CHIVALRY.

DUELS AND TOURNAMENTS.

Origin of Chivalry.—Its different Characteristics.—Chivalric Gallantry.—Chivalry and Nobility.—Its Relations with the Church.—Education of the Children of the Nobility.—Squires.—Chivalric Exercises.—Pursuivants at Arms.—Courts and Tribunals of Love.—Creation of Knights.—Degradation of Knights.—Judicial Duels.—Trials by Ordeal.—Feudal Champions.—Gages of Battle.—The Church forbids Duels.—Tournaments invented by the Sire de Preuilly in the Tenth Century.—Arms need in a Tournament.—Tilt.—Lists.—The part taken by Ladies.—King René’s Book.

The word Chivalry, according to M. Philarète Chasles, whose ingenious opinions we often borrow, expresses a mixture of manners, of ideas, and of customs peculiar to the Middle Ages of Europe, and to which no analogy is to be traced in the annals of the human race.

Fig. 115.—King Artus, protected by the Virgin, is fighting a Giant.—Fac-simile of a Woodcut in the “Chroniques de Bretagne,” of Alain Bouchard; 4to, Paris, Galliot du Pré, 1514.

The Eddas, Tacitus, and the Dano-Anglo-Saxon poems of Béowulf contain the only positive documents concerning the origin of chivalry. It reached its apogee rapidly after its birth, and gradually declined towards the close of the thirteenth century. At that period ladies took a very prominent position; they armed the knights, conferred the order of knighthood, and bestowed the prizes of honour. It was under the influence of the ideas peculiar to this epoch that Dante wrote his great poem, “for the sole purpose,” he said, “of glorifying Beatrice Portinari,” a child of eleven years of age whom he had accidentally seen in a church. It was at this time that the Suabian knights, invaded by the barbarous Hungarians, who were in the habit of slaying their enemieswith their enormous bows and arrows, implored them, “in the name of the ladies,” to take sword in hand, in order to fight in “a more civilised manner.” But chivalry soon began to decline, both as an institution and as a doctrine. Froissart characterizes and describes with picturesque liveliness this tendency to decay, which, as time advanced, gradually resulted in a completetransformation, so that the chivalric ideal became lost, and the independence of the soldier, once the slave only of his God and of his lady, gave way to the obsequiousness of the courtier, and finally became a selfish and pitiful servility.

At these different epochs of organic transformation, chivalry was constantly modifying itself according to each nation’s particular tendency. In Thuringia and Saxony, in Ireland and in Norway, it resisted longer than elsewhere the growing influence of Christianity. It exhibits its semi-paganism in certain passages of the “Niebelungen,” a German epic poem of the thirteenth century, in which the rude impress of ancient Teutonism is still clear and distinct. Between the seventh and the eleventh centuries the traces of this rudeness of origin still strongly showed themselves among the Franks, whose bravery consisted in spilling their blood, in fearing nothing, and in sparing nobody. This thirst for blood was unknown in the south of Europe; there men’s dispositions were amiable and gentle, and as far back as the eleventh century chivalric gallantry was regulated by fixed laws, and gave birth to a learned and refined school of poetry. From Provence this spirit of gallantry and poetry made its way into Italy and Sicily, where the barbarous Teutonic knights had been so frequently turned into ridicule. Little by little, however, German chivalry was affected by these southern influences. The minnesingers softened to the best of their ability the Teutonic language to permit of its repeating the softer songs of the Provençal muse, and the light but lively imaginations of the troubadours assumed a gentle melancholy and often a metaphysical grace in their German verses. In Great Britain, where the actual has always overshadowed the ideal, chivalry remained cold, feudal, and aristocratic, whilst it was passionately worshipped by the Spaniards, those noble and knightly descendants of the Goths and Iberians, whose struggle with the Arabs was one long tournament that lasted for more than seven centuries (Fig. 116). In religious countries chivalry assumed monastic characteristics; among nations of a gay and lively disposition it verged on the voluptuous and licentious. Alphonso X., King of Leon and Castile, forced his subjects to submit to monkish regulations, and prescribed the shape of their clothes as well as the manner in which they were to spend their time. In Provence, chivalry regarded unlawful love with an indulgent eye, and made a jest of marriage.

Chivalry was in fact a fraternal association, or rather an enthusiastic compact between men of feeling and courage, of delicacy and devotion;such at least was the noble aim it had in view, and which it constantly strove to attain (Fig. 117).

Fig. 116.—Sword of Isabella the Catholic. Upon the hilt is the following inscription, partly in Spanish and partly in Latin:—“I am always desiring honour; now I am watching, peace be with me” (“Deseo sienpre onera; nunc caveo, pax con migo”).—From the “Armeria Real of Madrid,” a publication of M. Ach. Jubinal’s.

