THE HISTORY OF CHIVALRY.
BY G. P. R. JAMES, ESQ.,
AUTHOR OF "DE L'ORME," "DARNLEY," "RICHELIEU," ETC.
NEW YORK:
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,
82 CLIFF STREET.
PREFACE.
In writing the pages which follow this Preface, I have had to encounter
the difficulty of compressing very extensive matter into an extremely
limited space. As the subject was, in my eyes, a very interesting one, and
every particular connected with it had often been food for thought and
object of entertainment to myself, the task of curtailing was the more
ungrateful: nor should I have undertaken it, had I not been convinced by
my publisher that one volume would be as much as the public in general
would be inclined to read. I wished to write upon Chivalry and the
Crusades, because I fancied that in the hypotheses of many other authors I
had discovered various errors and misstatements, which gave a false
impression of both the institution and the enterprise; and I have
endeavoured, in putting forth my own view of the subject, to advance no
one point, however minute, which cannot be justified by indisputable
authority. A favourite theory is too often, in historical writing like the
bed of the ancient Greek; and facts are either stretched or lopped away to
agree with it: but to ensure as much accuracy as possible, I have taken
pains to mark in the margin of the pages the different writers on whose
assertions my own statements are founded, with a corresponding figure, by
which each particular may be referred to its authority.
In regard to these authors themselves, it seems necessary here to give
some information, that those persons who are inclined to inquire beyond
the mere surface may know what credit is to be attached to each.
On the first crusade we have a whole host of contemporary writers, many of
whom were present at the events they describe. Besides these are several
others, who, though they wrote at an after-period, took infinite pains to
render their account as correct as possible. The authors I have
principally cited for all the earlier facts of the Holy War are, William
of Tyre, Albert of Aix, Fulcher of Chartres, Raimond of Agiles, Guibert of
Nogent, Radulph of Caën, and Robert, surnamed the Monk.
William of Tyre is, beyond all doubt, the most illustrious of the many
historians who have written on the crusades. Born in Palestine, and though
both educated for the church and raised step by step to its highest
dignities, yet mingling continually in the political changes of the Holy
Land--the preceptor of one of its kings--frequently employed in embassies
to Europe, and ultimately Archbishop of Tyre and Chancellor of the kingdom
of Jerusalem, William possessed the most extensive means of gathering
materials for the great work he has left to posterity. He brought to his
task, also, a powerful mind, as well as considerable discrimination; and
was infinitely superior in education and every intellectual quality to the
general chroniclers of his age. He was not born, however, at the time of
the first crusade; and consequently, where he speaks of the events of
that enterprise, we may look upon him as an historian, clear, talented,
elegant, and not extremely credulous; but we must not expect to find the
vivid identity of contemporaneous writing. In regard to the history of his
own days he is invaluable, and in respect to that of the times which
preceded them, his work is certainly superior, as a whole, to any thing
that has since been written on the subject.
A much more vivid and enthusiastic picture of the first crusade is to be
found in Albert of Aix, from whom William of Tyre borrowed many of his
details; but the Syrian Archbishop, living long after, saw the events he
recounted as a whole, rejected much as false that Albert embraced as true,
and softened the zealous fire which the passions and feelings of the
moment had lighted up in the bosom of the other. Albert himself was not
one of the crusaders; but living at the time, and conversing continually
with those who returned from the Holy Land, he caught, to an extraordinary
extent, the spirit of the enterprise, and has left behind him a brilliant
transcript of all the passed-by dreams and long-extinguished enthusiasms
of his day.
Thus, as a painting of manners and customs, the _Chronicon
Hierosolymitanum_ is one of the most valuable records we possess, and the
account there given of Peter the Hermit and _Gautier sans avoir_ is in
many points more full and comprehensive than any other.
Fulcher of Chartres set out for the Holy Land with Stephen, Count of
Blois, one of the first crusaders. He soon after became chaplain to
Baldwin, the brother of Godfrey de Bouillon, and ended his days a canon of
the Holy Sepulchre. His relation is useful in many respects, especially in
regard to the march of the crusaders through Italy--the proceedings of
Baldwin at Edessa, and the history of Jerusalem for several years after
its conquest. His style, however, is tumid and circumlocutory, and his
credulity equal to that of Raimond d'Agiles.
Raimond d'Agiles accompanied the Count of Toulouse on the first crusade,
in quality of chaplain. Superstitious to the most lamentable degree, and
as bigoted in party politics as in religion, he wrote as he lived, like a
weak and ignorant man. Nevertheless there is, in his account, much
excellent information, detailed with simplicity; and very often, through
the folly of the historian, we arrive at truths which his prejudices
concealed from himself.
Guibert of Nogent did not visit the Holy Land; but he lived during the
first crusade, and, in common with all Europe, felt deeply interested in
the fate of that expedition. He examined and noted with accuracy all the
anecdotes which reached Europe, and painted, with great vivacity, scenes
that he had not himself witnessed. In his account of the crusade many
circumstances, evincing strongly the spirit of the age, are to be met with
which do not appear elsewhere; and, as we have every reason to feel sure
of his general accuracy, it is but fair to suppose that these are well
founded.
Radulph, or Raoul, of Caën, is inflated in style, and often inexact; but
he is perhaps less superstitious than any other chronicler of the
crusades. By poetical exaggeration, he often renders his narrative
doubtful; yet, as the biographer of Tancred, he tends to elucidate much
that would otherwise have remained in darkness. Robert, called the Monk,
was present at the council of Clermont, at which the first crusade was
determined; and, though he did not immediately take the Cross, he set out
for the Holy Land not long after, and was present at the siege of
Jerusalem. He is, in general, accurate and precise; and, though not a
little credulous in regard to visions, apparitions, and such imaginations
of the day, he is on the whole more calm, clear, and exact than any other
contemporary author.
