130.jpg (11K)
The lancet window is now introduced, at first of only one light, very narrow and long, and differing from the Norman window in having a pointed arch. At the east end of the chancel there are often three lancet windows, the centre one higher than the rest, with one dripstone over them. The first idea of window-tracery was the introduction of a plain lozenge-shaped opening over a double lancet window, the whole being covered by a single dripstone. From this simple arrangement it was not difficult to develop the beautiful bar-tracery which came into vogue in the subsequent period of English architecture. The capitals of the Early English style are bell-shaped, at first quite plain, but subsequently these are often covered with beautifully sculptured foliage of a very graceful character. Circular windows at this period came into vogue in the gables of churches. They were either plain or quatre-foiled. Norman towers were sometimes capped with spires in the thirteenth century. The walls are not so thick or massive as in the Norman period, and the buttresses are stouter and more numerous, and project further from the wall. Flying buttresses were also introduced at this period. We can generally distinguish Early English work from that of the Norman style by its lightness and elegance, as compared with the roughness and massiveness of the latter; and its plainness and simplicity sufficiently distinguish it from that of the Decorated period.
131.jpg (32K)
The Decorated style (1275-1375) which prevailed during the reigns of the three Edwards was ushered in by a period of Transition, during which there was gradually developed the most perfect style which English architectural skill has ever attained. In the thirteenth century our builders were striving to attain the highest forms of graceful design and artistic workmanship. In the fourteenth their work reached perfection, while in the fifteenth there was a marked decline in their art, which in spite of its elaborate details lacked the beauty of the Decorated style.
132.jpg (93K)
The arches of this period are usually wider, and are distinguished from those of the Early English by the character of the mouldings. The ball-flower, consisting of a ball inclosed by three or four leaves, somewhat resembling a rosebud, is the favourite ornament, and a four-leaved flower is often used. Roll mouldings, quarter, half, or three-quarters round, frequently occur, and produce a very pleasing effect. The form of the arch is in many instances changed, and the gracefulogeearch is introduced. The piers are round or octagonal in village churches, and in large churches are formed by a cluster of cylindrical shafts, not detached as in the preceding period, but closely united. The capitals are bell-shaped, and in large churches richly sculptured. Few of the wooden roofs remain, as they have been superseded in later times; but the marks of the old roofs may often be seen on the eastern wall of the tower. The windows are larger than those of the earlier style, and are filled with geometrical and flowing tracery of great variety and beauty. Small windows have heads shaped in the ogee or trefoil forms. Square-headed windows are not uncommon, especially in the clerestory, and in monastic churches circular windows are frequently met with. It is characteristic of this style that the carving is not so deep as in the previous work. We find groups of shallow mouldings separated by one cut deeper than the others.
133a.jpg (30K)
133b.jpg (38K)
134.jpg (35K)
At length the glories of the Decorated period pass away and are merged and lost in thePerpendicularwhich held sway from 1375 to 1540. The work is now more elaborate and richer, but lacks the majestic beauty of the Decorated style. It is easy to distinguish Perpendicular windows. They are larger than any which we have seen before; the mullions are carried straight up through the head of the window; smaller mullions spring from the heads of the principal lights, and thus the windows are broken up into panel-like compartments, very different from the beautiful curves of the Decorated style. Simple pointed arches are still in use, but gradually they become flattened; and the arch, commonly known as the Tudor arch, is a peculiar feature of this style. In village churches the mouldings of the arch are often continued down the piers without any capital or shaft.
135.jpg (42K)
Piers are commonly formed from a square or parallelogram with the angles fluted, having on the flat face of each side a semicyclindrical shaft. The base mouldings are polygonal. The most common doorway is the Tudor arch having a square head over it. The doors are often richly ornamented. There are a large number of square-headed windows, and so proud were these builders of their new style of window that they frequently inserted Perpendicular windows in walls of a much earlier date. Hence it is not always safe to determine the age of a church by an examination of the windows alone. Panel-work tracery on the upper part of the interior walls is a distinctive feature of this style.
136a.jpg (37K)
136b.jpg (16K)
The slope of the roof is much lower than before, and often the former high-pitched roofs were at this period replaced by the almost flat roofs prevalent in the fifteenth century. The parapets are often embattled.
The rose, the badge of the houses of York and Lancaster, is often used as an ornamental detail, and also rows of the Tudor flower, composed of four petals, frequently occur. One of the most distinctive mouldings is thecavetto, a wide shallow hollow in the centre of a group of mouldings. Also we find a peculiar wave, and a kind of double ogee moulding which are characteristic of the style.
137.jpg (15K)
Spires of this period are not very common, and usually spring from within the parapet. The interiors of our churches were enriched at this time with much elaborate decoration. Richly carved woodwork in screens, rood-lofts, pulpits, and pews, sculptured sedilia and a noble reredos, and much exuberance of decorative imagery and panel-work, adorned our churches at this time, much of which was obliterated or destroyed by spoliators of the Reformation period, the iconoclastic Puritans of the seventeenth century, or the “restorers” of the nineteenth. However, we may be thankful that so much remains to the present day of the work of our great English church-builders, while we endeavour to trace the history of each church written in stone, and to appreciate these relics of antiquity which most of our villages possess.
