KNAVE(O.E.cnafa, cognate with Ger.Knabe, boy), originally a male child, a boy (Chaucer,Canterbury Tales: “Clerk’s Tale,” I. 388). Like Lat.puer, the word was early used as a name for any boy or lad employed as a servant, and so of male servants in general (Chaucer: “Pardoner’s Tale,” 1. 204). The current use of the word for a man who is dishonest and crafty, a rogue, was however an early usage, and is found in Layamon (c.1205). In playing-cards the lowest court card of each suit, the “jack,” representing a medieval servant, is called the “knave.” (See alsoValet.)
KNEBEL, KARL LUDWIG VON(1744-1834), German poet and translator, was born at the castle of Wallerstein in Franconia on the 30th of November 1744. After having studied law for a short while at Halle, he entered the regiment of the crown prince of Prussia in Potsdam and was attached to it as officer for ten years. Disappointed in his military career, owing to the slowness of promotion, he retired in 1774, and accepting the post of tutor to Prince Konstantin of Weimar, accompanied him and his elder brother, the hereditary prince, on a tour to Paris. On this journey he visited Goethe in Frankfort-on-Main, and introduced him to the hereditary prince, Charles Augustus. This meeting is memorable as being the immediate cause of Goethe’s later intimate connexion with the Weimar court. After Knebel’s return and the premature death of his pupil he was pensioned, receiving the rank of major. In 1798 he married the singer Luise von Rudorf, and retired to Ilmenau; but in 1805 he removed to Jena, where he lived until his death on the 23rd of February 1834. Knebel’sSammlung kleiner Gedichte(1815), issued anonymously, andDistichen(1827) contain many graceful sonnets, but it is as a translator that he is best known. His translation of the elegies of Propertius,Elegien des Properz(1798), and that of Lucretius’De rerum natura(2 vols., 1831) are deservedly praised. Since their first acquaintance Knebel and Goethe were intimate friends, and not the least interesting of Knebel’s writings is his correspondence with the eminent poet,Briefwechsel mit Goethe(ed. G. E. Guhrauer, 2 vols., 1851).
Knebel’sLiterarischer Nachlass und Briefwechselwas edited by K. A. Varnhagen von Ense and T. Mundt in 3 vols. (1835; 2nd ed., 1840). See Hugo von Knebel-Döberitz,Karl Ludwig von Knebel(1890).
Knebel’sLiterarischer Nachlass und Briefwechselwas edited by K. A. Varnhagen von Ense and T. Mundt in 3 vols. (1835; 2nd ed., 1840). See Hugo von Knebel-Döberitz,Karl Ludwig von Knebel(1890).
KNEE(O.E.cnéow, a word common to Indo-European languages, cf. Ger.Knie, Fr.genou, Span,hinojo, Lat.genu, Gr.γόνυ, Sansk.janu), in human anatomy, the articulation of the upper and lower parts of the leg, the joint between the femur and the tibia (seeJoints). The word is also used of articulation resembling the knee-joint in shape or position in other animals; it thus is applied to the carpal articulation of the fore leg of a horse, answering to the ankle in man, or to the tarsal articulation or heel of a bird’s foot.
KNELLER, SIR GODFREY(1648-1723), a portrait painter whose celebrity belongs chiefly to England, was born in Lübeck in the duchy of Holstein, of an ancient family, on the 8th of August 1648. He was at first intended for the army, and was sent to Leyden to learn mathematics and fortification. Showing, however, a marked preference for the fine arts, he studied in the school of Rembrandt, and under Ferdinand Bol in Amsterdam. In 1672 he removed to Italy, directing his chief attention to Titian and the Caracci; Carlo Maratta gave him some guidance and encouragement. In Rome, and more especially in Venice, Kneller earned considerable reputation by historical paintings as well as portraits. He next went to Hamburg, painting with still increasing success. In 1674 he came to England at the invitation of the duke of Monmouth, was introduced to Charles II., and painted that sovereign, much to his satisfaction, several times. Charles also sent him to Paris, to take the portrait of Louis XIV. When Sir Peter Lely died in 1680, Kneller, who produced in England little or nothing in the historical department, remained without a rival in the ranks of portrait painting; there was no native-born competition worth speaking of. Charles appointed him court painter; and he continued to hold the same post into the days of George I. Under William III. (1692) he was made a knight, under George I. (1715) a baronet, and by order of the emperor Leopold I. a knight of the Roman Empire. Not only his court favour but his general fame likewise was large: he was lauded by