Besides these writers, I have had occasion to cite several others of less
authority. Of these, Baldric bears the highest character; and,
notwithstanding the fact of his not having been present at the crusade, he
is in general accurate. Tudebodus is both brief and imperfect. Matthew of
Edessa deserves little or no credit; and the part of the Alexiad which
refers to the first crusade is far more likely to mislead than to assist.
The most important part, of the whole work, as it is published at present,
consists in the notes of Ducange. William of Malmsbury is more useful, but
still his account is merely a repetition of what we find in other sources.
For all the affairs of Normandy, I have consulted Orderic, Vital, and
William of Jumieges.
The history of William of Tyre was afterward continued by several writers,
the chief of whom is an author taking the title of Bernard the Treasurer.
A Latin version of his book was published by Muratori: Martenne, however,
has since printed a work from an old French manuscript, the identity of
which with the account of Bernard the Treasurer has been proved by Mansi.
This work is one of the most interesting extant; for although it wants
entirely either the power or the grace of William of Tyre's composition,
and is full of errors, in respect to every thing beyond the immediate
limits of the Holy Land, yet there is a simple and interesting
minuteness--an individuality of tone through the whole, where it relates
to the affairs of Syria, which could not have been given but by an
eyewitness. Even the old French in which it is written, slightly different
from the exact language of France at the same period, gives it a peculiar
character, and stamps it as the work of a Syrian Frank. Another
continuation of William of Tyre is extant, by a Suabian of the name of
Herold. This, however, is a much later composition, and possesses few of
the qualities of the other. The Cardinal de Vitry also wrote an
abbreviated history of the Crusades, bringing it down to his own time A.
D. 1220. His work is principally to be consulted for the account it gives
of the events which passed under the author's own eyes, while Bishop of
Acre, and for a great many curious particulars concerning the manners and
customs of the Saracens, which are to be found in no other work. The
second book of the Cardinal de Vitry's History has been omitted, I cannot
conceive why, in the Gesta Dei per Francos. It is, nevertheless,
infinitely valuable, as showing the horrible state of the Christians of
Palestine, and displaying those vices and weaknesses which eventually
brought about the ruin of the Latin kingdom.
The authorities for the second crusade are lamentably few, and by their
very paucity show what a change had come over the spirit of the age in the
short space of fifty years. The only eyewitnesses who have written on the
subject, as far as I can discover, are Odo, a priest of Deuil, or
Diagolum, in the neighbourhood of Paris, and Otho, Bishop of Freysinghen.
The first of these authors followed Louis VII. to the Holy Land as his
chaplain, and his account is, more properly speaking, an epistle to the
famous Suger, Abbot of St. Denis, than a chronicle.
Otho of Freysinghen was nearly related to the emperor Conrad, whom he
accompanied on his unfortunate expedition. Both these authors, therefore,
had the best means of obtaining information; and in the writings of each
there is an air of truth and sincerity, which does much towards
conviction. I have had occasion in speaking of this crusade to cite
casually a number of authors, of whom it is not necessary to give any very
detailed account. Their works are to be found in the admirable collections
of Dom Bouquet, Duchesne, Martenne, or Muratori.
Wherever I have been obliged to quote from any of the Arabian writers, I
am indebted to the extracts of Monsieur Reinaud.
In regard to the crusade of Richard Coeur de Lion and Philip Augustus; for
the history of the first, I have borrowed from Benedict of Peterborough,
from Hovedon, and especially from Vinesauf, whose work is inestimable.
These, with the other English authorities I have cited, are too well known
to need comment. Having some time ago written a romance, not yet
published, on the history of Philip Augustus, I had previously studied
almost all the old chroniclers who speak of that monarch. The most
important treatise on his reign is the work of Rigord, who was at once
monk, physician, and historiographer at the court of Philip. William the
Breton, one of the king's chaplains, continued his history in prose, from
the period where Rigord abandoned the task. He also wrote a bombastic poem
on the reign of his patron, which, however exaggerated and absurd, is
useful as an historical document, and a painting of the manners and
customs of the time. On the taking of Constantinople by the French, I have
found no want of authorities. Villehardouin, one of the principal actors
in the scenes he describes, has been my chief source of information. I
have also met with much in Nicetas, who was present; and I have confirmed
the evidence of other writers, by the chronicle in the Rouchy dialect,
published by Monsieur Buchon, and by the metrical chronicle of Philippe
Mouskes in the same collection. I need hardly say that the works of
Ducange have proved invaluable in every part of my inquiry, and that his
history of Constantinople under its French monarchs both gave me facts and
led me to authorities.
Joinville is the principal writer on the crusade of St. Louis. He was an
eyewitness, a sufferer, and a principal actor in the scenes he describes.
Of all old chroniclers, with the exception, perhaps, of Froissart,
Joinville offers the most original, simple, and delightful painting of
times and manners long gone by. With the notes of Ducange, his work is an
erudite repertory for antique manners and usages, and may be read and
reread with gratification, and studied deeply with advantage.
The folio edition in my own library comprises the Observations, and
Dissertations of Ducange, and the Commentaries of Claud Menard; together
with the Establishments of St. Louis, and a curious treatise upon the
ancient law of France, by Pierre de Fontaines. All these works afford a
great insight into the spirit of that day; and many other particulars are
to be found in the _Branche aux royaux Lignages_, and in the Sermon of
Robert de Sainceriaux. Besides the authors I have here particularized, I
have had occasion to cite casually a great number of others, whose names,
with some account of the works of each, may be found in the _Manuel_ of
Brunet. Vertot also has furnished us with much information concerning the
Knights of St. John; and Dupuy, Raynouard, &c. have spoken largely of the
Templars. I cannot close the enumeration of authors to whom I am under
obligations for information or instruction without mentioning M. Guizot,
one of the most clearsighted and unprejudiced of all modern historians.
