Chapter 5

The process of inauguration was commenced in the evening by the placing of the candidate under the care of two “esquires of honour grave and well seen in courtship and nurture and also in the feats of chivalry,” who were to be “governors in all things relating to him.” Under their direction, to begin with, a barber shaved him and cut his hair. He was then conducted by them to his appointed chamber, where a bath was prepared hung within and without with linen and covered with rich cloths, into which after they had undressed him he entered. While he was in the bath two “ancient and grave knights” attended him “to inform, instruct and counsel him touching the order and feats of chivalry,” and when they had fulfilled their mission they poured some of the water of the bath over his shoulders, signing the left shoulder with the cross, and retired. He was then taken from the bath and put into a plain bed without hangings, in which he remained until his body was dry, when the two esquires put on him a white shirt and over that “a robe of russet with long sleeves having a hood thereto like unto that of an hermit.” Then the “two ancient and grave knights” returned and led him to the chapel, the esquires going before them “sporting and dancing” with “the minstrels making melody.” And when they had been served with wines and spices they went away leaving only the candidate, the esquires, “the priest, the chandler and the watch,” who kept the vigil of arms until sunrise, the candidate passing the night “bestowing himself in orisons and prayers.” At daybreak he confessed to the priest, heard matins, and communicated in the mass, offering a taper and a piece of money stuck in it as near the lighted end as possible, the first “to the honour of God” and the second “to the honour of the person that makes him a knight.” Afterwards he was taken back to his chamber, and remained in bed until the knights, esquires and minstrels went to him and aroused him. The knights then dressed him in distinctive garments, and they then mounted their horses and rode to the hall where the candidate was to receive knighthood; his future squire was to ride before him bareheaded bearing his sword by the point in its scabbard with his spurs hanging from its hilt. And when everything was prepared the prince or subject who was to knight him came into the hall, and, the candidate’s sword and spurs having been presented to him, he delivered the right spur to the “most noble and gentle” knight present, and directed him to fasten it on the candidate’s right heel, which he kneeling on one knee and putting the candidate’s right foot on his knee accordingly did, signing the candidate’s knee with the cross, and in like manner by another “noble and gentle” knight the left spur was fastened to his left heel. And then he who was to create the knight took the sword and girded him with it, and then embracing him he lifted his right hand and smote him on the neck or shoulder, saying, “Be thou a good knight,” and kissed him. When this was done they all went to the chapel with much music, and the new knight laying his right hand on the altar promised to support and defend the church, and ungirding his sword offered it on the altar. And as he came out from the chapel the master cook awaited him at the door and claimed his spurs as his fee, and said, “If you do anything contrary to the order of chivalry (which God forbid), I shall hack the spurs from your heels.”27

The full solemnities for conferring knighthood seem to have been so largely and so early superseded by the practice of dubbing or giving the accolade alone that in England it became at last restricted to such knights as were made at coronations and some other occasions of state. And to them the particular name of Knights of the Bath was assigned, while knights made in the ordinary way were called in distinction from them knights of the sword, as they were also called knights bachelors in distinction from knights banneret.28It is usually supposed that the first creation of knights of the Bath under that designation was at the coronation of Henry IV.; and before the order of the Bath as a companionship or capitular body was instituted the last creation of them was at the coronation of Charles II. But all knights were also knights of the spur or “equites aurati,” because their spurs were golden or gilt,—the spurs of squires being of silver or white metal,—and these became their peculiar badge in popular estimation and proverbial speech. In the form of their solemn inauguration too, as we have noticed, the spurs together with the sword were always employed as the leading and most characteristic ensigns of knighthood.29

With regard to knights banneret, various opinions have been entertained as to both the nature of their dignity and the qualifications they were required to possess for receiving it at different periods and in different countries. On the Continent the distinction which is commonly but incorrectly made between the nobility and the gentry has never arisen, and it was unknown here while chivalry existed and heraldry was understood. Here, as elsewhere in the old time, a nobleman and a gentleman meant the same thing, namely, a man who under certain conditions of descent was entitled to armorial bearings. Hence Du Cange divides the medieval nobility of France and Spain into three classes: first, barons or ricos hombres; secondly, chevaliers or caballeros; and thirdly, écuyers or infanzons; and to the first, who with their several special titles constituted the greater nobility of either country, he limits the designation of banneret and the right of leading their followers to war under a banner, otherwise a “drapeau quarré” or square flag.30Selden shows especially from the parliament rolls that the term banneret has been occasionally employed in England as equivalent to baron.31In Scotland, even as late as the reign of James VI., lords of parliament were always created bannerets as well as barons at their investiture, “part of the ceremony consisting in the display of a banner, and such ‘barones majores’ were thereby entitled to the privilege of having one borne by a retainer before them to the field of a quadrilateral form.”32In Scotland, too, lords of parliament and bannerets were also called bannerents, banrents or baronets, and in England banneret was often corrupted to baronet. “Even in a patent passed to Sir Ralph Fane, knight under Edward VI., he is called ‘baronettus’ for ‘bannerettus.’”33In this manner it is not improbable that the title of baronet may have been suggested to the advisers of James I. when the order of Baronetswas originally created by him, for it was a question whether the recipients of the new dignity should be designated by that or some other name.34But there is no doubt that as previously used it was merely a corrupt synonym for banneret, and not the name of any separate dignity. On the Continent, however, there are several recorded examples of bannerets who had an hereditary claim to that honour and its attendant privileges on the ground of the nature of their feudal tenure.35And generally, at any rate to commence with, it seems probable that bannerets were in every country merely the more important class of feudatories, the “ricos hombres” in contrast to the knights bachelors, who in France in the time of St Louis were known as “pauvres hommes.” In England all the barons or greater nobility were entitled to bear banners, and therefore Du Cange’s observations would apply to them as well as to the barons or greater nobility of France and Spain. But it is clear that from a comparatively early period bannerets whose claims were founded on personal distinction rather than on feudal tenure gradually came to the front, and much the same process of substitution appears to have gone on in their case as that which we have marked in the case of simple knights. According to theSalladeand theDivision du Monde, as cited by Selden, bannerets were clearly in the beginning feudal tenants of a certain magnitude and importance and nothing more, and different forms for their creation are given in time of peace and in time of war.36But in the FrenchGesta Romanorumthe warlike form alone is given, and it is quoted by both Selden and Du Cange. From the latter a more modern version of it is given by Daniel as the only one generally in force.