Dryden, Addison, Steele, Prior, Tickell and Pope. Kneller’s gains also were very considerable; aided by habits of frugality which approached stinginess, he left property yielding an annual income of £2000. His industry was maintained till the last. His studio had at first been in Covent Garden, but in his closing years he lived in Kneller Hall, Twickenham. He died of fever, the date being generally given as the 7th of November 1723, though some accounts say 1726. He was buried in Twickenham church, and has a monument in Westminster Abbey. An elder brother, John Zachary Kneller, an ornamental painter, had accompanied Godfrey to England, and had died in 1702. The style of Sir Godfrey Kneller as a portrait painter represented the decline of that art as practised by Vandyck; Lely marks the first grade of descent, and Kneller the second. His works have much freedom, and are well drawn and coloured; but they are mostly slight in manner, and to a great extent monotonous, this arising partly from the habit which he had of lengthening the oval of all his heads. The colouring may be called brilliant rather than true. He indulged much in the common-places of allegory; and, though he had a quality of dignified elegance not unallied with simplicity, genuine simple nature is seldom to be traced in his works. His fame has greatly declined, and could not but do so after the advent of Reynolds. Among Kneller’s principal paintings are the “Forty-three Celebrities of the Kit-Cat Club,” and the “Ten Beauties of the Court of William III.,” now at Hampton Court; these were painted by order of the queen; they match, but match unequally, the “Beauties of the Court of Charles II.,” painted by Lely. He executed altogether the likenesses of ten sovereigns, and fourteen of his works appear in the National Portrait Gallery. It is said that Kneller’s own favourite performance was the portrait of the “Converted Chinese” in Windsor Castle. His later works are confined almost entirely to England, not more than two or three specimens having gone abroad after he had settled here.
(W. M. R.)
KNICKERBOCKER, HARMEN JANSEN(c.1650-c.1720), Dutch colonist of New Netherland (New York), was a native of Wyhe (Wie), Overyssel, Holland. Before 1683 he settled near what is now Albany, New York, and there in 1704 he bought through Harme Gansevoort one-fourth of the land in Dutchess county near Red Hook, which had been patented in 1688 to Peter Schuyler, who in 1722 deeded seven (of thirteen) lots in the upper fourth of his patent to the seven children of Knickerbocker. The eldest of these children, Johannes Harmensen, received from the common council of the city of Albany a grant of 50 acres of meadow and 10 acres of upland on the south side of Schaghticoke Creek. This Schaghticoke estate was held by Johannes Harmensen’s son Johannes (1723-1802), a colonel in the Continental Army in the War of Independence, and by his son Harmen (1779-1855), a lawyer, a federalist representative in Congress in 1809-1811, a member of the New York Assembly in 1816, and a famous gentleman of the old school, who for his courtly hospitality in his manor was called “the prince of Schaghticoke” and whose name was borrowed by Washington Irving for use in his (Diedrich)Knickerbocker’s History of New York(1809). Largely owing to this book, the name “Knickerbockers” has passed into current use as a designation of the early Dutch settlers in New York and their descendants. The son of Johannes, David Buel Knickerbacker (1833-1894), who returned to the earlier spelling of the family name, graduated at Trinity College in 1853 and at the General Theological Seminary in 1856, was a rector for many years at Minneapolis, Minnesota, and in 1883 was consecrated Protestant Episcopal bishop of Indiana.
See the series of articles by W. B. Van Alstyne on “The Knickerbocker Family,” beginning in vol. xxix., No. 1 (Jan. 1908) of theNew York Genealogical and Biographical Record.
See the series of articles by W. B. Van Alstyne on “The Knickerbocker Family,” beginning in vol. xxix., No. 1 (Jan. 1908) of theNew York Genealogical and Biographical Record.
KNIFE(O.E.cníf, a word appearing in different forms in many Teutonic languages, cf. Du.knijf, Ger.Kneif, a shoemaker’s knife, Swed.knif; the ultimate origin is unknown; Skeat finds the origin in the root of “nip,” formerly “knip”; Fr.canifis also of Teutonic origin), a small cutting instrument, with the blade either fixed to the handle or fastened with a hinge so as to clasp into the handle (seeCutlery). For the knives chipped from flint by prehistoric man seeArchaeologyandFlint Implements.