His views of causes I have often adopted, sometimes with very slight
modifications, and sometimes with none; and, in all instances to which his
writings extend, I have been indebted to him for light to conduct me
through the dark sanctuary of past events, to the shrine of Truth, even
where he has not unveiled the deity herself. I can only regret that his
essays did not embrace more of the very comprehensive subject on which I
was called to treat.
Several motives have impelled me to give this long account of my
authorities; one of which motives was, that often, in reading works on
history, I have myself wished that the sources from which facts were
derived had been laid open to my examination; but still, my principal view
in the detail was, to show the ground on which I had fixed opinions
directly opposed to those of several other authors. In many cases, the
aspect under which I have seen the events of the Crusades has been
entirely different from that under which Mills has regarded them, and I
felt myself called upon not to attack any position of a clever writer and
a learned man, without justifying myself as completely as possible.
In regard to my own work I shall say nothing, but that I have spared
neither labour nor research to make it as correct as if it had appeared
under a much more imposing form. In space, I have been confined; and in
time, I have been hurried: but I have endeavoured to remedy the one
inconvenience, by cutting off all superfluous matter; and to guard against
evil consequences from the other, by redoubling my own exertions. Whether
I have succeeded or not the world must judge; and if it does judge with
the same generous lenity which it has extended to my other productions, I
shall have every reason to be both satisfied and grateful.
CONTENTS.
Page
CHAPTER I.
A Definition, with Remarks and Evidence--An Inquiry into the
Origin of Chivalry--Various Opinions on the Subject--Reasons
for doubting the great Antiquity of Chivalry, properly so
called--The State of Society which preceded it, and of that
which gave it Birth--Its Origin and early Progress. 17
CHAPTER II.
Of Chivalrous Customs--Education--Grades--Services on the
Reception of a Knight--On Tournaments--Jousts--Combats at
Outrance--Passages of Arms--The Round Table--Privileges of
Knighthood--Duties of Knighthood. 31
CHAPTER III.
The Progress of Chivalry in Europe--Exploits--That some great
Enterprise was necessary to give Chivalry an extensive and
permanent Effect--That Enterprise presented itself in the
Crusades--Pilgrimage to Jerusalem--Haroun Al Raschid--
Charlemagne--Cruelties of the Turks--Pilgrimages continued--
Peter the Hermit--Council of Clermont. 53
CHAPTER IV.
The Effects of the Council of Clermont--State of France--
Motives of the People for embracing the Crusade--Benefits
produced--The Enthusiasm general--Rapid Progress--The first
Bodies of Crusaders begin their March--Gautier sans avoir--
His Army--Their Disasters--Reach Constantinople--Peter the
Hermit sets out with an immense Multitude--Storms Semlin--
Defeated at Nissa--His Host dispersed--The Remains
collected--Joins Gautier--Excesses of the Multitude--The
Italians and Germans separate from the French--The Germans
exterminated--The French cut to pieces--Conduct of Alexius. 73
CHAPTER V.
The Chivalry of Europe takes the Field--The Leaders--Godfrey
of Bouillon--Conducts his Army towards Constantinople--Hugh
the Great--Leads his Army through Italy--Embarks for
Durazzo--Taken Prisoner--Liberated--Robert, Duke of
Normandy--Winters in Italy--Arrives at Constantinople--
Robert, Count of Flanders--Joins the rest--Boemond of
Tarentum--Tancred--Their March--Defeat the Greeks--Boemond
does Homage--Tancred avoids it--The Count of Toulouse
arrives--Refuses to do Homage--Robert of Normandy does
Homage. 89
CHAPTER VI.
Germ of After-misfortunes already springing up in the
Crusade--Siege of Nice--First Engagement with the Turks--
Siege continued--The Lake occupied--Surrender of Nice to the
Emissaries of Alexius--Discontent--March towards Antioch--The
Army divides into two Bodies--Battle of Doryloeum--Dreadful
March through Phrygia--Adventures of Baldwin and Tancred--
Arrival at Antioch--The City invested 109
CHAPTER VII.
The Host of the Crusade invests Antioch--Description of that
City--Difficulties and Errors of the Crusaders--
Improvidence--Famine--Spies--Desertions--Embassy from the
Calif of Egypt--Succours from the Genoese and Pisans--
Battle--Feats of the Christian Knights--Boemond keeps up a
Communication within the Town--The Town betrayed to the
Christians--Massacres--Arrival of an Army from Persia--The
Christians besieged in Antioch--Famine--Desertions--Visions--
Renewed Enthusiasm--Diminished Forces of the Christians--
Battle of Antioch--The Crusaders victorious--Spoils--Disputes
with the Count of Toulouse--The Chiefs determine to repose at
Antioch--Ambassadors sent to Alexius--Fate of their Embassy 136
CHAPTER VIII.
Pestilence in Antioch--Death of the Bishop of Puy--The Chiefs
separate--Siege of Marrah--Cannibalism--Disputes between the
Count of Toulouse and Boemond--The Count marches towards
Jerusalem--Siege of Archas--Godfrey of Bouillon marches--
Siege of Ghibel--Treachery of Raimond--Fraud of the Holy
Lance investigated--Ordeal of Fire--Decisive Conduct of the
Crusaders towards the Deputies of Alexius, and the Calif of
Egypt--Conduct of the Crusaders towards the Emir of Tripoli--
First Sight of Jerusalem--Siege and Taking of the City--
Fanatical Massacres 162
CHAPTER IX.