The coming of the Normans—Domesday Book—Its objects—Its contents— Barkham inDomesday—Saxon families—Saxons who retained their estates—Despoiled landowners—Village officers and artisans— Villeins—Bordarii—Cottarii—Servi—Socmen—Presbyter—Names of Normans—The teaching ofDomesday.
There was a great stir in our English villages when the news was brought to them that William of Normandy had landed in England, and intended to fight for the English Crown. News travelled very slowly in those days. First the villeins and the cottiers who were not fighting with their lord heard that a great battle had been fought at Stamford Bridge, in Yorkshire, in which their gallant King Harold had defeated his own brother Tostig, aided by the King of Norway, Hardrada, and a large army. Then the news reached them that William of Normandy had arrived, and that Harold was marching night and day to meet him. Then they heard of the fatal battle of Hastings; and when it was told them that their brave King Harold was slain, and that William, the Norman, was the conqueror of England and the acknowledged king of the country, all England groaned to hear the fatal news. And then, after a few years, they found that their old lord had been deprived of his estates, and a new, haughty, proud Norman, who talked like a Frenchman, and laughed at their dear old Saxon language, came and ruled over them. He brought Norman servants with him, who took the best of the land, and made the Saxons do all the hard work on the farm, treating them like slaves.
And now we must examine a most valuable document which throws a wonderfully clear light on the condition of England just before and after the Conquest. I refer to theDomesday Book, or survey of the country which William caused to be made. The Anglo-Saxon chronicler tells us that after a great Council at Gloucester the king “sent his men over all England, into every shire, and caused to be ascertained how many hundred hides were in the shire, or what land the king himself had, and cattle within the land, or what dues he ought to have in twelve months from the shire. Also he caused to be written how much land his archbishops had, and his suffragan bishops, and abbots, and earls; and though I may narrate somewhat prolixly, what or how much each man had who was a holder of land in England, in land, or in cattle, and how much money it might be worth. So very narrowly he caused it to be traced out, that there was not one single hide, nor one yard of land, nor even, it is shame to tell, though it seemed to him no shame to do, an ox, nor a cow, nor a swine was left that was not set down in his writ. And all the writings were brought to him afterwards.”
The commissioners appointed by the king, among whom were Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, and Walter Giffard, Earl of Buckingham, were to inquire the following details concerning each parish:—
Its name. Who held it in the time of King Edward the Confessor. The present possessor. Number of hides in the manor, number of ploughs, of homagers, villeins, cottars, free tenants, tenants in socage; how much wood, meadow, and pasture; number of mills and fishponds; the value in the time of the last king; and its present value.
Such a survey was of immense value. Its object, according to the king, was that every man might know and be satisfied with his rightful possessions, and not with impunity usurp the property of others. But it was also of great service to the king, so that he might know who were his vassals, the amount of taxation which he could draw from them, and the actual strength of his new kingdom.
The commissioners performed their work with much care and exactness. The survey is wonderfully complete, and was compiled in a very short time. It is of great value to the historians of subsequent ages. The writing of the book is very clear and beautiful, the abbreviations alone presenting some difficulty to an unaccustomed reader. No illuminations adorn the text. At the head of each page the name of the county is written in red ink. The book is preserved in an ancient chest in the Public Record Office, where it was removed from the Chapter House at Westminster.
As an example we may take theDomesdaydescription of the parish of Barkham, which runs as follows:—
“IN CERLEDONE HD.
“Rex ten in dnio Bercheha. AElmer Tenuit de rege. E. Te 7 m iii hid. Tra e iii car. In dnio e una, 7 vi uilli 7 iiii bord cu iii car. Ibi v. ac pti. Silua de XL pore. Valuit iiii lib. T.R.E. 7 m: iii. lib.”
TRANSLATION.
“In the hundred of Charlton.
“The king holds Barkham in demesne. AElmer held it of King Edward. Then, as now, it was rated for three hides. The land is three ploughlands. In demesne there is one ploughland. There are six villeins, four borderers with three ploughs. There are five acres of pasture. Wood for the pasturage of forty hogs. It was worth 4l. in the time of King Edward, afterwards, and now, 3l.”
King Edward here mentioned was Edward the Confessor. A hide, when it is used as a measure of land, may be taken at about one hundred and twenty acres. A ploughland was as much land as one plough with oxen could plough in a year. The villeins were men who tilled their lord’s land, and in return for certain services had holdings under him. The borderers were cottagers who also worked for their lord and held smaller holdings, from one to ten acres. In other entries we find the number of serfs recorded, and also mention of the hall of the lord of the manor, where the manorial courts were held, the church, the priest’s house, the names of landowners and tenants, the mill, and of the various officers and artisans who made up the village community.
Domesdaytells us of the old Saxon families, many of whom lost their estates when the Conqueror came, and were supplanted by the favourites of the new king. Some of them contrived to weather the storm and retain their lands. Almer, or Almar, the lord of Barkham, who succeeded his brother Stigand as Bishop of Elmham in 1047, when the latter became archbishop, was among the number of the dispossessed, and probably found shelter with many of his compatriots in the cloister. Several of William’s Norman adventurers married the heiresses of the old Saxon gentry, and thus became possessed of great estates. Thus Robert D’Oili married the daughter of Wigod, lord of Wallingford, and soon gained possession of his father-in-law’s property.
