(C. We.)
1Feudal England, pp. 225 sqq.2Du Cange,Gloss.,s.v.“Miles.”3History of England, iii. 12.4Stubbs,Constitutional History, i. 156.5Ibid.i. 156, 366; Turner, iii. 125-129.6Ingram’s edition, p. 290.7Comparative Politics, p. 74.8Baluze,Capitularia Regum Francorum, ii. 794, 1069.9Du Cange,Gloss.,s.v.“Arma.”10Freeman,Comparative Politics, p. 73.11Hallam,Middle Ages, iii. 392.12Stubbs,Const. Hist.ii. 278; also compare Grosse,Military Antiquities, i. 65 seq.13There has been a general tendency to ignore the extent to which the armies of Edward III. were raised by compulsory levies even after the system of raising troops by free contract had begun. Luce (ch. vi.) points out how much England relied at this time on what would now be called conscription: and his remarks are entirely borne out by the Norwich documents published by Mr W. Hudson (Norf, and Norwich Archaeological Soc. xiv. 263 sqq.), by a Lynn corporation document of 18th Edw. III. (Hist. MSS. Commission Report XI. Appendix pt. iii. p. 189), and by Smyth’sLives of the Berkeleys, i. 312, 319, 320.14J. B. de Lacurne de Sainte Palaye,Mémoires sur l’Ancienne Chevalerie, i. 363, 364 (ed. 1781).15Du Cange,Dissertation sur Joinville, xxi.; Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 272; G. F. Beltz,Memorials of the Order of the Garter(1841,) p. xxvii.16Du Cange,Dissertation, xxi., andLancelot du Lac, among other romances.17Anstis,Register of the Order of the Garter, i. 63.18Grose,Military Antiq.i. 207 seq.; Stubbs,Const. Hist.ii. 276 seq., and iii. 278 seq.19Grose’sMilitary Antiquities, ii. 256.20Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 36; Froissart, bk. iii. ch. 9.21Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, pt. i. and Mills,History of Chivalry, vol. i. ch. 2.22See the long sermon in the romance ofPetit Jehan de Saintré, pt. i. ch. v., and compare the theory there set forth with the actual behaviour of the chief personages. Even Gautier, while he contends that chivalry did much to refine morality, is compelled to admit the prevailing immorality to which medieval romances testify, and the extraordinary free behaviour of the unmarried ladies. No doubt these romances, taken alone, might give as unfair an idea as modern French novels give of Parisian morals, but we have abundant other evidence for placing the moral standard of the age of chivalry definitely below that of educated society in the present day.23Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 11 seq.: “C’est peut-être à cette cérémonie et non à celles de la chevalerie qu’on doit rapporter ce qui se lit dans nos historiens de la première et de la seconde race au sujet des premières armes que les Rois et les Princes remettoient avec solemnité au ieunes Princes leurs enfans.”24There are several obscure points as to the relation of the longer and shorter ceremonies, as well as the origin and original relation of their several parts. There is nothing to show whence came “dubbing” or the “accolade.” It seems certain that the word “dub” means to strike, and the usage is as old as the knighting of Henry by William the Conqueror (supra, pp. 851, 852). So, too, in the Empire a dubbed knight is “ritter geschlagen.” The “accolade” may etymologically refer to the embrace, accompanied by a blow with the hand, characteristic of the longer form of knighting. The derivation of “adouber,” corresponding to “dub,” from “adoptare,” which is given by Du Cange, and would connect the ceremony with “adoptio per arma,” is certainly inaccurate. The investiture with arms, which formed a part of the longer form of knighting, and which we have seen to rest on very ancient usage, may originally have had a distinct meaning. We have observed that Lanfranc invested Henry I. with arms, while William “dubbed him to rider.” If there was a difference in the meaning of the two ceremonies, the difficulty as to the knighting of Earl Harold (supra, p. 852) is at least partly removed.25Selden,Titles of Honor, 639.26Daniel,Histoire de la Milice Françoise, i. 99-104; Byshe’s Upton,De Studio Militari, pp. 21-24; Dugdale,Warwickshire, ii. 708-710; Segar, HonorCivil and Military, pp. 69 seq. and Nicolas,Orders of Knighthood, vol. ii. (Order of the Bath) pp. 19 seq.... It is given as “the order and manner of creating Knights of the Bath in time of peace according to the custom of England,” and consequently dates from a period when the full ceremony of creating knights bachelors generally had gone out of fashion. But as Ashmole, speaking of Knights of the Bath, says, “if the ceremonies and circumstances of their creation be well considered, it will appear that this king [Henry IV.] did not institute but rather restore the ancient manner of making knights, and consequently that the Knights of the Bath are in truth no other than knights bachelors, that is to say, such as are created with those ceremonies wherewith knights bachelors were formerly created.” (Ashmole,Order of the Garter, p. 15). See also Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 678, and theArchæological Journal, v. 258 seq.27As may be gathered from Selden, Favyn, La Colombiers, Menestrier and Sainte Palaye, there were several differences of detail in the ceremony at different times and in different places. But in the main it was everywhere the same both in its military and its ecclesiastical elements. In thePontificale Romanum, the oldOrdo Romanusand the manual or Common Prayer Book in use in England before the Reformation forms for the blessing or consecration of new knights are included, and of these the first and the last are quoted by Selden.28Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 678; Ashmole,Order of the Garter, p. 15; Favyn,Théâtre d’Honneur, ii. 1035.29“If we sum up the principal ensigns of knighthood, ancient and modern, we shall find they have been or are a horse, gold ring, shield and lance, a belt and sword, gilt spurs and a gold chain or collar.”—Ashmole,Order of the Garter, pp. 12, 13.30On the banner see Grose,Military Antiquities, ii. 257; and Nicolas,British Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. xxxvii.31Titles of Honor, pp. 356 and 608. See also Hallam,Middle Ages, iii. 126 seq. and Stubbs,Const. Hist.iii. 440 seq.32Riddell’sLaw and Practice in Scottish Peerages, p. 578; also Nisbet’sSystem of Heraldry, ii. 49 and Selden’sTitles of Honor, p. 702.33Selden,Titles of Honor, pp. 608 and 657.34See “Project concerninge the conferinge of the title of vidom,” wherein it is said that “the title of vidom (vicedominus) was an ancient title used in this kingdom of England both before and since the Norman Conquest” (State Papers, James I. Domestic Series, lxiii. 