Plate I.

The knight bachelor whose services and landed possessions entitled him to promotion would apply formally to the commander in the field for the title of banneret. If this were granted, the heralds were called to cut publicly the tails from his pennon: or the commander, as a special honour, might cut them off with his own hands.37The earliest contemporary mention of knights banneret is in France, Daniel says, in the reign of Philip Augustus, and in England, Selden says in the reign of Edward I. But in neither case is reference made to them in such a manner as to suggest that the dignity was then regarded as new or even uncommon, and it seems pretty certain that its existence on one side could not have long preceded its existence on the other side of the Channel. Sir Alan Plokenet, Sir Ralph Daubeney and Sir Philip Daubeney are entered as bannerets on the roll of the garrison of Caermarthen Castle in 1282, and the roll of Carlaverock records the names and arms of eighty-five bannerets who accompanied Edward I. in his expedition into Scotland in 1300.

What the exact contingent was which bannerets were expected to supply to the royal host is doubtful.38But, however this may be, in the reign of Edward III. and afterwards bannerets appear as the commanders of a military force raised by themselves and marshalled under their banners: their status and their relations both to the crown and to their followers were mainly the consequences of voluntary contract not of feudal tenure. It is from the reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. also that the two best descriptions we possess of the actual creation of a banneret have been transmitted to us.39Sir Thomas Smith, writing towards the end of the 16th century, says, after noticing the conditions to be observed in the creation of bannerets, “but this order is almost grown out of use in England”;40and, during the controversy which arose between the new order of baronets and the crown early in the 17th century respecting their precedence, it was alleged without contradiction in an argument on behalf of the baronets before the privy council that “there are not bannerets now in being, peradventure never shall be.”41Sir Ralph Fane, Sir Francis Bryan and Sir Ralph Sadler were created bannerets by the Lord Protector Somerset after the battle of Pinkie in 1547, and the better opinion is that this was the last occasion on which the dignity was conferred. It has been stated indeed that Charles I. created Sir John Smith a banneret after the battle of Edgehill in 1642 for having rescued the royal standard from the enemy. But of this there is no sufficient proof. It was also supposed that George III. had created several naval officers bannerets towards the end of the last century, because he knighted them on board ship under the royal standard displayed. This, however, is unquestionably an error.42

On the continent of Europe the degree of knight bachelor disappeared with the military system which had given rise to it. It is now therefore peculiar to the British Empire, where, although very frequently conferred by lettersExisting Orders of Knighthood.patent, it is yet the only dignity which is still even occasionally created—as every dignity was formerly created—by means of a ceremony in which the sovereign and the subject personally take part. Everywhere else dubbing or the accolade seems to have become obsolete, and no other species of knighthood, if knighthood it can be called, is known except that which is dependent on admission to some particular order. It is a common error to suppose that baronets are hereditary knights. Baronets are not knights unless they are knighted like anybody else; and, so far from being knights because they are baronets, one of the privileges granted to them shortly after the institution of their dignity was that they, not being knights, and their successors and their eldest sons and heirs-apparent should, when they attained their majority, be entitled if they desired to receive knighthood.43It is a maxim of the law indeed that, as Coke says, “the knight is by creation and not by descent,” and, although we hear of such designations as the “knight of Kerry” or the “knight of Glin,” they are no more than traditional nicknames, and do not by any means imply that the persons to whom they are applied are knights in a legitimate sense. Notwithstanding, however, that simple knighthood has gone out of use abroad, there are innumerable grand crosses, commanders and companions of a formidable assortment of orders in almost every part of the world.44(See the section on “Orders of Knighthood” below.)

The United Kingdom has eight orders of knighthood—the Garter, the Thistle, St Patrick, the Bath, the Star of India, St Michael and St George, the Indian Empire and the Royal Victorian Order; and, while the first is undoubtedly the oldest as well as the most illustrious anywhere existing, a fictitious antiquity has been claimed and is even still frequently concededto the second and fourth, although the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth appear to be as contentedly as they are unquestionably recent.

