The History of Chivalry; Or, Knighthood and Its Times, Volume 1 (of 2)

The index in this electronic text was not printed in the original book.

The index was copied from Volume II of the series.

The History of Chivalry

or

Knighthood and its times.

By
Charles Mills, Esq^r.
Author of the History of the Crusades

IN TWO VOLUMES.

Vol: I.

Engraved by A. Le Petit from a sketch by R. W. Sievier.

London.
Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green
MDCCCXXV.

PREFACE.

The propriety of my writing a History of Chivalry, as a companion to my History of the Crusades, was suggested to me by a friend whose acquaintance with middle-age lore forms but a small portion of his literary attainments, and whose History of Italy shows his ability of treating, as well as his skill in discovering, subjects not hitherto discussed with the fulness which their importance merits.[1]

The works of Menestrier and Colombiere sleep in the dust of a few ancient libraries; and there are only two other books whose express and entire object is a delineation of the Institutions of chivalry. The first and best known is the French work called “Mémoires sur l’ancienne Chevalerie; considérée comme un Etablissement Politique et Militaire. Par M. de la Curne de Sainte Palaye, de l’Académie Françoise,” &c. 2 tom. 12mo. Paris, 1759. The last half, however, of the second volume does not relate to chivalry, and therefore the learned Frenchman cannot be charged with treating his subject at very great length.[2] It was his purpose to describe the education which accomplished the youth for the distinction of knighthood, and this part of his work he has performed with considerable success. But he failed in his next endeavour, that of painting the martial games of chivalry, for nothing can be more unsatisfactory than his account of jousts and tournaments. As he wished to inform his readers of the use which was made in the battle field of the valour, skill, and experience of knights, a description of some of the extraordinary and interesting battles of the middle ages might have been expected. Here also disappointment is experienced; neither can any pleasure be derived from perusing his examination of the causes which produced the decline and extinction of chivalry, and his account of the inconveniences which counterbalanced the advantages of the establishment.

Sainte Palaye was a very excellent French antiquarian; but the limited scope of his studies disqualified him from the office of a general historian of chivalry. The habits of his mind led him to treat of knighthood as if it had been the ornament merely of his own country. He very rarely illustrates his principles by the literature of any other nation, much less did he attempt to trace their history through the various states of Europe. He has altogether kept out of sight many characteristic features of his subject. Scarcely any thing is advanced about ancient armour; not a word on the religious and military orders; and but a few pages, and those neither pleasing nor correct, on woman and lady-love. The best executed part of his subject regards, as I have already observed, the education of knights; and he has scattered up and down his little volume and a half many curious notices of ancient manners.

The other work is written in the German language, and for that reason it is but very little known in this country. It is called Ritterzeit und Ritterwesen, (two volumes octavo, Leipzig, 1823,) and is the substance of a course of lectures on chivalry delivered by the author, Mr. Büsching, to his pupils of the High School at Breslau. The style of the work is the garrulous, slovenly, ungrammatical style which lecturers, in all countries, and upon all subjects, think themselves privileged to use. A large portion of the book is borrowed from Sainte Palaye; much of the remainder relates to feudalism and other matters distinct from chivalry: but when the writer treats of the state of knighthood in Germany I have found his facts and observations of very great value.

Attention to the subjects of the middle ages of Europe has for many years been growing among us. It was first excited by Warton’s history of our national verse, and Percy’s edition of the Relics of ancient English Poetry. The romances of chivalry, both in prose and metre, and the numberless works on the Troubadour, and every other description of literature during the middle ages which have been published within the last few years, have sustained the interest. The poems of Scott convinced the world that the chivalric times of Europe can strike the moral imagination as powerfully and pleasingly in respect of character, passion, and picturesqueness of effect, as the heroic ages of Greece; and even very recently the glories of chivalry have been sung by a poetess whom Ariosto himself would have been delighted to honour.[3] Still, however, no attempt has been hitherto made to describe at large the institutions of knighthood, the foundation of all that elegant superstructure of poetry and romance which we admire, and to mark the history of chivalry in the various countries of Europe. Those institutions have, indeed, been allowed a few pages in our Encyclopædias; and some of the sketches of them are drawn with such boldness and precision of outline that we may regret the authors did not present us with finished pictures. Our popular historians have but hastily alluded to the subject; for they were so much busied with feudalism and politics, that they could afford but a small space for the play of the lighter graces of chivalry.

For a description, indeed, of antique manners, our materials are not so ample as for that of their public lives. But still the subject is not without its witnesses. The monkish chroniclers sometimes give us a glimpse of the castles of our ancestors. Many of the knights in days of yore had their biographers; and, for the most interesting time of chivalry, we possess an historian, who, for vividness of delineation, kindliness of feeling, and naïveté of language, is the Herodotus of the middle ages.

“Did you ever read Froissart?”

“No,” answered Henry Morton.

“I have half a mind,” rejoined Claverhouse, “to contrive that you should have six months’ imprisonment, in order to procure you that pleasure. His chapters inspire me with more enthusiasm than even poetry itself.”

Froissart’s[4] history extends from the year 1316 to 1400. It was begun by him when he was twenty years old, at the command of his dear lord and master, Sir Robert of Namur, Lord of Beaufort. The annals from 1326 to 1356 are founded on the Chronicles compiled by him whom he calls “The Right Reverend, discreet, and sage Master John la Bele, sometime canon in St. Lambertis of Liege, who with good heart and due diligence did his true devoir in writing his book; and heard of many fair and noble adventures from his being well beloved, and of the secret counsel of the Lord Sir John of Hainault.” Froissart corrected all this borrowed matter on the information of the barons and knights of his time regarding their families’ gestes and prowesses. He is the chronicler both of political events and of chivalric manners. Of his merits in the first part of his character it falls not within my province to speak. For the office of historian of chivalry no man could present such fair pretensions. His father being a herald-painter, he was initiated in his very early years into that singular form of life which he describes with such picturesque beauty. “Well I loved,” as he says of his youth, in one of his poems, “to see dances and carolling, and to hear the songs of minstrels and tales of glee. It pleased me to attach myself to those who took delight in hounds and hawks. I was wont to toy with my fair companions at school, and methought I had the art well to win the grace of maidens.”—“My ears quickened at the sound of opening the wine-flask, for I took great pleasure in drinking, and in fair array, and in fresh and delicate viands. I loved to see (as is reason) the early violets, and the white and red roses, and also chambers brilliantly lighted; dances and late vigils, and fair beds for my refreshment; and for my better repose, I joyously quaffed a night-draught of claret, or Rochelle wine mingled with spice.”

Froissart wrote his Chronicles “to the intent that the honourable and noble adventures of feats of arms, done and achieved in the wars of France and England, should notably be enregistered, and put in perpetual memory; whereby the preux and hardy might have ensample to encourage them in their well-doing.”[5] To accomplish his purpose, he followed and frequented the company of divers noble and great lords, as well in France, England, and Scotland, as in other countries; and in their chivalric festivals he enquired for tales of arms and amours. For three years he was clerk of the chamber to Philippa of Hainault, wife of Edward III. He travelled into Scotland; and, though mounted only on a simple palfrey, with his trunk placed on the hinder part of his saddle, after the fashion in which a squire carried the mail-harness of a knight, and attended only by a greyhound, the favourite dog of the time, instead of a train of varlets, yet the fame of his literary abilities introduced him to the castle of Dalkeith, and the court of the Scottish King.

He generally lived in the society of nobles and knights,—at the courts of the Duke of Brabant, the Count of Namur, and the Earl of Blois. He knew and admired the Black Prince, Du Guesclin, the Douglas, and Hotspur; and while this various acquaintance fitted him to describe the circumstances and manners of his times, it prevented him from the bias of particular favouritism. The character of his mind, rather than his station in life, determined his pursuits. His profession was that of the church: he was a while curate of Lestines, in the diocese of Liege; and, at the time of his death, he was canon and treasurer of the collegiate church of Chimay. But he was a greater reader of romances than of his breviary; and, churchman though he was, knighthood itself could not boast a more devoted admirer of dames and damsels. He was, therefore, the very man to describe the chivalric features of his time.

The romances of chivalry are another source of information. Favyn says, with truth and fancy, “The greater part of antiquities are to be sought for and derived out of the most ancient tales, as well in prose as verse, like pearls out of the smoky papers of Ennius.” The romance-writers were to the middle ages of Europe what the ancient poets were to Greece,—the painters of the manners of their times. As Sir Walter Scott observes, “We have no hesitation in quoting the romances of chivalry as good evidence of the laws and customs of knighthood. The authors, like the artists of the period, invented nothing, but, copying the manners of the age in which they lived, transferred them, without doubt or scruple, to the period and personages of whom they treated.”

From all these sources of information I have done my devoir, in the following pages, to describe the origin of chivalry; and, after escaping from the dark times in which it arose, to mark the various degrees of the personal nobility of knighthood. An enquiry into the nature and duties of the chivalric character then will follow; and we cannot pass, without regard and homage, the sovereign-mistress and lady-love of the adventurous knight. After viewing our cavalier in the gay and graceful pastime of the tournament, and pausing a while to behold him when a peculiar character of religion was added to his chivalry, we shall see him vault upon his good steed; and we will accompany him in the achievement of his high and hardy emprises in Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy.

As a view of chivalry is, from its nature, a supplement or an appendix to the history of Europe, I have supposed my readers to be acquainted with the general circumstances of past ages, and therefore I have spoken of them by allusion rather than by direct statement. I have made the following work as strictly chivalric as the full and fair discussion of my subject would permit me, avoiding descriptions of baronial and feudal life, except in its connection with knighthood. I have not detailed military circumstances of former times, unless they proceeded from chivalric principles, or were invested with chivalric graces. Thus the celebrated battle of the Thirty had nothing in it of a knightly character, and therefore I have left it unnoticed. Judicial combats had their origin in the state of society from which both feudalism and chivalry sprang; but they were not regulated by the gentle laws of knighthood, and therefore have not been described by me. I have not imposed any dry legal facts and discussions upon my readers; for the incidents attached to the tenure of land called the tenure in chivalry were strictly feudal; and the courts of the constable and marshal, holding cognisance as they did of all matters regarding war, judicial combats, and blazonry of arms, relate not so much to chivalry as to the general preservation of the peace of the land, and the good order of society. And it should be mentioned, that it has not been my purpose to give a minute history of every individual cavalier: for a work strictly confined to biographical detail, however convenient it might be for occasional reference, would be tiresome and tedious by reason of the repetition of circumstances only varied with the difference of names, and would be any thing but historical. I have brought the great characters of chivalry, who have received but slight attention from the political historian, in illustration of the principles of knighthood. Thus full-length portraits of those English knights of prowess, Sir John Chandos and Sir Walter Manny, will be more interesting than pictures of Edward III. and the Black Prince, whose features are so well known to us. From the lives of these royal heroes I have therefore only selected such chivalric circumstances as have not been sufficiently described and dwelt upon, or which it was absolutely incumbent on me to state, in order to preserve an unbroken thread of narrative.

I shall not expatiate on the interest and beauty of my subject, lest I should provoke too rigid an enquiry into my ability for discussing it. I shall therefore only conclude, in the good old phrase of Chaucer,—

“Now, hold your mouth, pour charitie,
Both knight and lady free,
And herkneth to my spell,
Of battaille and of chivalry,
Of ladies’ love and druerie,
Anon I wol you tell.”

⁂ While these volumes were passing through the press, the Tales of the Crusaders appeared. In the second of them is contained a series of supposed propositions from Saladin for peace between his nation and the English. The conclusion of those propositions is thus expressed:—“Saladin will put a sacred seal on this happy union betwixt the bravest and noblest of Frangistan and Asia, by raising to the rank of his royal spouse a Christian damsel, allied in blood to King Richard, and known by the name of the Lady Edith of Plantagenet,” vol. iv. pp. 13, 14. Upon this passage of his text the author remarks in a note: “This may appear so extraordinary and improbable a proposition that it is necessary to say such a one was actually made. The historians, however, substitute the widowed Queen of Naples, sister of Richard, for the bride, and Saladin’s brother for the bridegroom. They appear to be ignorant of the existence of Edith of Plantagenet. See Mill’s (Mills’) History of the Crusades, vol. ii. p. 61.”

In that work I observe, that “Richard proposed a consolidation of the Christian and Muhammedan interests; the establishment of a government at Jerusalem, partly European and partly Asiatic; and these schemes of policy were to be carried into effect by the marriage of Saphadin (Saladin’s brother) with the widow of William King of Sicily.”

M. Michaud, the French historian of the Crusades, makes a similar statement. He says that Richard “fit d’autres propositions, auxquelles il intéressa adroitement l’ambition de Malec Adel, frère du Sultan. La veuve du Guillaume de Sicile fut proposée en marriage au Prince Musulman.” Hist. des Croisades, vol. ii. p. 414.