150 B, probable date April 1611).35Selden,Titles of Honor, pp. 452 seq.36Ibid.pp. 449 seq.37Du Cange,Dissertation, ix.; Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 452; Daniel,Milice Françoise, i. 86 (Paris, 1721).38Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 656; Grose,Military Antiquities, ii. 206.39Froissart, Bk. I. ch. 241 and Bk. II. ch. 53. The recipients were Sir John Chandos and Sir Thos. Trivet.40Commonwealth of England(ed. 1640), p. 48.41State Papers, Domestic Series, James the First, lxvii. 119.42“Thursday, June 24th: His Majesty was pleased to confer the honour of knights banneret on the following flag officers and commanders under the royal standard, who kneeling kissed hands on the occasion: Admirals Pye and Sprye; Captains Knight, Bickerton and Vernon,”Gentleman’s Magazine(1773) xliii. 299. Sir Harris Nicolas remarks on these and the other cases (British Orders of Knighthood, vol. xliii.) and Sir William Fitzherbert published anonymously a pamphlet on the subject,A Short Inquiry into the Nature of the Titles conferred at Portsmouth, &c., which is very scarce, but is to be found under the name of “Fitzherbert” in the catalogue of the British Museum Library.43“Sir Henry Ferrers, Baronet, was indicted by the name of Sir Henry Ferrers, Knight, for the murther of one Stone whom one Nightingale feloniously murthered, and that the said Sir Henry was present aiding and abetting, &c. Upon this indictment Sir Henry Ferrers being arraigned said he never was knighted, which being confessed, the indictment was held not to be sufficient, wherefore he was indicted de novo by the name of Sir Henry Ferrers, Baronet.” Brydall,Jus Imaginis apud Anglos, or the Law of England relating to the Nobility and Gentry(London, 1675), p. 20. Cf.Patent Rolls, 10 Jac. I., pt. x. No. 18; Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 687.44Louis XIV. introduced the practice of dividing the members of military orders into several degrees when he established the order of St Louis in 1693.45G. F. Beltz,Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter(1841), p. 385.46Heylyn,Cosmographie and History of the Whole World, bk. i. p. 286.47Beltz,Memorials, p. xlvi.48Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. lxxxiii.49Mémoires, i. 67, i. 22;History of Chivalry; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, vii. 200.50Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. xi.51Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 638.52Harleian MS. 6063; Hargrave MS. 325.53Patent Rolls, 35th Hen. VIII., pt. xvi., No. 24; Burnet,Hist. of Reformation, i. 15.54Spelman, “De milite dissertatio,”Posthumous Works, p. 181.55London Gazette, December 6, 1823, and May 15, 1855.56On the Continent very elaborate ceremonies, partly heraldic and partly religious, were observed in the degradation of a knight, which are described by Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 316 seq., and after him by Mills,History of Chivalry, i. 60 seq. Cf.Titles of Honor, p. 653.57Dallaway’sHeraldry, p. 303.58Even in 13th century England more than half the population were serfs, and as such had no claim to the privileges of Magna Carta; disputes between a serf and his lord were decided in the latter’s court, although the king’s courts attempted to protect the serf’s life and limb and necessary implements of work. By French feudal law, the villein had no appeal from his lord save to God (Pierre de Fontaines,Conseil, ch. xxi. art. 8); and, though common sense and natural good feeling set bounds in most cases to the tyranny of the nobles, yet there was scarcely any injustice too gross to be possible. “How mad are they who exult when sons are born to their lords!” wrote Cardinal Jacques de Vitry early in the 13th century (Exempla, p. 64, Folk Lore Soc. 1890).59Sainte Palaye, ii. 90.60Medley,English Constitutional History(2nd ed., pp. 291, 466), suggests that Edward might have deliberately calculated this degradation of the older feudal ideal.61Being made to “ride the barriers” was the penalty for anybody who attempted to take part in a tournament without the qualification of name and arms. Guillim (Display of Heraldry, p. 66) and Nisbet (System of Heraldry, ii. 147) speak of this subject as concerning England and Scotland. See also Ashmole’sOrder of the Garter, p. 284. But in England knighthood has always been conferred to a great extent independently of these considerations. At almost every period there have been men of obscure and illegitimate birth who have been knighted. Ashmole cites authorities for the contention that knighthood ennobles, insomuch that whosoever is a knight it necessarily follows that he is also a gentleman; “for, when a king gives the dignity to an ignoble person whose merit he would thereby recompense, he is understood to have conferred whatsoever is requisite for the completing of that which he bestows.” By the common law, if a villein were made a knight he was thereby enfranchised and accounted a gentleman, and if a person under age and in wardship were knighted both his minority and wardship terminated. (Order of the Garter, p. 43; Nicolas,British Orders of Knighthood, i. 5.)62Gautier, pp. 21, 249.63Du Cange,s.v. miles(ed. Didot, t. iv. p. 402); Sacchetti,Novella, cliii. All the medievalordersof knighthood, however, insisted in their statutes on the noble birth of the candidate.64Lecoy de la Marche (Chaire française au moyen âge, 2nd ed., p. 387) gives many instances to prove that “al chevalerie, au xiiiesiècle, est déjà sur son déclin.” But already about 1160 Peter of Blois had written, “The so-called order of knighthood is nowadays mere disorder” (ordo militum nunc est, ordinem non tenere. Ep. xciv.: the whole letter should be read); and, half a century earlier still, Guibert of Nogent gives an equally unflattering picture of contemporary chivalry in hisDe vita sua(Migne,Pat. Lat., tom. clvi.).65It has been taken as the Latin word meaning “he bears” or as representing the initials of the legendFortitudo Ejus Rhodum Tenuit, with an allusion to a defence of the island of Rhodes by an ancient count of Savoy.