However praiseworthy its motives and intentions, chivalry was not favourably regarded by everybody. In its feudal aspect it was displeasing to sovereigns, who constantly endeavoured to create beside it, and sometimes above it, a nobility of the sword, an individual and personal rank that could not be handed down from father to son (Fig. 118). Thus Philippe le Bel, being in want of soldiers after the Flemings had destroyed his chivalry—that is to say, his nobility—attempted immediately to replace it by ordering thatthe elder of two sons of a villain, and the two elder of three sons, should be admitted into the order of knighthood. In this way Frederick Barbarossa knighted peasants who had displayed personal bravery on the field of battle.

Fig. 117.—Chivalry represented by Allegorical Figures.—Fac-simile of a Copper-plate in the Spanish translation of the “Chevalier délibéré” of Olivier de la Marche: 4to, Salamanca, 1573.

Fig. 118.—Conferring Knighthood on the Field of Battle.—Romance of “Lancelot du Lac,” a Manuscript in the National Library of Paris (Thirteenth Century).

As for the Church, it contented itself with warning the knights againsttoo bellicose a spirit, and with imbuing them as far as possible with the sentiments of Christian charity; in fact, knights were frequently considered to be a species of Levite. “There was,” says the “Ordène de Chevalerie”[10]“a great resemblance between the duties of a knight and those of a priest.” Thence the reason that the priest was “the hero of the faith,” and the knight “the pontiff of true honour.” Thence the name ofordène, orordination, given to the investiture of knighthood. In the sixteenth century, the Spanish knight Don Ignatio de Loyola, who became so famous as the founder of the Order of the Jesuits, made himself a knight of the Virgin, and solemnised his entrance into God’s service, according to ancientcustom, by keeping theveillée des armes[11]before the sacred image of the mother of Christ.

The Church, although it seeks to maintain peace and has a horror of bloodshed, has never forbidden legitimate wars, and thus good King St. Louis never shrank on the field of battle from driving his sword up to the very hilt into his enemy’s heart. And the Church, whilst approving of the noble character as well as of the enthusiasm of chivalry, always endeavoured to restrain its more romantic and warlike tendencies. Its pacific and charitable spirit is expressed in the solemn blessing on the sword of a knight, which we take from the “pontifical:”—“Most holy Lord,” said the officiating prelate, “omnipotent Father, eternal God, who alone ordainest and disposest all things; who, to restrain the malice of the wicked and to protect justice, hast, by a wise arrangement, permitted the use of the sword to men upon this earth, and willed the institution of the military order for the protection of thy people; O thou who, by the mouth of the thrice-blessed John, didst tell the soldiers who came to seek him in the desert to oppress no one, but to rest content with their wages,—we humbly implore thy mercy, Lord. It is thou who gavest to thy servant David to overcome Goliath, and to Judas Maccabeus to triumph over the nations who did not worship thee; in like manner now to this thy servant here, who has come to bend his head beneath the military yoke, grant strength and courage for the defence of the faith and justice; grant him an increase of faith, hope, and charity; inspire him with thy fear and love; give him humility, perseverance, obedience, and patience; make his disposition in everything such that he may wound no person unjustly either with this sword or with any other, but that he may use it to defend all that is just and all that is right.”

The bishop gave the naked sword to the new knight, saying, “Receive this blade in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and use it for your own defence and for that of God’s Holy Church, and for the confusion of the enemies of the cross of Christ and of the Christian faith; and as far as human frailty permits it, wound no one unjustly with it.” The new-made knight then rose, brandished the sword, wiped it on his left arm, and replaced it in its scabbard. The prelate then gave him the kiss ofpeace, saying, “Peace be with thee.” Then with the naked sword in his right hand, he struck the knight gently thrice across the shoulders, saying, “Be thou a peaceable, brave, and faithful warrior.” After which the other knights present put on his spurs (Fig. 119), whilst the bishop said, “Valiant warrior, thou who surpassest in beauty the children of men, gird thyself with thy sword upon thy thigh.”

Fig. 119.—Arming a Knight; whilst his spurs are being put on, the prince girds the sword to his side.—From a Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century in the British Museum.

