CHAP. I.

THE ORIGIN AND FIRST APPEARANCES OF CHIVALRY IN EUROPE.

General Nature of Chivalry ... Military and Moral Chivalry ... Origin of Chivalry ... Usages of the Germans ... Election of Soldiers ... Fraternity ... Dignity of Obedience ... Gallantry ... The Age of Charlemagne ... Chivalry modified by Religion ... Ceremonies of Anglo-Saxon Inauguration ... Chivalry sanctioned by Councils, and regarded as a Form of Christianity ... Nature of Chivalric Nobility ... Its Degrees ... Knight Banneret ... His Qualifications ... By whom created ... His Privileges ... His relation to the Baron ... And incidentally of the War-Cry and the Escutcheon ... The Knight ... Qualifications for Knighthood ... By whom created ... The Squirehood ... General View of the other Chapters on the Institutions of Chivalry.

There is little to charm the imagination in the first ages of Chivalry. No plumed steeds, no warrior bearing on his crested helm the favour of his lady bright, graced those early times. All was rudeness and gloom. But the subject is not altogether without interest, as it must ever be curious to mark the causes and the first appearances in conduct of any widely spread system of opinions.

Nature of Chivalry.

The martial force of the people who occupied northern and central Europe in the time of the Romans, was chiefly composed of infantry[8]; but afterwards a great though imperceptible change took place, and, during all the long period which forms, in historic phrase, the middle ages, cavalry was the strongest arm of military power. Terms, expressive of this martial array, were sought for in its distinguishing circumstances. Among the ruins of the Latin language, caballus signified a horse, caballarius a horseman, and caballicare, to ride; and from these words all the languages that were formed on a Latin basis, derived their phrases descriptive of military duties on horseback. In all languages of Teutonic origin, the same circumstance was expressed by words literally signifying service. The German knight, the Saxon cnight, are synonymous to the French cavalier, the Italian cavaliere, and the Spanish caballero. The word rider also designated the same person, preceded by, or standing without, the word knight.

Military and Moral Chivalry.

In the kingdoms which sprang from the ruins of the Roman empire, every king, baron, and person of estate was a knight; and therefore the whole face of Europe was overspread with cavalry. Considered in this aspect, the knighthood and the feudalism of Europe were synonymous and coexistent. But there was a chivalry within this chivalry; a moral and personal knighthood; not the well-ordered assemblage of the instruments of ambition, but a military barrier against oppression and tyranny, a corrective of feudal despotism and injustice. Something like this description of knighthood may be said to have existed in all ages and countries. Its generousness may be paralleled in Homeric times, and vice has never reigned entirely without control. But the chivalry, the gallant and Christian chivalry of Europe, was purer and brighter than any preceding condition of society; for it established woman in her just rank in the moral world, and many of its principles of action proceeded from a divine source, which the classical ancients could not boast of.

Origin of Chivalry. Usages of the Germans. Election of Soldiers. Fraternity.

Some of the rules and maxims of chivalry had their origin in that state of society in which the feudal system arose; and regarded particularly in a military light, we find chivalry a part of the earliest condition of a considerable part of the European world. The bearing of arms was never a matter of mere private choice. Among the Germans, it rested with the state to declare a man qualified to serve his country in arms. In an assembly of the chiefs of his nation, his father, or a near relation, presented a shield and a javelin to a young and approved candidate for martial honours, who from that moment was considered as a member of the commonwealth, and ranked as a citizen. In northern as well as in central Europe, both in Scandinavia and Germany, the same principle was observed; and a young man at the age of fifteen became an independent agent, by receiving a sword, a buckler, and a lance, at some public meeting.[9]

The spirit of clanship, or fraternity, which ran through the chivalry of the middle ages, is of the remotest antiquity. It existed in Germany, in Scandinavia, and also in Gaul.[10] In all these countries, every young man, when adorned with his military weapons, entered the train of some chief; but he was rather his companion than his follower; for, however numerous were the steps and distinctions of service, a noble spirit of equality ran through them all. These generous youths formed the bulwark of their leader in war, and were his ornament in peace. This spirit of companionship shewed itself in all its power and beauty in the field. It was disgraceful for a prince to be surpassed in valour by his companions; their military deeds were to be heroic, but the lustre of them was never to dim the brightness of his own fame. The chief fought for victory, the followers fought for their chief. The defence of the leader in battle, to die with him rather than to leave him, were, in the minds of the military fathers of Europe, obvious and necessary corollaries of these principles. The spirit of companionship burnt more fiercely in remote ages, than in times commonly called chivalric; for if, by the chance of war, a person was thrown into the hands of an enemy, his military companions would surrender themselves prisoners, thinking it disgraceful to live in security and indolence, when their chief and associate was in misery.[11]