Election of a King--Godfrey of Bouillon--Sketch of the
History of Jerusalem--Death of the chief Crusaders--New
Bodies of Crusaders set out from Europe--Their Destruction in
Asia Minor--Armed Pilgrimages--The Northern Armaments--The
Venetians--The Genoese and Pisans--Anecdotes of the
Crusaders--Battle of the Children at Antioch--The Thafurs--
Baldwin's Humanity well repaid--Superstitions--Arms of the
Crusaders--Of the Turks--Hospitallers--Templars 175
CHAPTER X.
Consequences of the Loss of Edessa--The State of France
unfavourable to a new Crusade--View of the Progress of
Society--Causes and Character of the Second Crusade--St.
Bernard--The Emperor of Germany takes the Cross, and sets
out--Louis VII. follows--Conduct of the Germans in Greece--
Their Destruction in Cappadocia--Treachery of Manuel
Comnenus--Louis VII. arrives at Constantinople--Passes into
Asia--Defeats the Turks on the Meander--His Army cut to
pieces--Proceeds by Sea to Antioch--Fate of his remaining
Troops--Intrigues at Antioch--Louis goes on to Jerusalem--
Siege of Damascus--Disgraceful Failure--Conrad returns to
Europe--Conduct of Suger, Abbot of St. Denis--Termination of
the Second Crusade 198
CHAPTER XI.
Progress of Society--The Rise of Poetry in modern Europe--
Troubadours--Trouveres--Various Poetical Compositions--Effect
of Poetry upon Chivalry--Effect of the Crusades on Society--
State of Palestine after the Second Crusade--Cession of
Edessa to the Emperor Manuel Comnenus--Edessa completely
subjected by the Turks--Ascalon taken by the Christians--
State of Egypt under the last Califs of the Fatimite Race--
The Latins and the Atabecks both design the Conquest of
Egypt--Struggles for that Country--Rise of Saladin--Disputes
among the Latins concerning the Succession of the Crown--Guy
of Lusignan crowned--Saladin invades Palestine--Battle of
Tiberias--Fall of Jerusalem--Conquest of all Palestine--Some
Inquiry into the Causes of the Latin Overthrow 219
CHAPTER XII.
The News of the Fate of Palestine reaches Europe--The
Archbishop of Tyre comes to seek for Aid--Assistance granted
by William the Good, of Sicily--Death of Urban, from Grief at
the Loss of Jerusalem--Gregory VIII. promotes a Crusade--
Expedition of Frederic, Emperor of Germany--His Successes--
His Death--State of Europe--Crusade promoted by the
Troubadours--Philip Augustus and Henry II. take the Cross--
Laws enacted--Saladin's Tenth--War renewed--Death of Henry
II.--Accession of Richard Coeur de Lion--The Crusade--
Philip's March--Richard's March--Affairs of Sicily--Quarrels
between the Monarchs--Philip goes to Acre--Richard subdues
Cyprus--Arrives at Acre--Siege and Taking of Acre--Fresh
Disputes--Philip Augustus returns to Europe--Richard marches
on--Battle of Azotus--Heroism of Richard--Unsteady Councils--
The Enterprise abandoned 237
CHAPTER XIII.
Death of Saladin--Disunion among his Successors--Celestine
III. preaches a new Crusade--Henry of Germany takes the
Cross--Abandons his Purpose--Crusaders proceed without him--
Saif Eddin takes the Field, and captures Jaffa--The Crusaders
are reinforced--Defeat Saif Eddin--Lay Siege to Thoron--
Seized with Panic, and retreat--Disperse--Death of Henry of
Champagne, King of Jerusalem--His Widow marries Almeric, King
of Cyprus--Truce--Death of Almeric; and Isabella Mary,
Heiress of Jerusalem, wedded to John of Brienne--Affairs of
Europe--Innocent III. and Foulque, of Neuilly, promote a
Crusade--The Barons of France take the Cross--Proceed to
Venice--Their Difficulties--Turn to the Siege of Zara--A
Change of Purpose--Proceed to Constantinople--Siege and
Taking of that City--Subsequent Proceedings--A Revolution in
Constantinople, Alexius deposed by Murzuphlis--Second Siege
and Capture of the Greek Capital--Flight of Murzuphlis--
Plunder and Outrage--Baldwin, Count of Flanders, elected
Emperor 264
CHAPTER XIV.
Divisions among the Moslems--Among the Christians--Crusade of
Children--Innocent III. declares he will lead a new Crusade
to Syria--The King of Hungary takes the Cross--Arrives in
Syria--Successes of the Pilgrims--Abandon the Siege of Mount
Thabor--The King of Hungary returns to Europe--The Duke of
Austria continues the War--Siege of Damietta--Reinforcements
arrive under a Legate--Famine in Damietta--The Moslems offer
to yield Palestine--The Legate's Pride--He refuses--Taking of
Damietta--The Army advances towards Cairo--Overflowing of the
Nile--The Army ruined--The Legate sues for Peace--Generous
Conduct of the Sultaun--Marriage of the Heiress of Jerusalem
with Frederic, Emperor of Germany--His Disputes with the
Pope--His Treaties with the Saracens--He recovers Jerusalem--
He quits the Holy Land--Disputes in Palestine--The Templars
defeated and slaughtered--Gregory IX.--Crusade of the King of
Navarre ineffectual--Crusade of Richard, Earl of Cornwall--
Jerusalem recovered--The Corasmins--Their Barbarity--They
take Jerusalem--Defeat the Christians with terrible
Slaughter--Are exterminated by the Syrians--Crusade of St.