1Feudal England, pp. 225 sqq.
2Du Cange,Gloss.,s.v.“Miles.”
3History of England, iii. 12.
4Stubbs,Constitutional History, i. 156.
5Ibid.i. 156, 366; Turner, iii. 125-129.
6Ingram’s edition, p. 290.
7Comparative Politics, p. 74.
8Baluze,Capitularia Regum Francorum, ii. 794, 1069.
9Du Cange,Gloss.,s.v.“Arma.”
10Freeman,Comparative Politics, p. 73.
11Hallam,Middle Ages, iii. 392.
12Stubbs,Const. Hist.ii. 278; also compare Grosse,Military Antiquities, i. 65 seq.
13There has been a general tendency to ignore the extent to which the armies of Edward III. were raised by compulsory levies even after the system of raising troops by free contract had begun. Luce (ch. vi.) points out how much England relied at this time on what would now be called conscription: and his remarks are entirely borne out by the Norwich documents published by Mr W. Hudson (Norf, and Norwich Archaeological Soc. xiv. 263 sqq.), by a Lynn corporation document of 18th Edw. III. (Hist. MSS. Commission Report XI. Appendix pt. iii. p. 189), and by Smyth’sLives of the Berkeleys, i. 312, 319, 320.
14J. B. de Lacurne de Sainte Palaye,Mémoires sur l’Ancienne Chevalerie, i. 363, 364 (ed. 1781).
15Du Cange,Dissertation sur Joinville, xxi.; Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 272; G. F. Beltz,Memorials of the Order of the Garter(1841,) p. xxvii.
16Du Cange,Dissertation, xxi., andLancelot du Lac, among other romances.
17Anstis,Register of the Order of the Garter, i. 63.
18Grose,Military Antiq.i. 207 seq.; Stubbs,Const. Hist.ii. 276 seq., and iii. 278 seq.
19Grose’sMilitary Antiquities, ii. 256.
20Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 36; Froissart, bk. iii. ch. 9.
21Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, pt. i. and Mills,History of Chivalry, vol. i. ch. 2.
22See the long sermon in the romance ofPetit Jehan de Saintré, pt. i. ch. v., and compare the theory there set forth with the actual behaviour of the chief personages. Even Gautier, while he contends that chivalry did much to refine morality, is compelled to admit the prevailing immorality to which medieval romances testify, and the extraordinary free behaviour of the unmarried ladies. No doubt these romances, taken alone, might give as unfair an idea as modern French novels give of Parisian morals, but we have abundant other evidence for placing the moral standard of the age of chivalry definitely below that of educated society in the present day.
23Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 11 seq.: “C’est peut-être à cette cérémonie et non à celles de la chevalerie qu’on doit rapporter ce qui se lit dans nos historiens de la première et de la seconde race au sujet des premières armes que les Rois et les Princes remettoient avec solemnité au ieunes Princes leurs enfans.”
24There are several obscure points as to the relation of the longer and shorter ceremonies, as well as the origin and original relation of their several parts. There is nothing to show whence came “dubbing” or the “accolade.” It seems certain that the word “dub” means to strike, and the usage is as old as the knighting of Henry by William the Conqueror (supra, pp. 851, 852). So, too, in the Empire a dubbed knight is “ritter geschlagen.” The “accolade” may etymologically refer to the embrace, accompanied by a blow with the hand, characteristic of the longer form of knighting. The derivation of “adouber,” corresponding to “dub,” from “adoptare,” which is given by Du Cange, and would connect the ceremony with “adoptio per arma,” is certainly inaccurate. The investiture with arms, which formed a part of the longer form of knighting, and which we have seen to rest on very ancient usage, may originally have had a distinct meaning. We have observed that Lanfranc invested Henry I. with arms, while William “dubbed him to rider.” If there was a difference in the meaning of the two ceremonies, the difficulty as to the knighting of Earl Harold (supra, p. 852) is at least partly removed.
25Selden,Titles of Honor, 639.
26Daniel,Histoire de la Milice Françoise, i. 99-104; Byshe’s Upton,De Studio Militari, pp. 21-24; Dugdale,Warwickshire, ii. 708-710; Segar, HonorCivil and Military, pp. 69 seq. and Nicolas,Orders of Knighthood, vol. ii. (Order of the Bath) pp. 19 seq.... It is given as “the order and manner of creating Knights of the Bath in time of peace according to the custom of England,” and consequently dates from a period when the full ceremony of creating knights bachelors generally had gone out of fashion. But as Ashmole, speaking of Knights of the Bath, says, “if the ceremonies and circumstances of their creation be well considered, it will appear that this king [Henry IV.] did not institute but rather restore the ancient manner of making knights, and consequently that the Knights of the Bath are in truth no other than knights bachelors, that is to say, such as are created with those ceremonies wherewith knights bachelors were formerly created.” (Ashmole,Order of the Garter, p. 15). See also Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 678, and theArchæological Journal, v. 258 seq.