KNIGGE, ADOLF FRANZ FRIEDRICH,Freiherr von(1752-1796), German author, was born on the family estate of Bredenbeck near Hanover on the 16th of October 1752. After studying law at Göttingen he was attached successively to the courts of Hesse-Cassel and Weimar as gentleman-in-waiting. Retiring from court service in 1777, he lived a private life with his family in Frankfort-on-Main, Hanau, Heidelberg and Hanover until 1791, when he was appointedOberhauptmann(civil administrator) in Bremen, where he died on the 6th of May 1796. Knigge, under the name “Philo,” was one of the most active members of theIlluminati, a mutual moral and intellectual improvement society founded by Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830) at Ingolstadt, and which later became affiliated to the Freemasons. Knigge is known as the author of several novels, among whichDer Roman meines Lebens(1781-1787; new ed., 1805) andDie Reise nach Braunschweig(1792), the latter a rather coarsely comic story, are best remembered. His chief literary achievement was, however,Über den Umgang mit Menschen(1788), in which he lays down rules to be observed for a peaceful, happy and useful life; it has been often reprinted.
Knigge’sSchriftenwere published in 12 volumes (1804-1806). See K. Goedeke,Adolf, Freiherr von Knigge(1844); and H. Klencke,Aus einer alten Kiste(Briefe, Handschriften und Dokumente aus dem Nachlasse Knigges) (1853).
Knigge’sSchriftenwere published in 12 volumes (1804-1806). See K. Goedeke,Adolf, Freiherr von Knigge(1844); and H. Klencke,Aus einer alten Kiste(Briefe, Handschriften und Dokumente aus dem Nachlasse Knigges) (1853).
KNIGHT, CHARLES(1791-1873), English publisher and author, the son of a bookseller and printer at Windsor, was born on the 15th of March 1791. He was apprenticed to his father, but on the completion of his indentures he took up journalism and interested himself in several newspaper speculations. In 1823, in conjunction with friends he had made as publisher (1820-1821) ofThe Etonian, he startedKnight’s Quarterly Magazine, to which W. M. Praed, Derwent Coleridge and Macaulay contributed. The venture was brought to a close with its sixth number, but it initiated for Knight a career as publisher and author which extended over forty years. In 1827 Knight was compelled to give up his publishing business, and became the superintendent of the publications of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, for which he projected and editedThe British Almanack and Companion, begun in 1828. In 1829 he resumed business on his own account with the publication ofThe Library of Entertaining Knowledge, writing several volumes of the series himself. In 1832 and 1833 he startedThe Penny MagazineandThe Penny Cyclopaedia, both of which had a large circulation.The Penny Cyclopaedia, however, on account of the heavy excise duty, was only completed in 1844 at a great pecuniary sacrifice. Besides many illustrated editions of standard works, including in 1842The Pictorial Shakespeare, which had appeared in parts (1838-1841), Knight published a variety of illustrated works, such asOld EnglandandThe Land we Live in. He also undertook the series known asWeekly Volumes. He himself contributed the first volume, a biography of William Caxton. Many famous books, Miss Martineau’sTales, Mrs Jameson’sEarly Italian Paintersand G. H. Lewes’sBiographical History of Philosophy, appeared for the first time in this series. In 1853 he became editor ofThe English Cyclopaedia, which was practically only a revision ofThe Penny Cyclopaedia, and at about the same time he began hisPopular History of England(8 vols., 1856-1862). In 1864 he withdrew from the business of publisher, but he continued to write nearly to the close of his long life, publishingThe Shadows of the Old Booksellers(1865), an autobiography under the titlePassages of a Working Life during Half a Century(2 vols., 1864-1865), and an historical novel,Begg’d at Court(1867). He died at Addlestone, Surrey, on the 9th of March 1873.
See A. A. Clowes,Knight, a Sketch(1892); and F. Espinasse, inThe Critic(May 1860).
See A. A. Clowes,Knight, a Sketch(1892); and F. Espinasse, inThe Critic(May 1860).
KNIGHT, DANIEL RIDGWAY(1845- ), American artist, was born at Philadelphia, Penn., in 1845. He was a pupil at the École des Beaux-Arts, Paris, under Gleyre, and later worked in the private studio of Meissonier. After 1872 he lived in France, having a house and studio at Poissy on the Seine. He painted peasant women out of doors with great popular success. He was awarded the silver medal and cross of the Legion of Honour, Exposition Universelle, Paris, 1889, and was made a knight of the Royal Order of St Michael of Bavaria, Munich, 1893, receiving the gold medal of honour from the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Philadelphia, 1893. His son, Ashton Knight, is also known as a landscape painter.
KNIGHT, JOHN BUXTON(1843-1908), English landscape painter, was born at Sevenoaks, Kent; he started as a schoolmaster, but painting was his hobby, and he subsequently devoted himself to it. In 1861 he had his first picture hung at the Academy. He was essentially an open-air painter, constantly going on sketching tours in the most picturesque spots of England, and all his pictures were painted out of doors. He died at Dover on the 2nd of January 1908. The Chantrey trustees bought his “December’s Bareness Everywhere” for the nation in the following month. Most of his best pictures had passed into the collection of Mr Iceton of Putney (including “White Walls of Old England” and “Hereford Cathedral”), Mr Walter Briggs of Burley in Wharfedale (especially “Pinner”), and Mr S. M. Phillips of Wrotham (especially two water-colours of Richmond Bridge).