Louis--His Character--Arrives in the Holy Land--Takes
Damietta--Battle of Massoura--Pestilence in the Army--The
King taken--Ransomed--Returns to Europe--Second Crusade of
St. Louis--Takes Carthage--His Death--Crusade of Prince
Edward--He defeats the Saracens--Wounded by an Assassin--
Returns to Europe--Successes of the Turks--Last Siege and
Fall of Acre--Palestine lost 286
CHAPTER XV.
Fate of the Orders of the Temple and St. John--The Templars
abandon all Hopes of recovering Jerusalem--Mingle in European
Politics--Offend Philip the Fair--Are persecuted--Charges
against them--The Order destroyed--The Knights of St. John
pursue the Purpose of defending Christendom--Settle in
Rhodes--Siege of Rhodes--Gallant Defence--The Island taken--
The Knights remove to Malta--Siege of Malta--La Valette--
Defence of St. Elmo--Gallantry of the Garrison--The whole
Turkish Army attempt to storm the Castle--The Attack
repelled--Arrival of Succour--The Siege raised--Conclusion 312
NOTES 331
HISTORY OF CHIVALRY AND THE CRUSADES
CHAPTER I.
_A Definition, with Remarks and Evidence--An Inquiry into the Origin of
Chivalry--Various Opinions on the Subject--Reasons for doubting the great
Antiquity of Chivalry properly so called--The State of Society which
preceded it, and of that which gave it Birth--Its Origin and early
Progress._
The first principles of whatever subject we may attempt to trace in
history are ever obscure, but few are so entirely buried in darkness as
the origin of Chivalry. This seems the more extraordinary, as we find the
institution itself suddenly accompanied by regular and established forms,
to which we can assign no precise date, and which appear to have been
generally acknowledged before they were reduced to any written code.
Although definitions are dangerous things--inasmuch as the ambiguity of
language rarely permits of perfect accuracy, except in matters of abstract
science--it is better, as far as possible, on all subjects of discussion,
to venture some clear and decided position, that the subsequent reasoning
may be fixed upon a distinct and unchanging basis.
If the position itself be wrong, it may be the more speedily proved so
from the very circumstance of standing forth singly, uninvolved in a
labyrinth of other matter; and if it be right, the arguments that follow
may always be more easily traced, and afford greater satisfaction by
being deduced from a principle already determined. These considerations
lead me to offer a definition of Chivalry, together with some remarks
calculated to guard that definition from the consequences of
misapprehension on the part of others, or of obscurity on my own.
When I speak of Chivalry I mean a military institution, prompted by
enthusiastic benevolence, sanctioned by religion, and combined with
religious ceremonies, the purpose of which was to protect the weak from
the oppression of the powerful, and to defend the right cause against the
wrong.
Its military character requires no proof; but various mistaken opinions,
which I shall notice hereafter, render it necessary to establish the fact,
that religious ceremonies of some kind were always combined with the
institutions of Chivalry.
All those written laws and regulations affecting knighthood,[1] which were
composed subsequent to its having taken an acknowledged form, prescribed,
in the strictest manner, various points of religious ceremonial, which the
aspirant to Chivalry was required to perform before he could be admitted
into that high order.
What preceded the regular recognition of Chivalry as an institution is
entirely traditional; yet in all the old romances, fabliaux, sirventes,
ballads, &c. not one instance is to be found in which a squire becomes a
knight, without some reference to his religious faith. If he be dubbed in
the battle-field, he swears to defend the right, and maintain all the
statutes of the noble order of Chivalry, upon the _cross_ of his sword; he
calls _heaven_ to witness his vow, and the _saints_ to help him in its
execution. Even in one of the most absurd fables[2] of the chivalrous
ages, wherein we find Saladin himself receiving the order of Chivalry
from the hands of the Count de Tabarie, that nobleman causes the infidel
sultan to be shaved, and to bathe as a symbol of baptism, and then to rest
himself upon a perfumed bed, as a type of the repose and joy of Paradise.
These tales are all fictitious, it is true; and few of them date earlier
than the end of the twelfth century: but at the same time, as they
universally ascribe religious ceremonies to the order of knighthood, we
have every reason to suppose that such ceremonies formed a fundamental
part of the institution.
Before proceeding to inquire into the origin of Chivalry, I must be
permitted to make one more observation in regard to my definition; namely,
that there was a great and individual character in that order, which no
definition can fully convey. I mean the Spirit of Chivalry; for, indeed,
it was more a spirit than an institution; and the outward forms with which
it soon became invested, were only, in truth, the signs by which it was
conventionally agreed that those persons who had proved in their initiate
they possessed the spirit, should be distinguished from the other classes
of society. The ceremonial was merely the public declaration, that he on
whom the order was conferred was worthy to exercise the powers with which
it invested him; but still, _the spirit was the Chivalry_.
In seeking the source of this order through the dark mazes of the history
of modern Europe, it appears to me that many writers have mistaken the
track; and, by looking for the mere external signs, have been led into
ages infinitely prior to the spirit of Chivalry.
Some have supposed that the institution descended to more modern times,
from the equestrian order of the ancient Romans; but the absence of all
but mere nominal resemblance between the two, has long placed this theory
in the dusty catalogue of historical dreams.