And to bring the matter home to English readers, it may be mentioned, that in the history of our Anglo-Saxon ancestors, many instances are recorded where vassals refused to survive their lord. Cyneheard, brother of the deposed king Sigebyrcht, slew the usurper Cynewulf; and though he offered freedom to the attendants of the slain, yet they all preferred death to submission to a new lord, and they died in a vain and wild endeavour to revenge him. Immediately afterwards fortune frowned on Cyneheard, and his eighty-four companions, save one, were slain, though liberty had been offered to them; but declaring that their generosity was not inferior to the generosity of the attendants of Cynewulf, they perished in a hopeless battle.[12]

Dignity of obedience.

The feeling which, in chivalric times, became designated as the dignity of obedience, may be traced in these circumstances, but it is more clearly shewn in a singular record of the domestic manners of ancient Europe; for we learn from Athenæus, in his treatise of the suppers of the Celts, that it was the custom of the Gaulish youths to stand behind the seats, and to attend upon their fathers during the principal daily meal.[13] Here we see the germ, if not of the duties of the squire to the knight, yet of the feeling which suggested their performance. The beautiful subordination of chivalry had its origin in the domestic relations of life; obedience became virtuous when nature sanctioned it, and there could be no loss of personal consideration in a youth performing services which his own father had performed, and which, as years and circumstances advanced, would be rendered to himself.

Gallantry.

The gallantry of knighthood, that quality which distinguishes, and distinguishes so much to its advantage, the modern from the ancient world, was not created by any chivalric institution. We know indeed that it was cradled in the same sentiments which nursed the other principles of chivalry, but its birth is lost in the remoteness of ages; and I would rather dwell in my ignorance of the precise period of its antiquity, than think with Plutarch that the feeling arose from a judicious opinion delivered by some women on occasion of a particular dispute between a few of the Celtic tribes.[14] It was in truth the virtue of the sex, and not any occasional or accidental opinion, that raised them to their high and respectful consideration. The Roman historian marked it as a peculiarity among the Germans, that marriage was considered by them as a sacred institution[15], and that a man confined himself to the society of one wife. The mind of Tacitus was filled with respect for the virtuous though unpolished people of the north; and, reverting his eyes to Rome, the describer of manners becomes the indignant satirist, and he exclaims, that no one in Germany dares to ridicule the holy ordinance of marriage, or to call an infringement of its laws a compliance with the manners of the age.[16] In earlier times, when the Cimbri invaded Italy, and were worsted by Marius, the female Teutonic captives wished to be placed among the vestal virgins, binding themselves to perpetual chastity, but the Romans could not admire or sympathize with such lofty-mindedness, and the women had recourse to death, the last sad refuge of their virtue. Strabo picturesquely describes venerable and hoary-headed prophetesses seated at the council of the Cimbri, dressed in long linen vestments of shining white. They were not only embassadresses, but were often entrusted with the charge of governing kingdoms.[17] The courage of the knight of chivalry was inspired by the lady of his affections, a feature of character clearly deducible from the practice among the German nations, of women mingling in the field of battle with their armed brothers, fathers, and husbands. Women were always regarded as incentives to valour, and when warring with a nation of different manners, the German general could congratulate his soldiers on having motives to courage, which the enemy did not possess.[18] The warrior of the north, like the hero of chivalry, hoped for female smiles from his skill in athletic and martial exercises; and we may take the anecdote as an instance of the general manners of European antiquity, that the chief anxiety of a Danish champion, who had lost his chin and one of his cheeks by a single stroke of a sword, was, how he should be received by the Danish maidens, when his personal features had been thus dreadfully marred.—“The Danish girls will not now willingly or easily give me kisses, if I should perhaps return home,” was his complaint.

Harald the Valiant was one of the most eminent adventurers of his age. He had slain mighty men; and after sweeping the seas of the north as a conqueror, he descended to the Mediterranean, and the shores of Africa. But a greater power now opposed him, and he was taken prisoner, and detained for some time at Constantinople. He endeavoured to beguile his gloomy solitude by song; but his muse gave him no joy, for he complains that the reputation he had acquired by so many hazardous exploits, by his skill in single combat, riding, swimming, gliding along the ice, darting, rowing, and guiding a ship through the rocks, had not been able to make any impression on Elissiff, or Elizabeth, the beautiful daughter of Yarilas, king of Russia.[19]

The Age of Charlemagne.