However, the names of the fortunate Saxons who retained their estates are few in comparison with those who were dispossessed. We find Edgar Atheling, real heir to the throne, retaining a small estate; but he was a feeble prince, and therefore not to be feared by William. His sister Cristina had also land in Oxfordshire. Bishop Osbern, of Exeter, a kinsman of the late king, also held his estates; and amongst the list we find Seward the huntsman, of Oxfordshire; Theodric the goldsmith; Wlwi the huntsman, of Surrey; Uluric the huntsman, of Hampshire, who were not deprived of their lands, their occupations being useful to the king.
The list of despoiled landowners is a long one, and need not here be recorded. One Brictric was very unfortunate. When ambassador to Baldwin of Flanders he refused to marry the count’s daughter Maud. The slighted lady became the Conqueror’s consort, and in revenge for her despised love caused Brictric to be imprisoned and his estates confiscated, some of which were given to the queen. The luckless relations and connections of the late royal house were consistently despoiled, amongst them Editha, the beautiful queen of King Edward, and daughter of Earl Godwin, of whom it was written: “Sicut spina rosam genuit Godwynus Editham”; and Gida, the mother of Harold; Godric, his son; and Gwith, his brother. Harold himself—the earl, as he is called, and not the king, who fought and died at Senlac, if he did not, as the romance states, end his life as a holy hermit at Chester—had vast estates all over England, which went to enrich William’s hungry followers. Hereward the Wake, the English hero, also held in pre-Norman days many fat manors. Few of the Saxon landowners were spared, and it is unnecessary here to record the names of the Uchtreds, Turgots, Turchils, Siwards, Leurics, who held lands “in the time of King Edward,” but whose place after Domesday knows them no more.
Domesdaytells us also the names of the officers and artisans who played important parts in the old village communities. Thevillani, or villeins, corresponding to the Saxonceorls, were the most important class of tenants in villeinage, and each held about thirty acres in scattered acre or half-acre strips, each a furlong in length and a perch or two in breadth, separated by turf balks. The villein thus supported himself and his family, and in return was bound to render certain services to the lord of the manor, to work on the home farm, and provide two or more oxen for the manorial plough-team. He was not a free tenant, could acquire no property, and his lord’s consent was needed for the marriage of his daughters. But the law protected him from unjust usage; his holdings were usually regranted to his son. He could obtain freedom in several ways, and by degrees acquired the rights and privileges of a free tenant.
Next to the villeins were thebordarii, who lived inbordsor cottages,i.e.boarded or wooden huts, and ranked as a lower grade of villeins. They held about five acres, but provided no oxen for the manorial plough-team. Below them were thecottarii, or cottiers, who were bound to do domestic work and supply the lord’s table. They corresponded to the modern labourer, but lacked his freedom. The lowest class of all were theservi, or serfs, who corresponded to the Saxontheows. In Norman times their condition was greatly improved; they mingled with the cottiers and household servants, and gradually were merged with them.
Thesochemanni, or socmen, our yeomen, who abounded chiefly in the Danish district of England, were inferior landowners who had special privileges, and could not be turned out of their holdings, though they rendered certain services to the lord of the manor, and in this respect differed little from the villeins.Domesday Bookalso mentions a class of men calledbursorgeburs, who were the same ascoliberti; also thecommendati, who received privileges in return for services rendered to the lord of the manor.
Each village community was self-contained, and had its own officers. AlthoughDomesday Bookwas not compiled in order to ascertain the condition of the Church and its ministers, and frequently the mention of a parish church is omitted where we know one existed, thepresbyter, or priest, is often recorded. Archbishop Egbert’sExcerptionesordained that “to every church shall be allotted one complete holding (mansa), and that this shall be free from all but ecclesiastical services.” According to the Saxon laws every tenth strip of land was set aside for the Church, andDomesdayshows that in many villages there was a priest with his portion of land set apart for his support.
Then there was aprepositus, bailiff or reeve, who collected the lord’s rents, assisted by abedellus, beadle or under-bailiff.Bovarii, or oxherds, looked after the plough-teams. Thecarpentarius, or carpenter; thecementarius, or bricklayer; thecustos apium, or beekeeper; thefaber, or smith; themolinarius, or miller—were all important officers in the Norman village; and we have mention also of thepiscatores(fishermen),pistores(bakers),porcarii(swineherds),viccarii(cowmen), who were all employed in the work of the village community.
Domesday Bookenables us to form a fairly complete picture of our villages in Norman and late Saxon times. It tells us of the various classes who peopled the village and farmed its fields. It gives us a complete list of the old Saxon gentry and of the Norman nobles and adventurers who seized the fair acres of the despoiled Englishmen. Many of them gave their names to their new possessions. The Mandevilles settled at Stoke, and called it Stoke-Mandeville; the Vernons at Minshall, and called it Minshall-Vernon. Hurst-Pierpont, Neville-Holt, Kingston-Lysle, Hampstead-Norris, and many other names of places compounded of Saxon and Norman words, record the names of William’s followers, who received the reward of their services at the expense of the former Saxon owners.Domesday Booktells us how land was measured in those days, the various tenures and services rendered by the tenants, the condition of the towns, the numerous foreign monasteries which thrived on our English lands, and throws much light on the manners and customs of the people of this country at the time of its compilation.Domesday Bookis a perfect storehouse of knowledge for the historian, and requires a lifetime to be spent for its full investigation.