The son of a noble, or even of a commoner, intended for the ranks of knighthood, was at the age of seven taken away from the care of the women; who, however, never allowed him to reach that age without instilling into him such sentiments of right and valour as should govern his conduct during the rest of his life. He was then entrusted to the men, of whom he became not only the pupil, but the servitor; for, says the “Ordène de Chevalerie,” “it is proper that he should learn to obey before he governs; for otherwise he would not appreciate the nobility of his rank when he became a knight.” Moreover, the chivalric code, which distrusted the prejudices and weaknesses of paternal affection, required “every knight to place his son in the service of some other knight.” These youthful novices, particularly if they belonged to a noble and honourable family, always found plenty of princely courts, seignorial households, manors, and castles to receive them, which were, so to speak, the public schools of chivalry. There existed, besides, hospitals founded and maintained by wealthy and generous nobles, in the same manner as are the colleges of the University of Paris; and these hospitals were governed byold knights without family or fortune, who considered it no shame to accept, not a salary in money, but a retiring pension in the shape of a house with board, in which to hold a kind of school of chivalry for the benefit of the youths, who promised at some future time to prove a credit to the institution.

These youths were termed pages, varlets, and damoiseaux, and they performed under their masters and mistresses the most humble and the most domestic functions: they followed them in their travels and to the chase; they formed part of their suites on occasions of ceremony; they wrote their letters and carried their messages; they waited on them at meals, carved their dishes, and poured out their drinks.

In the eyes even of those nobles who were most jealous of their birth and of their name, this temporary and casual servitude had nothing in it either of a humiliating or degrading character, and its only effect was to knit still closer the ties of respect, obedience, and sympathy which bound the youth to his adopted parents, the aspirant for knighthood to his master and teacher. The latter by no means neglected the moral and religious education of the neophyte; the first lessons which were given him taught him not only to love God, but to respect women.

As soon as the young page had acquired sufficient experience and discernment to direct his own movements in the intricacies of chivalric life, he was bidden to choose an ideal sovereign from among the noble and beautiful ladies of the aristocratic world that he frequented, a sort of terrestrial divinity whom he was to swear to serve, and to whom he was henceforth to recount all his thoughts and actions, treating her at the same time with all the delicacy and devotion which the example of those around him had shown him to be her due.

He was taught, above all, to revere the august character of chivalry, and to respect, in the persons of the knights who composed this institution, the dignity to which he himself aspired. It was thus that, led by the instinct of imitation peculiar to the young, the pages habitually played at doing everything they saw done by the knights. They practised wielding the lance and the sword; they played at combats, attacks, and duels between themselves. Excited by emulation, they coveted the honour of being considered brave, hoping if they attained their wish, that it would lead to their being attached to the service of some person of mark, or to their being promoted to the rank of esquire.

When the young men abandoned the position of pages in order to be made esquires, an event that never took place before their fourteenth year, their change of social condition was celebrated by a religious ceremony, which the Church appointed for the purpose of consecrating their knightly vocation, and of hallowing the use of the arms they were henceforward destined to carry. Standing at the altar and surrounded by his nearest relations, the youthful novice received the consecrated sword from the hands of the priest, promising always to wield it in the interests of religion and honour. A higher position in the household of his lord or lady was then assigned to the new esquire. He was admitted to their private gatherings, he took part in all assemblies and state ceremonies, and it was now his duty to superintend the reception, that is to say, to regulate the laws of etiquette relating to the foreign nobles who visited his master’s court.

Fig. 120.—The Game of Quintain: tilting at a quintain (revolving effigy of a knight).—Fac-simile of a Miniature in the “Chroniques de Charlemagne” (Fifteenth Century). Burgundian Library, Brussels.

A passage from the history of Boucicaut, a marshal of France in the reign of Charles VI., will give an idea of the laborious and arduous existenceof the young esquire who aspired to become a worthy knight: “Now cased in armour, he would practise leaping on to the back of a horse; anon, to accustom himself to become long-winded and enduring, he would walk and run long distances on foot, or he would practise striking numerous and forcible blows with a battle-axe or mallet. In order to accustom himself to the weight of his armour, he would turn somersaults whilst clad in a complete suit of mail, with the exception of his helmet, or would dance vigorously in a shirt of steel; he would place one hand on the saddle-bow of a tall charger, and the other on his neck, and vault over him.... He would climb up between two perpendicular walls that stood four or five feet asunder by the mere pressure of his arms and legs, and would thus reach the top, even if it were as high as a tower, without resting either in the ascent or descent.... When he was at home, he would practise with the other young esquires at lance-throwing and other warlike exercises, and this continually.”