KNIGHTHOODandCHIVALRY.These two words, which are nearly but not quite synonymous, designate a single subject of inquiry, which presents itself under three different although connected and in a measure intermingled aspects. It may be regarded in the first place as a mode or variety of feudal tenure, in the second place as a personal attribute or dignity, and in the third place as a scheme of manners or social arrangements. The first of these aspects is discussed under the headingsFeudalismandKnight Service: we are concerned here only with the second and third. For the more important religious as distinguished from the military orders of knighthood or chivalry the reader is referred to the headingsSt John of Jerusalem, Knights of;Teutonic Knights; andTemplars.
“The growth of knighthood” (writes Stubbs) “is a subject on which the greatest obscurity prevails”: and, though J. H. Round has done much to explain the introduction of the system into England,1its actual origin on the continent of Europe is still obscure in many of its most important details.
The wordsknightandknighthoodare merely the modern forms of the Anglo-Saxon or Old Englishcnihtandcnihthád. Of these the primary signification of the first was a boy or youth, and of the second that period of life which intervenes between childhood and manhood. But some time before the middle of the 12th century they had acquired the meaning they still retain of the Frenchchevalierandchevalerie. In a secondary sensecnihtmeant a servant or attendant answering to the GermanKnecht, and in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels a disciple is described as aleorning cniht. In a tertiary sense the word appears to have been occasionally employed as equivalent to the Latinmiles—usually translated bythegn—which in the earlier middle ages was used as the designation of the domestic as well as of the martial officers or retainers of sovereigns and princes or great personages.2Sharon Turner suggests thatcnihtfrom meaning an attendant simply may have come to mean more especially a military attendant, and that in this sense it may have gradually superseded the word thegn.3But the word thegn itself, that is, when it was used as the description of an attendant of the king, appears to have meant more especially a military attendant. As Stubbs says “the thegn seems to be primarily the warrior gesith”—the gesithas forming the chosen band of companions (comites) of the German chiefs (principes) noticed by Tacitus—“he is probably the gesith who had a particular military duty in his master’s service”; and he adds that from the reign of Athelstan “the gesith is lost sight of except very occasionally, the more important class having become thegns, and the lesser sort sinking into the rank of mere servants of the king.”4It is pretty clear, therefore, that the word cniht could never have superseded the word thegn in the sense of a military attendant, at all events of the king. But besides the king, the ealdormen, bishops and king’s thegns themselves had their thegns, and to these it is more than probable that the name ofcnihtwas applied.
Around the Anglo-Saxon magnates were collected a crowd of retainers and dependants of all ranks and conditions; and there is evidence enough to show that among them were some calledcnihtaswho were not always the humblest or least considerable of their number.5The testimony of Domesday also establishes the existence in the reign of Edward the Confessor of what Stubbs describes as a “large class” of landholders who had commended themselves to some lord, and he regards it as doubtful whether their tenure had not already assumed a really feudal character. But in any event it is manifest that their condition was in many respects similar to that of a vast number of unquestionably feudal and military tenants who made their appearance after the Norman Conquest. If consequently the former were calledcnihtasunder the Anglo-Saxon régime, it seems sufficiently probable that the appellation should have been continued to the latter—practically their successors—under the Anglo-Norman régime. And if the designation of knights was first applied to the military tenants of the earls, bishops and barons—who although they held their lands of mesne lords owed their services to the king—the extension of that designation to the whole body of military tenants need not have been a very violent or prolonged process. Assuming, however, thatknightwas originally used to describe the military tenant of a noble person, ascnihthad sometimes been used to describe the thegn of a noble person, it would, to begin with, have defined rather his social status than the nature of his services. But those whom the English calledknightsthe Normans calledchevaliers, by which term the nature of their services was defined, while their social status was left out of consideration. And at firstchevalierin its general and honorary signification seems to have been rendered not byknightbut byrider, as may be inferred from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, wherein it is recorded under the year 1085 that William the Conqueror “dubbade his sunu Henric to ridere.”6But, as E. A. Freeman says, “no such title is heard of in the earlier days of England. The thegn, the ealdorman, the king himself, fought on foot; the horse might bear him to the field, but when the fightingitself came he stood on his native earth to receive the onslaught of her enemies.”7In this perhaps we may behold one of the most ancient of British insular prejudices, for on the Continent the importance of cavalry in warfare was already abundantly understood. It was by means of their horsemen that the Austrasian Franks established their superiority over their neighbours, and in time created the Western Empire anew, while from the wordcaballarius, which occurs in theCapitulariesin the reign of Charlemagne, came the words for knight in all the Romance languages.8In Germany the chevalier was calledRitter, but neitherridernorchevalierprevailed againstknightin England. And it was long afterknighthoodhad acquired its present meaning with us thatchivalrywas incorporated into our language. It may be remarked too in passing that in official Latin, not only in England but all over Europe, the wordmilesheld its own against bothequesandcaballarius.