147.jpg (76K)
Castle-building—Description of Norman castle—A Norman household— Edwardian castles—Border castles—Chepstow—Grosmont—Raglan—Central feature of feudalism—Fourteenth-century castle—Homes of chivalry— Schools of arms—The making of a knight—Tournaments—Jousts—Tilting at a ring—Pageants—“Apollo and Daphne”—Pageants at Sudeley Castle and Kenilworth—Destruction of castles—Castles during Civil War period.
Many an English village can boast of the possession of the ruins of an ancient castle, a gaunt rectangular or circular keep or donjon, looking very stern and threatening even in decay, and mightily convincing of the power of its first occupants. The new masters did not feel very safe in the midst of a discontented and enraged people; so they built these huge fortresses with strong walls and gates and moats. Indeed before the Conquest the Norman knights, to whom the weak King Edward the Confessor granted many an English estate, brought with them the fashion of building castles, and many a strong square tower began to crown the fortified mounds. Thence they could oppress the people in many ways, and the writers of the time always speak of the building of castles with a kind of shudder. After the Conquest, especially during the regency of William’s two lieutenants, Bishop Odo and Earl William Fitz-osbern, the Norman adventurers who were rewarded for their services by the gift of many an English manor, built castles everywhere. The wretched men of the land were cruelly oppressed by forced labour in erecting these strongholds, which were filled “with devils and evil men.” Over a thousand castles were built in nineteen years, and in his own castle each earl or lord reigned as a small king, coining his own money, making his own laws, having power of life and death over his dependants, and often using his power most violently and oppressively.
150.jpg (66K)
The original Norman castle consisted of a keep, “four-square to every wind that blew,” standing in a bailey court. It was a mighty place with walls of great thickness about one hundred and fifty feet high. It contained several rooms, one above the other. A deep well supplied the inhabitants with water. Spiral stone steps laid in the thickness of the wall led to the first floor where the soldiers of the garrison resided. Above this was the hall, with a chimney and fireplace, where the lord of the castle and his guests had their meals, and in the thickness of the wall there were numerous chambers used as sleeping-apartments and garderobes, and the existence of a piscina in one of these shows that it was a small chapel or oratory. The upper story was divided by wooden partitions into small sleeping-rooms; and unlike our modern houses, the kitchen was at the top of the keep, and opened on the roof.
Descending some stone steps which led from the ground floor in ancient time we should visit the dungeons, dark, gloomy, and dreadful places, where deep silence reigns, only broken by the groans of despairing captives in the miserable cells. In one of these toads and adders were the companions of the captive. Another poor wretch reposed on a bed of sharp flints, while the torture-chamber echoed with the cries of the victims of mediaeval cruelty, who were hanged by their feet and smoked with foul smoke, or hung up by their thumbs, while burning rings were placed on their feet. In Peak Castle, Derbyshire, a poor, simple squire, one Godfrey Rowland, was confined for six days without either food or drink, and then released from the dungeon with his right hand cut off. In order to extract a heavy ransom, to obtain lands and estates, to learn the secrets of hidden treasure, the most ingenious and devilish tortures were inflicted in these terrible abodes.
152.jpg (97K)
The same style of castle-building continued for a century and a half after the Norman Conquest. It is possible to distinguish the later keeps by the improved and fine-jointed ashlar stonework, by the more frequent use of the stone of the district, instead of that brought from Caen, by the ribs upon the groins of the vaulting of the galleries and chambers in the walls, and by the more extensive use of ornaments in the bosses, windows, doors, and fireplaces. The style of the decoration approaches the Early English character.
The walls of the keep were not the only protection of the fortress. A moat surrounds the whole castle, crossed by a drawbridge, protected on the side remote from the castle by a barbican. High walls with an embattled parapet surround the lower court, or ballium, which we enter by a gate defended by strong towers. A portcullis has to be raised, and a heavy door thrown back, before we can enter; while above in the stone roof of the archway there are holes through which melted lead and pitch can be poured upon our heads, if we attempt to enter the castle as assailants. In the lower court are the stables, and the mound where the lord dispenses justice, and where criminals and traitors are executed. Another strong gateway flanked by towers protects the inner court, on the edge of which stands the keep which frowns down upon us as we enter.
An immense household was supported in every castle. Not only were there men-at-arms, but also cooks and bakers, brewers and tailors, carpenters, smiths, masons, and all kinds of craftsmen; and all the crowd of workers had to be provided with accommodation by the lord of the castle. Hence a building, in the form of a large hall, was erected sometimes of stone, usually of wood, in the lower or upper court for these soldiers and artisans, where they slept and had their meals.
A new type of castle was introduced during the reigns of the three Edwards. The stern, massive, and high-towering keep was abandoned, and the fortifications arranged in a concentric fashion. A fine hall with kitchens occupied the centre of the fortress; a large number of chambers was added, and the inner and outer courts both defended by walls, as we have already described, were introduced. The Edwardian castles of Caernarvon and Beaumaris belong to this type of fortress.