Besides all this, it was necessary for an esquire who wished to fulfil his duties properly to possess a number of physical qualities, great versatility of talent and capability, and a zeal that never flagged. At court, as in the larger seignorial households, there were various classes or categories of esquires who performed totally distinct duties, which in less important households were all entrusted to the same individual. The first in importance was the body esquire, or the esquire of honour; then the chamber esquire, or chamberlain; the carving esquire, the stable esquire, the cup-bearing esquire, &c., all separate personages, whose names sufficiently indicate their duties.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that esquires, besides the domestic services expected from them within their master’s house, had especially to give proofs of their vigilance and skill in the duties of the stable—duties which, as an historian aptly observes, were of necessity noble, since the military aristocracy never fought but on horseback. It was the duty of all first esquires to break in their master’s chargers, and to teach the younger esquires the routine of the stable. The duty of attending to the arms and armour devolved upon another class of esquires. We may add that, as each seignorial castle was also a species of fortress, most of the esquires, in addition to their other tasks, were required to perform certain military duties analogous to those practised in a regular stronghold, such as rounds, sentry duty, watches, &c. (Fig. 121).

When their lord mounted his horse, his esquires shared amongst themthe honour of assisting him; some held his stirrup, others carried various parts of his armour, such as the armlets, the helmet, the shield, the gauntlets, &c. When a knight was merely going for a ride or on a journey, he usually bestrode a sober kind of hack that was called a palfrey, but when he was going to take the field, one of his esquires led at his right hand (whence the name ofdestriergiven to this sort of steed) a charger or high horse, which the knight only mounted at the last moment. Hence the expression, “to ride the high horse,” which has become proverbial.

Fig. 121.—German Knight, engraved by Burgmayer from designs by Albert Dürer, taken from a collection entitled “Vita Imperatoris Maximiliani” (Fifteenth Century).

As soon as the knight had decided to mount his charger, his squires proceeded to arm him, that is to say, they firmly fastened together all the different pieces of his armour on his body with straps attached to metal buckles for the purpose; and it may be well conceived that no slight care was required to properly adjust such a cumbrous and complicated steel or iron casing; an esquire’s neglect, indeed, frequently caused his master’s death.

When a single combat took place, the esquires, drawn up behind theirlord, remained for a few moments inactive spectators of the struggle, but as soon as it had once fairly begun their share in the affray commenced. Watching the slightest movement, the smallest signals of their master, they stood ready to assist him in an indirect but efficacious manner if he attained any advantage, without actually becoming aggressors themselves, in order to assure his victory; if the knight were hurled from his steed, they helped him to remount, they brought him a fresh horse, they warded off the blows that were aimed at him; if he were wounded and placedhors de combat, they did their utmost, at the risk of their own life, to carry him off before he was slain outright. Again, it was to his esquires that a successful knight confided the care of the prisoners he had taken on the battle-field. In fine, the esquires, short of actually fighting themselves, a thing forbidden by the code of chivalry, were expected to display the greatest zeal, the greatest skill, and the greatest courage, and consequently had it very materially in their power to contribute to their master’s success.

A long novitiate and the consciousness of an aptitude for a military career were not always, however, sufficient to enable an esquire to obtain the rank of knight. He was frequently obliged, in the intermediate rank ofpursuivant-at-arms, to travel through foreign countries, either as the acknowledged envoy of some prince or noble, or merely in the character of an ordinary traveller, and be present at chivalric games and tournaments, without actually taking part in them himself; he thus acquired, by constant intercourse with distinguished soldiers and high-born ladies, a thorough technical knowledge of the military calling, and an intimate acquaintance with all the elegant refinements of courtesy.

In this way pursuivants-at-arms went about everywhere, one day being ceremoniously received at the court of a powerful noble, the next being simply entertained in the lowly manor of a poor gentleman; acting, wherever they might be, honourably both in word and in deed, observing scrupulously the precepts both of honour and virtue, showing themselves to be noble, brave, and devoted, and seeking every opportunity of proving themselves worthy of ranking with the noble knights whose deeds and whose names were the theme of constant and universal praise.

Chance alone was not allowed to direct their wandering and adventurous steps, they eagerly sought the most renowned princely and seignorial courts, at which they were certain to meet with chivalry’s loftiest traditions; theythought themselves fortunate indeed when they were able to make their obeisance to some hero famous for his deeds in arms, or to elicit a smile from some lady celebrated for her beauty and her worth.

Fig. 122.—The Count of Artois, who has come from Arras to take part in the tournament at Boulogne, presents himself at the Castle of the Count of Boulogne, and is received by the Countess and her daughter.—Fac-simile of a Miniature in the “Livre du très-chevalereux Comte d’Artois et de sa Femme,” Barrois Manuscript (Fifteenth Century).