Concerning the origin of knighthood or chivalry as it existed in the middle ages—implying as it did a formal assumption of and initiation into the profession of arms—nothing beyond more or less probable conjecture is possible.Origin of Medieval Knighthood.The medieval knights had nothing to do in the way of derivation with the “equites” of Rome, the knights of King Arthur’s Round Table, or the Paladins of Charlemagne. But there are grounds for believing that some of the rudiments of chivalry are to be detected in early Teutonic customs, and that they may have made some advance among the Franks of Gaul. We know from Tacitus that the German tribes in his day were wont to celebrate the admission of their young men into the ranks of their warriors with much circumstance and ceremony. The people of the district to which the candidate belonged were called together; his qualifications for the privileges about to be conferred upon him were inquired into; and, if he were deemed fitted and worthy to receive them, his chief, his father, or one of his near kinsmen presented him with a shield and a lance. Again, among the Franks we find Charlemagne girding his son Louis the Pious, and Louis the Pious girding his son Charles the Bald with the sword, when they arrived at manhood.9It seems certain here that some ceremony was observed which was deemed worthy of record not for its novelty, but as a thing of recognized importance. It does not follow that a similar ceremony extended to personages less exalted than the sons of kings and emperors. But if it did we must naturally suppose that it applied in the first instance to the mounted warriors who formed the most formidable portion of the warlike array of the Franks. It was among the Franks indeed, and possibly through their experiences in war with the Saracens, that cavalry first acquired the pre-eminent place which it long maintained in every European country. In early society, where the army is not a paid force but the armed nation, the cavalry must necessarily consist of the noble and wealthy, and cavalry and chivalry, as Freeman observes,10will be the same. Since then we discover in theCapitulariesof Charlemagne actual mention of “caballarii” as a class of warriors, it may reasonably be concluded that formal investiture with arms applied to the “caballarii” if it was a usage extending beyond the sovereign and his heir-apparent. “But,” as Hallam says, “he who fought on horseback and had been invested with peculiar arms in a solemn manner wanted nothing more to render him a knight;” and so he concludes, in view of the verbal identity of “chevalier” and “caballarius,” that “we may refer chivalry in a general sense to the age of Charlemagne.”11Yet, if the “caballarii” of theCapitulariesare really the precursors of the later knights, it remains a difficulty that the Latin name for a knight is “miles,” although “caballarius” became in various forms the vernacular designation.
Before it was known that the chronicle ascribed to Ingulf of Croyland is really a fiction of the 13th or 14th century, the knighting of Heward or Hereward by Brand, abbot of Burgh (now Peterborough), was accepted from Selden to Hallam asKnighthood in England.an historical fact, and knighthood was supposed, not only to have been known among the Anglo-Saxons, but to have had a distinctively religious character which was contemned by the Norman invaders. The genuine evidence at our command altogether fails to support this view. When William of Malmesbury describes the knighting of Athelstan by his grandfather Alfred the Great, that is, his investiture “with a purple garment set with gems and a Saxon sword with a golden sheath,” there is no hint of any religious observance. In spite of the silence of our records, Dr Stubbs thinks that kings so well acquainted with foreign usages as Ethelred, Canute and Edward the Confessor could hardly have failed to introduce into England the institution of chivalry then springing up in every country of Europe; and he is supported in this opinion by the circumstance that it is nowhere mentioned as a Norman innovation. Yet the fact that Harold received knighthood from William of Normandy makes it clear either that Harold was not yet a knight, which in the case of so tried a warrior would imply that “dubbing to knighthood” was not yet known in England even under Edward the Confessor, or, as Freeman thinks, that in the middle of the 11th century the custom had grown in Normandy into “something of a more special meaning” than it bore in England.