Whether or no “the historians” are ignorant of the existence of “Edith of Plantagenet” is not the present question. The question is, which of the two opposite statements is consistent with historical truth. The statement of M. Michaud and myself is supported by the principal Arabic historians, by writers, who, as every student in history knows, are of unimpeachable credit. Bohadin, in his life of Saladin, says, that “the Englishman was desirous that Almalick Aladin should take his sister to wife. (Her brother had brought her with him from Sicily, when he passed through that island, to the deceased lord of which she had been married.”[6]) To the same effect Abulfeda observes, “Hither came the embassadors of the Franks to negotiate a peace; and offered this condition, that Malek al Adel, brother of the Sultan, should receive the sister of the King of England in marriage, and Jerusalem for a kingdom.”[7] That this sister, Joan, the widowed Queen of Sicily, was with Richard in the Holy Land is proved by a passage in Matthew Paris, p. 171. She and the wife of Richard are mentioned together, and no other person of royal rank.

Thus, therefore, “the historians” are correct in their statement, that the matrimonial proposition was made by the English to Saladin, and that the parties were to be the brother of Saladin and the widowed Queen of Sicily. The novelist has not supported his assertion by a single historical testimony; and we may defy him to produce a tittle of evidence on his side.

In the composition of his tales, the author of Waverley has seldom shown much respect for historical keeping. But greater accuracy than his no person had a right to expect in the text of a mere novel; and as long as he gave his readers no excuse for confounding fiction with truth, the play of his brilliant and excursive imagination was harmless. Thus in the Talisman, the poetical antiquarian only smiles when he finds the romance of the Squire of Low Degree quoted as familiar to the English long before it was written; and when, in the Betrothed, Gloucester is raised into a bishoprick three centuries and a half before the authentic æra, we equally admit the author’s licence of anachronism. On these two occasions, as in innumerable other instances, in which the novelist, whether intentionally or unwittingly, has strayed from the path of historical accuracy, he has never given formal warranty for the truth of his statements, and he is entitled to laugh at the simple credulity which could mistake his Tales for veracious chronicles: But his assertion respecting the marriage of Saladin with his “Edith of Plantagenet” is a very different case. For here he throws aside the fanciful garb of a novelist, and quits the privilege of his text, that he may gravely and critically vouch in a note for the errors of our historians, and his own superior knowledge. If this can possibly be done merely to heighten the illusion of his romance, it is carrying the jest a little too far; for the preservation of historical truth is really too important a principle to be idly violated. But if he seriously designed to unite the province of the historian with that of the novelist, he has chosen a very unlucky expedient for his own reputation; and thus, in either case, he has rather wantonly led his readers into error, and brought against others a charge of ignorance, which must recoil more deservedly on himself.

CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

THE HISTORY OF CHIVALRY.

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;

“And soothly it was said by common fame,
So long as age enabled him thereto,
That he had been a man of mickle name,
Renowned much in arms and derring do.
But being aged now, and weary too
Of war’s delight, and world’s contentious toil,
The name of Knighthood he did disavow;
And hanging up his arms and warlike spoil,
From all this world’s incumbrance did himself assoil.”[25]

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.

CHAP. II.

THE EDUCATION OF A KNIGHT. THE CEREMONIES OF INAUGURATION AND OF DEGRADATION.

Description in Romances of Knightly Education ... Hawking and Hunting ... Education commenced at the age of Seven ... Duties of the Page ... Personal Service ... Love and Religion ... Martial Exercises ... The Squire ... His Duties of Personal Service ... Curious Story of a bold young Squire ... Various Titles of Squires ... Duties of the Squire in Battle ... Gallantry ... Martial Exercises ... Horsemanship ... Importance of Squires in the Battle Field ... Particularly at the Battle of Bovines ... Preparations for Knighthood ... The Anxiety of the Squire regarding the Character of the Knight from whom he was to receive the Accolade ... Knights made in the Battle Field ... Inconveniences of this ... Knights of Mines ... General Ceremonies of Degradation ... Ceremonies in England.

Description in Romances of knightly education.

The romances of Chivalry, in their picturesque and expressive representation of manners, present us with many interesting glimpses of the education in knighthood of the feudal nobility’s children. The romance of Sir Tristrem sings thus;

“Now hath Rohant in ore[40],
Tristrem, and is full blithe,
The childe he set to lore,
And lernd him al so swithe[41];
In bok while he was thore
He stodieth ever that stithe[42],
Tho that bi him wore
Of him weren ful blithe,
That bold.
His craftes gan he kithe[43],
Oyaines[44] hem when he wold.
“Fiftene yere he gan him fede,
Sir Rohant the trewe;
He taught him ich alede[45]
Of ich maner of glewe;[46]
And everich playing thede,
Old lawes and newe.
On hunting oft he yede[47],
To swich alawe he drewe,
Al thus;
More he couthe[48] of veneri
Than couthe Manerious.”

Very similar to this picture is the description of the education of Kyng Horn, in the romance which bears his name.

“Stiward tac thou here,
My fundling for to lere
Of thine mestere,
Of wode and of ryvere,
Ant toggen o’ the harpe,
With is nayles sharpe;
Ant tech him alle the listes
That thou ever wystes
Byfore me to kerven,
Ant of my coupe to serven;
Ant his feren devyse
With ous other servise.
Horn, child, thou understand
Tech him of harpe and of song.”[49]

For only one more extract from the old romances, shall I claim the indulgence of my readers in the words of the minstrel,

“Mekely, lordynges gentyll and fre,
Lysten awhile and herken to me.”

The life of Sir Ipomydon is a finished picture of knightly history. His foster-father, Sir Tholomew,

———“a clerk he toke
That taught the child upon the boke
Bothe to synge and to rede,
And after he taught him other dede.
Afterwards to serve in halle,
Both to grete and to small.
Before the king meat to kerve
Hye and low feyre to serve.
Both of houndis and hawkis game,
After he taught him all and same,
In se, in field, and eke in river,
In wood to chase the wild deer;
And in the field to ride a steed,
That all men had joy of his deed.”

Hunting and Hawking.

The mystery of rivers and the mystery of woods were important parts of knightly education. The mystery of woods was hunting; the mystery of rivers was not fishing, but hawking, an expression which requires a few words of explanation. In hawking, the pursuit of water-fowls afforded most diversion. Chaucer says that he could

“ryde on hawking by the river,
With grey gos hawk on hand.”

The favourite bird of chase was the heron, whose peculiar flight is not horizontal, like that of field birds, but perpendicular. It is wont to rise to a great height on finding itself the object of pursuit, while its enemy, using equal efforts to out-tower it, at length gains the advantage, swoops upon the heron with prodigious force, and strikes it to the ground. The amusement of hawking, therefore, could be viewed without the spectators moving far from the river’s side where the game was sprung; and from that circumstance it was called the mystery of rivers.[50]

But I shall attempt no further to describe in separate portions the subjects of knightly education, and to fill up the sketches of the old romances; for those sketches, though correct, present no complete outline, and the military exercises are altogether omitted. We had better trace the cavalier, through the gradations of his course, in the castle of his lord.

The education of a knight generally commenced at the age of seven or eight years[51], for no true lover of chivalry wished his children to pass their time in idleness and indulgence. At a baronial feast, a lady in the full glow of maternal pride pointed to her offspring, and demanded of her husband whether he did not bless Heaven for having given him four such fine and promising boys. “Dame,” replied her lord, thinking her observation ill timed and foolish, “so help me God and Saint Martin, nothing gives me greater sorrow and shame than to see four great sluggards who do nothing but eat, and drink, and waste their time in idleness and folly.” Like other children of gentle birth, therefore, the boys of this noble Duke Guerin of Montglaive, in spite of their mother’s wishes, commenced their chivalric exercises.[52] In some places there were schools appointed by the nobles of the country, but most frequently their own castles served. Every feudal lord had his court, to which he drew the sons and daughters of the poorer gentry of his domains; and his castle was also frequented by the children of men of equal rank with himself, for (such was the modesty and courtesy of chivalry) each knight had generally some brother in arms, whom he thought better fitted than himself to grace his children with noble accomplishments.

Duties of the Page.
Personal Service.

The duties of the boy for the first seven years of his service were chiefly personal. If sometimes the harsh principles of feudal subordination gave rise to such service, it oftener proceeded from the friendly relations of life; and as in the latter case it was voluntary, there was no loss of honourable consideration in performing it. The dignity of obedience, that principle which blends the various shades of social life, and which had its origin in the patriarchal manners of early Europe, was now fostered in the castles of the feudal nobility. The light-footed youth attended the lord and his lady in the hall, and followed them in all their exercises of war and pleasure; and it was considered unknightly for a cavalier to wound a page in battle. He also acquired the rudiments of those incongruous subjects, religion, love, and war, so strangely blended in chivalry; and generally the intellectual and moral education of the boy was given by the ladies of the court.

Love and Religion.

From the lips of the ladies the gentle page learned both his catechism and the art of love, and as the religion of the day was full of symbols, and addressed to the senses, so the other feature of his devotion was not to be nourished by abstract contemplation alone. He was directed to regard some one lady of the court as the type of his heart’s future mistress; she was the centre of all his hopes and wishes; to her he was obedient, faithful, and courteous.

While the young Jean de Saintré was a page of honour at the court of the French king, the Dame des Belles Cousines enquired of him the name of the mistress of his heart’s affections. The simple youth replied, that he loved his lady mother, and next to her, his sister Jacqueline was dear to him. “Young man,” rejoined the lady, “I am not speaking of the affection due to your mother and sister; but I wish to know the name of the lady to whom you are attached par amours.” The poor boy was still more confused, and he could only reply, that he loved no one par amours. The Dame des Belles Cousines charged him with being a traitor to the laws of chivalry, and declared that his craven spirit was evinced by such an avowal. “Whence,” she enquired, “sprang the valiancy and knightly feats of Launcelot, Gawain, Tristram, Giron the courteous, and other ornaments of the round table; of Ponthus, and of those knights and squires of this country whom I could enumerate: whence the grandeur of many whom I have known to arise to renown, except from the noble desire of maintaining themselves in the grace and esteem of the ladies; without which spirit-stirring sentiment they must have ever remained in the shades of obscurity? And do you, coward valet, presume to declare that you possess no sovereign lady, and desire to have none?”

Jean underwent a long scene of persecution on account of his confession of the want of proper chivalric sentiment, but he was at length restored to favour by the intercession of the ladies of the court. He then named as his mistress Matheline de Coucy, a child only ten years old. “Matheline is indeed a pretty girl,” replied the Dame des Belles Cousines, “but what profit, what honour, what comfort, what aid, what council for advancing you in chivalrous fame can you derive from such a choice? You should elect a lady of noble blood, who has the ability to advise, and the power to assist you; and you should serve her so truly, and love her so loyally, as to compel her to acknowledge the honourable affection which you entertain for her. For, be assured, that there is no lady, however cruel and haughty she may be, but through long service, will be induced to acknowledge and reward loyal affection with some portion of mercy. By such a course you will gain the praise of worthy knighthood, and till then I would not give an apple for you or your achievements: but he who loyally serves his lady will not only be blessed to the height of man’s felicity in this life, but will never fall into those sins which will prevent his happiness hereafter. Pride will be entirely effaced from the heart of him who endeavours by humility and courtesy to win the grace of a lady. The true faith of a lover will defend him from the other deadly sins of anger, envy, sloth, and gluttony; and his devotion to his mistress renders the thought impossible of his conduct ever being stained with the vice of incontinence.”[53]

Martial exercises.

The military exercises of the page were not many, and they were only important, inasmuch as they were the earliest ideas of his life, and that consequently the habits of his character were formed on them. He was taught to leap over trenches, to launch or cast spears and darts, to sustain the shield, and in his walk to imitate the measured tread of the soldier. He fought with light staves against stakes raised for the nonce, as if they had been his mortal enemies, or met in encounters equally perilous his youthful companions of the castle.[54] During the seven years of these instructions he was called a valet, a damoiseau, or a page. The first title was of the most ancient usage, and was thoroughly chivalric; the second is of nearly equal authority[55], but the word page was not much used till so late a period as the days of Philip de Comines.[56] Before that time it was most frequently applied to the children of the vulgar.

The squire.
His duties of personal service.

The next titles of the candidate for chivalry were armiger, scutifer or escuyer: but though these words denoted personal military attendance, yet his personal domestic service continued for some time. He prepared the refection in the morning, and then betook himself to his chivalric exercises. At dinner he, as well as the pages, furnished forth and attended at the table, and presented to his lord and the guests the water wherewith they washed their hands before and after the repast. The knight and the squire never sat before the same table, nor was even the relation of father and son allowed to destroy this principle of chivalric subordination. We learn from Paulus Warnefridus, the historian of the Lombards in Italy, that among that nation the son of a king did not dine with his father, unless he had been knighted by a foreign sovereign.[57] Such too was the practice among nations whose chivalry wore a brighter polish than it shone with among the Italian Lombards. In Arragon, no son of a knight sat at the table of a knight till he had been admitted into the order.[58] The young English squire in the time of Edward III. carved before his fader at the table; and again, in the Merchant’s Tale, it is said,—

“All but a squire that hight Damian,
That carft before the knight many a day.”