27As may be gathered from Selden, Favyn, La Colombiers, Menestrier and Sainte Palaye, there were several differences of detail in the ceremony at different times and in different places. But in the main it was everywhere the same both in its military and its ecclesiastical elements. In thePontificale Romanum, the oldOrdo Romanusand the manual or Common Prayer Book in use in England before the Reformation forms for the blessing or consecration of new knights are included, and of these the first and the last are quoted by Selden.
28Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 678; Ashmole,Order of the Garter, p. 15; Favyn,Théâtre d’Honneur, ii. 1035.
29“If we sum up the principal ensigns of knighthood, ancient and modern, we shall find they have been or are a horse, gold ring, shield and lance, a belt and sword, gilt spurs and a gold chain or collar.”—Ashmole,Order of the Garter, pp. 12, 13.
30On the banner see Grose,Military Antiquities, ii. 257; and Nicolas,British Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. xxxvii.
31Titles of Honor, pp. 356 and 608. See also Hallam,Middle Ages, iii. 126 seq. and Stubbs,Const. Hist.iii. 440 seq.
32Riddell’sLaw and Practice in Scottish Peerages, p. 578; also Nisbet’sSystem of Heraldry, ii. 49 and Selden’sTitles of Honor, p. 702.
33Selden,Titles of Honor, pp. 608 and 657.
34See “Project concerninge the conferinge of the title of vidom,” wherein it is said that “the title of vidom (vicedominus) was an ancient title used in this kingdom of England both before and since the Norman Conquest” (State Papers, James I. Domestic Series, lxiii. 150 B, probable date April 1611).
35Selden,Titles of Honor, pp. 452 seq.
36Ibid.pp. 449 seq.
37Du Cange,Dissertation, ix.; Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 452; Daniel,Milice Françoise, i. 86 (Paris, 1721).
38Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 656; Grose,Military Antiquities, ii. 206.
39Froissart, Bk. I. ch. 241 and Bk. II. ch. 53. The recipients were Sir John Chandos and Sir Thos. Trivet.
40Commonwealth of England(ed. 1640), p. 48.
41State Papers, Domestic Series, James the First, lxvii. 119.
42“Thursday, June 24th: His Majesty was pleased to confer the honour of knights banneret on the following flag officers and commanders under the royal standard, who kneeling kissed hands on the occasion: Admirals Pye and Sprye; Captains Knight, Bickerton and Vernon,”Gentleman’s Magazine(1773) xliii. 299. Sir Harris Nicolas remarks on these and the other cases (British Orders of Knighthood, vol. xliii.) and Sir William Fitzherbert published anonymously a pamphlet on the subject,A Short Inquiry into the Nature of the Titles conferred at Portsmouth, &c., which is very scarce, but is to be found under the name of “Fitzherbert” in the catalogue of the British Museum Library.
43“Sir Henry Ferrers, Baronet, was indicted by the name of Sir Henry Ferrers, Knight, for the murther of one Stone whom one Nightingale feloniously murthered, and that the said Sir Henry was present aiding and abetting, &c. Upon this indictment Sir Henry Ferrers being arraigned said he never was knighted, which being confessed, the indictment was held not to be sufficient, wherefore he was indicted de novo by the name of Sir Henry Ferrers, Baronet.” Brydall,Jus Imaginis apud Anglos, or the Law of England relating to the Nobility and Gentry(London, 1675), p. 20. Cf.Patent Rolls, 10 Jac. I., pt. x. No. 18; Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 687.
44Louis XIV. introduced the practice of dividing the members of military orders into several degrees when he established the order of St Louis in 1693.
45G. F. Beltz,Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter(1841), p. 385.
46Heylyn,Cosmographie and History of the Whole World, bk. i. p. 286.
47Beltz,Memorials, p. xlvi.
48Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. lxxxiii.
49Mémoires, i. 67, i. 22;History of Chivalry; Gibbon,Decline and Fall, vii. 200.
50Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. xi.
51Selden,Titles of Honor, p. 638.
52Harleian MS. 6063; Hargrave MS. 325.
53Patent Rolls, 35th Hen. VIII., pt. xvi., No. 24; Burnet,Hist. of Reformation, i. 15.
54Spelman, “De milite dissertatio,”Posthumous Works, p. 181.
55London Gazette, December 6, 1823, and May 15, 1855.
56On the Continent very elaborate ceremonies, partly heraldic and partly religious, were observed in the degradation of a knight, which are described by Sainte Palaye,Mémoires, i. 316 seq., and after him by Mills,History of Chivalry, i. 60 seq. Cf.Titles of Honor, p. 653.
57Dallaway’sHeraldry, p. 303.
58Even in 13th century England more than half the population were serfs, and as such had no claim to the privileges of Magna Carta; disputes between a serf and his lord were decided in the latter’s court, although the king’s courts attempted to protect the serf’s life and limb and necessary implements of work. By French feudal law, the villein had no appeal from his lord save to God (Pierre de Fontaines,Conseil, ch. xxi. art. 8); and, though common sense and natural good feeling set bounds in most cases to the tyranny of the nobles, yet there was scarcely any injustice too gross to be possible. “How mad are they who exult when sons are born to their lords!” wrote Cardinal Jacques de Vitry early in the 13th century (Exempla, p. 64, Folk Lore Soc. 1890).
59Sainte Palaye, ii. 90.
60Medley,English Constitutional History(2nd ed., pp. 291, 466), suggests that Edward might have deliberately calculated this degradation of the older feudal ideal.