It is, however, certain that the “most noble” Order of the Garter at least was instituted in the middle of the 14th century, when English chivalry was outwardly brightest and the court most magnificent. But in what particularOrder of the Garter.year this event occurred is and has been the subject of much difference of opinion. All the original records of the order until after 1416 have perished, and consequently the question depends for its settlement not on direct testimony but on inference from circumstances. The dates which have been selected vary from 1344 (given by Froissart, but almost certainly mistaken) to 1351. The evidence may be examined at length in Nicolas and Beltz; it is indisputable that in the wardrobe account from September 1347 to January 1349, the 21st and 23rd Edward III., the issue of certain habits with garters and the motto embroidered on them is marked for St George’s Day; that the letters patent relating to the preparation of the royal chapel of Windsor are dated in August 1348; and that in the treasury accounts of the prince of Wales there is an entry in November 1348 of the gift by him of “twenty-four garters to the knights of the Society of the Garter.”45But that the order, although from this manifestly already fully constituted in the autumn of 1348, was not in existence before the summer of 1346 Sir Harris Nicolas proves pretty conclusively by pointing out that nobody who was not a knight could under its statutes have been admitted to it, and that neither the prince of Wales nor several others of the original companions were knighted until the middle of that year.

Regarding the occasion there has been almost as much controversy as regarding the date of its foundation. The “vulgar and more general story,” as Ashmole calls it, is that of the countess of Salisbury’s garter. But commentators are not at one as to which countess of Salisbury was the heroine of the adventure, whether she was Katherine Montacute or Joan the Fair Maid of Kent, while Heylyn rejects the legend as “a vain and idle romance derogatory both to the founder and the order, first published by Polydor Vergil, a stranger to the affairs of England, and by him taken upon no better ground than fama vulgi, the tradition of the common people, too trifling a foundation for so great a building.”46

Another legend is that contained in the preface to the Register or Black Book of the order, compiled in the reign of Henry VIII., by what authority supported is unknown, that Richard I., while his forces were employed against Cyprus and Acre, had been inspired through the instrumentality of St George with renewed courage and the means of animating his fatigued soldiers by the device of tying about the legs of a chosen number of knights a leathern thong or garter, to the end that being thereby reminded of the honour of their enterprise they might be encouraged to redoubled efforts for victory. This was supposed to have been in the mind of Edward III. when he fixed on the garter as the emblem of the order, and it was stated so to have been by Taylor, master of the rolls, in his address to Francis I. of France on his investiture in 1527.47According to Ashmole the true account of the matter is that “King Edward having given forth his own garter as the signal for a battle which sped fortunately (which with Du Chesne we conceive to be that of Crécy), the victory, we say, being happily gained, he thence took occasion to institute this order, and gave the garter (assumed by him for the symbol of unity and society) preeminence among the ensigns of it.” But, as Sir Harris Nicolas points out—although Ashmole is not open to the correction—this hypothesis rests for its plausibility on the assumption that the order was established before the invasion of France in 1346. And he further observes that “a great variety of devices and mottoes were used by Edward III.; they were chosen from the most trivial causes and were of an amorous rather than of a military character. Nothing,” he adds, “is more likely than that in a crowded assembly a lady should accidentally have dropped her garter; that the circumstance should have caused a smile in the bystanders; and that on its being taken up by Edward he should have reproved the levity of his courtiers by so happy and chivalrous an exclamation, placing the garter at the same time on his own knee, as ‘Dishonoured be he who thinks ill of it.’ Such a circumstance occurring at a time of general festivity, when devices, mottoes and conceits of all kinds were adopted as ornaments or badges of the habits worn at jousts and tournaments, would naturally have been commemorated as other royal expressions seem to have been by its conversion into a device and motto for the dresses at an approaching hastilude.”48Moreover, Sir Harris Nicolas contends that the order had no loftier immediate origin than a joust or tournament. It consisted of the king and the Black Prince, and 24 knights divided into two bands of 12 like the tilters in a hastilude——at the head of the one being the first, and of the other the second; and to the companions belonging to each, when the order had superseded the Round Table and had become a permanent institution, were assigned stalls either on the sovereign’s or the prince’s side of St George’s Chapel. That Sir Harris Nicolas is accurate in this conjecture seems probable from the selection which was made of the “founder knights.” As Beltz observes, the fame of Sir Reginald Cobham, Sir Walter Manny and the earls of Northampton, Hereford and Suffolk was already established by their warlike exploits, and they would certainly have been among the original companions had the order been then regarded as the reward of military merit only. But, although these eminent warriors were subsequently elected as vacancies occurred, their admission was postponed to that of several very young and in actual warfare comparatively unknown knights, whose claims to the honour may be most rationally explained on the assumption that they had excelled in the particular feats of arms which preceded the institution of the order. The original companionship had consisted of the sovereign and 25 knights, and no change was made in this respect until 1786, when the sons of George III. and his successors were made eligible notwithstanding that the chapter might be complete. In 1805 another alteration was effected by the provision that the lineal descendants of George II. should be eligible in the same manner, except the Prince of Wales for the time being, who was declared to be “a constituent part of the original institution”; and again in 1831 it was further ordained that the privilege accorded to the lineal descendants of George II. should extend to the lineal descendants of George I. Although, as Sir Harris Nicolas observes, nothing is now known of the form of admitting ladies into the order, the description applied to them in the records during the 14th and 15th centuries leaves no doubt that they were regularly received into it. The queen consort, the wives and daughters of knights, and some other women of exalted position, were designated “Dames de la Fraternité de St George,” and entries of the delivery of robes and garters to them are found at intervals in the Wardrobe Accounts from the 50th Edward III. (1376) to the 10th of Henry VII. (1495), the first being Isabel, countess of Bedford, the daughter of the one king, and the last being Margaret and Elizabeth, the daughters of the other king. The effigies of Margaret Byron, wife of Sir Robert Harcourt, K.G., at Stanton Harcourt, and of Alice Chaucer, wife of William de la Pole, duke of Suffolk, K.G., at Ewelme, which date from the reigns of Henry VI. and Edward IV., have garters on their left arms. (See further under “Orders of Knighthood” below.)