Curious story of a squire.

And about the same time the sewers and cup-bearers of the Earl of Foix were his sons.[59] The squire cup-bearer was often as fine and spirited a character as his knight. Once, when Edward the Black Prince was sojourning in Bourdeaux, he entertained in his chamber many of his English lords. A squire brought wine into the room, and the prince, after he had drank, sent the cup to Sir John Chandos, selecting him as the first in honour, because he was constable of Acquitain. The knight drank, and by his command the squire bore the cup to the Earl of Oxenford, a vain, weak man, who, unworthy of greatness, was ever seeking for those poor trifles which noble knights overlooked and scorned. Feeling his dignity offended that he had not been treated according to his rank, he refused the cup, and with mocking gesture desired the squire to carry it to his master, Sir John Chandos. “Why so?” replied the youth, “he hath drank already, therefore drink you, since he hath offered it to you. If you will not drink, by Saint George, I will cast the wine in your face.” The Earl, judging from the stern and dogged manner of the squire that this was no idle threat, quietly set the cup to his mouth.[60]

After dinner the squires prepared the chess tables or arranged the hall for minstrelsy and dancing. They participated in all these amusements; and herein the difference between the squire and the mere domestic servant was shown. In strictness of propriety the squire’s dress ought to have been brown, or any of those dark colours which our ancestors used to call ‘sad.’ But the gay spirit of youth was loth to observe this rule.

“Embroudered was he, as it were a mede,
Alle ful of freshe floures, white and rede.”

His dress was never of the fine texture, nor so highly ornamented as that of the knight. The squires often made the beds of their lords, and the service of the day was concluded by their presenting them with the vin du coucher.

“Les lis firent le Escuier,
Si coucha chacun son seignor.”

Various titles of squires.

Personal service was considered so much the duty of a squire that his title was always applied to some particular part of it. The squires of a lord had each his respective duties—one was the squire of the chamber, or the chamberlain; and another the carving squire. Every branch of the domestic arrangements of the castle was, under the charge of an aspirant to chivalry. Spenser, who has opened to us so many interesting views of chivalric manners, has admirably painted the domestic squire discharging some of his duties:—

“There fairly them receives a gentle squire,
Of mild demeanour and rare courtesy,
Right cleanly clad in comely sad attire;
In word and deed that show’d great modesty,
And knew his good to all of each degree,
Hight reverence. He them with speeches meet,
Does faire entreat, no courting nicety,
But simple, true, and eke unfained sweet,
As might become a squire so great persons to greet.”[61]

His duties in battle.

The most honorable squire was he that was attached to the person of his lord; he was called the squire of the body, and was in truth for the time the only military youth of the class: every squire, however, became in turn by seniority the martial squire. He accompanied his lord into the field of battle, carrying his shield and armour, while the page usually bore the helmet.[62] He held the stirrup, and assisted the knight to arm. There was always a line of squires in the rear of a line of knights; the young cavaliers supplying their lords with weapons, assisting them to rise when overthrown, and receiving their prisoners.[63] The banner of the banneret and baron was displayed by the squire. The pennon of the knight was also waved by him when his leader was only a knight, and conducted so many men-at-arms, and other vassals, that, to give dignity and importance to his command, he removed his pennon from his own lance to that of his attendant. We can readily believe the historians of ancient days, that it was right pleasant to witness the seemly pride and generous emulation with which the squires of the baron, the banneret, and the knight displayed the various ensigns of their master’s chivalry.

Gallantry.

But whatever were the class of duties to which the candidate for chivalry was attached, he never forgot that he was also the squire of dames. During his course of a valet he had been taught to play with love, and as years advanced, nature became his tutor. Since the knights were bound by oath to defend the feebler sex, so the principle was felt in all its force and spirit by him who aspired to chivalric honours. Hence proceeded the qualities of kindness, gentleness, and courtesy. The minstrels in the castle harped of love as well as of war, and from them (for all young men had not, like Sir Ipomydon, clerks for their tutors) the squire learnt to express his passion in verse. This was an important feature of chivalric education, for among the courtesies of love, the present of books from knights to ladies was not forgotten, and it more often happened than monkish austerity approved of, that a volume, bound in sacred guise, contained, not a series of hymns to the Virgin Mary, but a variety of amatory effusions to a terrestrial mistress.[64] Love was mixed in the mind of the young squire with images of war, and he, therefore, thought that his mistress, like honour, could only be gained through difficulties and dangers; and from this feeling proceeded the romance of his passion. But while no obstacle, except the maiden’s disinclination, was in his way, he sang, he danced, he played on musical instruments, and practised all the arts common to all ages and nations to win the fair. In Chaucer, we have a delightful picture of the manners of the squire:—

“Singing he was or floyting all the day,
He was as fresh as is the month of May.[65]
He could songs make, and well endite,
Just and eke dance, and well pourtraie and write;
So hote he loved, that by nighterdale (night time)
He slept no more than doth the nightingale.”

Martial exercises.

Military exercises were mingled with the anxieties of love. He practised every mode by which strength and activity could be given to the body. He learnt to endure hunger and thirst; to disregard the seasons’ changes, and like the Roman youths in the Campus Martius, when covered with dust, he plunged into the stream that watered the domains of his lord. He accustomed himself to wield the sword, to thrust the lance, to strike with the axe, and to wear armour. The most favourite exercise was that which was called the Quintain: for it was particularly calculated to practise the eye and hand in giving a right direction to the lance. A half figure of a man, armed with sword and buckler, was placed on a post, and turned on a pivot, so that if the assailant with his lance hit him not on the middle of the breast but on the extremities, he made the figure turn round, and strike him an ill-aimed blow, much to the merriment of the spectators. The game of the Quintain was sometimes played by hanging a shield upon a staff fixed in the ground, and the skilful squire riding apace struck the shield in such a manner as to detach it from its ligatures.[66]

Horsemanship.

But of all the exercises of chivalry, none was thought so important as horsemanship.

“Wel could he sit on horse and fair ride,”

is Chaucer’s praise of his young squire. Horsemanship was considered the peculiar science of men of gentle blood. That Braggadochio had not been trained in chivalry was apparent from his bad riding. Even his valiant courser chafed and foamed, for he disdained to bear any base burthen.[67]

Notions of religion were blended with those of arms in the mind of the squire, for his sword was blessed by the priest, and delivered to him at the altar. As he advanced to manhood he left to younger squires most of the domestic duties of his station. Without losing his title of squire he became also called a bachelor, a word also used to designate a young unmarried knight. He went on military expeditions. The squire in Chaucer, though but twenty years old, had

“Sometime been in chevauchee,
In Flanders, in Artois, and in Picardy.”

Love was the inspirer of his chivalry: for he

“Bore him well, as of so little space,
In hope to stonden in his lady’s grace.”[68]

Importance of squires in battles.
Particularly at the battle of Bovines.

For the squire, instead of being merely the servant of the knight, often periled himself in his defence. When the knight was impetuous beyond the well-tempered bravery of chivalry, the admirer of his might followed him so close, and adventured himself so jeopardously, as to cover him with his shield.[69] A valiant knight, Ernalton of Saint Colombe, was on the point of being discomfited by a squire called Guillonet, of Salynges; but when the squire of Sir Ernalton saw his master almost at utterance, he went to him, and took his axe out of his hands, and said, “Ernalton, go your way, and rest you; ye can no longer fight;” and then with the axe he went to the hostile squire, says Froissart, and gave him such a stroke on the head that he was astonied, and had nigh fallen to the earth. He recovered himself, and aimed a blow at his antagonist, which would have been fatal, but that the squire slipped under it, and, throwing his arms round Guillonet, wrestled, and finally threw him. The victor exclaimed that he would slay his prostrate foe, unless he would yield himself to his master. The name of his master was asked: “Ernalton of Saint Colombe,” returned the squire, “with whom thou hast fought all this season.” Guillonet seeing the dagger raised to strike him, yielded him to render his body prisoner at Lourde within fifteen days after, rescue or no rescue.[70] The squires were brought into the mêlée of knights, at the famous battle of Bovines, on the 27th of July, 1214. The force of Philip Augustus was far inferior in number to that of the united Germans and Flemish; and, in order to prevent them from surrounding him, he lengthened his line by placing the squires at the two extremities of the knights. The mail-clad chivalry of the emperor Otho were indignant at such soldiers daring to front them; but the young warriors were not dismayed by haughty looks and contumelious speeches, and their active daring mainly contributed to the gaining of the victory, the most considerable one that France had ever obtained.[71]

Preparations for knighthood.

Seldom before the age of twenty-one was a squire admitted to the full dignity of chivalry. Chaucer’s squire was twenty, and had achieved feats of arms. St. Louis particularly commanded that the honour of knighthood should not be conferred upon any man under the age of twenty-one. As the time approached for the completing and crowning of his character, his religious duties became more strictly enforced. Knighthood was assimilated, as much as possible, to the clerical state, and prayer, confession, and fasting were necessary for the candidate for both. The squire had his sponsors, the emblems of spiritual regeneration were applied to him, and the ceremonies of inauguration commenced by considering him a new man. He went into a bath, and then was placed in a bed. They were symbolical, the bath of purity of soul, and the bed of the rest which he was hereafter to enjoy in paradise. In the middle ages people generally reposed naked[72], and it was not till after he had slept that the neophyte was clad with a shirt. This white dress was considered symbolical of the purity of his new character. A red garment was thrown over him to mark his resolution to shed his blood in the cause of Heaven. The vigil of arms was a necessary preliminary to knighthood. The night before his inauguration he passed in a church, armed from head to foot[73], and engaged in prayer and religious meditation. One of the last acts of preparation was the shaving of his head to make its appearance resemble that of the ecclesiastical tonsure. To part with hair was always regarded in the church as a symbol of servitude to God.[74]

The inauguration.

The ceremony of inauguration was generally performed in a church, or hall of a castle, on the occasion of some great religious or civic festival. The candidate advanced to the altar, and, taking his sword from the scarf to which it was appended, he presented it to the priest, who laid it upon the altar, praying that Heaven would bless it, and that it might serve for a protection of the church, of widows, and orphans, and of all the servants of God against the tyrannies of pagans and other deceivers, in whose eyes he mercifully hoped that it would appear as an instrument of terror. The young soldier took his oaths of chivalry; he solemnly swore to defend the church, to attack the wicked, to respect the priesthood, to protect women and the poor, to preserve the country in tranquillity, and to shed his blood, even to its last drop, in behalf of his brethren. The priest then re-delivered the sword to him with the assurance that, as it had received God’s blessing, he who wielded it would prevail against all enemies and the adversaries of the church. He then exhorted him to gird his sword upon his strong thigh, that with it he might exercise the power of equity to destroy the hopes of the profane, to fight for God’s church, and defend his faithful people, and to repel and destroy the hosts of the wicked, whether they were heretics or pagans. Finally, the soldier in chivalry was exhorted to defend widows and orphans, and to restore and preserve the desolate, to revenge the wronged, to confirm the virtuous; and he was assured that by performing these high duties he would attain heavenly joys.[75]

The young warrior afterwards advanced to the supreme lord in the assembly, and knelt before him with clasped hands;—an attitude copied from feudal manners, and the only circumstance of feudality in the whole ceremony. The lord then questioned him whether his vows had any objects distinct from the wish to maintain religion and chivalry. The soldier having answered in the negative, the ceremony was permitted to advance. He was invested with all the exterior marks of chivalry. The knights and ladies of the court attended on him, and delivered to him the various pieces of his harness.[76] The armour varied with the military customs of different periods and of different countries, but some matters were of permanent usage. The spurs were always put on first, and the sword was belted on last. The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order of knighthood was a slight blow[77] given by the lord to the cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body, the neck, whereon it was struck. The lord then proclaimed him a knight in the name of God and the saints, and such cavaliers as were present embraced their newly-made brother. The priest exhorted him to go forth like a man, and observe the ordinances of heaven. Impressed with the solemnity of the scene, all the other knights renewed in a few brief and energetic sentences their vows of chivalry; and while the hall was gleaming with drawn swords, the man of God again took up the word, blessing him who had newly undertaken, and those who had been long engaged in holy warfare, and praying that all the hosts of the enemies of heaven might be destroyed by Christian chivalry. The assembly then dispersed. The new knight, on leaving the hall, vaulted on his steed, and showed his skill in the management of the lance, that the admiring people might know that a cavalier had been elected for their protection. He distributed largesses among the servants and minstrels of the castle, for whoso received so great a gift as the order of chivalry honoured not his order if he gave not after his ability. The remainder of the day was passed in congratulation and festivity.[78]

Many of the most virtuous affections of the heart wound themselves round that important circumstance in a man’s life, his admission into knighthood. He always regarded with filial piety the cavalier who invested him with the order. He never would take him prisoner if they were ranged on opposite sides, and he would have forfeited all title to chivalric honours if he had couched his lance against him.