61Being made to “ride the barriers” was the penalty for anybody who attempted to take part in a tournament without the qualification of name and arms. Guillim (Display of Heraldry, p. 66) and Nisbet (System of Heraldry, ii. 147) speak of this subject as concerning England and Scotland. See also Ashmole’sOrder of the Garter, p. 284. But in England knighthood has always been conferred to a great extent independently of these considerations. At almost every period there have been men of obscure and illegitimate birth who have been knighted. Ashmole cites authorities for the contention that knighthood ennobles, insomuch that whosoever is a knight it necessarily follows that he is also a gentleman; “for, when a king gives the dignity to an ignoble person whose merit he would thereby recompense, he is understood to have conferred whatsoever is requisite for the completing of that which he bestows.” By the common law, if a villein were made a knight he was thereby enfranchised and accounted a gentleman, and if a person under age and in wardship were knighted both his minority and wardship terminated. (Order of the Garter, p. 43; Nicolas,British Orders of Knighthood, i. 5.)
62Gautier, pp. 21, 249.
63Du Cange,s.v. miles(ed. Didot, t. iv. p. 402); Sacchetti,Novella, cliii. All the medievalordersof knighthood, however, insisted in their statutes on the noble birth of the candidate.
64Lecoy de la Marche (Chaire française au moyen âge, 2nd ed., p. 387) gives many instances to prove that “al chevalerie, au xiiiesiècle, est déjà sur son déclin.” But already about 1160 Peter of Blois had written, “The so-called order of knighthood is nowadays mere disorder” (ordo militum nunc est, ordinem non tenere. Ep. xciv.: the whole letter should be read); and, half a century earlier still, Guibert of Nogent gives an equally unflattering picture of contemporary chivalry in hisDe vita sua(Migne,Pat. Lat., tom. clvi.).
65It has been taken as the Latin word meaning “he bears” or as representing the initials of the legendFortitudo Ejus Rhodum Tenuit, with an allusion to a defence of the island of Rhodes by an ancient count of Savoy.
KNIGHT-SERVICE,the dominant and distinctive tenure of land under the feudal system. It is associated in its origin with that development in warfare which made the mailed horseman, armed with lance and sword, the most important factor in battle. Till within recent years it was believed that knight-service was developed out of the liability, under the English system, of every five hides to provide one soldier in war. It is now held that, on the contrary, it was a novel system which was introduced after the Conquest by the Normans, who relied essentially on their mounted knights, while the English fought on foot. They were already familiar with the principle of knight-service, the knight’s fee, as it came to be termed in England, being represented in Normandy by thefief du haubert, so termed from the hauberk or coat of mail (lorica) which was worn by the knight. Allusion is made to this in the coronation charter of Henry I. (1100), which speaks of those holding by knight-service asmilites qui per loricam terras suas deserviunt.
The Conqueror, it is now held, divided the lay lands of England among his followers, to be held by the service of a fixed number of knights in his host, and imposed the same service on most of the great ecclesiastical bodies which retained their landed endowments. No record evidence exists of this action on his part, and the quota of knight-service exacted was not determined by thearea or value of the lands granted (or retained), but was based upon theunitof the feudal host, theconstabulariaof ten knights. Of the tenants-in-chief or barons (i.e.those who held directly of the crown), the principal were called on to find one or more of these units, while of the lesser ones some were called on for five knights, that is, half aconstabularia. The same system was adopted in Ireland when that country was conquered under Henry II. The baron who had been enfeoffed by his sovereign on these terms could provide the knights required either by hiring them for pay or, more conveniently when wealth was mainly represented by land, by a process of subenfeoffment, analogous to that by which he himself had been enfeoffed. That is to say, he could assign to an under-tenant a certain portion of his fief to be held by the service of finding one or more knights. The land so held would then be described as consisting of one or more knights’ fees, but the knight’s fee had not, as was formerly supposed, any fixed area. This process could be carried farther till there was a chain of mesne lords between the tenant-in-chief and the actual holder of the land; but the liability for performance of the knight-service was always carefully defined.
The primary obligation incumbent on every knight was service in the field, when called upon, for forty days a year, with specified armour and arms. There was, however, a standing dispute as to whether he could be called upon to perform this service outside the realm, nor was the question of his expenses free from difficulty. In addition to this primary duty he had, in numerous cases at least, to perform that of “castle ward” at his lord’s chief castle for a fixed number of days in the year. On certain baronies also was incumbent the duty of providing knights for the guard of royal castles, such as Windsor, Rockingham and Dover. Under the feudal system the tenant by knight-service had also the same pecuniary obligations to his lord as had his lord to the king. These consisted of (1) “relief,” which he paid on succeeding to his lands; (2) “wardship,” that is, the profits from his lands during a minority; (3) “marriage,” that is, the right of giving in marriage, unless bought off, his heiress, his heir (if a minor) and his widow; and also of the three “aids” (see Aids).
The chief sources of information for the extent and development of knight-service are the returns (cartae) of the barons (i.e.the tenants-in-chief) in 1166, informing the king, at his request, of the names of their tenants by knight-service with the number of fees they held, supplemented by the payments for “scutage” (seeScutage) recorded on the pipe rolls, by the later returns printed in theTesta de Nevill, and by the still later ones collected inFeudal Aids. In the returns made in 1166 some of the barons appear as having enfeoffed more and some less than the number of knights they had to find. In the latter case they described the balance as being chargeable on their “demesne,” that is, on the portion of their fief which remained in their own hands. These returns further prove that lands had already been granted for the service of a fraction of a knight, such service being in practice already commuted for a proportionate money payment; and they show that the total number of knights with which land held by military service was charged was not, as was formerly supposed, sixty thousand, but, probably, somewhere between five and six thousand. Similar returns were made for Normandy, and are valuable for the light they throw on its system of knight-service.
The principle of commuting for money the obligation of military service struck at the root of the whole system, and so complete was the change of conception that “tenure by knight-service of a mesne lord becomes, first in fact and then in law, tenure by escuage (i.e.scutage).” By the time of Henry III., as Bracton states, the test of tenure was scutage; liability, however small, to scutage payment made the tenure military.