It has been the general opinion, as expressed by Sainte Palaye and Mills, that formerly all knights were qualified to confer knighthood.49But it may be questioned whether the privilegewas thus indiscriminately enjoyed even in the earlier daysPersons empowered to confer Knighthood.of chivalry. It is true that as much might be inferred from the testimony of the romance writers; historical evidence, however, tends to limit the proposition, and the sounder conclusion appears to be, as Sir Harris Nicolas says, that the right was always restricted in operation to sovereign princes, to those acting under their authority or sanction, and to a few other personages of exalted rank and station.50In several of the writs for distraint of knighthood from Henry III. to Edward III. a distinction is drawn between those who are to be knighted by the king himself or by the sheriffs of counties respectively, and bishops and abbots could make knights in the 11th and 12th centuries.51At all periods the commanders of the royal armies had the power of conferring knighthood; as late as the reign of Elizabeth it was exercised among others by Sir Henry Sidney in 1583, and Robert, earl of Essex, in 1595, while under James I. an ordinance of 1622, confirmed by a proclamation of 1623, for the registration of knights in the college of arms, is rendered applicable to all who should receive knighthood from either the king or any of his lieutenants.52Many sovereigns, too, both of England and of France, have been knighted after their accession to the throne by their own subjects, as, for instance, Edward III. by Henry, earl of Lancaster, Edward VI. by the lord protector Somerset, Louis XI. by Philip, duke of Burgundy, and Francis I. by the Chevalier Bayard. But when in 1543 Henry VIII. appointed Sir John Wallop to be captain of Guisnes, it was considered necessary that he should be authorized in express terms to confer knighthood, which was also done by Edward VI. in his own case when he received knighthood from the duke of Somerset.53But at present the only subject to whom the right of conferring knighthood belongs is the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and to him it belongs merely by long usage and established custom. But, by whomsoever conferred, knighthood at one time endowed the recipient with the same status and attributes in every country wherein chivalry was recognized. In the middle ages it was a common practice for sovereigns and princes to dub each other knights much as they were afterwards, and are now, in the habit of exchanging the stars and ribbons of their orders. Henry II. was knighted by his great-uncle David I. of Scotland, Alexander III. of Scotland by Henry III., Edward I. when he was prince by Alphonso X. of Castile, and Ferdinand of Portugal by Edmund of Langley, earl of Cambridge.54And, long after the military importance of knighthood had practically disappeared, what may be called its cosmopolitan character was maintained: a knight’s title was recognized in all European countries, and not only in that country in which he had received it. In modern times, however, by certain regulations, made in 1823, and repeated and enlarged in 1855, not only is it provided that the sovereign’s permission by royal warrant shall be necessary for the reception by a British subject of any foreign order of knighthood, but further that such permission shall not authorize “the assumption of any style, appellation, rank, precedence, or privilege appertaining to a knight bachelor of the United Kingdom.”55

Since knighthood was accorded either by actual investiture or its equivalent, a counter process of degradation was regarded as necessary for the purpose of depriving anybody who had once received it of the rank and conditionDegradation.it implied.56The cases in which a knight has been formally degraded in England are exceedingly few, so few indeed that two only are mentioned by Segar, writing in 1602, and Dallaway says that only three were on record in the College of Arms when he wrote in 1793. The last case was that of Sir Francis Michell in 1621, whose spurs were hacked from his heels, his sword-belt cut, and his sword broken over his head by the heralds in Westminster Hall.57

Roughly speaking, the age of chivalry properly so called may be said to have extended from the beginning of the crusades to the end of the Wars of the Roses. Even in the way of pageantry and martial exercise it did not long survive the middle ages. In England tilts and tourneys, in which her father had so much excelled, were patronized to the last by Queen Elizabeth, and were even occasionally held until after the death of Henry, prince of Wales. But on the Continent they were discredited by the fatal accident which befell Henry II. of France in 1559. The golden age of chivalry has been variously located. Most writers would place it in the early 13th century, but Gautier would remove it two or three generations further back. It may be true that, in the comparative scarcity of historical evidence, 12th-century romances present a more favourable picture of chivalry at that earlier time; but even such historical evidence as we possess, when carefully scrutinized, is enough to dispel the illusion that there was any period of the middle ages in which the unselfish championship of “God and the ladies” was anything but a rare exception.