Others again have imagined that the Franks, and the rest of the German
nations, who, on the fall of the Roman empire, subdued and divided Gaul,
brought with them the seeds of Chivalry, which spontaneously grew up into
that extraordinary plant which has flourished but once in the annals of
the world. This opinion they support by citing the customs of the German
tribes[3] who, not only at particular periods invested their youth with
the shield and the javelin, but also (especially towards the period of the
conquest of Gaul) chose from the bravest of the tribe a number of
warriors, to be the companions and guards of the chief. These were termed
_Leudes_, and we find them often mentioned under the whole of the first
race of French kings. They served on horseback, while the greater part of
each German nation fought on foot only; and they were bound to the chief
by an oath of fidelity.[4] The reception of an aspirant into the body of
_Leudes_ was also marked with various ceremonies; but in this, if we
examine correctly, we find neither the spirit nor the forms of Chivalry.
The oath of the Frank was one of service to his prince; that of the
knight, to his God and to society: the one promised to defend his leader;
the other to protect the oppressed, and to uphold the right. The _Leudes_
were in fact the nobility of the German tribes, though that nobility was
not hereditary; but they were in no respect similar to the knights of an
after-age, except in the circumstance of fighting on horseback.
A third opinion supposes the origin of Chivalry to be found among the
ancient warlike tribes of Northmen, or Normans, who, towards the ninth
century, invaded in large bodies the southern parts of Europe, and
established themselves principally in France; and certainly, both in their
traditions, and even in their actions, as recorded by Abbon, an
eyewitness to their deeds in the siege of Paris, there is to be found an
energetic and romantic spirit, not unlike that which animated Chivalry at
the rudest period of its existence. Still, there is much wanting. The
great object of Chivalry, the defence of the weak, was absent, as well as
every form and ceremony. The object of the Northman's courage was plunder;
and all that he had in common with the knight was valour, contempt of
death, and a touch of savage generosity, that threw but a feint light over
his dark and stormy barbarities.
Many persons again have attributed the foundation of all the chivalrous
institutions of Europe to the bright and magnificent reign of Charlemagne;
and as this opinion has met with much support, among even the learned, it
is worth while more particularly to inquire upon what basis it is raised.
Of the reign of Charlemagne we have not so many authentic accounts as we
have romances, founded upon the fame of that illustrious monarch. Towards
the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, when Chivalry was in its
imaginative youth, a thousand tales of wild adventure were produced, in
which Charlemagne and his warriors were represented with all the qualities
and attributes of those knights, whose virtues and courage had by that
time wrought deeply on the heart and fancy of the people. We should be as
much justified, however, in believing that Virgil was a celebrated
necromancer, or that Hercules was a _Preux Chevalier_--characters which
have been assigned to them by the very same class of fables--as in giving
any credit to the distorted representations that those romances afford of
the days of Charlemagne.
In regard to the tales of King Arthur, I am perfectly inclined to use the
energetic words of Menestrier, who, in speaking of the famous knights of
the round table, says, without hesitation, "All that they tell of King
Arthur and that fictitious Chivalry of which they represent him as the
author, is nothing but a lie;"[5] for, though beyond all doubt the
romances of Chivalry afford a great insight into the manners of the times
wherein they were written, they are, nevertheless, quite worthless as
authority concerning the ages which they pretend to display, and which had
preceded their composition by nearly three centuries.
After rejecting the evidences of such tales, we find nothing in the
authentic records of Charlemagne which gives the slightest reason to
suppose that Chivalry was known, even in its most infant state, during his
reign. Though his great system of warfare had that in common with Chivalry
which all warfare must have--feats of daring courage, heroic valour,
bursts of feeling and magnanimity, and as much of the sublime as mighty
ambition, guided by mighty genius, and elevated by a noble object can
achieve--yet the government of Charlemagne was, in fact, any thing but a
chivalrous government. Too powerful a hand held the reins of state for
Chivalry either to have been necessary or permitted; and in reading the
annals of Eginhard, his life of Charlemagne, or the account, given by the
monk of St. Gall, we find a completely different character from that which
is visible in every page of the history of the knightly ages. We find,
indeed, that Charlemagne, according to the immemorial custom of his
German[6] ancestors, solemnly invested his son Lewis with the arms of a
man. A thousand years before, in the forests of the North, his
predecessors had done the same: and Charlemagne, one of whose great
objects ever was, to preserve both the habits and the language of the
original country[7] free from amalgamation with those of the conquered
nations, not only set the example of publicly receiving his son into the
ranks of manhood and warfare, but strictly enjoined that the same should
be done by his various governors in the provinces. But this custom of the
Franks, as I have before attempted to show, had no earthly relation to
knighthood. Were nothing else a proof that Chivalry was perfectly unknown
in the days of Charlemagne, it would be sufficient that the famous
capitularies of that monarch, which regulate every thing that can fall
under the eye of the law, even to the details of private life, make no
mention whatever of an institution which afterward exercised so great an
influence on the fate of Europe. Nor can we trace in the annals of the
surrounding countries, a mark of Chivalry having been known at that period
to any other nation more than to the Franks. Alfred, it is true, invested
Athelstan with a purple garment and a sword; but the Saxons were from
Germany as well as the Franks, and no reason exists for supposing that
this ceremony was in any degree connected with the institutions of
Chivalry. There have been persons, indeed, who supposed that Pharaoh
conferred knighthood upon Joseph, when he bestowed upon him the ring and
the golden chain, and probably the Egyptian king had fully as much
knowledge of the institution of Chivalry as either Charlemagne or Alfred.
