACA: for, instead of rioting
suitors to drive out of his castle, he had only to contemplate his good
lady in the peaceful and pious office of _distributing daily alms to
XIII poor men_.
No conclusion, however, is to be drawn from a single instance; and, in
general, it is said, the adventurers into the Holy Land could no more
depend on the fidelity of their spouses, than of their vassals. So
that, in all respects, _Jerusalem_ was to the _European_, what _Troy_
had been to the _Grecian_ heroes. And, though the _Odyssey_ found no
rival among the _Gothic_ poems, you will think it natural enough from
these corresponding circumstances, that TASSO’S immortal work should be
planned upon the model of the _Iliad_.