It is difficult to describe the true spirit and moral influence of knighthood, if only because the ages in which it flourished differed so widely from our own. At its very best, it was always hampered by the limitations of medieval society. Moreover, many of the noblest precepts of the knightly code were a legacy from earlier ages, and have survived the decay of knighthood just as they will survive all transitory human institutions, forming part of the eternal heritage of the race. Indeed, the most important of these precepts did not even attain to their highest development in the middle ages. As a conscious effort to bring religion into daily life, chivalry was less successful than later puritanism; while the educated classes of our own day far surpass the average medieval knight in discipline, self-control and outward or inward refinement. Freeman’s estimate comes far nearer to the historical facts than Burke’s: “The chivalrous spirit is above all things a class spirit. The good knight is bound to endless fantastic courtesies towards men and still more towards women of a certain rank; he may treat all below that rank with any decree of scorn and cruelty. The spirit of chivalry implies the arbitrary choice of one or two virtues to be practised in such an exaggerated degree as to become vices, while the ordinary laws of right and wrong are forgotten. The false code of honour supplants the laws of the commonwealth, the law of God and the eternal principles of right. Chivalry again in its military aspect not only encourages the love of war for its own sake without regard to the cause for which war is waged, it encourages also an extravagant regard for a fantastic show of personal daring which cannot in any way advance the objects of the siege or campaign which is going on. Chivalry in short is in morals very much what feudalism is in law: each substitutes purely personal obligations devised in the interests of an exclusive class, for the more homely duties of an honest man and a good citizen” (Norman Conquest, v. 482). The chivalry from which Burke drew his ideas was, so far as it existed at all, the product of a far later age. In its own age, chivalry rested practically, like the highest civilization of ancient Greece and Rome, on slave labour;58and if many of itsmost brilliant outward attractions have now faded for ever, this is only because modern civilization tends so strongly to remove social barriers. The knightly ages will always enjoy the glory of having formulated a code of honour which aimed at rendering the upper classes worthy of their exceptional privileges; yet we must judge chivalry not only by its formal code but also by its practical fruits. The ideal is well summed up by F. W. Cornish: “Chivalry taught the world the duty of noble service willingly rendered. It upheld courage and enterprise in obedience to rule, it consecrated military prowess to the service of the Church, glorified the virtues of liberality, good faith, unselfishness and courtesy, and above all, courtesy to women. Against these may be set the vices of pride, ostentation, love of bloodshed, contempt of inferiors, and loose manners. Chivalry was an imperfect discipline, but it was a discipline, and one fit for the times. It may have existed in the world too long: it did not come into existence too early; and with all its shortcomings it exercised a great and wholesome influence in raising the medieval world from barbarism to civilization” (p. 27). This was the ideal, but to give the reader a clear view of the actual features of knightly society in their contrast with that of our own day, it is necessary to bring out one or two very significant shadows.