Such were the features of the ancient character of Europe, that formed the basis of the chivalry of the middle ages; such was chivalry in its rude, unpolished state, the general character of the whole people, rather than the moral chastener of turbulence and ferocity. From receiving his weapons in an assembly of the nation; associating in clans; protecting and revering women; performing acts of service, when affection and duty commanded them: from these simple circumstances and qualities, the most beautiful form of manners arose, that has ever adorned the history of man. It is impossible to mark the exact time when these elements were framed into that system of thought and action which we call Chivalry. Knighthood was certainly a feature and distinction of society before the days of Charlemagne, and its general prevalence in his time is very curiously proved, by the permission which he gave to the governor of Friesland to make knights, by girding them with a sword, and giving them a blow.[20]

Chivalry modified by Religion.

But the key-stone of the arch was wanting, and religion alone could furnish it. A new world of principles and objects was introduced. The defence of the church was one great apparent aim of knightly enterprise, and on this principle, narrow and selfish as it was, many of the charities of Christianity were established. The sword was blessed by the priest, before it was delivered to the young warrior. By what means this amalgamation was effected, we know not; the less interesting matter, the date of the circumstance can be more easily ascertained. It was somewhere between the ninth and the eleventh centuries. It surely was not the custom in the days of Charlemagne, for he girt the military sword on his son Louis the Good, agreeably to the rude principles of ancient Germanic chivalry[21], without any religious ceremonies; and a century afterwards we read of the Saxon monarch of England, Edward the Elder, cloathing Athelstan in a soldier’s dress of scarlet, and fastening round him a girdle ornamented with precious stones, in which a Saxon sword in a sheath of gold was inserted.[22] In the century following, however, during the reign of Edward the Confessor, we meet with the story of Hereward, a very noble Anglo-Saxon youth, being knighted by the Abbot of Peterborough. He made confession of his sins, and, after he had received absolution, he earnestly prayed to be made a legitimate miles or knight.

Ceremonies of Anglo-Saxon inauguration.

It was the custom of the English, continues the historian, for every one who wished to be consecrated into the legitimate militia, to confess his sins to a bishop, abbot, monk, or other priest, in the evening that preceded the day of his consecration, and to pass the night in the church, in prayer, devotion, and mortifications. On the next morning it was his duty to hear mass, to offer his sword on the altar, and then, after the Gospel had been read, the priest blessed the sword, and placed it on the neck of the miles, with his benediction. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was then communicated to the knight.[23] This passage, though professedly descriptive only of the military customs of England, may be applied to the general state of Europe, with the exception of Normandy, whose people despised the religious part of the ceremony. But this feeling of dislike did not endure through all ages, for there is abundant evidence to prove, that in the reign of the Norman dynasty in England, the ceremonies of knighthood were religious as well as military; and in the same, the eleventh, century, the usage was similar over all Continental Europe.

Chivalry sanctioned by Councils, and regarded as a form of Christianity.

The eleventh century is a very important epoch in the history of chivalry; for it was declared by the celebrated Council of Clermont, (which authorised the first Crusade) that every person of noble birth, on attaining twelve years of age, should take a solemn oath before the bishop of his diocese, to defend to the uttermost the oppressed, the widows, and orphans; that women of noble birth, both married and single, should enjoy his especial care; and that nothing should be wanting in him to render travelling safe, and to destroy tyranny. In this decree we observe, that all the humanities of chivalry were sanctioned by legal and ecclesiastical power; and that it was intended they should be spread over the whole face of Christendom, in order to check the barbarism and ferocity of the times.

The form of chivalry was martial; but its objects were both religious and social, and the definition of the word from military circumstances ceased to express its character. The power of the clergy was shewn in a singular manner. Chivalry was no longer a soldierly array, but it was called the Order, the Holy Order, and a character of seriousness and solemnity was given to it.[24] It was accounted an honourable office, above all offices, orders, and acts of the world, except the order of priesthood, for that order appertained to the holy sacrament of the altar. The knightly and clerical characters were every where considered as convertible, and the writers of romances faithfully reflected manners, when their hero at the commencement of the tale was a Sir Knight, and when at the close of his quests, we find him a Sir Priest;

Nature of Chivalric Nobility.