Fig. 123.—Knight setting out for the War.—“Il prist le dur congié de sa bonne et belle femme, en si grans pleurs et gemissemens qu’elle demoura toute pasmée” (“He said farewell to his good and beautiful wife with such tears and groans that she was ready to swoon”).—Fac-simile of a Miniature in the “Livre du très-chevalereux Comte d’Artois et de sa Femme,” Barrois Manuscript (Fifteenth Century).

And while the most perfect respect and courtesy to ladies were the first duties instilled into each youthful aspirant, it must be owned that the education received by the former was one calculated to make them in every way worthy of such homage. To fit ladies for the queenly part they were destined to play in the world of chivalry, they were taught from their childhood to practise every virtue, to cherish every noble feeling, and generallyto emulate the dignity demanded by the social privileges of their rank. They were profuse in their acts of kindness and civility to the knights, whether friends or strangers, who entered the gates of their castles (Figs. 122 and 123); on a knight’s return from tournament or battle, they unbuckled his armour with their own hands, they prepared perfumes and spotless linen for his wear, they clothed him in gala dress, in mantle and scarf that they had themselves embroidered, they prepared his bath, and waited on him at table. Destined to become the wives of these same knights who frequentedtheir homes, they did their utmost to bring themselves under their notice by their modest demeanour, and to make themselves beloved by the courtesy and the attentions which they lavished upon them. It was theirs to respond, with admiration and tenderness, to the boldness and to the bravery of the knights, who sought glory only to lay it at their mistresses’ feet, and who asked for nothing better than to be subject to the gentle sway of beauty, grace, and virtue.

It was thus, for instance, that in Provence, from the eleventh to the fourteenth century, the most powerful nobles humbly obeyed, in everything that concerned the heart, the decrees issued by thecourtsortribunals of love, a kind of feminine areopagus which was held with great ceremony on certain days, and at which the ladies most distinguished by birth, beauty, intelligence, and knowledge, met to deliberate, publicly or with closed doors, with proper gravity and solemnity, on delicate questions of gallantry, which in those days were considered highly important. These courts of love, which appear to have been regular and permanent institutions in the twelfth century, had a special code, in accordance with which the sentences pronounced were more or less rigorously in conformity; but this code has not been handed down to our day, and we only possess its outline conveyed in the commentaries of the legal writers of the fifteenth century. Causes in these courts were sometimes decided on written evidence, sometimes the parties themselves were allowed to appear in person. Among the celebrated women who at different epochs and in different places presided over these romantic assizes, may be cited the beautiful Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen of France, and afterwards of England; Sibyl of Anjou, who married Thierry, Count of Flanders; the Countess of Die, surnamed the Sappho of France; and the famous Laura or Lauretta of Sade, whom Petrarch, who chose her for the lady of his love, has immortalised in his verse.

But to return to the esquire, who was left undergoing his laborious novitiate. When he had at last performed all its numerous requirements, the investiture of knighthood was conferred upon him, a symbolical ceremony, as indeed were all that went to make up a chivalric ordination, but one of a more serious and solemn character than the rest.

We have already said that this word ordination (ordène) implies that the arming of a knight was a kind of sacred ceremony. A very curious poem entitled “L’Ordène de Chevalerie” is still in existence. Its author, Huguesde Tabarie or de Tibériade, undertook the task of explaining all the forms of the investiture. In order to make his explanations more intelligible, Hugues de Tibériade supposes himself before an aspirant entirely ignorant of all the usages of chivalry: he pretends that the Sultan Saladin, whose prisoner he is, has forced him to confer upon him the order of knighthood. The first thing Hugues does is to order him to comb his hair and beard, and to carefully wash his face:—

Text.

Caviaus et barbe, et li viaireLi fist appareiller moult bel;Ch’est droit à chevalier nouvel.Puis le fist en un baing entrer.Lors li commenche à demanderLe soudan, que che senifie.

Caviaus et barbe, et li viaire

Li fist appareiller moult bel;

Ch’est droit à chevalier nouvel.

Puis le fist en un baing entrer.

Lors li commenche à demander

Le soudan, que che senifie.

Translation.

His hair, his beard, and his faceHe made him carefully arrange;It is the duty of a new knight.Then he made him enter a bath.Then the sultan began to askWhat all this signified.

His hair, his beard, and his face

He made him carefully arrange;

It is the duty of a new knight.

Then he made him enter a bath.

Then the sultan began to ask

What all this signified.

“Sire,” answers Hugues, “like the babe that leaves the font cleansed from original sin,—

“Sire, tout ensement devezIssir, sanz nule vilounieDe ce baing, car chevalerieSi doit baingnier en honesté,En courtoisie et en bontéEt fere amer à toutes gens.”