Far too much has been made of the extent to which the knightly code, and the reverence paid to the Virgin Mary, raised the position of women (e.g.Gautier, p. 360). As Gautier himself admits, the feudal system made it difficult to separate the woman’s person from her fief: instead of the freedom of Christian marriage on which the Church in theory insisted, lands and women were handed over together, as a business bargain, by parents or guardians. In theory, the knight was the defender of widows and orphans; but in practice wardships and marriages were bought and sold as a matter of everyday routine like stocks and shares in the modern market. Lord Thomas de Berkeley (1245-1321) counted on this as a regular and considerable source of income (Smyth,Lives, i. 157). Late in the 15th century, in spite of the somewhat greater liberty of that age, we find Stephen Scrope writing nakedly to a familiar correspondent “for very need [of poverty], I was fain to sell a little daughter I have for much less than I should have done by possibility,”i.e.than the fair market price (Gairdner,Paston Letters, Introduction, p. clxxvi; cf. ccclxxi). Startling as such words are, it is perhaps still more startling to find how frequently and naturally, in the highest society, ladies were degraded by personal violence. The proofs of this which Schultz and Gautier adduce from theChansons de Gestemight be multiplied indefinitely. The Knight of La Tour-Landry (1372) relates, by way of warning to his daughters, a tale of a lady who so irritated her husband by scolding him in company, that he struck her to the earth with his fist and kicked her in the face, breaking her nose. Upon this the good knight moralizes: “And this she had for her euelle and gret langage, that she was wont to saie to her husbonde. And therfor the wiff aught to suffre and lete her husbonde haue the wordes, and to be maister, for that is her worshippe; for it is shame to here striff betwene hem, and in especial before folke. But y saie not but whanne thei be allone, but she may tolle hym with goodly wordes, and counsaile hym to amende yef he do amys” (La Tour, chap. xviii.; cf. xvii. and xix.). The right of wife-beating was formally recognized by more than one code of laws, and it was already a forward step when, in the 13th century, theCoutumes du Beauvoisisprovided “que le mari ne doit battre sa femme queraisonnablement” (Gautier, p. 349). This was a natural consequence not only of the want of self-control which we see everywhere in the middle ages, but also of the custom of contracting child-marriages for unsentimental considerations. Between 1288 and 1500 five marriages are recorded in the direct line of the Berkeley family in which the ten contracting parties averaged less than eleven years of age: the marriage contract of another Lord Berkeley was drawn up before he was six years old. Moreover, the same business considerations which dictated those early marriages clashed equally with the strict theory of knighthood. In the same Berkeley family, the lord Maurice IV. was knighted in 1338 at the age of seven to avoid the possible evils of wardship, and Thomas V. for the same reason in 1476 at the age of five. Smyth’s record of this great family shows that, from the middle of the 13th century onwards, the lords were not only statesmen and warriors, but still more distinguished as gentlemen-farmers on a great scale, even selling fruit from the castle gardens, while their ladies would go round on tours of inspection from dairy to dairy. The lord Thomas III. (1326-1361), who was noted as a special lover of tournaments, spent in two years only £90, or an average of about £15 per tournament; yet he was then laying money by at the rate of £450 a year, and, a few years later, at the rate of £1150, or nearly half his income! Indeed, economic causes contributed much to the decay of romantic chivalry. The old families had lost heavily from generation to generation, partly by personal extravagances, but also by gradual alienations of land to the Church and by the enormous expenses of the crusades. Already, in the 13th century, they were hard pressed by the growing wealth of the burghers, and even the greatest nobles could scarcely keep up their state without careful business management. It is not surprising therefore, to find that at least as early as the middle of the 13th century the commercial side of knighthood became very prominent. Although by the code of chivalry no candidate could be knighted before the age of twenty-one, we have seen how great nobles like the Berkeleys obtained that honour for their infant heirs in order to avoid possible pecuniary loss; and French writers of the 14th century complained of this knighting of infants as a common and serious abuse.59Moreover, after the knight’s liability to personal service in war had been modified in the 12th century by the scutage system, it became necessary in the first quarter of the 13th to compel landowners to take up the knighthood which in theory they should have coveted as an honour—a compulsion which was soon systematically enforced (Distraint of Knighthood, 1278), and became a recognized source of royal income. An indirect effect of this system60was to break down another rule of the chivalrous code—that none could be dubbed who was not of gentle birth.61This rule, however, had often been broken before; even the romances of chivalry speak not infrequently of the knighting of serfs orjongleurs;62and other causes besides distraint of knighthood tended to level the old distinctions. While knighthood was avoided by poor nobles, it was coveted by rich citizens. It is recorded in 1298 as “an immemorial custom” in Provence that rich burghers enjoyed the honour of knighthood; and less than a century later we find Sacchetti complaining that the dignity is open to any rich upstart, however disreputable his antecedents.63Similar causes contributed to the decay of knightly ideas in warfare. Even in the 12th century, when war was still rather the pastime of kings and knights thana national effort, the strict code of chivalry was more honoured in the breach than in the observance.64But when the Hundred Years’ War brought a real national conflict between England and France, when archery became of supreme importance, and a large proportion even of the cavalry were mercenary soldiers, then the exigencies of serious warfare swept away much of that outward display and those class-conventions on which chivalry had always rested. Siméon Luce (chap. vi.) has shown how much the English successes in this war were due to strict business methods. Several of the best commanders (e.g.Sir Robert Knolles and Sir Thomas Dagworth) were of obscure birth, while on the French side even Du Guesclin had to wait long for his knighthood because he belonged only to the lesser nobility. The tournament again, which for two centuries had been under the ban of the Church, was often almost as definitely discouraged by Edward III. as it was encouraged by John of France; and while John’s father opened the Crécy campaign by sending Edward a challenge in due form of chivalry, Edward took advantage of this formal delay to amuse the French king with negotiations while he withdrew his army by a rapid march from an almost hopeless position. A couple of quotations from Froissart will illustrate the extent to which war had now become a mere business. Much as he admired the French chivalry, he recognized their impotence at Crécy. “The sharp arrows ran into the men of arms and into their horses, and many fell, horse and men.... And also among the Englishmen there were certain rascals that went afoot with great knives, and they went in among the men of arms, and slew and murdered many as they lay on the ground, both earls, barons, knights and squires, whereof the king of England was after displeased, for he had rather they had been taken prisoners.” How far Edward’s solicitude was disinterested may be gauged from Froissart’s parallel remark about the battle of Aljubarrota, where, as at Agincourt, the handful of victors were obliged by a sudden panic to slay their prisoners. “Lo, behold the great evil adventure that fell that Saturday. For they slew as many good prisoners as would well have been worth, one with another, four hundred thousand franks.” In 1402 Lord Thomas de Berkeley bought, as a speculation, 24 Scottish prisoners. Similar practical considerations forced the nobles of other European countries either to conform to less sentimental methods of warfare and to growing conceptions of nationality, or to become mere Ishmaels of the type which outlived the middle ages in Götz von Berlichingen and his compeers.