The disintegration of the system was carried farther in the latter half of the 13th century as a consequence of changes in warfare, which were increasing the importance of foot soldiers and making the service of a knight for forty days of less value to the king. The barons, instead of paying scutage, compounded for their service by the payment of lump sums, and, by a process which is still obscure, the nominal quotas of knight-service due from each had, by the time of Edward I., been largely reduced. The knight’s fee, however, remained a knight’s fee, and the pecuniary incidents of military tenure, especially wardship, marriage, and fines on alienation, long continued to be a source of revenue to the crown. But at the Restoration (1660) tenure by knight-service was abolished by law (12 Car. II. c. 24), and with it these vexatious exactions were abolished.
Bibliography.—The returns of 1166 are preserved in theLiber Niger(13th cent.), edited by Hearne, and theLiber RubeusorRed Book of the Exchequer(13 cent.), edited by H. Hall for the Rolls Series in 1896. The later returns are inTesta de Nevill(Record Commission, 1807) and in the Record Office volumes ofFeudal Aids, arranged under counties. For the financial side of knight-service the early pipe rolls have been printed by the Record Commission and the Pipe Roll Society, and abstracts of later ones will be found inThe Red Book of the Exchequer, which may be studied on the whole question; but the editor’s view must be received with caution and checked by J. H. Round’sStudies on the Red Book of the Exchequer(for private circulation). TheBaronia Anglicaof Madox may also be consulted. The existing theory on knight-service was enunciated by Mr Round inEnglish Historical Review, vi., vii., and reissued by him in hisFeudal England(1895). It is accepted by Pollock and Maitland (History of English Law), who discuss the question at length; by Mr J. F. Baldwin in hisScutage and Knight-service in England(University of Chicago Press, 1897), a valuable monograph with bibliography; and by Petit-Dutaillis, in hisStudies supplementary to Stubbs’ Constitutional History(Manchester University Series, 1908).
Bibliography.—The returns of 1166 are preserved in theLiber Niger(13th cent.), edited by Hearne, and theLiber RubeusorRed Book of the Exchequer(13 cent.), edited by H. Hall for the Rolls Series in 1896. The later returns are inTesta de Nevill(Record Commission, 1807) and in the Record Office volumes ofFeudal Aids, arranged under counties. For the financial side of knight-service the early pipe rolls have been printed by the Record Commission and the Pipe Roll Society, and abstracts of later ones will be found inThe Red Book of the Exchequer, which may be studied on the whole question; but the editor’s view must be received with caution and checked by J. H. Round’sStudies on the Red Book of the Exchequer(for private circulation). TheBaronia Anglicaof Madox may also be consulted. The existing theory on knight-service was enunciated by Mr Round inEnglish Historical Review, vi., vii., and reissued by him in hisFeudal England(1895). It is accepted by Pollock and Maitland (History of English Law), who discuss the question at length; by Mr J. F. Baldwin in hisScutage and Knight-service in England(University of Chicago Press, 1897), a valuable monograph with bibliography; and by Petit-Dutaillis, in hisStudies supplementary to Stubbs’ Constitutional History(Manchester University Series, 1908).
(J. H. R.)
KNIGHTS OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE,a semi-military secret society in the United States in the Middle West, 1861-1864, the purpose of which was to bring the Civil War to a close and restore the “Union as it was.” There is some evidence that before the Civil War there was a Democratic secret organization of the same name, with its principal membership in the Southern States. After the outbreak of the Civil War many of the Democrats of the Middle West, who were opposed to the war policy of the Republicans, organized the Knights of the Golden Circle, pledging themselves to exert their influence to bring about peace. In 1863, owing to the disclosure of some of its secrets, the organization took the name of Order of American Knights, and in 1864 this became the Sons of Liberty. The total membership of this order probably reached 250,000 to 300,000, principally in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kentucky and south-western Pennsylvania. Fernando Wood of New York seems to have been the chief officer and in 1864 Clement L. Vallandigham became the second in command. The great importance of the Knights of the Golden Circle and its successors was due to its opposition to the war policy of the Republican administration. The plan was to overthrow the Lincoln government in the elections and give to the Democrats the control of the state and Federal governments, which would then make peace and invite the Southern States to come back into the Union on the old footing. In order to obstruct and embarrass the Republican administration the members of the order held peace meetings to influence public opinion against the continuance of the war; purchased arms to be used in uprisings, which were to place the peace party in control of the Federal government, or failing in that to establish a north-western confederacy; and took measures to set free the Confederate prisoners in the north and bring the war to a forced close. All these plans failed at the critical moment, and the most effective work done by the order was in encouraging desertion from the Federal armies, preventing enlistments, and resisting the draft. Wholesale arrests of leaders and numerous seizures of arms by the United States authorities resulted in a general collapse of the order late in 1864. Three of the leaders were sentenced to death by military commissions, but sentence was suspended until 1866, when they were released under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the famous caseEx parte Milligan.
Authorities.—An Authentic Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle(Indianapolis, 1863); J. F. Rhodes,History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850(New York, 1905) vol. v.; E. McPherson,Political History of the Rebellion(Washington, 1876); and W. D. Foulke,Life of O. P. Morton(2 vols., New York, 1899).
Authorities.—An Authentic Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle(Indianapolis, 1863); J. F. Rhodes,History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850(New York, 1905) vol. v.; E. McPherson,Political History of the Rebellion(Washington, 1876); and W. D. Foulke,Life of O. P. Morton(2 vols., New York, 1899).
(W. L. F.)