ENLARGE
155h.jpg (34K)
BROUGHTON CASTLE
The border counties of Wales are remarkable for the number and beauty of their ancient castles. On the site of British earthworks the Romans established their camps. The Saxons were obliged to erect their rude earthen strongholds in order to keep back the rebellious Welsh, and these were succeeded by Norman keeps. Monmouthshire is famous for its castles; out of the eleven hundred erected in Norman times twenty-five were built in that county. There is Chepstow Castle, with its early Norman gateway spanned by a circular arch flanked by round towers. In the inner court there are the gardens and ruins of a grand hall, and in the outer the ruins of a chapel with evidences of beautifully groined vaulting, and also a winding staircase leading to the battlements. In the dungeon of the old keep at the south-east corner of the inner court Roger de Britolio, Earl of Hereford, was imprisoned for rebellion against the Conqueror, and in later times Henry Martin, the regicide, lingered as a prisoner for thirty years, employing his enforced leisure in writing a book in order to prove that it is not right for a man to be governed by one wife. Then there is Grosmont Castle, the fortified residence of the Earl of Lancaster; Skenfrith Castle; White Castle, theAlbum Castrumof the Latin records, the Landreilo of the Welsh, with its six towers, portcullis, and drawbridge flanked by massive tower, barbican, and other outworks; and Raglan Castle, with its splendid gateway, its Elizabethan banqueting-hall ornamented with rich stone tracery, its bowling-green, garden terraces, and spacious courts, an ideal place for knightly tournaments in ancient days. Raglan is associated with the gallant defence of the castle by the Marquis of Worcester in the Civil War.
The ancient castles of England were the central feature of feudal society. They were the outward and visible sign of that system. M. Guizot in hisHistory of Civilisationsays, “It was feudalism which constructed them; their elevation was, so to speak, the declaration of its triumph.” On the Continent they were very numerous long before castle-building became the fashion in England, and every suzerain saw with displeasure his vassal constructing his castle; for the vassal thus insured for himself a powerful means of independence. The Norman barons in the troublous times of Stephen lived a life of hunting and pillage; they were forced to have a fortified retreat where they might shut themselves up after an expedition, repel the vengeance of their foes, and resist the authorities who attempted to maintain order in the country.
Others followed the example of the barons. The townsfolk fortified their towns, monks their monasteries; and even within the town-walls many houses had their towers and gates and barriers in order to keep back troublesome visitors.
Here is a description of a French castle in the fourteenth century:—
“First imagine to yourself a superb position, a steep mountain, bristling with rocks, furrowed with ravines and precipices; upon the declivity is the castle. The small houses which surround it set off its grandeur; the river seems to turn aside with respect; it forms a large semicircle at its feet. This castle must be seen when, at sunrise, the outward galleries glimmer with the armour of the sentinels, and the towers are shown all brilliant with their large new gratings. Those high buildings must be seen, which fill those who defend them with courage, and with fear those who should be tempted to attack them.
“The door presents itself covered with heads of boars or wolves, flanked with turrets and crowned with a high guard-house. Enter, there are three inclosures, three moats, three drawbridges to pass. You find yourself in a large square court, where are cisterns, and on the right and left the stables, hen-houses, pigeon-houses, coach-houses; the cellars, vaults, and prisons are below; above are the dwelling-apartments; above these are the magazines, larders, or salting-rooms, and arsenals. All the roofs are bordered with machicolations, parapets, guard-walks, and sentry-boxes. In the middle of the court is the donjon, which contains the archives and the treasure. It is deeply moated all round, and can only be entered by a bridge, almost always raised. Although the walls, like those of the castle, are six feet thick, it is surrounded up to half its height with a chemise, or second wall, of large cut stones. This castle has just been rebuilt. There is something light, fresh, laughing about it, not possessed by the heavy massive castles of the last century.”
One would scarcely expect to hear a castle described as “light, fresh, laughing”; yet so a fourteenth-century castle seemed to eyes accustomed to the gloomy, stern, and massive structures of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In these no beauty or display of art was attempted. Defence and safety were the only objects sought after in the construction of our ancient strongholds.
Strange as it may seem, these castles were the birthplaces and homes of chivalry. Women were raised to an exalted position, and honoured and reverenced by knights and warriors. A prize won in a tournament was esteemed of vastly greater value, if it were bestowed upon the successful combatant by some lady’s hand. “Queens of Beauty” presided at these contests of knightly skill and daring. The statutes and ordinances for jousts and tournaments made by John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, at the command of Edward IV., conclude thus: “Reserving always to the queenes highness and the ladyes there present, the attributing and gift of the prize after the manner and forme accustomed.” If a knight was guilty of any impropriety of conduct, he was soundly beaten by the other knights, in order to teach him to respect the honour of the ladies and the rights of chivalry.
In the days of chivalry a knight vowed in somewhat extravagant language eternal love to his particular lady fair, wore her glove or her guerdon on his helmet, and swore to protect it with his life. Family ties and domestic joys were cultivated. The wife of a knight was often herself a warrior. Fair ladies have donned armour and followed their lords to the Crusades; and often during her lord’s absence at the wars in France, or Scotland, or the Holy Land, the wife would defend his fief and castle, and sometimes was called upon to withstand a siege, when some neighbouring lord coveted the fair estates of the absent warrior, and sought to obtain them by force of arms.