Bibliography.—Froissart is perhaps the source from which we may gather most of chivalry in its double aspect, good and bad. The brilliant side comes out most clearly in Joinville, theChronique de Du Guesclin, and theHistoire de Bayart; the darker side appears in the earlier chronicles of the crusades, and is especially emphasized by preachers and moralists like Jacques de Vitry, Étienne de Bourbon, Nicole Bozon and John Gower. John Smyth’sLives of the Berkeleys(Bristol and Gloucs. Archaeol. Soc, 2 vols.) and theBook of the Knight of La Tour-Landry(ed. A. de Montaiglon, or in the old English trans. published by the Early English Text Soc.) throw a very vivid light on the inner life of noble families. Of modern books, besides those quoted by their full titles in the notes, the best are A. Schultz,Höfisches Leben z. Zeit der Minnesänger(Leipzig, 1879); S. Luce,Hist. de Du Guesclin et de son Époque(2nd ed., Paris, 1882), masterly but unfortunately unfinished at the author’s death; Léon Gautier,La Chevalerie(Paris, 1883), written with a strong apologetic bias, but full and correct in its references; and F. W. Cornish,Chivalry(London, 1901), too little reference to the more prosaic historical documents, but candid and without intentional partiality.

(G. G. Co.)

Orders of Knighthood

When orders ceased to be fraternities and became more and more marks of favour and a means of recognizing meritorious services to the Crown and country, the term “orders” became loosely applied to the insignia and decorations themselves. Thus “orders,” irrespective of the title or other specific designation they confer, fall in Great Britain generally into three main categories, according as the recipients are made “knights grand cross,” “knights commander,” or “companions.” In some orders the classes are more numerous, as in the Royal Victorian, for instance, which has five, numerous foreign orders a like number, some six, while the Chinese “Dragon” boasts no less than eleven degrees. Generally speaking, the insignia of the “knights grand cross” consist of a star worn on the left breast and a badge, usually some form either of the crosspatéeor of the Maltese cross, worn suspended from a ribbon over the shoulder or, in certain cases, on days of high ceremonial from a collar. The “commanders” wear the badge from a ribbon round the neck, and the star on the breast; the “companions” have no star and wear the badge from a narrow ribbon at the button-hole.

Orders may, again, be grouped according as they are (1)Prime Orders of Christendom, conferred upon an exclusive class only. Here belong,inter alia, the well-known orders of theGarter(England),Golden Fleece(Austria and Spain),Annunziata(Italy),Black Eagle(Prussia),St Andrew(Russia),Elephant(Denmark) andSeraphim(Sweden). Of these the first three only, which are usually held to rankinter sein the order given, are historically identified with chivalry. (2)Family Orders, bestowed upon members of the royal or princely class, or upon humbler individuals according to classes, in respect of “personal” services rendered to the family. To this category belong such orders as the Royal Victorian and the Hohenzollern (Prussia). (3)Orders of Merit, whether military, civil or joint orders. Such have, as a rule, at least three, oftener five classes, and here belong such as theOrder of the Bath(British),Red Eagle(Prussia),Legion of Honour(France). There are also certain orders, such as the recently institutedOrder of Merit(British), and thePour le Mérite(Prussia), which have but one class, all members being on an equality of rank within the order.

Of the three great military and religious orders, branches survive of two, the Teutonic Order (Der hohe deutsche Ritter OrdenorMarianen Orden) and the Knights of St John of Jerusalem (Johanniter Orden,Malteser Orden), for the history of which and the present state seeTeutonic OrderandSt John of Jerusalem, Knights of the Order of.

Great Britain.—The history and constitution of the “most noble”Order of the Garterhas been treated above. The officers of the order are five—the prelate, chancellor, registrar, king of arms and usher—the first, third and fifth having been attached to it from the commencement, while the fourth was added by Henry V. and the second by Edward IV. The prelate has always been the bishop of Winchester; the chancellor was formerly the bishop of Salisbury, but is now the bishop of Oxford; the registrarship and the deanery of Windsor have been united since the reign of Charles I.; the king of arms, whose duties were in the beginning discharged by Windsor herald, is Garter Principal King of Arms; and the usher is the gentleman usher of the Black Rod. The chapel of the order is St George’s Chapel, Windsor. The insignia of the order are illustrated on Plate I.

The “most ancient”Order of the Thistle, was founded by James II. in 1687, and dedicated to St Andrew. It consisted of the sovereign and eight knights companions, and fell into abeyance at the Revolution of 1688. In 1703 it was revived by Queen Anne, when it was ordained to consist of the sovereign and 12 knights companions, the number being increased to 16 by statute in 1827. The officers of the order are the dean, the secretary, Lyon King of Arms and the gentleman usher of the Green Rod. The chapel, in St Giles’s, Edinburgh, was begun in 1909. The star, badge and ribbon of the order are illustrated on Plate II., figs. 5 and 6. The collar is formed of thistles, alternating with sprigs of rue, and the motto isNemo me impune lacessit.

Plate II.

The “most illustrious”Order of St Patrickwas instituted by George III. in 1788, to consist of the sovereign, the lord lieutenant of Ireland as grand master and 15 knights companions, enlarged to 22 in 1833. The chancellor of the order is the chief secretary to the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and the king of arms is Ulster King of Arms; Black Rod is the usher. The chapel is in St Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin. The star, badge and ribbon are illustrated on Plate II., figs. 7 and 8. The collar is formed of alternate roses with red and white leaves, and gold harps linked by gold knots; the badge is suspended from a harp surmounted by an imperial jewelled crown. The motto isQuis separabit?