Squires anxious to be knighted by great characters.

A noble aspirant to chivalry would only receive the accolade from a warrior, whose fame had excited his emulation, or sometimes the feelings of feudal attachment prevailed over the higher and sterner sense of chivalry. In expectation of a battle, the Earl of Buckingham called forth a gentle squire of Savoy, and said, “Sir, if God be pleased, I think we shall this day have a battle; therefore I wish that you would become a knight.” The squire excused himself by saying, “Sir, God thank you for the nobleness that ye would put me unto; but, Sir, I will never be knight without I am made by the hands of my natural lord, the Earl of Savoy.”[79]

A very singular tribute was paid to bravery during the famous battle of Homildon Hill. When the cloth-yard arrows of the English yeomen were piercing the opposite line through and through, Sir John Swinton exhorted the Scotsmen not to stand like deer to be shot at, but to indulge their ancient courage and meet their enemy hand to hand. His wish, however, was echoed only by one man, Adam Gordon, and between their families a mortal feud existed. Generously forgetting the hatred which each house bore to the other, Gordon knelt before Swinton, and solicited to be knighted by so brave a man. The accolade was given, and the two friends, like companions in arms, gallantly charged the English. If a kindred spirit had animated the whole of the Scottish line the fate of the day might have been reversed; but the two noble knights were only supported by about an hundred men-at-arms devoted to all their enterprises; and they all perished.[80]

Knights made in battle-field.
Inconvenience of this.

The ceremonies of inauguration which have been described were gone through when knighthood was conferred on great and public occasions of festivity, but they often gave place to the power of rank and circumstances. Princes were exempted from the laborious offices of page and squire. Men were often adopted into chivalry on the eve of a battle, as it was considered that a sense of their new honours would inspire their gallantry. Once during the war of our Black Prince in Spain, more than three hundred soldiers raised their pennons; many of them had been squires, but in one case the distinction was entirely complimentary, for Peter the Cruel, who could boast neither chivalric qualities nor chivalric services, was dubbed. There was scarcely a battle in the middle ages which was not preceded or followed by a large promotion of men to the honour of knighthood. Sometimes, indeed, they were regularly educated squires, but more frequently the mere contingency of the moment was regarded, and soldiers distinguished only for their bravery and ungraced by the gentle virtues of chivalry were knighted. We often read of certain squires being made cavaliers and raising their pennons, but very often no pennons were raised, that is to say, the men who were knighted were not able to summon round their lances a single man-at-arms; hence it ocurred that the world was overspread with poor knights, some of whom brought chivalry into disgrace by depredations and violence; others wandered about the world in quest of adventures, and let out their swords to their richer brethren. In the romance of Partenopex of Blois, there is a picture of a knight of this last class.

“So riding, they o’ertake an errant knight,
Well hors’d, and large of limb, Sir Gaudwin hight,
He nor of castle nor of land was lord,
Houseless he reap’d the harvest of the sword;
And now, not more on fame than profit bent,
Rode with blithe heart unto the tournament;
For cowardice he held it deadly sin,
And sure his mind and bearing were akin,
The face an index to the soul within;
It seem’d that he, such pomp his train bewray’d,
Had shap’d a goodly fortune by his blade;
His knaves were point device, in livery dight,
With sumpter nags, and tents for shelter in the night.”

Knights of Mines.

Cavaliers sometimes took their title from the place where they were knighted: a very distinguished honor was to be called a Knight of the Mines, which was to be obtained by achieving feats of arms in the subterranean process of a siege. The mines were the scenes of knightly valour; they were lighted up by torches; trumpets and other war instruments resounded, and the general affair of the siege was suspended, while the knights tried their prowess; the singularity of the mode of combat giving a zest to the encounters. No prisoners could be taken, as a board, breast high, placed in the passage by mutual consent, divided the warriors. Swords or short battle-axes were the only weapons used.

In the year 1388, the castle of Vertueill, in Poictou, then held by the English, was besieged by the Duke of Bourbon. Its walls raised on a lofty rock were not within the play of the battering ram, and therefore the tedious operation of the mine was resorted to: both parties frequently met and fought in the excavated chambers, and a battle of swords was one day carried on between Regnaud de Montferrand, the squire of the castle, and the Duke of Bourbon, each being ignorant of the name and quality of the other. At length the cry “Bourbon, Bourbon! Our Lady!” shouted by the attendants of the Duke, in their eager joy at the fray, struck the ears of the squire, and arrested his hand. He withdrew some paces, and enquired whether the duke were present: when they assured him of the fact, he requested to receive the honour of knighthood in the mine, from the hands of the duke, and offering to deliver up the castle to him in return for the distinction, and from respect for the honour and valour he found in him. Never was a castle in the pride of its strength and power gained by easier means. The keys were delivered to the Duke of Bourbon by Regnaud de Montferrand, and the honor of knighthood, with a goodly courser and a large golden girdle, were bestowed on the squire in return.[81]

General ceremonies of degradation.

Such were the various ceremonies of chivalric inauguration. Those of degradation should be noticed. What the offences were which were punishable by degradation it is impossible to specify. If a knight offended against the rules of the order of chivalry he was degraded, inasmuch as he was despised by his brother knights; and as honour was the life-blood of chivalry, he dreaded contempt more than the sword. Still, however, there were occasions when a knight might be formally deprived of his distinctions. The ceremony of degradation generally took place after sentence, and previous to the execution of a legal judgment against him.[82] Sometimes his sword was broken over his head, and his spurs were chopped off; and, to make the bitterness of insult a part of the punishment, these actions were performed by a person of low condition; but at other times the forms of degradation were very elaborate. The knight who was to be degraded was in the first instance armed by his brother knights from head to foot, as if he had been going to the battle-field; they then conducted him to a high stage, raised in a church, where the king and his court, the clergy, and the people, were assembled; thirty priests sung such psalms as were used at burials; at the end of every psalm they took from him a piece of armour. First, they removed his helmet, the defence of disloyal eyes, then his cuirass on the right side, as the protector of a corrupt heart; then his cuirass on the left side, as from a member consenting, and thus with the rest; and when any piece of armour was cast upon the ground, the king of arms and heralds cried, “Behold the harness of a disloyal and miscreant knight!” A basin of gold or silver full of warm water was then brought upon the stage, and a herald holding it up, demanded the knight’s name. The pursuivants answered that which in truth was his designation. Then the chief king of arms said, “That is not true, for he is a miscreant and false traitor, and hath transgressed the ordinances of knighthood.” The chaplains answered, “Let us give him his right name.” The trumpets sounded a few notes, supposed to express the demand, “what shall be done with him?” The king, or his chief officer, who was present replied, “Let him with dishonour and shame be banished from my kingdom as a vile and infamous man, that hath offended against the honour of knighthood.” The heralds immediately cast the warm water upon the face of the disgraced knight, as though he were newly baptized, saying, “Henceforth thou shalt be called by thy right name, Traitor.” Then the king, with twelve other knights, put upon them mourning garments, declaring sorrow, and thrust the degraded knight from the stage: by the buffettings of the people he was driven to the altar, where he was put into a coffin, and the burial-service of the church was solemnly read over him.[83]

Ceremonies in England.

The English customs regarding degradation are minutely stated by Stowe in the case of an English knight, Sir Andrew Harcley, Earl of Carlisle who (in the time of Edward II.) was deprived of his knighthood, previously to his suffering the penalties of the law for a treasonable correspondence with Robert Bruce. “He was led to the bar as an earl, worthily apparelled, with his sword girt about him, horsed, booted, and spurred, and unto him Sir Anthony Lucy (his judge) spoke in this manner: ‘Sir Andrew,’ quoth he, ‘the king for thy valiant service hath done thee great honour, and made thee Earl of Carlisle, since which time thou as a traitor to thy lord, the king, led his people, that should have helped him at the battle of Heighland, away by the county of Copland, and through the earldom of Lancaster, by which means our lord the king was discomfited there of the Scots, through thy treason and falseness; whereas, if thou haddest come betimes, he hadde had the victory, and this treason thou committed for the great sum of gold and silver that thou received of James Douglas, a Scot, the king’s enemy. Our lord the king wills, therefore, that the order of knighthood, by the which thou received all the honour and worship upon thy body, be brought to nought, and thy state undone, that other knights of lower degree may after thee beware, and take example truly to serve.’ Then commanded he to hew his spurs from his heels, then to break his sword over his head, which the king had given him to keep and defend his land therewith, when he made him earl. After this, he let unclothe him of his furred tabard, and of his hood, of his coat of arms, and also of his girdle; and when this was done, Sir Anthony said unto him, ‘Andrew,’ quoth he, ‘now art thou no knight, but a knave; and for thy treason the king wills that thou shalt be hanged and drawn, and thy head smitten off from thy body, and burned before thee, and thy body quartered, and thy head being smitten off, afterwards to be set upon London bridge, and thy four quarters shall be sent into four good towns of England, that all others may beware by thee;’ and as Sir Anthony Lucy had said, so was it done in all things, on the last day of October.”[84]

CHAP. III.

THE EQUIPMENT.

Beauty of the chivalric Equipment ... The Lance ... The Pennon ... The Axe, Maule, and Martel ... The Sword ... Fondness of the Knight for it ... Swords in Romances ... The Shield ... Various sorts of Mail ... Mail ... Mail and Plate ... Plate Harness ... The Scarf ... Surcoats ... Armorial Bearings ... Surcoats of the Military Orders ... The Dagger of Mercy ... Story of its Use ... Value of Enquiries into ancient Armour ... A precise Knowledge unattainable ... Its general Features interesting ... The broad Lines of the Subject ... Excellence of Italian Armour ... Armour of the Squire, &c. ... Allegories made on Armour ... The Horse of the Knight.

The fierce equipage of war deserves a fuller consideration than was given to it in the last chapter. The horse whereon the knight dashed to the perilous encounter should be described, the weapons by which he established the honour of his fame and the nobleness of his mistress’s beauty deserve something more than a general notice. Never was military costume more splendid and graceful than in the days which are emphatically called “the days of the shield and the lance.” What can modern warfare present in comparison with the bright and glittering scene of a goodly company of gentle knights pricking on the plain with nodding plumes, emblazoned shields, silken pennons streaming in the wind, and the scarf, that beautiful token of lady-love, crossing the strong and polished steel cuirass.

The lance.

The lance was the chief offensive weapon of the knight: its staff was commonly formed from the ash-tree.

The pennon.

Its length was fitted to the vigour and address of him who bore it, and its iron and sharpened head was fashioned agreeably to his taste.[85] To the top of the wooden part of the lance was generally fixed an ensign, or piece of silk, linen, or stuff. On this ensign was marked the cross, if the expedition of the soldier had for its object the Holy Land, or it bore some part of his heraldry; and in the latter case, when the lance was fixed in the ground near the entrance of the owner’s tent, it served to designate the bearer. Originally this ensign was called a gonfanon, the combination of two Teutonic words, signifying war and a standard. Subsequently, when the ensign was formed of rich stuffs and silks, it was called a pennon, from the Latin word pannus.[86] The pennon cannot be described from its exact breadth, for that quality of it varied with the different fancies of knights, and it had sometimes one, but more often two indentations at the end.

When the pennon was cut square on occasion of a simple knight becoming a knight banneret it received the title of a banner, the ancient German word for the standard of a leader, or prince.[87]

The axe.
The maule and martel.

To transfix his foe with a lance was the ordinary endeavour of a knight; but some cavaliers of peculiar hardihood preferred to come to the closest quarters, where the lance could not be used. The battle-axe, which they therefore often wielded, needs no particular description. But the most favourite weapons were certain ponderous steel or iron hammers, carrying death either by the weight of their fall or the sharpness of the edge. They were called the martel and the maule, words applied indifferently in old times; for writers of days of chivalry cared little about extreme accuracy of diction, not foreseeing the fierce disputes which their want of minuteness in description would give rise to. This was the weapon which ecclesiastics used when they buckled harness over rochet and hood, and holy ardour impelled them into the field; for the canons of the church forbad them from wielding swords, and they always obeyed the letter of the law. Some cavaliers, in addition to their other weapons, carried the mallet, or maule, hanging it at their saddle bow, till the happy moment for ‘breaking open skulls’ arrived. When it was used alone, this description of offensive armour was rather Gothic than chivalric; yet the rudeness of earlier ages had its admirers in all times of chivalry, the affected love of simplicity not being peculiar to the present day. A lance could not execute half the sanguinary purposes of Richard Cœur de Lion, and it was with a battle-axe[88], as often as with a sword, that he dashed into the ranks of the Saracens. Bertrand du Guesclin had a partiality for a martel, and so late as the year 1481 the battle-axe was used.