KNIPPERDOLLINCK(orKnipperdolling),BERNT(BerendorBernhardt) (c.1490-1536), German divine, was a prosperous cloth-merchant at Münster when in 1524 he joined Melchior Rinck and Melchior Hofman in a business journey to Stockholm, which developed into an abortive religious errand. Knipperdollinck, a man of fine presence and glib tongue, noted from his youth for eccentricity, had the ear of the Münster populace when in 1527 he helped to break the prison of Tonies Kruse, in the teeth of the bishop and the civic authorities. For this he made his peace with the latter; but, venturing on another business journey, he was arrested, imprisoned for a year, and released on payment of a high fine—in regard of which treatment he began an action before the Imperial Chamber. Though his aims were political rather than religious, he attached himself to the reforming movement of Bernhardt Rothmann, once (1529) chaplain of St Mauritz, outside Münster, now (1532) pastor of the city church of St Lamberti. A new bishop directed a mandate (April 17, 1532) against Rothmann, which had the effect of alienating the moderates in Münster from the democrats. Knipperdollinck was a leader of the latter in the surprise (December 26, 1532) which made prisoners of the negotiating nobles at Telgte, in the territory of Münster. In the end, Münster was by charter from Philip of Hesse (February 14, 1533) constituted an evangelical city. Knipperdollinck was made a burgomaster in February 1534. Anabaptism had already (September 8, 1533) been proclaimed at Münster by a journeyman smith; and, before this, Heinrich Roll, a refugee, had brought Rothmann (May 1533) to a rejection of infant baptism. From the 1st of January 1534 Roll preached Anabaptist doctrines in a city pulpit; a few days later, two Dutch emissaries of Jan Matthysz, or Matthyssen, the master-baker and Anabaptist prophet of Haarlem, came on a mission to Münster. They were followed (January 13) by Jan Beukelsz (or Bockelszoon, or Buchholdt), better known as John of Leiden. It was his second visit to Münster; he came now as an apostle of Matthysz. He was twenty-five, with a winning personality, great gifts as an organizer, and plenty of ambition. Knipperdollinck, whose daughter Clara was ultimately enrolled among the wives of John of Leiden, came under his influence. Matthysz himself came to Münster (1534) and lived in Knipperdollinck’s house, which became the centre of the new movement to substitute Münster for Strassburg (Melchior Hofmann’s choice) as the New Jerusalem. On the death of Matthysz, in a foolish raid (April 5, 1534), John became supreme. Knipperdollinck, with one attempt at revolt, when he claimed the kingship for himself, was his subservient henchman, wheedling the Münster democracy into subjection to the fantastic rule of the “king of the earth.” He was made second in command, and executioner of the refractory. He fell in with the polygamy innovation, the protest of his wife being visited with a penance. In the military measures for resisting the siege of Münster he took no leading part. On the fall of the city (June 25, 1535) he hid in a dwelling in the city wall, but was betrayed by his landlady. After six months’ incarceration, his trial, along with his comrades, took place on the 19th of January, and his execution, with fearful tortures, on the 22nd of January 1536. Knipperdollinck attempted to strangle himself, but was forced to endure the worst. His body, like those of the others, was hung in a cage on the tower of St Lamberti, where the cages are still to be seen. An alleged portrait, from an engraving of 1607, is reproduced in the appendix to A. Ross’s Pansebeia, 1655.
See L. Keller,Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster(1880); C. A. Cornelius,Historische Arbeiten(1899); E. Belfort Bax,Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists(1903).
See L. Keller,Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster(1880); C. A. Cornelius,Historische Arbeiten(1899); E. Belfort Bax,Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists(1903).
(A. Go.*)
KNITTING(from O.E.cnyttan, to knit; cf. Ger.Knütten; the root is seen in “knot”), the art of forming a single thread or strand of yarn into a texture or fabric of a loop structure, by employing needles or wires. “Crochet” work is an analogous art in its simplest form. It consists of forming a single thread into a single chain of loops. All warp knit fabrics are built on this structure. Knitting may be said to be divided into two principles, viz. (1) hand knitting and (2) frame-work knitting (seeHosiery). In hand knitting, the wires, pins or needles used are of different lengths or gauges, according to the class of work wanted to be produced. They are made of steel, bone, wood or ivory. Some are headed to prevent the loops from slipping over the ends. Flat or selvedged work can only be produced on them. Others are pointed at both ends, and by employing three or more a circular or circular-shaped fabric can be made. In hand knitting each loop is formed and thrown off individually and in rotation and is left hanging on the new loop formed. The cotton, wool and silk fibres are the principal materials from which knitting yarns are manufactured, wool being the most important and most largely used. “Lamb’s-wool,” “wheeling,” “fingering” and worsted yarns are all produced from the wool fibre, but may differ in size or fineness and quality. Those yarns are largely used in the production of knitted underwear. Hand knitting is to-day principally practised as a domestic art, but in some of the remote parts of Scotland and Ireland it is prosecuted as an industry to some extent. In the Shetland Islands the wool of the native sheep is spun, and used in its natural colour, being manufactured into shawls, scarfs, ladies’ jackets, &c. The principal trade of other districts is hose and half-hose, made from the wool of the sheep native to the district. The formation of the stitches in knitting may be varied in a great many ways, by “purling” (knitting or throwing loops to back and front in rib form), “slipping” loops, taking up and casting off and working in various coloured yarns to form stripes, patterns, &c. The articles may be shaped according to the manner in which the wires and yarns are manipulated.
KNOBKERRIE(from the Taal or South African Dutch,knopkirie, derived from Du.knop, a knob or button, andkerrie, a Bushman or Hottentot word for stick), a strong, short stick with a rounded knob or head used by the natives of South Africa in warfare and the chase. It is employed at close quarters, or as a missile, and in time of peace serves as a walking-stick. The name has been extended to similar weapons used by the natives of Australia, the Pacific islands, and other places.