The “most honourable”Order of the Bathwas established by George I. in 1725, to consist of the sovereign, a grand master and 36 knights companions. This was a pretended revival of an order supposed to have been created by Henry IV. at his coronation in 1399. But, as has been shown in the preceding section, no such order existed. Knights of the Bath, although they were allowed precedence before knights bachelors, were merely knights bachelors who were knighted with more elaborate ceremonies than others and on certain great occasions. In 1815 the order was instituted, in three classes, “to commemorate the auspicious termination of the long and arduous contest in which the Empire has been engaged”; and in 1847 the civil knights commanders and companions were added. Exclusive of the sovereign, royal princes and distinguished foreigners, the order is limited to 55 military and 27 civil knights grand cross, 145 military and 108 civil knights commanders, and 705 military and 298 civil companions. The officers of the order are the dean (the dean of Westminster), Bath King of Arms, the registrar, and the usher of the Scarlet Rod. The ribbon and badges of the knights grand cross (civil and military) and the stars are illustrated on Plate II., figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The “most distinguished”Order of St Michael and St Georgewas founded by the prince regent, afterwards George IV., in 1818, in commemoration of the British protectorate of the Ionian Islands, “for natives of the Ionian Islands and of the island of Malta and its dependencies, and for such other subjects of his majesty as may hold high and confidential situations in the Mediterranean.” By statute of 1832 the lord high commissioner of the Ionian Islands was to be the grand master, and the order was directed to consist of 15 knights grand crosses, 20 knights commanders and 25 cavaliers or companions. After the repudiation of the British protectorate of the Ionian Islands, the order was placed on a new basis, and by letters patent of 1868 and 1877 it was extended and provided for such of “the natural born subjects of the Crown of the United Kingdom as may have held or shall hold high and confidential offices within her majesty’s colonial possessions, and in reward for services rendered to the crown in relation to the foreign affairs of the Empire.” It is now (by the enlargement of 1902) limited to 100 knights grand cross, of whom the first or principal is grand master, exclusive of extra and honorary members, of 300 knights commanders and 600 companions. The officers are the prelate, chancellor, registrar, secretary and officer of arms. The chapel of the order, in St Paul’s Cathedral, was dedicated in 1906. The badge of the knights grand cross and the ribbon are illustrated on Plate II., figs. 9 and 10. The star of the knights grand cross is a seven-rayed star of silver with a small ray of gold between each, in the centre is a red St George’s cross bearing a medallion of St Michael encountering Satan, surrounded by a blue fillet with the mottoAuspicium melioris aevi.

TheOrder of St Michael and St Georgeranks between the “most exalted”Order of the Star of Indiaand the “most eminent”Order of the Indian Empire, of both of which the viceroy of India for the time being isex officiogrand master. Of these the first was instituted in 1861 and enlarged in 1876, 1897 and 1903, in three classes, knights grand commanders, knights commanders and companions, and the second was established (for “companions” only) in 1878 and enlarged in 1887, 1892, 1897 and 1903, also in the same three classes, in commemoration of Queen Victoria’s assumption of the imperial style and title of the Empress of India. The badges, stars and ribbons of the knights grand commanders of the two orders are illustrated on Plate III., figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6. The collar of theStar of Indiais composed of alternate links of the lotus flower, red and white roses and palm branches enamelled on gold, with an imperial crown in the centre; that of theIndian Empireis composed of elephants, peacocks and Indian roses.

TheRoyal Victorian Orderwas instituted by Queen Victoria on the 25th of April 1896, and conferred for personal services rendered to her majesty and her successors on the throne. It consists of the sovereign, chancellor, secretary and five classes—knights grand commanders, knights commanders, commanders and members of the fourth and fifth classes, the distinction between these last divisions lying in the badge and in the precedence enjoyed by the members. The knights of this order rank in their respective classes immediately after those of theIndian Empire, and its numbers are unlimited. The badge, star and ribbon of the knights grand cross are illustrated on Plate III., figs. 1 and 2.

To the class of orders without the titular appellation “knight” belongs theOrder of Merit, founded by King Edward VII. on the occasion of his coronation. The order is founded on the lines of the PrussianOrdre pour le mérite(see below), yet more comprehensive, including those who have gained distinction in the military and naval services of the Empire, and such as have made themselves a great name in the fields of science, art and literature. The number of British members has been fixed at twenty-four, with the addition of such foreign persons as the sovereign shall appoint. The names of the first recipients were: Earl Roberts, Viscount Wolseley, Viscount Kitchener, Sir Henry Keppel, Sir Edward Seymour, Lord Lister, Lord Rayleigh, Lord Kelvin, John Morley, W. E. H. Lecky, G. F. Watts and Sir William Huggins. The only foreign recipients up to 1910 were Field Marshals Yamagata and Oyama and Admiral Togo. A lady, Miss Florence Nightingale, received the order in 1907. The badge is a cross of red and blue enamel surmounted by an imperial crown; the central blue medallion bears the inscription “For Merit” in gold, and is surrounded by a wreath of laurel. The badge of the military and naval members bears two crossed swords in the angles of the cross. The ribbon is garter blue and crimson and is worn round the neck.

Back to Index Next