Among the hosts of the Duke of Burgundy was a knight named Sir John Vilain. He was a nobleman from Flanders, very tall, and of great bodily strength: he was mounted on a good horse, and held a battle-axe in both hands. He pressed his way into the thickest part of the battle, and, throwing his bridle on the neck of his steed, he gave such mighty blows on all sides with his battle-axe that whoever was struck was instantly unhorsed, and wounded past recovery.[89] Generally speaking, however, the polite and courteous knights of chivalry thought it an ungentle practice to use a weapon which was associated with ideas of trade; and the romance-writers, who reflect the style of thinking of their times, commonly give the lance to the knight, and the axe or mallet to some rude and ferocious giant.[90]

The sword.
Fondness of the knight for it.

The usual weapon for the press and mêlée was the sword, and there were a great many interesting associations attached to it. The knight threw round it all his affections. In that weapon he particularly trusted. It was his good sword, and with still more confidence and kindness he called it his own good sword. He gave it a name, and engraved on it some moral sentence, or a word referring to a great event of his life. Not indeed that these sentences were confined to the sword; they were sometimes engraven on the frontlet of the helmet, or even on the spurs[91], but the hilt or blade of the sword were their usual and proper places. The sword rather than the lance was the weapon which represented the chivalry of a family, and descended as the heir loom of its knighthood. When no one inherited his name, there was as much generous contention among his friends to possess his good sword, as in the days of Greece poetry has ascribed to the warriors who wished for the armour of Achilles.[92] The sword was the weapon which connected the religious and military parts of the chivalrique character. The knight swore by his sword, for its cross hilt was emblematical of his Saviour’s cross.

David in his daies dubbed knights,
And did hem swere on her sword to serve truth ever.
P. Ploughman.

The word Jesus was sometimes engraven on the hilt to remind the wearer of his religious duties. The sword was his only crucifix, when mass was said in the awful pause between the forming of the military array and the laying of lances in their rests. It was moreover his consolation in the moment of death. When that doughty knight of Spain, Don Rodrigo Frojaz was lying upon his shield, with his helmet for a pillow, he kissed the cross of his sword in remembrance of that on which the incarnate son of God had died for him, and in that act of devotion rendered up his soul into the hands of his Creator.[93]

The handle of the sword was also remarkable for another matter. The knight, in order not to lose the advantage of having his seal by him, caused it to be cut in the head of his sword, and thus by impressing his seal upon any wax attached to a legal document, he exhibited his determination to maintain his obligation by the three-fold figure of his seal, the upholden naked sword, and the cross.[94]

The sword of the knight was held in such high estimation, that the name of its maker was thought worthy of record. Thus when Geoffery of Plantagenet received the honor of knighthood, a sword was brought out of the royal treasury, the work of Galan, the best of all sword smiths.[95] Spain was always famous for the temper and brilliancy of its swords. Martial speaks in several places of the Spanish swords which, when hot from the forge, were plunged in the river Salo near Bilbilis in Celtiberia. The armourers at Saragossa were as renowned in days of chivalry as those of Toledo in rather later times, for it was not only the sword of Toledo that became a proverbial phrase for the perfection of the art. Sometimes the armourers had establishments in both towns. The excellence, however, of the swords of Julian del Rey, who lived both at Saragossa and Toledo, is referred to by the keeper of the lions in Don Quixote. The weapons of this artist had their peculiar marks. El perillo, a little dog; el morillo, a Moor’s head, and la loba, a wolf.[96]

But perhaps it may be thought I am passing the bounds of my subject. To return then to earlier days. The girdle round the waist, or the bauldrick descending from the shoulder across the body was simple tanned leather only, or sometimes its splendour rivalled that of prince Arthur in the Fairy Queen.

Athwart his breast a bauldrick brave he ware
That shind like twinkling stars, with stones most precious rare;
******
And in the midst thereof, one precious stone
Of wond’rous worth, and eke of wondrous mights,
Shapt like a lady’s head, exceeding shone,
Like Hesperus among the lesser lights,
And strove for to amaze the weaker sights:
Thereby his mortal blade full comely hung
In ivory sheath, ycarv’d with curious slights,
Whose hilt was burnish’d gold, and handle strong
Of mother perle, and buckled with a golden tong.
Book 1. c. 7. st. 29, 30.

Swords in romances.

Many of the historical circumstances just now related regarding the sword of the knight are pleasingly exaggerated in the beautiful extravagancies of romantic fabling. The most famous sword in the imagination of our ancestors was that of king Arthur; it was called Escalibert (corrupted into Caliburn). The romance of Merlin thus explains the name. Escalibert est un nom Ebricu qui vault autant à dire en Français, comme tres cher fer et acier, et aussi dissoyent il vrai. The history of this sword enters largely into the romances of Arthur, and the knights of the round table, and the subject was fondly cherished by those who detailed the exploits of other heroes. The fame of Caliburn was remembered when Richard the first went to the East. The romances affirm that he wore the terrible and trusty sword of Arthur. But, instead of mowing down ranks of Saracens with it, he presented it to Tancred, king of Sicily.

And Richard at that time gaf him a faire juelle.
The good sword Caliburne, which Arthur luffed so well.[97]

The romancers followed the practices of the northern scalds[98], of naming the swords of knights: that of Sir Bevis of Hampton was called Morglay; and that of the Emperor Charlemagne himself Fusberta joyosa.[99] The poets were also as faithful delineators of manners as their predecessors the romance writers had been, and therefore we find in Ariosto that the sword of the courteous Rogero was called Balisarda, and that of Orlando, Durindana.

In the romance of Sir Otuel, the address of the same Orlando to his sword is perfectly in the spirit of chivalry.

Then he began to make his moan
And fast looked thereupon,
As he held it in his hond.
“O sword of great might,
Better bare never no knight,
To win with no lond!
Thou hasty—be in many batayle,
That never Sarrazin, sans fayle
Ne might thy stroke withstond.
Go! let never no paynim
Into battle bear him,
After the death of Roland!
O sword of great powere,
In this world n’is nought thy peer,
Of no metal y—wrought;
All Spain and Galice,
Through grace of God and thee y—wis,
To Christendom ben brought.
Thou art good withouten blame;
In thee is graven the holy name
That all things made of nought.”[100]

Regarding inscriptions on swords mentioned in the concluding lines, there is a very interesting passage in the romance of Giron the courteous. On one occasion where the chaste virtue of that gentle knight and noble companion of Arthur was in danger, his spear, which he had rested against a tree, fell upon his sword, and impelled it into a fountain. Giron immediately left the lady with whom he was conversing, and ran to the water. He snatched the weapon from the fountain, and, throwing away the scabbard, began to wipe the blade. Then his eyes lighted on the words that were written on the sword, and these were the words that were thus written:—Loyaulte passe tout, et faulsete si honneit tout, et deceit tous hommes dedans quals elle se herberge. This sentence acted with talismanic power upon the heart of that noble knight Giron the courteous, and so his virtue was saved.

The shield.
Impresses.

Leaving those pictures of manners which the old romances have painted, I come to the defensive harness of the knight, a subject which has many claims to attention. The shield was held in equal esteem in chivalric as in classic times; for

“To lose the badge that should his deeds display,”

was considered the greatest shame and foulest scorn that could happen to a knight. The shape of the shield was oblong or triangular, wide at the top for the protection of the body, and tapering to the bottom.[101] Other shapes were given to it agreeably to the fancy of the knight, and it was plain or adorned with emblazonry of arms and other ornaments of gold and silver, according to his estate, and the simplicity or comparative refinement of his age. Some knights, as gentle as brave, adorned their shields with a portrait of their lady-love[102], or stamped on them impresses quaint, with a device emblematical of their passion. Knights formed of sterner stuff retained their heraldic insignia, and their mottoes breathed war and homicide; but gallant cavaliers shewed the gentleness of their minds, and their impressed sentences were sometimes plain of meaning, but oftener dark to all, except the knight himself, and the damsel whose playful wit had invented them. We can readily imagine that those amorous devices and impresses were not so frequently used in the battle field as in the tournament, and that they were sometimes worn together with gentilitial distinctions.

Various sorts of mail.

The casing of the body is a very curious subject of enquiry. The simplicity of ancient times, in using the skins of beasts, is marked in the word loricum, from the word lorum, a thong, and the word cuirasse is traceable to cuir, leather. Body harness has three general divisions; mail; plate and mail mixed; plate mail entirely. Rows of iron rings, sown on the dress, were the first defences, and then, for additional defence, a row of larger rings was laid over the first. These rings gave way to small iron plates which lapped over each other, and this variety of mail is interesting, for armour now resembled the lorica squammata of the Romans, and hence ancient mail of this description has generally been called scale-mail, while the ordinary appearance of armour being like the meshes of a net, gained it the title of mail from the macula of the Latins, and the maglia of the Italians. Sometimes the plates were square, and sometimes of a lozenge form: but it would be considering the matter much too curiously to divide armour into as many species as the shapes and forms which a small piece of iron or steel was capable of being divided into.[103]

All this variety of mail harness was sown on an under garment of leather or cloth, or a more considerable wadding of various sorts of materials, and called a gambeson. If the garment were a simple tunic or frock the whole was called a hauberk. The lower members were defended by chausses, which may be intelligible to modern understandings by the words breeches or pantaloons. When the mailed frock and chausses were joined, the union was called the haubergeon. In each case, the back and crown of the head were saved harmless by a hood of mail, which sometimes formed part of the hauberk or haubergeon, and sometimes was detached. In Spain, the hood and the other parts of the dress were united, if the case of the Cid be held as evidence of the general state of manners; for after his battles, he is always represented as slowly quitting the field with his gory hood thrown back. The mail covered also the chin, and sometimes the mouth; in the latter case the office of breathing being entirely committed to the care of the nose. Finally, the sleeves of the jacket were carried over the fingers, and a continuation of the chausses protected the toes.

“A goodly knight all armed in harness meet
That from his head no place appeared to his feete.”

It is curious that foppery in armour began at the toe. It was the fashion for the knight to have the toe of the mail several inches in length and inclining downwards. To fight on foot with such incumbrances was impossible, and, therefore the enemies of the crusaders (for foppery prevailed even in religious wars) shot rather at the horses than at the men. The fashion I am speaking of crossed the Pyrenees, for in the pictorial representation of a tournament at Grenada, between Moorish and Christian knights, the former are drawn with the broad shovel shoes of their country, while the latter have long pointed shoes, like the cavaliers of the North.

Such were the various descriptions of mail armour from the earliest æra of chivalry to the thirteenth century. They were worn at different times in different countries, and often in the same country at the same time by different individuals: but at length so excellent an improvement was made in chain mail, that military fashion could have no longer any pretence for variety. The different descriptions of mail armour show the skill of the iron-smiths among our ancestors, and that they were capable of inventing the next and last great change. But as it was made at a time when the Asiatic mode of warfare was known in Europe, and as the improvement I am about to mention was the general mode of the Saracenian soldiers, it is as probable that it was borrowed, as that it was invented. The rings of mail were now no longer sewn on the dress, but they were interlaced, each ring having four others inserted into it, and consequently the rings formed a garment of themselves. The best coats of mail were made of double rings.[104] The admirable convenience of this twisted or reticulated mail secured its general reception. A knight was no longer encumbered by his armour in travelling. His squire might be the bearer of his mail, for it was both flexible and compact, or it could be rolled upon the hinder part of a saddle.

Mail and plate.
Plate harness.

Before, however, this last great improvement in mail-armour took place, changes were made in that general description of harness which foretold its final fall, although it might be partially and for a time supported by any particular invention of merit. Plates of solid steel or iron were fixed on the breast or other parts of the body, where painful experience had assured the wearer of the insufficiency of his metal rings. The new fashion of reticulated mail added nothing to the strength of defence, and, therefore, ingenuity and prudence were ever at work to make defensive armour equal to offensive. New plates continually were added, and many of them received their titles from the parts of the body which they were intended to defend: the pectoral protected the breast, the cuisses were for the thighs, the brassarts for the arms, the ailettes for the shoulders, while the gorget defended the throat, and a scaly gauntlet gloved the hand. The cuirass was the title for the defence of the breast and the back. This mixed harness gained ground till the knight had nearly a double covering of mail and plate. The plate was then found a perfect defence, and the mail was gradually thrown aside; and thus, finally, the warrior was entirely clad in steel plates. This harness was exceedingly oppressive to the limbs, and therefore we find the circumstance so frequently mentioned in old writers, that when a knight alighted at his hostel or inn, he not only doffed his armour, but went into a bath. No wonder that it was necessary to keep changes of dress to present to the cavaliers who arrived. Plate-armour must have been as destructive of clothes as the old chain mail, and describing his knight, Chaucer says,

“Of fustian he wered a gipon
Alle besmotred with his habergeon.
For he was of late y come fro his viage,
And wente for to don his pilgrimage.”