The castles also were schools, not of learning, but of arms and chivalry, where the sons of vassals were trained in all the qualites that become a knight. The sons of vassals were sent to the castle of the suzerain to be brought up with his sons. Numerous reasons have been assigned for the origin of this custom, which we need not now enumerate. The practice, however, became general, and concerning it an ancient work entitledL’ordre de la Chevalerierecords:—
“It is fitting that the son of the knight, while he is a squire, should know how to take care of a horse; and it is fitting that he should serve before and be subject to his lord; for otherwise he will not know the nobleness of his lordship when he shall be a knight; and to this end every knight shall put his son in the service of another knight, to the end that he may learn to carve at table and to serve, and to arm and apparel a knight in his youth. According as to the man who desires to learn to be a tailor or a carpenter, it is desirable that he should have for a master one who is a tailor or a carpenter; it is suitable that every nobleman who loves the order of chivalry, and wishes to become and be a good knight, should first have a knight for a master.”
When the young squire attained the age of manhood he was admitted to the honour of knighthood, which was bestowed upon him with much ceremony and dignity. First he was divested of his garments and put in a bath, a symbol of purification; then they clothed him in a white tunic, a symbol of purity, in a red robe, a symbol of the blood which he was bound to shed in the service of the faith; and then in a close black coat, a reminder of the death which awaited him. Then he was obliged to observe a fast for twenty-four hours, and in the evening entered the church and there passed the night in prayer. On the morrow after confession and the receiving of Holy Communion, he heard a sermon upon the duties of knighthood, and then advancing to the altar presented his sword to the priest, who blessed it. Kneeling before his lord he was asked, “With what design do you desire to enter into the order? If it is in order to become rich, to repose yourself, and to be honoured without doing honour to chivalry, you are unworthy of it, and would be to the order of chivalry what the simoniacal priest is to the prelacy.”
His answers being satisfactory, knights, or ladies, advance and clothe him with the equipments of his order, spurs, the hauberk or coat of mail, the cuirass, the vambraces and gauntlets, and lastly his sword. Then his lord gives him three blows of a sword on his shoulder, saying, “In the name of God, of Saint Michael, and Saint George I dub thee knight,” adding, “Be brave, adventurous, and loyal.” He then mounts his horse, caracoles about, brandishing his lance, and afterwards in the courtyard he repeats the performances before the people ever eager to take part in the spectacle.
161.jpg (80K)
The young knight was now able to take part in the jousts, and all kinds of chivalric displays, which were common and frequent. Many castles have, like that at Carisbrooke, a tilting-ground within the walls; but great and important tournaments were held outside the castle. Richard I. appointed five special places for the holding of tournaments, namely between Sarum and Wilton, between Stamford and Wallingford, between Warwick and Kenilworth, between Brakely and Mixeberg, and between Blie and Tykehill. There was much pomp and ceremony attached to these knightly exercises. The lists, as the barriers were called which inclosed the scene of combat, were superbly decorated, and surrounded by pavilions belonging to the champions, ornamented with their arms and banners. The seats reserved for the noble ladies and gentlemen who came to see the fight were hung with tapestry embroidered with gold and silver. Everyone was dressed in the most sumptuous manner; the minstrels and heralds were clothed in the costliest garments; the knights who were engaged in the sports and their horses were most gorgeously arrayed. The whole scene was one of great splendour and magnificence, and, when the fight began, the shouts of the heralds who directed the tournament, the clashing of arms, the clang of trumpets, the charging of the combatants, and the shouts of the spectators, must have produced a wonderfully impressive and exciting effect upon all who witnessed the strange spectacle.
The regulations and laws of the tournament were very minute. When many preliminary arrangements had been made with regard to the examination of arms and helmets and the exhibition of banners, etc., at ten o’clock on the morning of the appointed day, the champions and their adherents were required to be in their places. Two cords divided the combatants, who were armed with a pointless sword and a truncheon hanging from their saddles. When the word was given by the lord of the tournament, the cords were removed, and the champions charged and fought until the heralds sounded the signal to retire. It was considered the greatest disgrace to be unhorsed. A French earl once tried to unhorse our King Edward I., when he was returning from Palestine, wearied by the journey. The earl threw away his sword, cast his arms around the king’s neck, and tried to pull him from his horse. But Edward put spurs to his horse and drew the earl from the saddle, and then shaking him violently, threw him to the ground.
The joust (or just) differed from the tournament, because in the former only lances were used, and only two knights could fight at once. It was not considered quite so important as the grand feat of arms which I have just described, but was often practised when the more serious encounter had finished. Lances, or spears without heads of iron, were commonly used, and the object of the sport was to ride hard against one’s adversary and strike him with the spear upon the front of the helmet, so as to beat him backwards from his horse, or break the spear. This kind of sport was of course rather dangerous, and men sometimes lost their lives at these encounters. In order to lessen the risk and danger of the two horses running into each other when the knights charged, a boarded railing was erected in the midst of the lists, about four or five feet high. The combatants rode on separate sides of this barrier, and therefore they could not encounter each other except with their lances. Sometimes two knights would fight in mortal combat. If one knight accused the other of crime or dishonour, the latter might challenge him to fight with swords or lances; and, according to the superstition of the times, the victor was considered to be the one who spoke the truth. But this ordeal combat was far removed from the domain of sport.