“Sire, tout ensement devez

Issir, sanz nule vilounie

De ce baing, car chevalerie

Si doit baingnier en honesté,

En courtoisie et en bonté

Et fere amer à toutes gens.”

“Sire, it is thus that you mustEmerge without any stainFrom this bath; for knighthoodMust be clothed with honesty,With courtesy, and with goodness,And make itself beloved by all.”

“Sire, it is thus that you must

Emerge without any stain

From this bath; for knighthood

Must be clothed with honesty,

With courtesy, and with goodness,

And make itself beloved by all.”

“By the great God,” says Saladin, “this is a wonderful beginning!” “Now,” answers Hugues, “leave the bath and recline on this great bed. It is an emblem of the one you will obtain in paradise, the bed of rest that God grants to his followers, the brave knights.” Shortly after, whilst dressing him from head to foot, he says: “The snow-white linen shirt with which I am clothing you, and which touches your skin, is to teach you that you must keep your flesh from every stain if you wish to reach heaven. This crimson robe indicates—

“Que votre sanc devez épandrePour Dieu servir et hounorer;Et pour défendre Sainte Eglise;Car tout chou doit chevalier faire,S’il veust à Dieu de noient plaire;Ch’est entendu par le vermeil.

“Que votre sanc devez épandre

Pour Dieu servir et hounorer;

Et pour défendre Sainte Eglise;

Car tout chou doit chevalier faire,

S’il veust à Dieu de noient plaire;

Ch’est entendu par le vermeil.

“That you must pour out your bloodTo serve and honour God;And to defend the holy Church;For all this must a knight doIf he wishes entirely to please God;Such is the meaning of the crimson.

“That you must pour out your blood

To serve and honour God;

And to defend the holy Church;

For all this must a knight do

If he wishes entirely to please God;

Such is the meaning of the crimson.

“These trunk-hose of brown silk by their sombre hue are meant to remind you of—

(Text.)

“La mort, et la terre où gisrez,Dont venistes, et où irez.A chou doivent garder votre œil;Si n’enkerret pas en orguel,Car orgueus ne doit pas régnerEn chevalier, ni demorer.A simpleche doit toujours tendre.

“La mort, et la terre où gisrez,

Dont venistes, et où irez.

A chou doivent garder votre œil;

Si n’enkerret pas en orguel,

Car orgueus ne doit pas régner

En chevalier, ni demorer.

A simpleche doit toujours tendre.

(Translation.)

“Death, and the earth where you will rest,Whence you came and whither you will return;This is what you must keep before your eyes;Thus you will not fall into pride,For pride should never governA knight nor reign within him.Humility should always be his aim.

“Death, and the earth where you will rest,

Whence you came and whither you will return;

This is what you must keep before your eyes;

Thus you will not fall into pride,

For pride should never govern

A knight nor reign within him.

Humility should always be his aim.

“This white girdle which I place around your loins is to teach you to keep your body pure and to avoid luxury. These two golden spurs are to urge on your horse; imitate its ardour and its docility, and as it obeys you, so be you obedient to the Lord. Now I fasten your sword to your side; strike your enemies with its double edge, prevent the poor from being crushed by the rich, the weak from being oppressed by the strong. I put upon your head a pure whitecoifto indicate that your soul similarly should be stainless.”

Every pursuivant was perfectly well acquainted with the meaning of the ordination of knighthood. The vigil of arms, the strict fasts, the three nights spent in prayer in a lonely chapel, the white garments of the neophyte, the consecration of his sword in front of the altar, were sufficient to prove to the novice the gravity of the engagement he was contracting under the auspices of religion. At last a day was fixed for the great ceremony, and the neophyte—after hearing mass on his bended knees, and with his sword, which he had not yet acquired the right to gird to his side, suspended from his neck—received from the hands of some noble or of some noble lady his spurs, his helmet, his cuirass, his gauntlets, and his sword. The ceremony was completed by thecolée; that is to say, the investing knight, before presenting him with the sword, struck him across the shoulder with its flat side, and then gave him theaccoladeas a sign of brotherly adoption. His shield, his lance, and his charger, were then brought to the new-made knight, and he was thenceforward at liberty to commence the career of glory, of devotion, and of combat, to which for so many years he had aspired.

Fig. 124.—Degradation of a Knight.—Fragment of a Woodcut attributed to Jost Amman, bearing the date 1565 and the monogram A. J. (Collection of M. Guénebault of Paris).