The plate harness was in one respect far more inconvenient than the armour it superseded. The coat of chain mail could be put on or slipped off with instantaneous celerity; but the dressing of a plate-armed knight was no simple matter.

“From the tents
The armourers, accomplishing the knights,
With busy hammers closing rivets up,
Give dreadful note of preparation.”

Besides this deprivation of rest before a battle, the knight, in order to prevent surprise, was obliged to wear his heavy harness almost constantly.

It is curious to observe, that chain mail formed some part of the harness of a knight until the very last days of chivalry, chivalric feelings seeming to be associated with that ancient form of armour. It was let into the plates round the neck, and thus there was a collar or tippet of mail; and it also generally hung over other parts of the body, where, agreeably to its shape and dimensions, it became, if I may again express myself in the language of ladies, if not of antiquarians, an apron or a short petticoat.

The scarf.
Surcoats.

The armour of the knight was often crossed by a scarf of silk embroidered by his lady-love. He wore also a dress which in different times was variously designated as a surcoat, a cyclas, or a tabard. It was long[105] or short, it opened at the sides, in the back, or in the front, as fashion or caprice ruled the wearer’s mind; but it was always sleeveless. Originally simple cloth was its material; but as times and luxury advanced it became richer. For the reason that this sort of dress was almost the only one in which the lords, knights, and barons could display their magnificence, and because it covered all their clothing and armour, they had it usually made of cloths of gold or silver, of rich skins, furs of ermine, sables, minever, and others.[106] There was necessarily more variety in the appearance of the surcoat than in that of any other part of his harness, and hence it became the distinction of a knight. In public meetings and in times of war the lords and knights were marked by their coats of arms; and when they were spoken of, or when any one wished to point them out by an exterior sign, it was sufficient to say, that he wears a coat of or, argent, gules, sinople, sable, gris, ermine, or vair, or still shorter, he bears or, gules, &c. the words coat of arms being understood. But as these marks were not sufficient to distinguish in solemn assemblies, or in times of war every lord, when all were clothed in coats of arms of gold, silver, or rich furs, they, in process of time, thought proper to cut the cloths of gold, and silver, and furs, which they wore over their armour, into various shapes of different colours, observing, however, as a rule never to put fur on fur, nor cloths of gold on those of silver, nor those of silver on gold; but they intermixed the cloths with the furs, in order to produce variety and relief.[107] With these cloths and furs were mingled devices or cognizances symbolical of some circumstance in the life of the knight, and with the crest the whole formed in modern diction the coat of arms.

Armorial bearings.

Every feudal lord assumed the right of chusing his own armorial distinctions: they were worn by all his family, and were hereditary. It was also in his power to grant arms to knights and squires as marks of honour for military merit; and from all these causes armorial distinctions represented the feudalism, the gentry, and the chivalry of Europe. One knight could not give more deadly offence to another than by wearing his armorial bearings without his permission, and many a lance was broken to punish such insolence. Kings, as their power arose above that of the aristocracy, assumed the right of conferring these distinctions;—an assumption of arms without royal permission was an offence, and the business of heralds was enlarged from that of being mere messengers between hostile princes into a court for the arranging of armorial honours. Thus the usurpation of kings was beneficial to society, for disputes regarding arms and cognisances were settled by heralds and not by battle.

It is totally impossible to mark the history of these circumstances. Instances of emblazoned sopra vests are to be met with in times anterior to the crusades. They were worn during the continuance of mail and of mixed armour: but they gradually went out of usage as plate armour became general, it being then very much the custom to enamel or emboss the heraldic distinctions on the armour itself, or to be contented with its display on the shield or the banner. On festival occasions and tournaments, however, all the gorgeousness of heraldic splendour was exhibited upon the cyclas or tabard.

Surcoats of the military orders.

A word may be said on the surcoats of the military orders. The knights of St. John and the Temple wore plain sopra vests, and their whole harness was covered by a monastic mantle, marked with the crosses of their respective societies. The colour of the mantle worn by the knights of St. John was black, and from that colour being the usual monastic one, they were called the military friars. Their cross was white. The brethren of the Temple wore a white mantle with a red cross, and hence their frequent title, the Red Cross Knights.

Helmets.

The history of the covering of the head is not altogether unamusing. The knight was not contented to trust the protection of that part of himself to his mailed hood alone; he wore a helmet, whose shape was at first conical, then cylindrical, and afterwards resumed its pristine form. The defence of the face became a matter of serious consideration, and a broad piece of iron was made to connect the frontlet of the helm with the mail over the mouth.[108] This nasal piece was not in general use, it being a very imperfect protection from a sword-cut, and the knight found it of more inconvenience than service when his vanquisher held him to earth by it. Cheek-pieces of bars, placed horizontally or perpendicularly, attached to the helmet, were substituted or introduced. Then came the aventaile, or iron mask, joined to the helmet, with apertures for the eyes and mouth. It was at first fixed and immoveable, but ingenuity afterwards assisted those face defences. By means of pivots the knight could raise or let fall the plates or grating before the face, and the defence was called a vizor. Subsequently, plates were brought up from the chin, and this moveable portion of the helmet was called, as most people know, the bever, from the Italian bevere, to drink. In early times the helmet was without ornament; it afterwards (though the exact time it is impossible to fix) was surmounted by that part of the armorial bearings called the crest. A lady’s glove or scarf was often introduced, and was not the least beautiful ornament. The Templars and the knights of St. John were not permitted to adorn their helmets with the tokens either of nobility or of love; the simplicity of religion banishing all vain heraldic distinctions, and the soldier-priests being obliged, like the monks themselves, to pretend to that ascetic virtue which was so highly prized in the middle ages.

All the splendour of chivalry is comprised in the helmet of prince Arthur.

“His haughty helmet, horrid all with gold,
Both glorious brightness and great terror bred;
For all the crest a dragon did enfold
With greedy paws, and over all did spred
His golden wings: his dreadful hideous head
Close couched on the bever, seem’d to throw
From flaming mouth bright sparkles fiery red,
That sudden horror to faint hearts did show,
And scaly tail was stretch’d adowne his back full low.
“Upon the top of all his lofty crest
A bunch of hairs discoloured diversely,
With sprinkled pearl and gold full richly drest,
Did shake and seem’d to dance for jollity,
Like to an almond-tree ymounted hye
On top of green Selinis all alone,
With blossoms brave bedecked daintily;
Whose tender locks do tremble every one
At every little breath that under heaven is blown.”[109]

The helmet, with its vizor and bever, was carried by the squire, or page, on the pommel of his saddle, a very necessary measure for the relief of the knight, particularly when the sarcasm of the Duke of Orleans was applicable, that “if the English had any intellectual armour in their heads, they could never wear such heavy head-pieces.”[110]

The reader should know, with the barber in Don Quixote, that, except in the hour of battle, a knight wore only an open casque, or bacinet, a light and easy covering. The bacinet derived its title from its resemblance to a basin; but the word was sometimes used, however improperly, for the helmet, the close helmet of knighthood. A vizor might be attached to the bacinet, and then the covering for the head became a helmet. Bacinez à visieres are often spoken of.

The helmet of war appeared to complete the perfection of defensive harness; for the lance broke hurtless on the plate of steel, the arrow and quarrel glanced away, and it is only in romance that we read of swords cutting through a solid front of iron, or piercing both plate and mail, as some bolder spirits say.

“From top to toe no place appeared bare,
That deadly dint of steel endanger may.”[111]

The dagger of mercy.

The only way by which death could be inflicted was by thrusting a lance through the small holes in the vizor. Such a mode of death was not very common, for the cavalier always bent his face almost to the saddle-bow when he charged. The knight, however, might be unhorsed in the shock of the two adverse lines, and he was in that case at the mercy of the foe who was left standing. But how to kill the human being inclosed in the rolling mass of steel was the question; and the armourer, therefore, invented a thin dagger, which could be inserted between the plates. This dagger was called the dagger of mercy, apparently a curious title, considering it was the instrument of death; but, in truth, the laws of chivalry obliged the conqueror to shew mercy, if, when the dagger was drawn, the prostrate foe yielded himself, rescue or no rescue.

It may be noticed that a dagger or short sword was worn by the knight even in days of chain mail, for the hauberk was a complete case.

“Straight from his courser leaps the victor knight,
And bares his deadly blade to end the fight;
The uplifted hauberk’s skirt he draws aside,
In his foe’s flank the avenging steel is dyed.”[112]

Story of its use.

Froissart’s pages furnish us with an interesting tale, descriptive of the general chivalric custom, regarding the dagger of mercy. About the year 1390, the lord of Langurante in Gascony rode forth with forty spears and approached the English fortress called Cadilhac. He placed his company in ambush, and said to them, “Sirs, tarry you still here, and I will go and ride to yonder fortress alone, and see if any will issue out against us.” He then rode to the barriers of the castle, and desired the keeper to shew to Bernard Courant, their captain, how that the lord Langurante was there, and desired to joust with him a course. “If he be so good a man, and so valiant in arms as it is said,” continued the challenger, “he will not refuse it for his ladies sake: if he do, it shall turn him to much blame, for I shall report it wheresoever I go, that for cowardice he hath refused to run with me one course with a spear.”

A squire of Bernard reported this message to his master, whose heart beginning to swell with ire, he cried, “Get me my harness, and saddle my horse; he shall not go refused.” Incontinently he was armed, and mounted on his war steed, and taking his shield and spear, he rode through the gate and the barriers into the open field. The lord Langurante seeing him coming was rejoiced, and couched his spear like a true knight, and so did Bernard. Their good horses dashed at each other, and their lances struck with such equal fierceness that their shields fell in pieces, and as they crossed Bernard shouldered sir Langurante’s horse in such a manner that the lord fell out of the saddle. Bernard turned his steed shortly round, and as the lord Langurante was rising, his foe, who was a strong as well as a valiant squire, took his bacinet with both his hands, and wrenching it from his head, cast it under his horse’s feet. On seeing all this the lord of Langurante’s men quitted their ambush, and were coming to the rescue of their master, when Bernard drew his dagger, and said to the lord, “Sir, yield you my prisoner, rescue or no rescue; or else you are but dead.” The lord, who trusted to the rescue of his men, spoke not a word; and Bernard then gave him a death-blow on his bare head, and dashing spurs into his horse, he fled within the barriers.[113]

Value of enquiries into ancient armour.

Such was the general state of armour in days of chivalry. A more detailed account of the subject cannot be interesting; for what boots it to know the exact form and dimensions of any of the numerous plates of steel that encased the knight. Nor indeed was any shape constant long; for fashion was as variable and imperious in all her changes in those times as in ours; and as we turn with contempt from the military foppery of the present day, little gratification can be expected from too minute an inspection of the vanities of our forefather. Chaucer says,

“With him ther wenten knights many on,
Some wol ben armed in an habergeon,
And in a breast-plate, and in a gipon;
And som wol have a pair of plates large;
And som wol have a pruse sheld or a targe.
Som wol ben armed on his legges well,
And have an axe, and some a mace stele.
Ther n’is no newe guise, that it n’as old.
Armed they weren, as I have you told,
Everich after his opinion.”

A precise knowledge unattainable.

A chronological history of armour, minutely accurate, is unattainable, if any deduction may be made from the books of laborious dulness which have hitherto appeared on the armour of different countries. Who can affirm that the oldest specimen which we possess of any particular form of harness is the earliest specimen of its kind? No one can determine the precise duration of a fashion; for after ruling the world for some time it suddenly disappears, but some years afterwards it rears it’s head again to the confusion and dismay of our antiquarians.

Our best authorities sometimes fail us. The monumental effigies were not always carved at the moment of the knight’s death: that the bust is tardily raised to buried merit is not the peculiar reproach of our times. It is complimenting the sculptors of the middle ages too highly if we suppose that they did not sometimes violate accuracy, in order to introduce some favorite fashion of their own days. As for the illuminations of manuscripts which are so much boasted of, they are often the attempts of a scribe to imitate antiquity, beautiful in respect of execution, but of problematical accuracy, and more frequently mark the age when the manuscript was copied, than that when the work was originally written. We know that violation of costume was common in the romances. Thus, in the Morte d’Arthur, an unknown knight, completely armed, and having his vizor lowered so as to conceal his features, entered the hall of the king. Again,

“Cometh sir Launcelot du Lake,
Ridand right into the hall;
His steed and armour all was blake
His visere over his eyen falle,”[114]

Now if the romance whence the above lines are extracted is to be considered as a picture of the earliest days of chivalry it is certainly incorrect, for it was not before the middle age of knighthood that the face was concealed by a vizor, the earlier defence of the nasal piece certainly not serving as a mask. The romances are unexceptionable witnesses for the general customs of chivalry, but we cannot fix their statements to any particular time, for they were varied and improved by successive repetitions and transcriptions, and when they were rendered into prose still further changes were made in order to please the taste of the age. Thus, in an old Danish romance, a knight fighting for his lady remains on his horse; but when in the fifteenth century the tale was translated into the idioms of most chivalric countries, he is represented as alighting from his milk-white steed and giving it to his fair companion to hold; and the reason of this departure from the old ballad was, that the translators, wishing to make their work popular, adapted it to the manners of the age; and it was the general fashion then for the knights to dismount when they fought.