Of the annals that follow the period of Charlemagne, those of Nithard,
Hincmar, and Thegan, together with those called the Annals of St. Bertinus
and of Metz, are the most worthy of credit; and in these, though we often
meet with the word _miles_, which was afterward the name bestowed upon a
knight, it is used simply in the signification of a soldier, or one of the
military race.[8] No mention whatever is made of any thing that can fairly
be looked upon as chivalrous, either in feeling or institution. All is a
series of dark conflicts and bloodthirsty contentions, among which the
sprouts of the feudal system, yet young and unformed, are seen springing
up from seeds sown long before. In the picture of those times, a double
darkness seemed to cover the earth, which, a chaos of unruly passions,
showed no one general institution for the benefit of mankind except the
Christian religion: and that, overwhelmed by foul superstitions and
guarded chiefly by barbarous, ignorant, selfish, and disorderly priests,
lay like a treasure hidden by a miser, and watched by men that had not
soul to use it. This was no age of knighthood.
Up to this period, then, I fully believe that Chivalry did not exist; and
having attempted to show upon some better ground than mere assertion, that
the theories which assign to it an earlier origin are wrong, I will now
give my own view of its rise, which possibly may be as erroneous as the
rest.
Charlemagne expired like a meteor that, having broken suddenly upon the
night of ages, and blazed brilliantly over a whole world for a brief
space, fell and left all in darkness, even deeper than before. His
dominions divided into petty kingdoms--his successors waging long and
inveterate wars against each other--the nations he had subdued shaking off
the yoke--the enemies he had conquered avenging themselves upon his
descendants--the laws he had established forgotten or annulled--the union
he had cemented scattered to the wind--in a lamentably brief space of
time, the bright order which his great mind had established throughout
Europe was dissolved. Each individual, who, either by corporeal strength,
advantageous position, wealth, or habit, could influence the minds of
others, snatched at that portion of the divided empire which lay nearest
to his means, and claimed that power as a gift which had only been
intrusted as a loan. The custom of holding lands by military service had
come down to the French from their German ancestors, and the dukes, the
marquises, the counts, as well as a whole herd of inferior officers, who
in former days had led the armies, or commanded in the provinces as
servants of the crown, now arrogated to themselves hereditary rights in
the charges to which they had been intrusted; and, in their own behalf,
claimed the feudal service of those soldiers to whom lands had been
granted, instead of preserving their allegiance for their sovereigns. The
weak monarchs, who still retained the name of kings, engaged in ruinous
wars with each other and in vain attempts to repel the invasions of the
Northmen or Normans, first tolerated these encroachments, because they had
at the time no power of resisting, and then gradually recognised them as
rights, upon the condition that those who committed them should assist the
sovereign in his wars, and acknowledge his title in preference to that of
any of his competitors.
Thus gradually rose the feudal system from the wrecks of Charlemagne's
great empire. But still all was unstable and unconfirmed; the limits of
the different powers in the state undecided and variable, till the war of
Paris, the incompetence of the successors of Charlemagne, and the
elevation of Hugues Capet, the Count of Paris, to the throne, showed the
barons the power they had acquired, and crowned the feudal compact by the
creation of a king whose title was found in it alone.
Great confusion, however, existed still. The authority of the sovereign
extended but a few leagues round the city of Paris; the Normans ravaged
the coast; the powerful and the wicked had no restraint imposed upon their
actions, and the weak were every where oppressed and wronged. Bands of
plunderers raged through the whole of France and Germany, property was
held by the sword, cruelty and injustice reigned alone, and the whole
history of that age offers a complete medley of massacre, bloodshed,
torture, crime, and misery.
Personal courage, however, had been raised to the highest pitch by the
very absence of every thing like security. Valour was a necessity and a
habit, and Eudes and his companions, who defended Paris against the
Normans, would have come down as demigods to the present day, if they had
but possessed a Homer to sing their deeds. The very Normans themselves,
with their wild enthusiasm and supernatural daring, their poetical
traditions, and magnificent superstitions, seemed to bring a new and
extraordinary light into the very lands they desolated. The plains teemed
with murder, and the rivers flowed with blood; but the world was weary of
barbarity, and a reacting spirit of order was born from the very bosom of
confusion.
It was then that some poor nobles, probably suffering themselves from the
oppression of more powerful lords, but at the same time touched with
sincere compassion for the wretchedness they saw around them, first
leagued together with the holy purpose of redressing wrongs and defending
the weak.[9] They gave their hands to one another in pledge that they
would not turn back from the work, and called upon St. George to bless
their righteous cause. The church readily yielded its sanction to an
institution so noble, aided it with prayers, and sanctified it with a
solemn blessing. Religious enthusiasm became added to noble indignation
and charitable zeal; and the spirit of Chivalry, like the flame struck
forth from the hard steel and the dull flint, was kindled into sudden
light by the savage cruelty of the nobles, and the heavy barbarity of the
people.
The spirit spread rapidly, and the adoration of the populace, who almost
deified their heroic defenders, gave both fresh vigour and purity to the
design. Every moral virtue became a part of knightly honour, and the men
whose hands were ever ready to draw the sword in defence of
innocence--who in their own conduct set the most brilliant example--whose
sole object was the establishment of right, and over whom no earthly fear
or interested consideration held sway, were readily recognised as judges,
and appealed to as arbitrators. Public opinion raised them above all other
men, even above kings themselves; so much so, indeed, that we find
continually repeated, in the writings of the chivalrous ages, such
passages as the following:--
Chevaliers sont de moult grant pris,
Ils ont de tous gens le pris,
Et le los et le seignorie.
Thus gradually Chivalry became no longer a simple engagement between a few
generous and valiant men, but took the form of a great and powerful
institution; and as each knight had the right of creating others without
limit, it became necessary that the new class thus established in society
should be distinguished by particular signs and symbols, which would guard
it against the intrusion of unworthy or disgraceful members.