Regarded as a method of military organization, the feudal system of tenures was always far better adapted to the purposes of defensive than of offensive warfare. Against invasion it furnished a permanent provision both in men-at-arms and strongholds; nor was it unsuited for the campaigns of neighbouring counts and barons which lasted for only a few weeks, and extended over only a few leagues. But when kings and kingdoms were in conflict, and distant and prolonged expeditions became necessary, it was speedily discovered that the unassisted resources of feudalism were altogether inadequate. It became therefore the manifest interest of both parties that personal services should be commuted into pecuniary payments. Then there grew up all over Europe a system of fining the knights who failed to respond to the sovereign’s call or to stay their full time in the field; and in England this fine developed, from the reign of Henry II. to that of Edward II., into a regular war-tax calledescuageorscutage(q.v.). In this way funds for war were placed at the free disposal of sovereigns, and, although the feudatories and their retainers still formed the most considerable portion of their armies, the conditions under which they served were altogether changed. Their military service was now far more the result of special agreement. In the reign of Edward I., whose warlike enterprises after he was king were confined within the four seas, this alteration does not seem to have proceeded very far, and Scotland and Wales were subjugated by what was in the main, if not exclusively, a feudal militia raised as of old by writ to the earls and barons and the sheriffs.12But the armies of Edward III., Henry V. and Henry VI. during the century of intermittent warfare between England and France were recruited and sustained to a very great extent on the principle of contract.13On the Continent the systematic employment of mercenaries was both an early and a common practice.
Besides consideration for the mutual convenience of sovereigns and their feudatories, there were other causes which materially contributed towards bringing about those changes in the military system of Europe which were finallyThe Crusades.accomplished in the 13th and 14th centuries. During the Crusades vast armies were set on foot in which feudal rightsand obligations had no place, and it was seen that the volunteers who flocked to the standards of the various commanders were not less but even more efficient in the field than the vassals they had hitherto been accustomed to lead. It was thus established that pay, the love of enterprise and the prospect of plunder—if we leave zeal for the sacred cause which they had espoused for the moment out of sight—were quite as useful for the purpose of enlisting troops and keeping them together as the tenure of land and the solemnities of homage and fealty. Moreover, the crusaders who survived the difficulties and dangers of an expedition to Palestine were seasoned and experienced although frequently impoverished and landless soldiers, ready to hire themselves to the highest bidder, and well worth the wages they received. Again, it was owing to the crusades that the church took the profession of arms under her peculiar protection, and thenceforward the ceremonies of initiation into it assumed a religious as well as a martial character.
To distinguished soldiers of the cross the honours and benefits of knighthood could hardly be refused on the ground that they did not possess a sufficient property qualification—of which perhaps they had denuded themselves inKnighthood independent of Feudalism.order to their equipment for the Holy War. And thus the conception of knighthood as of something distinct from feudalism both as a social condition and a personal dignity arose and rapidly gained ground. It was then that the analogy was first detected between the order of knighthood and the order of priesthood, and that an actual union of monachism and chivalry was effected by the establishment of the religious orders of which the Knights Templars and the Knights Hospitallers were the most eminent examples. As comprehensive in their polity as the Benedictines or Franciscans, they gathered their members from, and soon scattered their possessions over, every country in Europe. And in their indifference to the distinctions of race and nationality they merely accommodated themselves to the spirit which had become characteristic of chivalry itself, already recognized, like the church, as a universal institution which knit together the whole warrior caste of Christendom into one great fraternity irrespective alike of feudal subordination and territorial boundaries. Somewhat later the adoption of hereditary surnames and armorial bearings marked the existence of a large and noble class who either from the subdivision of fiefs or from the effects of the custom of primogeniture were very insufficiently provided for. To them only two callings were generally open, that of the churchman and that of the soldier, and the latter as a rule offered greater attractions than the former in an era of much licence and little learning. Hence the favourite expedient for men of birth, although not of fortune, was to attach themselves to some prince or magnate in whose military service they were sure of an adequate maintenance and might hope for even a rich reward in the shape of booty or of ransom.14It is probably to this period and these circumstances that we must look for at all events the rudimentary beginnings of the military as well as the religious orders of chivalry. Of the existence of any regularly constituted companionships of the first kind there is no trustworthy evidence until between two and three centuries after fraternities of the second kind had been organized. Soon after the greater crusading societies had been formed similar orders, such as those of St James of Compostella, Calatrava and Alcantara, were established to fight the Moors in Spain instead of the Saracens in the Holy Land. But the members of these orders were not less monks than knights, their statutes embodied the rules of the cloister, and they were bound by the