Knighthood was an institution perfectly peculiar to the military and social state of our ancestors. There was no analogy between the knights of chivalry and the equites of Rome, for pecuniary estate was absolutely necessary for the latter; whereas, though the European cavalier was generally a man of some possessions, yet he was often a person promoted into the order of chivalry, solely as a reward for his redoubted behaviour in battle. The Roman equites discharged civil functions regarding the administration of justice and the farming of the public revenue; but the chivalry of the middle ages had no such duties to perform. Knighthood was also distinct from nobility; for the nobility of Europe were the governors and lords of particular districts of a country, and although originally they held their dignities only for life, yet their title soon became hereditary. But knighthood was essentially and always a personal distinction. A man’s chivalry died with him. It was conferred upon noblemen and kings, not being like their other titles, the subject of inheritance. It was not absorbed in any other title of rank, and the common form of address, Sir[26] King, shews its high consideration. In the writs of summons to parliament, the word Chevalier sometimes followed the baronial title, and more frequently the barons were styled by their martial designation, than named by the titles of their baronies.[27]

Its degrees.

There were three degrees in the Chivalry of Europe, Knights-Banneret, Knights, and Esquires.

Knight-Banneret. His qualifications. By whom created.

A soldier must have passed through the ranks of esquire and knight, before he could be classed with the knights-banneret. That high dignity could only be possessed by a knight who had served for a length of years in the wars, and with distinction, and who had a considerable retinue of men-at-arms, and other soldiers. To avoid the inconveniences of too minute a division of the martial force of a country, every knight-banneret ought to have had fifty[28] knights and squires under his command, each being attended by one or more horse soldiers, armed with the cross-bow, or with the long-bow and axe. Several followers on foot completed the equipment. But as we often meet with instances of elevating men of very few followers[29] to the rank of knights-banneret, it is probable that kings usurped the right of conferring the distinction upon their favorites, or men of fame, not chusing that any title of merit should be demanded as a right, or that the royal name should be used only as a passive instrument; for a knight who had proved his chivalry and power, could demand from his sovereign the distinction of banneret. The laws and usages of the world allowed the well-tried and nobly attended soldier to carry his emblazoned pennon to the constable or marshal of the army before or after a battle, and in the field of contest itself, and require leave to raise his banner. A herald exhibited the record of his claim to the distinction, and the leader of the forces cut off the end of the pennon, and this military ensign then became a square banner. A brief exhortation to valiancy and honour was generally added by the constable or herald. These were the whole ceremonies of creation.

His privileges.

The privileges of a knight-banneret were considerable. He did not fight under the standard of any baron, but he formed his soldiers under his own. Like the rest of the feudal force, he was subject to the commands of the king; but his pride was not galled by being obliged to obey the behests of men of his own rank.

His relation to the Baron. The war-cry.

Every Baron had his banner, and a feudal array of knights, men-at-arms, and others, was numbered by its banners. The banneret and the baron were therefore soldiers of equal authority. The banneret, too, like the baron, had his words of courage, his cry of arms, which he shouted before a battle, in order to animate his soldiers to the charge, and whose sound, heard in the moment of direst peril, rallied the scattered troops by the recollection of the glories of their commander’s house, and their own former achievements. The war-cry was also the underwritten ornament of the armorial shield, and worked on the surcoat and banner, and was carved on the tomb both of the knight-banneret and the baron. Each of these representatives of chivalry and nobility had his square escutcheon. The wife of a banneret was styled une dame bannerette, and the general title of his family was a hostel bannière.

The Knight.

The second and most numerous class of chivalric heroes consisted of Knights, who were originally called Bas-Chevaliers, in contradiction to the first class, but in the course of time the word bachelor designated rather the esquire, the candidate for chivalry, than the cavalier himself. These knights of the second class were in Spain called Cavalleros, in distinction from the riccos hombres, or knights-banneret; and in France, the illiberal and degrading title of pauvres hommes was sometimes applied to them, to mark their inferiority to the bannerets.

Qualifications for knighthood.