Its general features interesting

In spite of all our attempts at chronological accuracy, something or other is perpetually baffling us. We commonly think that mixed armour was the defensive harness in the days of our Edward the Third; but in Chaucer’s portrait of the knightly character of that time, only the haubergeon is assigned to the cavalier. Plate-armour seems to have been the general costume of the fifteenth century; and in any pictorial exhibition of the murder of John Duke of Burgundy in the year 1419, the artist who should represent the Duke as harnessed in chain-mail, would be condemned by a synod of archæologists as guilty of an unpardonable anachronism; yet we know, on the unquestionable authority of Monstrelet, that when the Duke lay on the ground, Olivier Layet, assisted by Pierre Frotier, thrust a sword under the haubergeon into his belly; and that after he had been thus cruelly murdered, the Dauphin’s people stripped from him his coat of mail.[115] But though it is difficult to determine the fashion of any part of armour in any particular century, and life may afford nobler occupations than considering the precise year and month when the Normans gave up the clumsy expedient of inserting the sword through a hole in the hauberk, and adopted the more graceful and convenient form of a belt[116], yet viewing the subject of armour in some of its broad features, matter of no slight interest may be found. We may not regard the precise form and fashion of a warrior’s scarf, or care to enquire whether the embroidery were worked with gold or silver, but the general fact itself involves the state of manners and feelings among our ancestors: it carries us to the lady’s bower where she was working this token of love; our fancy paints the time and mode of bestowing it; and we follow it through all the subsequent career of the knight as his silent monitor to courage and loyalty.

The broad lines of the subject.

It is curious also to mark the perpetual efforts of defensive armour to meet the improvements in the art of destruction. Chain-mail was found an inadequate protection; plates of steel were added, and still this mixed harness did not render the body invulnerable. The covering of steel alone at length became complete, and defensive harness reached its perfection. It is utterly impossible for us to state with accuracy the year when plate-armour began to be mixed with chain-mail in any particular country, or to determine what particular part of the body the first plate that was used defended; but the general features of the subject are known well enough to enable us to sketch to our imagination the military costume of some of the most remarkable events in the warfare of the middle ages. In the first crusade, the armour was in the rude state of mail worn on the tunic. There was the emblazoned surcoat, for that part of dress was of very early use; the hood was the common covering of the head, and when the helmet was worn it was of the simplest form, and occasionally had a nasal piece. The crusades began at the close of the eleventh century, and before the end of the thirteenth, not only was the hauberk composed of twisted mail, but mixed armour of plate and mail was common. The English wars in France during the reign of our Edward III. are the next subject to which our chivalric recollections recur. By that time plate had attained a general predominance over chain-mail. Perhaps, at no period of chivalry was armour more beautiful than in those days when France was one vast tilting ground for the culled and choice-drawn cavaliers of the two mighty monarchies of Europe. It was equally removed from the gloomy sternness of chain-mail, and the elaborate foppery of embossed steel: its solid plates satisfied the judicious eye by showing that the great principle of armour was chiefly attended to, and the surcoat and scarf gave the warrior’s harness a character of neat and simple elegance. The horses, too, were barded in the most vulnerable parts; the symmetry of the form not being obscured, as it was in after-times by a casing of steel which left only part of the legs free of action. The helmet had its crest and silken ornament; the former being the sign of nobility, the latter of love: and no warriors were so justly entitled to those graceful tokens of ladies’ favour, as the warriors of Edward III., for love was the inspiring soul of their chivalry.[117]

In the second series of our French wars complete plate-armour was in general fashion. Gradually, as armour became more and more ponderous, the knights preferred to fight on foot with their lances. That mode of encounter was found best fitted for the display of skill, for in the rude encounter of the horses many cavaliers were thrown, and the field presented a ludicrous spectacle of rolling knights.[118] Some traces of the custom of cavalry dismounting may be found in the twelfth century. The practice grew as plate-armour became mixed with mail; and when complete suits of steel were worn, knights sought every occasion of dismounting; and they were wont to break their lances short for the convenience of the close conflict.

As the spirit of chivalry died away, the military costume of chivalry increased in brilliancy and splendour. Ingenuity and taste were perpetually varying decorations: the steel was sometimes studded with ornaments of gold and silver, and sometimes the luxury of the age was displayed in a complete suit of golden armour.

“In arms they stood
Of golden panoply, refulgent host.”

But such splendour was only exhibited in the courteous tournament; less costly armour sheathed the warrior of the working day. Armour gradually fell out of use as infantry began to be considered and felt as the principal force in war. It was not, however, till the beginning of the seventeenth century that the proud nobility of Europe would abandon the mode of combat of their ancestors, and no longer hope that their iron armour of proof should hang up in their halls as an incentive to their children’s valour. “They first laid aside the jambes or steel boots; then the shield was abandoned, and next the covering for the arms. When the cavalry disused the lance, the cuisses were no longer worn to guard against its thrust, and the stout leathern or buff coat hung down from beneath the body armour to the knees, and supplied the place of the discarded steel. The helmet was later deprived of its useless vizor; but before the middle of the seventeenth century nothing remained of the ancient harness but the open cap and the breasts and backs of steel, which the heavy cavalry of the Continent have more or less worn to our times. In our service these have been but lately revived for the equipment of the finest cavalry in Europe, the British Life-guards, who, unaided by such defences, tore the laurels of Waterloo from the cuirassiers of France.”[119]

Excellence of Italian armour.

The history of armour would be interesting in another point of view, if any of the great battles in the middle ages had been decided by the superior qualities of any particular weapon possessed by either side. No such circumstances are recorded. Nor can we trace the progress of armour through the various countries of chivalry. But the superiority of Italian civilisation, and our knowledge that the long-pointed sword was invented in Italy, authorise our giving much honour to the Italians; and we also know that down to the very latest period of chivalric history Milanese armour was particularly esteemed.[120] Germany, as far as the ancient martial costume of that country is known, can claim nothing of invention, nor did armour always take in that country during its course from Italy through other lands. France quickly received all the varieties in armour of Italian ingenuity, and in a few years they, passed into England. This geographical course was not however the usual mode of communicating ideas in chivalric ages. Knights of various countries met in tournaments, and in those splendid scenes every description of armour was displayed, and fashions were interchanged.

Notwithstanding the general similarity of costume which these gallant and friendly meetings of cavaliers in tournaments were likely to produce, each nation had its peculiarities which it never resigned. Thus it may be mentioned that the swords of the Germans and also of the Normans were always large, and that those of the French were short. As the bow was the great weapon of the Normans, the attendants of the English knights used the bow more frequently than similar attendants in any other country. The peasantry of Scotland, in spite of repeated statutes, never would use the bow: spears and axes were their weapons, while their missiles were cross-bows and culverins. The mace was also a favourite, and their swords were of excellent temper. Their defensive armour was the plate-jack, hauberk, or brigantine; and a voluminous handkerchief round their neck, “not for cold but for cutting,” as one of their writers describes it. Almost all the Scottish forces, except a few knights, men-at-arms, and the border prickers, who formed excellent light cavalry, acted upon foot.[121]

Of the knight’s armour; of the squire, &c.

Little need be said concerning the military costume of the esquire, and the men-at-arms. The esquire wore silver spurs in distinction from the golden spurs of the knight; but when an esquire as a member of the third class of chivalry held a distinct command, he was permitted to bear at the end of his lance a penoncel, or small triangular streamer. In countries where the bow was not used, the weapons of the men-at-arms were generally the lance and the sword. This was the case when the knight led his personal retainers to battle; but when his followers were the people of any particular town which he protected, few chivalric arms were borne, and the bill more frequently than the spear was brought into the field. The cross-bow can hardly be considered a weapon of chivalry. It required no strength of arm like the long-bow; it allowed none of that personal display which was the soul of knighthood. The popes, to their honour, frequently condemned its use; and it was more often bent by mercenaries than the regular attendants of knights.

The men-at-arms generally fought on horseback, and it often happened that archers, after the Asiatic mode, were mounted. The defensive armour of the knight’s attendants was not so complete as his own, for they could not afford its costliness, and difference of rank was marked by difference of harness. Thus, in France, only persons possessed of a certain estate were permitted to wear the haubergeon, while esquires had nothing more than a simple coat of mail, without hood or hose[122], though their rank in nobility might equal that of the knights. The men-at-arms had generally the pectoral and the shield, and the morion or open helmet, without vizor or beaver. They frequently wore a long and large garment called the aketon, gambeson, or jack, formed of various folds of linen cloth or leather: but it is totally impossible to give any useful or interesting information on a subject which caprice or poverty perpetually varied.

Allegories made on armour.

Armour had other purposes in the mind of the knight besides its common and apparent use. Days of chivalry were especially times when imagination was in its freest exercise, and every thing was full of allegories and recondite meanings. To the knight a sword was given in resemblance of a cross to signify the death of Christ, and to instruct him that he ought to destroy the enemies of religion by the sword. This is intelligible; but there is something apparently arbitrary in the double edge signifying that a knight should maintain chivalry and justice. The spear, on account of its straitness, was the emblem of truth, and the iron head meant strength, which truth should possess. The force and power of courage were expressed by the mace. The helmet conveyed the idea of shamefacedness; and the hauberk was emblematical of the spiritual panoply which should protect a man and a soldier from the vices to which his nature was liable. The spurs meant diligence. The gorget was the sign of obedience; for as the gorget went about the neck protecting it from wounds, so the virtue of obedience kept a knight within the commands of his sovereign and the order of chivalry; and thus neither treason nor any other foe to virtue corrupted the oath he had taken to his lord and knighthood. The shield showed the office of a knight; for as the knight placed his shield between himself and his enemy, so the knight was the barrier between the king and the people, and as the stroke of a sword fell upon the shield and saved the knight, so it behoved the knight to present his body before his lord when he was in danger. The equipment and barding of the horse furnished also subjects of instruction. The saddle meant safety of courage; for as by the saddle a knight was safe on his horse, so courage was the knight’s best security in the field. The great size of the saddle was regarded as emblematical of the greatness of the chivalric charge. It was added, that as the head of a horse went before its rider, so should reason precede all the acts of a knight; and as the armour at the head of a horse defended the horse, so reason kept the knight from blame. The defensive armour of a horse illustrated the necessity of wealth to a knight; for a knight without estate could not maintain the honours of chivalry, and be protected from temptation, for poverty opens the door to treason and vice.

It was in this manner that the romantic imaginations of the knights of chivalry drew moralities from subjects apparently little capable of furnishing instruction; and then assuming a more sober and rational tone, they would exclaim that chivalry was not in the horse, nor in the arms, but was in the knight, who taught his horse well, and accustomed himself and his sons to noble actions and virtuous deeds; and a foul and recreant knight, who taught himself and his son evil works, converted one into the other, the cavaleresque and equestrian qualities, making himself and his son beasts, and his horse a knight.[123]

The horse of the knight.

Before we close our account of the cavalier’s equipment, something must be said regarding his steed, his good steed, as he was fond of calling him. The horse of the knight was necessarily an animal of great power when his charge was a cavalier with his weighty armour. The horses of Spain were highly famed. In the country itself those of Asturia were preferred, but in other chivalric states they regarded not the particular province wherein the horse was bred.[124] The favourite steed of William the Conqueror came from Spain. The crusades were certainly the means of bringing Asiatic horses into Europe; and it was found that the Arabian, though smaller than the bony charger of the west, had a compensating power in his superior spirit. French and English romance writers were not from natural prejudices disposed to praise any productions of Heathenesse, yet the Arabian horse is frequently commended by them. That doughty knight, Guy, a son of Sir Bevis of Hampton,

——“bestrode a Rabyte,[125]
That was mickle and nought light,[126]
That Sir Bevis in Paynim lond
Had iwunnen with his hond.”

The Arab horse was the standard of perfection, as is evident from the romancer’s praise of the two celebrated steeds, Favel and Lyard, which Richard Cœur de Lion procured at Cyprus.

“In the world was not their peer,
Dromedary, nor destreer,
Steed, Rabyte, ne Camayl,
That ran so swift sans fail.
For a thousand pounds of gold
Should not that one be sold.”

The Arabian horse must have been already prepared for part of the discipline of a chivalric horse. On his own sandy plains he had been accustomed to stop his career when his fleetness had cast the rider from his seat; and in the encounter of lances so often were knights overthrown, that to stand firm, ready to be mounted again, was a high quality of a good horse. The steed of the Cid was very much celebrated in Spain; and, in acknowledgment for an act of great kindness, the owner wished to present him to the king, Alfonso of Castile. To induce the king to accept him, he showed his qualities.