When jousts and tournaments were abandoned, tilting on horseback at a ring became a favourite courtly amusement. A ring was suspended on a level with the eye of the rider; and the sport consisted in riding towards the ring, and sending the point of a lance through it, and so bearing it away. Great skill was required to accomplish this surely and gracefully. Ascham, a writer in the sixteenth century, tells us what accomplishments were required from the complete English gentleman of the period:—
“To ride comely, to run fair at the tilt or ring, to play at all weapons, to shoot fair in bow, or surely in gun; to vault lustily, to run, to leap, to wrestle, to swim, to dance comely, to sing, and play of instruments cunningly; to hawk, to hunt, to play at tennis, and all pastimes generally which be joined to labour, containing either some fit exercises for war, or some pleasant pastime for peace—these be not only comely and decent, but also very necessary for a courtly gentleman to use.”
In the days of pageants and royal progresses these old castles were the scenes of very lively exhibitions of rustic histrionic talent. The stories of Greek and Roman mythology were ransacked to provide scenes and subjects for the rural pageant. Shepherds and shepherdesses, gods and goddesses, clowns and mummers, all took part in the rural drama which kings and queens delighted to honour. When Queen Elizabeth visited the ancient and historic castle of Sudeley, great preparations were made for the event, and a fine classical pageant was performed in her presence, a sketch of which may not be without interest.
The play is founded on the old classical story of Apollo and Daphne. The sun-god Apollo was charmed by the beauty of the fair Daphne, the daughter of a river-god, and pursued her with base intent. Just as she was about to be overtaken, she prayed for aid, and was immediately changed into a laurel tree, which became the favourite tree of the disappointed lover. The pageant founded on this old classical legend commenced with a man who acted the part of Apollo, chasing a woman who represented Daphne, followed by a young shepherd bewailing his hard fate. He, too, loved the fair and beautiful Daphne, but Apollo wooed her with fair words, and threatened him with diverse penalties, saying he would change him into a wolf, or a cockatrice, or blind his eyes. The shepherd in a long speech tells how Daphne was changed into a tree, and then Apollo is seen at the foot of a laurel tree weeping, accompanied by two minstrels. The repentant god repeats the verse:—
“Sing you, play you; but sing and play my truth;This tree my lute, these sighs my note of ruth:The laurel leaf for ever shall be green,And chastity shall be Apollo’s queen.If gods may die, here shall my tomb be placed,And this engraven, ‘Fond Phoebus, Daphne chaste.’”
A song follows, and then, wonderful to relate, the tree opens, and Daphne comes forth. Apollo resigns her to the humble shepherd, and then she runs to Her Majesty the Queen, and with a great deal of flattery wishes her a long and prosperous reign.
Such was the simple play which delighted the minds of our forefathers, and helped to raise them from sordid cares and the dull monotony of continual toil. In our popular amusements the village folk do not take part, except as spectators, and therefore lose half the pleasure; whereas in the time of the Virgin Queen the rehearsals, the learning the speeches by heart, the dresses, the excitement, all contributed to give them fresh ideas and new thoughts. The acting may not have been very good; indeed Queen Elizabeth did not always think very highly of the performances of her subjects at Coventry, and was heard to exclaim, “What fools ye Coventry folk are!” But I think Her Majesty must have been pleased at the concluding address of the players at Sudeley. After the shepherds had acted a piece in which the election of the King and Queen of the Bean formed a part, they knelt before the real queen, and said—
“Pardon, dread Sovereign, poor shepherds’ pastimes, and bold shepherds’ presumptions. We call ourselves kings and queens to make mirth; but when we see a king or queen we stand amazed. At chess there are kings and queens, and they of wood. Shepherds are no more, nor no less, wooden. In theatres workmen have played emperors; yet the next day forgotten neither their duties nor occupation. For our boldness in borrowing their names, and in not seeing Your Majesty for our blindness, we offer these shepherds’ weeds; which, if Your Majesty vouchsafe at any time to wear, it shall bring to our hearts comfort, and happiness to our labours.”
When the queen visited Kenilworth Castle, splendid pageants were performed in her honour. As she entered the castle the gigantic porter recited verses to greet Her Majesty, gods and goddesses offered gifts and compliments on bended knee, and the Lady of the Lake, surrounded by Tritons and Nereids, came on a floating island to do homage to the peerless Elizabeth and to welcome her to all the sport the castle could afford. For an account of the strange conduct of Orion and his dolphin upon this occasion, we refer our readers to Sir Walter Scott’sKenilworth; and the lover of pageants will find much to interest him in Gascoigne’sPrincely Progress.