KNOLLES, RICHARD(c.1545-1610), English historian, was a native of Northamptonshire, and was educated at Lincoln College, Oxford. He became a fellow of his college, and at some date subsequent to 1571 left Oxford to become master of a school at Sandwich, Kent, where he died in 1610. In 1603 Knolles published hisGenerall Historie of the Turkes, of which several editions subsequently appeared, among them a good one edited by Sir Paul Rycaut (1700), who brought the history down to 1699. It was dedicated to King James I., and Knolles availed himself largely of Jean Jacques Boissard’sVitae et Icones Sultanorum Turcicorum(Frankfort, 1596). Although now entirely superseded, it has considerable merits as regards style and arrangement. Knolles published a translation of J. Bodin’sDe Republicain 1606, but theGrammatica Latina, Graeca et Hebraica, attributed to him by Anthony Wood and others, is the work of the Rev. Hanserd Knollys (c.1599-1691), a Baptist minister.
See theAthenaeum, August 6, 1881.
See theAthenaeum, August 6, 1881.
KNOLLES(orKnollys),SIR ROBERT(c.1325-1407), English soldier, belonged to a Cheshire family. In early life he served in Brittany, and he was one of the English survivors who were taken prisoners by the French after the famous “combat of the thirty” in March 1351. He was, however, quickly released and was among the soldiers of fortune who took advantage of the distracted state of Brittany, at this time the scene of a savage civil war, to win fame and wealth at the expense of the wretched inhabitants. After a time he transferred his operations to Normandy, when he served under the allied standards of England and of Charles II. of Navarre. He led the “great company” in their work of devastation along the valley of the Loire, fighting at this time for his own hand and for booty, and winning a terrible reputation by his ravages. After the conclusion of the treaty of Brétigny in 1360 Knolles returned to Brittany and took part in the struggle for the possession of the duchy between John of Montfort (Duke John IV.) and Charles of Blois, gaining great fame by his conduct in the fight at Auray (September 1364), whereDu Guesclin was captured and Charles of Blois was slain. In 1367 he marched with the Black Prince into Spain and fought at the battle of Nájera; in 1369 he was with the prince in Aquitaine. In 1370 he was placed by Edward III. at the head of an expedition which invaded France and marched on Paris, but after exacting large sums of money as ransom a mutiny broke up the army, and its leader was forced to take refuge in his Breton castle of Derval and to appease the disappointed English king with a large monetary gift. Emerging from his retreat Knolles again assisted John of Montfort in Brittany, where he acted as John’s representative; later he led a force into Aquitaine, and he was one of the leaders of the fleet sent against the Spaniards in 1377. In 1380 he served in France under Thomas of Woodstock, afterwards duke of Gloucester, distinguishing himself by his valour at the siege of Nantes; and in 1381 he went with Richard II. to meet Wat Tyler at Smithfield. He died at Sculthorpe in Norfolk on the 15th of August 1407. Sir Robert devoted much of his great wealth to charitable objects. He built a college and an almshouse at Pontefract, his wife’s birthplace, where the almshouse still exists; he restored the churches of Sculthorpe and Harpley; and he helped to found an English hospital in Rome. Knolles won an immense reputation by his skill and valour in the field, and ranks as one of the foremost captains of his age. French writers call him Canolles, or Canole.
KNOLLYS,the name of an English family descended from Sir Thomas Knollys (d. 1435), lord mayor of London. The first distinguished member of the family was Sir Francis Knollys (c.1514-1596), English statesman, son of Robert Knollys, or Knolles (d. 1521), a courtier in the service and favour of Henry VII. and Henry VIII. Robert had also a younger son, Henry, who took part in public life during the reign of Elizabeth and who died in 1583.
Francis Knollys, who entered the service of Henry VIII. before 1540, became a member of parliament in 1542 and was knighted in 1547 while serving with the English army in Scotland. A strong and somewhat aggressive supporter of the reformed doctrines, he retired to Germany soon after Mary became queen, returning to England to become a privy councillor, vice-chamberlain of the royal household and a member of parliament under Queen Elizabeth, whose cousin Catherine (d. 1569), daughter of William Carey and niece of Anne Boleyn, was his wife. After serving as governor of Plymouth, Knollys was sent in 1566 to Ireland, his mission being to obtain for the queen confidential reports about the conduct of the lord-deputy Sir Henry Sidney. Approving of Sidney’s actions he came back to England, and in 1568 was sent to Carlisle to take charge of Mary Queen of Scots, who had just fled from Scotland; afterwards he was in charge of the queen at Bolton Castle and then at Tutbury Castle. He discussed religious questions with his prisoner, although the extreme Protestant views which he put before her did not meet with Elizabeth’s approval, and he gave up the position of guardian just after his wife’s death in January 1569. In 1584 he introduced into the House of Commons, where since 1572 he had represented Oxfordshire, the bill legalizing the national association for Elizabeth’s defence, and he was treasurer of the royal household from 1572 until his death on the 19th of July 1596. His monument may still be seen in the church of Rotherfield Grays, Oxfordshire. Knollys was repeatedly free and frank in his objections to Elizabeth’s tortuous foreign policy; but, possibly owing to his relationship to the queen, he did not lose her favour, and he was one of her commissioners on such important occasions as the trials of Mary Queen of Scots, of Philip Howard earl of Arundel, and of Anthony Babington. An active and lifelong Puritan, his attacks on the bishops were not lacking in vigour, and he was also very hostile to heretics. He received many grants of land from the queen, and was chief steward of the city of Oxford and a knight of the garter.
Sir Francis’s eldest son Henry (d. 1583), and his sons Edward (d.c.1580), Robert (d. 1625), Richard (d. 1596), Francis (d.c.1648), and Thomas, were all courtiers and served the queen in parliament or in the field. His daughter Lettice (1540-1634) married Walter Devereux, earl of Essex, and then Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester; she was the mother of Elizabeth’s favourite, the 2nd earl of Essex.