The Christian symbolism, which had accompanied the first steps of the novice, followed and surrounded him in some way or other during the whole

of his knightly career. Indeed, it took part in his punishment and degradation if he broke his plighted faith or if he forfeited his honour. Exposed on a scaffold in nothing but his shirt, he was stripped of his armour, which was broken to pieces before his eyes and thrown at his feet, while his spurs were thrown upon a dunghill. His shield was fastened to the croup of a cart-horse and dragged through the dust, and his charger’s tail was cut off. Aherald-at-arms asked thrice, “Who is there?” Three times an answer was given naming the knight about to be degraded, and three times the herald rejoined, “No, it is not so; I see no knight here, I see only a coward who has been false to his plighted faith.” Carried thence to the church on a litter like a dead body, the culprit was forced to listen while the burial service was read over him, for he had lost his honour, and was now only looked upon as a corpse (Fig. 124).

Although the Church was the protectress of chivalry, and even invested it with an almost sacred dignity, she always refused to extend her protection to tournaments, tilts, and assaults of arms, brilliant, but often dangerous manifestations of the chivalric spirit, and particularly to judicial duels, which were of German origin, and which dated from a period long prior to the institution of Christian chivalry. When the Church found itself obliged to show indulgence to these ancient traditions, which custom had interwoven with the habits of the Middle Ages, she did so in as reserved a manner as possible. She was always indignantly protesting against the barbarous custom which compelled or allowed women, children, churches, and convents, to choose from among the knights a special champion (campeador) who should be always ready to sustain against all the patron’s cause. The Church, while approving the generous protection which chivalry extended to the weak and to the oppressed, always endeavoured to destroy the savage doctrine of paganism which confounded might with right; but it was in vain that she opposed all her influence and authority to the custom of duelling; she was obliged to restrict herself to lessening the evil effects of the opinions that generally prevailed, without hoping to destroy the opinions themselves.

Thepoint of honourhad no existence in the breasts of the warriors of antiquity. They sacrificed themselves to their country and to the commonwealth, and they loved glory—a sentiment which with them was collective and not individual, for with them society, as a whole, was everything, its unit, nothing. The modern duel, whether it be considered a brutal and speedy method of settling private quarrels, or a proper act of submission to the divine will which cannot fail to crown right with success, springs from the strong individuality of barbarism, and from the personal tendency of savage dignity and independence.

Fig. 125.—Fight between Raymbault de Morueil and Guyon de Losenne. The Abbot of St. Denis at the feet of the Archbishop of Paris, taking oath that his cause, defended by Raymbault, is a just one.—Fac-simile of a Miniature in the “Romance of Charles Martel,” enlarged by David Aubert. Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the Burgundian Library, Brussels.

This strange confusion of ideas relative to victory and innocence, to mightand right, first gave rise totrial by ordeal, or thejudgment of God, which included ordeal by fire, by boiling water, by the cross, and by the sword, to which women, and even princesses, were subjected. Mankind, in the simplicity of its belief, appealed to God, the sovereign judge, and implored Him to grant strength and victory to the just cause.Trial by ordealfell into discredit about the time of Charlemagne, and was superseded, towards the latter half of the twelfth century, by the judicial duel. The institution of chivalry favoured this hasty method of decision, which was in accordance with the manners and ideas of the period. Questions which otherwise would have been difficult to solve were thus abruptly settled, and from these bloody decisions there was no appeal. In some countries, indeed, the judge who had decided between two antagonists had himself to submit to the judgment of God, as represented by the judicial duel, and was forced to come down from his judgment-seat and contend in arms against the criminal he had justcondemned. On the other hand, however, it must be said that the judge, in his turn, possessed the privilege of challenging a prisoner who refused to bow to his decision.

Fig. 126.—Duel concerning the Honour of Ladies.—Fac-simile of a Miniature in the “Histoire de Gérard de Nevers,” a Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the National Library of Paris.

If the principle of this rough combatant justice be once admitted, it must be acknowledged that a spirit of wisdom dictated every possible precaution to render its inconveniences as few as possible. The duel, in fact, only took place when a crime punishable by death had been committed, and then only when there were no witnesses to the crime, but merely grave suspicions against the supposed criminal. All persons less than twenty-one or more than sixty years of age, priests (Fig. 125), invalids, and women (Fig. 126), were dispensed from taking part in these combats, and were allowed to be represented by champions. If the two parties to a dispute were of a different rank in life, certain regulations were drawn up in favour of the plaintiff. A knight who challenged a serf was forced to fight with a serf’s weapons, that is to say, with a shield and a staff, and to wear a leathern jerkin; if, on the contrary, the challenge came from the serf, the knightwas allowed to fight as a knight, that is to say, on horseback and in armour. It was customary for the two parties to a judicial duel to appear before their count or lord; after reciting his wrongs, the plaintiff threw down his gage—generally a glove or gauntlet—which his adversary then exchanged for his own as a sign that he accepted the challenge. Both were then led to the seignorial prison, where they were detained till the day fixed for the combat, unless they could obtain substantial sureties who would make themselves responsible for their safe custody, and bind themselves, in case their bailee failed to appear at the appointed time, to undergo the penalties attached to the committal of the act that had necessitated the appeal to arms. This was termed thevice prison.