The glories of our ancient castles have passed away; some indeed are preserved, and serve as museums, or barracks, or the country house of some noble lord; but most of them are in ruins. All traces of many a Norman castle have completely vanished. There was once a castle at Reading, but the only relics of it are the names Castle Hill and Castle Street. The turbulent barons made such terrible use of their fortresses during the troublous times of the civil war in Stephen’s reign that in the more settled reign of Henry II. they were deprived of this means of oppression and their castles destroyed wholesale. The civil war in the reign of Charles I. was also another great cause of the destruction of these old fortresses. They were of great service during the progress of the war to those who were fortunate enough to possess them, and many of them in spite of Cromwell’s cannon were most gallantly held and stoutly defended. Donnington Castle, Berkshire, was bravely held in spite of a prolonged siege during all the time that the war lasted by gallant Colonel Boys, who beat off the flower of the Parliamentary army; and when in obedience to the King’s command he yielded up the castle, he and his brave garrison marched out with all the honours of war, having earned the respect of both friend and foe. Many other castles could tell the story of similar sieges in the days when “the gallants of England were up for the King.”
But these brave sieges were the cause of their destruction. Cromwell when in power recognised their strength; they were too dangerous, these castles, and must be destroyed. His cannon-balls had rattled against their stone walls without much effect during the war; but their fate was sealed with that of their King, and the gunpowder of Cromwell’s soldiers was soon employed in blowing up the walls that resisted him so long, and left them battered and smoking ruins.
Since then the ivy has grown over them to hide their nakedness. Forlorn and lonely the ruined castle stands. Where once loud clarion rang, the night owls hoot; vulgar crowds picnic where once knights fought in all the pride and pomp of chivalry. Kine feed in the grass-grown bailey court; its glory is departed. We need no castles now to protect us from the foes of our own nation. Civil wars have passed away, we trust, for ever; and we hope no foreign foeman’s foot may ever tread our shores. But if an enemy threatened to attack England her sons would fight as valiantly as in the brave days of old, though earthen ramparts have replaced the ancient castles and iron ships the old wooden walls of England.
Beautiful surroundings—Benefits conferred by monasteries—Charity— Learning—Libraries—Monks not unhappy—Netley—Cluny—Alcuin— Monastic friendships—St. Bernard—Anselm—Monks shed happiness around them—Desecration—Corruption of monasteries—Chaucer’s prior—Orders of monks—Plan of a monastery—Piers Ploughman’sdescription of a monastery—A day in a monastery—Regulations as regards blood-letting—The infirmary—Food—Hospitium—Chapter-house.
In the neighbourhood of many of our villages stand the ruins of an old monastery. Who were the builders of these grand and stately edifices? What kind of men lived within those walls? What life did they lead? We will try to picture to ourselves the condition of these noble abbeys, as they were in the days of their glory, before the ruthless hands of spoilers and destroyers robbed them of their magnificence.
It has often been remarked that the monks knew well how to choose the most beautiful spots for their monastic houses, establishing them by the banks of some charming river, surrounded by beautiful scenery and fertile fields.
They loved the beauties of nature, and had a keen sense for discovering them. They had a delicate and profound appreciation of the delights of the country, and loved to describe the beauties that surrounded their habitations. Nature in its loveliness and wild picturesqueness was a reflection of God’s beauty, a temple of His light and goodness. Moreover they built their monasteries amidst forests and wild scenery, far from the haunts of men, seeking solitude, wherein they could renew their souls by the sweetness of a life of contemplation, and consecrate their energies to the service of God. In the days of war and bloodshed, of oppression and lawlessness, holy men found it very difficult to be “in the world and yet not of it.” Within the monastic walls they found peace, seclusion, solitude; they prayed, they worked, they wrote and studied. They were never idle. To worship, to labour, to fight as themilites Christiwith weapons that were not carnal, these were some of the duties of the monks.
The world owes much to these dwellers in monasteries. They rescued the people from barbarism, and uplifted the standard of the cross. They emerged from their cells to direct councils, to preach and teach at the universities, to build churches and cathedrals, and astonish the world by their skill and learning. Who can tell what services they rendered to their nation and to all mankind by pouring forth that ceaseless stream of intercession day and night for the averting of the judgments of divine wrath which the crimes and follies of men so richly deserved? “What the sword is to the huntsman, prayer is to the monk,” says St. Chrysostom; and well did they use this weapon for the spiritual and material benefit of all.
Another great benefit they conferred upon the world was that of charity. They were the true nurses of the poor. There were no poor laws, and union workhouses, and hospitals. The monks managed to supply all the wants of all who suffered from poverty, privation, and sickness. “The friendship of the poor constitutes us the friends of kings,” says St. Bernard; “but the love of poverty makes kings of us.” They welcomed in their ranks poor men, who were esteemed as highly as those of noble birth on entering the cloister. All men were equal who wore the monk’s robe.
Amongst other services the monks rendered was the cultivation of learning and knowledge. With wonderful assiduity they poured forth works of erudition, of history, of criticism, recorded the annals of their own times, and stored these priceless records in their libraries, which have done such good service to the historians of modern times. The monasteries absorbed nearly all the social and intellectual movement of the thirteenth century. Men fired with poetical imagination frequently betook themselves to the cloister, and consecrated their lives to the ornamentation of a single sacred book destined for the monastery which gave them in exchange all the necessaries of life. Thus the libraries of the monastic houses were rich in treasures of beautifully illuminated manuscripts, which were bound by members of the community. The Abbot of Spanheim in the fifteenth century gives the following directions to his monks:—
“Let that one fasten the leaves together, and bind the book with boards. You, prepare those boards; you, dress the leather; you, the metal plates, which are to adorn the binding.”
ENLARGE