The time at which fixed regulations first distinguished Chivalry from
every other order in the state cannot be precisely determined; certainly
it was not before the eleventh century. Then, however, it is probable,
that this was done more from a general sense of its necessity, and by slow
and irregular degrees, than by any one law or agreement. Every thing in
that age was confusion, and though the spirit of Chivalry had for its
great object the restoration of order, it is not likely that its own
primary efforts should be very regular, amid a chaos of contending
interests and unbridled passions, which rendered general communication or
association difficult, if not impossible. Each knight, in admitting
another to the noble order of which he himself was a member, probably
added some little formality, as he thought fit, till the mass of these
customs collected by tradition formed the body of their ceremonial law.
The first point required of the aspirants to Chivalry, in its earliest
state, was certainly a solemn vow, "_To speak the truth, to succour the
helpless and oppressed, and never to turn back from an enemy_."[10]
This vow, combined with the solemn appeal to Heaven in witness thereof,
was the foundation of Chivalry; but, at the same time, we find, that in
all ages, only one class of people was eligible to furnish members to the
institution; namely, the military class, or, in other words, the northern
conquerors of the soil; for, with very few exceptions, the original
inhabitants of Europe had been reduced to the condition of serfs, or
slaves of the glebe. Some few, indeed, had held out till they forced the
invaders to permit their being incorporated with themselves upon more
equal terms; but this was very rare, and the _race rustique_, as it was
called, though it furnished archers to the armies, was kept distinct from
the military race by many a galling difference. This lower race, then,
could not be invested with the honours of Chivalry; and one of the first
provisions we find in any written form, respecting the institution of
knighthood, is designed to mark this more particularly. _Ad militarem
honorem nullus accedat qui non sit de genere militum_, says a decree of
the twelfth century. We may therefore conclude that this was the first
requisite, and the vow the first formality of Chivalry.
It is more than probable that the ceremony next in historical order,
attached to the admission of an aspirant into the ranks of knighthood, was
that of publicly arming him with the weapons he was to use, in pursuance
of his vow. This is likely, from many circumstances. In the first place,
to arm him for the cause was naturally the next preceding to his vowing
himself to that cause, and also by his receiving those arms in the face of
the public, the new defender that the people had gained became known to
the people, and thus no one would falsely pretend to the character of a
knight without risking detection. In the second place, as I have before
said, the arming of the German youth had been from the earliest ages, like
the delivery of the virile robe to young Romans, an occasion of public
solemnity; and it was therefore natural that it should be soon
incorporated with the ceremonial of the new military institution which now
took the lead of all others.
The church of course added her part to secure reverence for an order which
was so well calculated to promote all the objects of religion, and vigils,
fasts, and prayers speedily became a part of the initiation to knighthood.
Power is ever followed by splendour and display; but to use the energetic
words of a learned and talented writer of the present day,[11] the knights
for long after the first institution of Chivalry, were "simple in their
clothing, austere in their morals, humble after victory, firm under
misfortune."
In France, I believe, the order first took its rise; and, probably, the
disgust felt by some pure minds at the gross and barbarous licentiousness
of the times, infused that virtuous severity into the institutions of
Chivalry which was in itself a glory. If we may give the least credit to
the picture of the immorality and luxury of the French, as drawn by Abbon
in his poem on the siege of Paris, no words will be found sufficient to
express our admiration for the men who first undertook to combat not only
the tyranny but the vices of their age; who singly went forth to war
against crime, injustice, and cruelty who defied the whole world in
defence of innocence, virtue, and truth; who stemmed the torrent of
barbarity and evil; and who, from the wrecks of ages, and the ruins of
empires, drew out a thousand jewels to glitter in the star that shone upon
the breast of knighthood.
For long the Christian religion had struggled alone, a great but shaded
light through the storms of dark and barbarous ages. Till Chivalry arose
there was nothing to uphold it; but from that moment, with a champion in
the field to lead forth the knowledge that had been imprisoned in the
cloister, the influence of religion began to spread and increase. Though
worldly men thereunto attached the aggrandizement of their own temporal
power, and knaves and villains made it the means of their avarice, or the
cloak of their vice, still the influence of the divine truth itself
gradually wrought upon the hearts of men, purifying, calming, refining,
till the world grew wise enough to separate the perfection of the Gospel
from the weakness of its teachers, and to reject the _errors_ while they
restrained the _power_ of the Roman church.
In the mean time Chivalry stood forth the most glorious institution that
man himself ever devised. In its youth and in its simplicity, it appeared
grand and beautiful, both from its own intrinsic excellence, and from its
contrast with the things around. In its after-years it acquired pomp and
luxury; and to pomp and luxury naturally succeeded decay and death; but
still the legacy that it left behind it to posterity was a treasure of
noble feelings and generous principles.
There cannot be a doubt that Chivalry, more than any other institution
(except religion) aided to work out the civilization of Europe. It first
taught devotion and reverence to those weak, fair beings, who but in their
beauty and their gentleness have no defence. It first raised love above
the passions of the brute, and by dignifying woman, made woman worthy of
love. It gave purity to enthusiasm, crushed barbarous selfishness, taught
the heart to expand like a flower to the sunshine, beautified glory with
generosity, and smoothed even the rugged brow of war.
For the mind, as far as knowledge went, Chivalry itself did little; but by
its influence it did much. For the heart it did every thing; and there is
scarcely a noble feeling or a bright aspiration that we find among
ourselves, or trace in the history of modern Europe, that is not in some
degree referable to that great and noble principle, which has no name but
the _Spirit of Chivalry_.