A general qualification for knighthood was noble or gentle birth, which, in its widest signification, expressed a state of independence. Noblemen and gentlemen were words originally synonymous, describing the owners of fiefs. In countries where there were other forms of tenure, some military merit in the occupiers of land seems to have been necessary for elevation to the class of gentlemen. The mere frankelein was certainly not entitled to the designation of gentle; but if he became a distinguished man, an honorary rank was given to the family, and they were esteemed noble.[30] It is scarcely necessary to mention, that that distinction could alone be obtained by military achievements; for in the early periods of society, the only path to glory was stained with blood. The gentility of a father was more regarded than that of a mother[31]; and in strictness, if a man were not noble on his paternal side, his lord might cause his spurs to be cut off on a dunghill.[32] The amount of estate necessary for knighthood was not regulated by any chivalric institution. But the expence of the order was by no means inconsiderable. His inauguration was a scene of splendour; and liberality was one of the chiefest duties of his character. He could not travel in quest of adventures without some charge[33], and his squire and other personal attendants were of course maintained by him. Though a man, says Froissart, be never so rich, men of arms and war waste all; for he that will have service of men of war, they must be paid truly their wages, or else they will do nothing available.[34] The knight’s harness for the working day was not without its ornaments; and the tournament was rendered splendid by the brilliancy of his armour and his steed’s caparisons. There was always a rivalry of expence among knights who formed an expedition; and of all the recorded instances of this feeling, perhaps the most interesting one is furnished by Froissart. Speaking of a projected invasion of England by the French about the year 1386, he says, that gold and silver were no more spared than though they had rained out of the clouds, or been skimmed from the sea. The great lords of France sent their servants to Sluse, to apparel and make ready their provisions and ships, and to furnish them with every thing needful. Every man garnished his ship, and painted it with his arms. Painters had then a good season, for they had whatever they desired. They made banners, pennons, and standards of silk so goodly, that it was a marvel to behold them; also they painted the masts of their ships from the one end to the other, glittering with gold, and devices, and arms; and especially the Lord Guy de la Tremouille garnished his ship richly; the paintings cost more than two thousand francs.[35]

By whom created.

We have seen that originally a body of soldiers was selected by the state from the general mass of the people. Afterwards, kings and nobles in their several jurisdictions maintained the power of creation. It was also assumed by the clergy, but not retained long; nor were they anxious to recover it, for, as they assisted in the religious ceremonies of inauguration, they possessed a considerable share of power by the milder means of influence. Knighthood never altogether lost its character of being a distinction, a reward of merit, presumed, indeed, rather than proved, in the original instances which have been mentioned. But though it was often bestowed as an ornament of custom on the nobility and gentry of a state, yet it often was the bright guerdon of achievements in arms. Of military merit every knight was supposed to be a sufficient judge; and therefore every knight had the power of bestowing its reward. Men-at-arms and other soldiers were often exalted to the class of knights, and the honour was something more than a chimera of the imagination; for the title and consideration of a gentleman immediately accompanied the creation.[36] Thus, in the time of Richard II., the governor of Norwich, called Sir Robert Sale, was no gentleman born, says Froissart; but he had the grace to be reputed sage and valiant in arms, and for his valiantness King Edward had made him a knight. The same sovereign also knighted a man-at-arms, who had originally been a tailor, and who, after the conclusion of the king’s wars in France, crossed the Alps into Italy, and under the name of Sir John Hawkwood, headed the company of White or English adventurers, so famous in the Italian wars.[37]

Squirehood.

The third and last class of Chivalry was the Squirehood. It was not composed of young men who carried the shields of knights, and were learning the art of war; but the squires were a body of efficient soldiers, inferior in rank to the knight, and superior to the men-at-arms.[38] They had been originally intended for the higher classes of chivalry, but various considerations induced them to remain in the lowest rank. It was a maxim in chivalry, that a man had better be a good esquire than a poor knight. Many an esquire, therefore, declined the honor of knighthood, on account of the slenderness of his revenues. Edward III., during his wars in France, would have knighted Collart Dambreticourte, the esquire of his own person; but the young man declined the honor, for, to use his own simple phrase, he could not furnish his helmet.[39] Barons, knights, and esquires, form Froissart’s frequent description of the parts of an army; and although there were many young men in the field, who, released from their duties on knights, were aiming at distinction, yet there were many more who remained squires during all their military career, and therefore became recognised as a part of the chivalric array. Some men of small landed estate, wishing to avoid the expences and the duties of knighthood, remained esquires. They lost nothing of real power by their prudence, for they were entitled to lead their vassals into the field of battle under a penoncele, or small triangular streamer, as the knight led his under a pennon, or a banneret his under a banner. Military honours and commands also could be reached by the squirehood, as well as by the knighthood of a country. Both classes were considered gentle, and were entitled to wear coat armour.

Such was the general form of the personal nobility of Chivalry. Some parts of the outline varied in different countries, as will be seen when we watch its progress through Europe; but previously to that enquiry, the education, the duties, and the equipment of the knight require description; and as loyauté aux dames is the motto alike of the writers and the readers of works on Chivalry, I shall make no apology for suspending the historical investigation, while I endeavour to portray the lady-love of the gallant cavalier, and delay my steps in that splendid scene of beauty’s power, the Tournament.