ecclesiastical vows of celibacy, poverty and obedience. From a very early stage in the development of chivalry, however, we meet with the singular institution of brotherhood in arms; and from it the ultimate origin if not of the religious fraternities at any rate of the military companionships is usually derived.15By this institution a relation was created between two or more monks by voluntary agreement, which was regarded as of far more intimacy and stringency than any which the mere accident of consanguinity implied. Brothers in arms were supposed to be partners in all things save the affections of their “lady-loves.” They shared in every danger and in every success, and each was expected to vindicate the honour of another as promptly and zealously as his own. The plot of the medieval romance ofAmis and Amilesis built entirely on such a brotherhood. Their engagements usually lasted through life, but sometimes only for a specified period or during the continuance of specified circumstances, and they were always ratified by oath, occasionally reduced to writing in the shape of a solemn bond and often sanctified by their reception of the Eucharist together. Romance and tradition speak of strange rites—the mingling and even the drinking of blood—as having in remote and rude ages marked the inception of these martial and fraternal associations.16But in later and less barbarous times they were generally evidenced and celebrated by a formal and reciprocal exchange of weapons and armour. In warfare it was customary for knights who were thus allied to appear similarly accoutred and bearing the same badges or cognisances, to the end that their enemies might not know with which of them they were in conflict, and that their friends might be unable to accord more applause to one than to the other for his prowess in the field. It seems likely enough therefore that there should grow up bodies of knights banded together by engagements of fidelity, although free from monastic obligations; wearing a uniform or livery, and naming themselves after some special symbol or some patron saint of their adoption. And such bodies placed under the command of a sovereign or grand master, regulated by statutes, and enriched by ecclesiastical endowments would have been precisely what in after times such orders as the Garter in England, the Golden Fleece in Burgundy, the Annunziata in Savoy and the St Michael and Holy Ghost in France actually were.17
During the 14th and 15th centuries, as well as somewhat earlier and later, the general arrangements of a European army were always and everywhere pretty much the same.18Under the sovereign the constable and the marshalGrades of Knighthood.or marshals held the chief commands, their authority being partly joint and partly several. Attendant on them were the heralds, who were the officers of their military court, wherein offences committed in the camp and field were tried and adjudged, and among whose duties it was to carry orders and messages, to deliver challenges and call truces, and to identify and number the wounded and the slain. The main divisions of the army were distributed under the royal and other principal standards, smaller divisions under the banners of some of the greater nobility or of knights banneret, and smaller divisions still under the pennons of knights or, as in distinction from knights banneret they came to be called, knights bachelors. All knights whether bachelors or bannerets were escorted by their squires. But the banner of the banneret always implied a more or less extensive command, while every knight was entitled to bear a pennon and every squire a pencel. All three flags were of such a size as to be conveniently attached to and carried on a lance, and were emblazoned with the arms or some portion of the bearings of their owners. But while the banner was square the pennon, which resembled it in other respects, was either pointed or forked at its extremity, and the pencel, which was considerably less than the others, always terminated in a single tail or streamer.19
If indeed we look at the scale of chivalric subordination from another point of view, it seems to be more properly divisible into four than into three stages, of which two may be called provisional and two final. The bachelor and the banneret were both equally knights, only the one was of greater distinction and authoritythan the other. In like manner the squire and the page were both in training for knighthood, but the first had advanced further in the process than the second. It is true that the squire was a combatant while the page was not, and that many squires voluntarily served as squires all their lives owing to the insufficiency of their fortunes to support the costs and charges of knighthood. But in the ordinary course of a chivalrous education the successive conditions of page and squire were passed through in boyhood and youth, and the condition of knighthood was reached in early manhood. Every feudal court and castle was in fact a school of chivalry, and although princes and great personages were rarely actually pages or squires, the moral and physical discipline through which they passed was not in any important particular different from that to which less exalted candidates for knighthood were subjected.20The page, or, as he was more anciently and more correctly called, the “valet” or “damoiseau,” commenced his service and instruction when he was between seven and eight years old, and the initial phase continued for seven or eight years longer. He acted as the constant personal attendant of both his master and mistress. He waited on them in their hall and accompanied them in the chase, served the lady in her bower and followed the lord to the camp.21From the chaplain and his mistress and her damsels he learnt the rudiments of religion, of rectitude and of love,22from his master and his squires the elements of military exercise, to cast a spear or dart, to sustain a shield, and to march with the measured tread of a soldier; and from his master and his huntsmen and falconers the “mysteries of the woods and rivers,” or in other words the rules and practices of hunting and