“With that the Cid, clad as he was in mantle furr’d and wide,
On Bavieca vaulting, put the rowel in his side;
And up and down, and round and round, so fierce was his career,
Stream’d like a pennon on the wind Ruy Diaz’ minivere.

And all that saw them prais’d them,—they lauded man and horse,
As matched well, and rivalless for gallantry and force.
Ne’er had they look’d on horseman might to this knight come near,
Nor on other charger worthy of such a cavalier.
Thus, to and fro a-rushing, the fierce and furious steed,
He snapp’d in twain his hither rein:—‘God pity now the Cid;’
‘God pity Diaz,’ cried the Lords;—but when they look’d again,
They saw Ruz Diaz ruling him with the fragment of his rein;
They saw him proudly ruling, with gesture firm and calm,
Like a true Lord commanding,—and obey’d as by a lamb.
And so he led him foaming and panting to the king,
But ‘No,’ said Don Alphonso, ‘it were a shameful thing
That peerless Bavieca should ever be bestrid
By any mortal but Bivar,—mount, mount again, my Cid.’”[127]

It has been often said that the knight had always his ambling palfrey, on which he rode till the hour of battle arrived; and that the war-horse, from the circumstance of his being led by the right hand of the squire, was called dextrarius.[128] With respect to sovereigns and men of great estate this was certainly the custom, but it was by no means a general chivalric practice. Froissart’s pages are a perfect picture of knightly riding and combatting; and each of his favorite cavaliers seems to have had but one and the same steed for the road and the battle-plain. Even romance, so prone to exaggerate, commonly represents the usage as similar; for when we find that a damsel is rescued, she is not placed upon a spare horse, but the knight mounts her behind himself.[129]

The destrier, cheval de lance, or war-steed, was armed or barded[130] very much on the plan of the harness of the knight himself, and was defended, therefore, by mail or plate, agreeably to the fashion of the age. His head, chest, and flanks were either wholly or partially protected, and sometimes, on occasions of pomp, he was clad in complete steel, with the arms of his master engraven or embossed on his bardings. His caparisons and housings frequently descended so low that they were justly termed bases, from the French bas à bas, upon the ground. His head, too, was ornamented with a crest, like the helmet of a knight. The bridle of the horse was always as splendid as the circumstances of the knight allowed; and thus a horse was often called Brigliadore, from briglia d’oro, a bridle of gold. The knight was fond of ornamenting the partner of his perils and glories. The horse was not always like that of Chaucer’s knight;

“His hors was good, but he was not gay.”

Bells were a very favourite addition to the equipment of a horse, particularly in the early times of chivalry. An old Troubadour poet, Arnold of Marsan, states very grave reasons for wearing them. He says, “Let the neck of the knight’s horse be garnished with bells well hung. Nothing is more proper to inspire confidence in a knight, and terror in an enemy.” The war-horse of a soldier of a religious order of knighthood might have his collar of bells, for their jangling was loved by a monk himself.

“And when he rode men might his bridel hear,
Gingeling in a whistling wind as clere,
And eke as loud as doth the chapel bell.”

But here the comparison ceases, for the horse-furniture of the religious soldiers was ordered to be free from all golden and silver ornaments.[131] This regulation was however ill observed; for the knights-templars in the middle of the thirteenth century were censured for having their bridles embroidered, or gilded, or adorned with silver.[132]

CHAP. IV.

THE CHIVALRIC CHARACTER.

General Array of Knights ... Companions in Arms ... The Nature of a Cavalier’s Valiancy ... Singular Bravery of Sir Robert Knowles ... Bravery incited by Vows ... Fantastic Circumstances ... The Humanities of Chivalric War ... Ransoming ... Reason of Courtesies in Battles ... Curious Pride of Knighthood ... Prisoners ... Instance of Knightly Honour ... Independence of Knights, and Knight Errantry ... Knights fought the Battles of other Countries ... English Knights dislike Wars in Spain ... Their Disgust at Spanish Wines ... Principles of their active Conduct ... Knightly Independence consistent with Discipline ... Religion of the Knight ... His Devotion ... His Intolerance ... General Nature of his Virtue ... Fidelity to Obligations ... Generousness ... Singular Instance of it ... Romantic excess of it ... Liberality ... Humility ... Courtesy ... EVERY DAY LIFE OF THE KNIGHT ... Falconry ... Chess playing ... Story of a Knight’s Love of Chess ... Minstrelsy ... Romances ... Conversation ... Nature and Form of Chivalric Entertainments ... Festival and Vow of the Pheasant.

General array of knights.

The knight was accompanied into the field by his squires and pages, by his armed vassals on horseback and on foot, all bearing his cognisance. The number of these attendants varied necessarily with his estate, and also the occasion that induced him to arm; and I should weary, without instructing my readers, were I to insert in these volumes all the petty details of history regarding the amount of force which in various countries, and in different periods of the same country’s annals, constituted, to use the phraseology of the middle ages, the complement of a lance. Armies were reckoned by lances, each lance meaning the knight himself with his men-at-arms, or lighter cavalry, and his foot soldiers.

Companions in arms.

The knight was not only supported by his vassals, who formed the furniture of his lance, but by his brother in arms, when such an intercourse subsisted between two cavaliers; and instances of such unions are extremely frequent in chivalric history: they may be met with in other annals. In the early days of Greece, brotherhood in arms was a well-known form of friendship: the two companions engaged never to abandon each other in affairs however perilous, and in pledge of their mutual faith they exchanged armour. No stronger proof of affection could be given than thus parting with what they held most dear. Among barbarous people the fraternity of arms was established by the horrid custom of the new brothers drinking each other’s blood: but if this practice was barbarous, nothing was farther from barbarism than the sentiment which inspired it.

The chivalry of Europe borrowed this sacred bond from the Scandinavians, among whom the future brothers in arms mingled their blood, and then tasted it.

“Father of slaughter, Odin, say,
Rememberest not the former day,
When ruddy in the goblet stood,
For mutual drink, our blended blood?
Rememberest not, thou then dids’t swear,
The festive banquet ne’er to share,
Unless thy brother Lok was there?”[133]

This custom, like most others of Pagan Europe, was corrected and softened by the light and humanity of religion. Fraternal adoptions then took place in churches, in presence of relations, and with the sanction of priests. The knights vowed that they would never injure or vilify each other, that they would share each other’s dangers; and in sign of the perfection of love, and of true unity, and in order to possess, as much as they could, the same heart and resolves, they solemnly promised true fraternity and companionship of arms.[134] They then received the holy sacrament, and the priest blessed the union. It was a point rather of generous understanding than of regular convention, that they would divide equally all their acquisitions. Of this custom an instance may be given. Robert de Oily and Roger de Ivery, two young gentlemen who came into England with the duke of Normandy, were sworn brothers. Some time after the conquest, the king granted the two great honours of Oxford, and St. Waleries, to Robert de Oily, who immediately bestowed one of them, that of St. Waleries, on his sworn brother, Roger de Ivery[135].

Fraternity of arms was entered into for a specific object, or general knightly quests, for a limited term, or for life. It did not always occur, however, that the fraternity of arms was established with religious solemnities: but whatever might have been the ceremonies, the obligation was ever considered sacred; so sacred, indeed, that romance writers did not startle their readers by a tale, whose interest hangs upon the circumstance of a knight slaying his two infant children for the sake of compounding a medicine with their blood which should heal the leprosy of his brother in arms.[136]

This form of attachment was the strongest tie in chivalry.

“From this day forward, ever mo
Neither fail, either for weal or wo,
To help other at need,
Brother, be now true to me,
And I shall be as true to thee.”

So said Sir Amylion to Sir Amys, and it was the common language of chivalry. Friendship was carried to the romantic extremity of the Homeric age. Brethren in arms adopted all the enmities and loves of each other,

“A generous friendship no cold medium knows,
Burns with one love, with one resentment glows.”

And so powerful was the obligation that it even superseded the duty of knighthood to womankind. A lady might in vain have claimed the protection of a cavalier, if he could allege that at that moment he was bound to fly to the succour of his brother in arms.

Qualities of the chivalric character.

Thus accompanied, the knight proceeded to achieve the high emprises of his noble and gallant calling. Both the principles and the objects of chivalry having been always the same, a general similarity of character existed through all the chivalric ages; and as certain moral combinations divide human nature into classes, so the knight was a distinct character, and the qualities peculiar to his order may be delineated in one picture, notwithstanding individual and national variations, which had better be described when we come to mark the degrees of the influence of chivalry in the different countries of Europe.

The nature of their valiancy.
Singular bravery of Sir Robert Knowles.

The courage of the knight is the part of his character which naturally calls for our first attention. It was daring and enterprising: but I cannot insist upon recklessness of danger as the quality of chivalry only, for in every nation’s battles, to be the first to advance and the last to retreat have been the ambition of warriors. The knight however cared little for the cause or necessity of his doing battle so that he could display his valour. About the year 1370, Sir Robert Knowles marched through France, and laid waste the country as far as the very gates of the capital. A knight was in his company, who had made a vow that he would ride to the walls or gates of Paris, and strike at the barriers[137] with a spear. And for the finishing of his vow he departed from his company, his spear in his hand, his shield suspended from his neck, armed at all points, and mounted on a good horse, his squire following him on another, with his helmet. When he approached Paris he put on the glittering head-piece, and leaving his squire behind him, and dashing his spurs into his steed, he rode at full career to the barriers which were then open. The French lords, who were there, weened that he would have entered the town, but that was not his mind, for when he had struck the barriers according to his vow, he turned his rein and departed. Then the knights of France immediately divined his purpose, and cried, “Go your way; you have right well acquitted yourself.”[138]

About the same time a band of English knights advanced to the French town of Noyon, and spread their banners abroad, as a defiance to the garrison. But the French made no sally; and a Scottish knight, named Sir John Swinton, impatient of rest, departed from his company, his spear in his hand, and mounted on a cheval de lance, his page behind him, and in that manner approached the barriers. He then alighted, and saying to his page, “Hold, keep my horse, and depart not hence,” he went to the barriers. Within the pallisades were many good knights, who had great marvel what this said knight would do. Then Swinton said to them, “Sirs, I am come hither to see you; as you will not issue out of your barriers, I will enter them, and prove my knighthood against yours. Win me if you can!” He then fought with the French cavaliers, and so skilfully, that he wounded two or three of them; the people on the walls and the tops of the houses remaining still, for they had great pleasure to regard his valiantness, and the gallant knights of France charged them not to cast any missiles against him, but to let the battle go fairly and freely forward. So long they fought that at last the page went to the barriers, and said to his master, “Sir, come away; it is time for you to depart, for your company are leaving the field.” The knight heard him well, and then gave two or three strokes about him, and armed as he was he leapt over the barriers, and vaulting upon his horse behind his faithful page, he waved his hand to the Frenchmen, and cried, “Adieu, Sirs, I thank you.” He then urged his noble horse to speed, and rode to his own company. This goodly feat of arms was praised by many folks.[139]

Bravery incited by vows.

This love of causeless perils was often accompanied by curious circumstances. On the manners of the ancestors of the heroes of chivalry it has been said,

“In the caverns of the west,
By Odin’s fierce embrace comprest,
A wond’rous boy shall Rinda bear,
Who ne’er shall comb his raven hair,
Nor wash his visage in the stream,
Nor see the sun’s departing beam,
Till he on Hoder’s corse shall smile
Flaming on the fun’ral pile!”

Fantastic circumstances.

And king Harold made a solemn vow never to clip or comb his hair till he should have extended his sway over the whole country. Tacitus informs us, that the youthful Germans, particularly those among the Catti, did not shave the hair from the head or chin until they had achieved renown in arms. The same feeling influenced the knight of chivalry. He was wont to wear a chain on his arm or leg until he had performed some distinguishing exploit; and when his merit became conspicuous, the mark of thraldom was removed with great solemnity.[140] A young knight would not at first assume his family arms, but wore plain armour and shield without any device till he had won renown. He would even fight blindfold, or pinion one of his hands to his body, or in some other manner partially disable himself from performing his deed, of arms. Before the gate of Troyes there was an English squire, resolved to achieve some high and romantic feat. His companions were unable to judge whether or not he could see, but with his spear in his hand, and his targe suspended from his neck, he recklessly spurred his horse to the barriers, leaped over them, and careered to the gate of the town, where the Duke of Burgundy and other great lords of France were standing. He reined round his foaming steed and urged him back towards the camp. The duke shouted applause at his boldness: but some surrounding men-at-arms had not the same generous sympathy for noble chivalry, and they hurled their lances like javelins at the brave squire, till they brought him and his horse dead to the ground, wherewith the Duke of Burgundy was right sore displeased.[141] Equally singular, and more fantastic, was the conduct of certain young knights of England during the French wars of Edward III., for each of them bound up one of his eyes with a silk ribbon, and swore before the ladies and the peacock, that he would not see with both eyes until he had accomplished certain deeds of arms in France.[142]