Fig. 127.—“How the plaintiff and the defendant take the final oath before the judge.”—Fac-simile of a Miniature in “Cérémonies des Gages de Bataille,” a Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century in the National Library of Paris.

On the day fixed for the combat, the two adversaries, accompanied by their seconds and by a priest, appeared in the lists mounted and armed at all points, their weapons in their hands, their swords and daggers girded on. They knelt down opposite to one another with their hands clasped, each in histurn solemnly swearing upon the cross and upon Holy Writ (Fig. 127) that he alone was in the right, and that his antagonist was false and disloyal; and he added, moreover, that he carried no charm or talisman about his person. A herald-at-arms then gave public notice at each of the four corners of the lists to the spectators of the combat to remain perfectly passive, to make no movement, and to utter no cry that could either encourage or annoy the combatants, under pain of losing a limb, or even life itself. The seconds then withdrew, and the camp-marshal, after seeing that both antagonists were fairly placed, and had their proper share of the wind and the sun, called out three times, “Laissez-les aller!” and the fight began (Fig. 128).

Fig. 128.—“How both parties are out of their tents, armed and ready to do their duty at the signal from the marshal, who has thrown the glove.”—From a Miniature in the “Cérémonies des Gages de Bataille,” a Manuscript of the Fifteenth Century, in the National Library of Paris.

The judicial duel never commenced before noon, and was only allowed to last till the stars appeared in the sky. If the defendant held out tillthen he was considered to have gained his cause. The knight who was beaten, whether killed or merely wounded, was dragged off the ground by his feet, the fastenings of his cuirass were cut, his armour was thrown piece by piece into the lists, and his steed and his weapons were divided between the marshal and the judges of the duel. Indeed sometimes, as, for instance, in Normandy and in Scandinavia, according to ancient usage, the vanquished champion was hung or burnt alive, according to the nature of the crime; while if he had fought as the champion of another person, that person was usually put to death with him.

The Church, although she allowed a priest to be present in the lists, never even granted a tacit approval to these judicial duels; she excommunicated the successful duellist, and refused the rites of burial to his victim; nor was she alone in condemning this barbarous custom; the lay authorities did all in their power, but without very much success, to restrict the number of these sanguinary appeals. St. Louis, in a celebrated decree of 1260, substituted trial by evidence in place of the judicial duel, but he found himself only able to enforce this reform within the area of his own dominions, and imperfectly even there, for long after his reign it is on record that the Parliament of Paris ordered certain criminal cases to be decided by personal combat.

When at last, in the fifteenth century, the custom of the judicial duel fell into disuse, the nobility still retained and practised single combat (Fig. 129). A personal affront, often an extremely slight one, a quarrel, a slight to be avenged, were enough to bring two rivals or two enemies to blows. This combative custom, which made a man’s strength and personal skill the guardians of his honour, was sustained and encouraged by the spirit of chivalry and by that of German feudalism. Sometimes, however, the practice was considered justifiable on other grounds. History, for instance, has honourably recorded the “Battle of the Thirty,” which took place in 1351, between thirty knights of Brittany, under the Sire de Beaumanoir, and thirty English knights; and another equally bloody struggle of the same kind between Bayard and ten other French knights, and eleven Spaniards, before the walls of Tranni. The national honour alone was the motive of these two celebrated duels; but they were only the exceptions to the rule. It almost seems as if the nobility, in their efforts to cling to the shadow and the memory of the rapidly-expiring traditions of chivalry,became more inveterate in their adherence to the cruel system of duelling. In the sixteenth century, under the last monarchs of the house of Valois, the Place Royale and the Pré aux Clercs were often watered with the blood of the best families of France. In vain did Henry IV. and Louis XIII. issuethe most stringent edicts against this barbarous custom; in vain did the decree, called the decree of Blois, render nugatory all letters of pardon granted to duellists, “even if they were signed by the king himself.” In spite of everything, the nobles, upon whose privileges the monarchy daily made fresh encroachments, had recourse to duelling as if to assert their connection with a chivalric and adventurous past, and the most trivial, ridiculous, and shameful motives served as pretexts for a renewal of the sanguinary struggles, which had been originally inspired by a generous courage and a loyal sympathy with justice.

Back to Index Next