hawking. When he was between fifteen and sixteen he became a squire. But no sudden or great alteration was made in his mode of life. He continued to wait at dinner with the pages, although in a manner more dignified according to the notions of the age. He not only served but carved and helped the dishes, proffered the first or principal cup of wine to his master and his guests, and carried to them the basin, ewer or napkin when they washed their hands before and after meat. He assisted in clearing the hall for dancing or minstrelsy, and laid the tables for chess or draughts, and he also shared in the pastimes for which he had made preparation. He brought his master the “vin de coucher” at night, and made his early refection ready for him in the morning. But his military exercises and athletic sports occupied an always increasing portion of the day. He accustomed himself to ride the “great horse,” to tilt at the quintain, to wield the sword and battle-axe, to swim and climb, to run and leap, and to bear the weight and overcome the embarrassments of armour. He inured himself to the vicissitudes of heat and cold, and voluntarily suffered the pains or inconveniences of hunger and thirst, fatigue and sleeplessness. It was then too that he chose his “lady-love,” whom he was expected to regard with an adoration at once earnest, respectful, and the more meritorious if concealed. And when it was considered that he had made sufficient advancement in his military accomplishments, he took his sword to the priest, who laid it on the altar, blessed it, and returned it to him.23Afterwards he either remained with his early master, relegating most of his domestic duties to his younger companions, or he entered the service of some valiant and adventurous lord or knight of his own selection. He now became a “squire of the body,” and truly an “armiger” or “scutifer,” for he bore the shield and armour of his leader to the field, and, what was a task of no small difficulty and hazard, cased and secured him in his panoply of war before assisting him to mount his courser or charger. It was his function also to display and guard in battle the banner of the baron or banneret or the pennon of the knight he served, to raise him from the ground if he were unhorsed, to supply him with another or his own horse if his was disabled or killed, to receive and keep any prisoners he might take, to fight by his side if he was unequally matched, to rescue him if captured, to bear him to a place of safety if wounded, and to bury him honourably when dead. And after he had worthily and bravely, borne himself for six or seven years as a squire, the time came when it was fitting that he should be made a knight. This, at least, was the current theory; but it is specially dangerous in medieval history to assume too much correspondence between theory and fact. In many castles, and perhaps in most, the discipline followed simply a natural and unwritten code of “fagging” and seniority, as in public schools or on board men-of-war some hundred years or so ago.
Two modes of conferring knighthood appear to have prevailed from a very early period in all countries where chivalry was known. In both of them the essential portion seems to have been the accolade or stroke of the sword.Modes of conferring Knighthood.But while in the one the accolade constituted the whole or nearly the whole of the ceremony, in the other it was surrounded with many additional observances. The former and simpler of these modes was naturally that used in war: the candidate knelt before “the chief of the army or some valiant knight,” who struck him thrice with the flat of a sword, pronouncing a brief formula of creation and of exhortation which varied at the creator’s will.24
In this form a number of knights were made before and after almost every battle between the 11th and the 16th centuries, and its advantages on the score of both convenience and economy gradually led to its general adoption both in time of peace and time of war. On extraordinary occasions indeed the more elaborate ritual continued to be observed. But recourse was had to it so rarely that in England about the beginning of the 15th century it came to be exclusively appropriated to a special king of knighthood. When Segar, garter king of arms, wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, this had been accomplished with such completeness that he does not even mention that there were two ways of creating knights bachelors. “He that is to be made a knight,” he says, “is striken by the prince with a sword drawn upon his back or shoulder, the prince saying, ‘Soys Chevalier,’ and in times past was added ‘Saint George.’ And when the knight rises the prince sayeth ‘Avencez.’ This is the manner of dubbing knights at this present, and that term ‘dubbing’ was the old term in this point, not ‘creating.’ This sort of knights are by the heralds called knights bachelors.” In our days when a knight is personally made he kneels before the sovereign, who lays a sword drawn, ordinarily the sword of state, on either of his shoulders and says, “Rise,” calling him by his Christian name with the addition of “Sir” before it.
Very different were the solemnities which attended the creation of a knight when the complete procedure was observed. “The ceremonies and circumstances at the giving this dignity,” says Selden, “in the elder time were of two kinds especially, which we may call courtly and sacred. The courtly were the feasts held at the creation, giving of robes, arms, spurs and the like. The sacred were the holy devotions and what else was used in the church at or before the receiving of the dignity.”25But the leading authority on the subject is an ancient tract written in French, which will be found at length either in the original or translated by Segar, Dugdale, Byshe and Nicolas, among other English writers.26Daniel explains his reasons for transcribing it, “tant à cause du detail que de la naïveté du stile et encore plus de la bisarrerie des ceremonies que se faisoient pourtant alors fort sérieusement,” while he adds that these ceremonies were essentially identical in England, France, Germany, Spain and Italy.