ORIGIN AND NATURE OF CHIVALRY.—It was in the period of the crusades that the mediaeval institution of chivalry was ennobled by receiving a religious consecration. Chivalry is a comprehensive term, denoting a system of ideas and customs that prevailed in the middle ages. In the western kingdoms of Europe there was gradually formed a distinct class of warriors of superior rank, who fought on horseback, and were recognized as knights by a ceremony of equipment with arms. Among the customs of the ancient Germans, which are noticed by Tacitus, and in which may be discovered the germs of chivalry, are the remarkable deference paid to women, attendance of the aspiring youth on a military superior,—out of which vassalship arose,—and the formal receiving of arms on reaching manhood. At the outset, knighthood was linked to feudal service: the knights were landholders. In the age of Charlemagne, the warriors on horseback—the caballarii—were the precursors, both in name and function, of the chevaliers of later times. The word knight, meaning a youth or servant, and then a military attendant, came to be a term of equivalent meaning. The necessary connection of knighthood with the possession of fiefs was broken in the thirteenth century, through changes in the circumstances of warfare. Knighthood became independent of feudalism. It was a personal distinction, frequently bestowed as a reward for brave deeds, and often conferred with elaborate ceremonies, partly of a religious character. When the boy of gentle birth passed from under the care of females, he first served as a page or valet at the court of a prince or the castle of a rich noble. Having been thus trained in habits of courtesy and obedience, he was advanced, not earlier than the age of fourteen, to the rank of squire, and instructed in horsemanship and in the use of weapons. He followed his master to the tournament and in battle, until finally he was himself dubbed a knight, was clothed in armor of steel, and took on him all the obligations and privileges of his order. The introduction of hereditary surnames and of armorial bearings served to distinguish the members of this order. He who was a knight in one place was a knight everywhere.
There were different classes of knights. The "bachelor," who bore a forked pennon, was below the "knight-banneret," who alone had the right to carry the square banner. The banneret was required to have a certain estate, and to be able to bring into the field a certain number of lances, i.e., inferior knights with their men-at-arms and foot-soldiers. Each knight was accompanied by his squire and personal attendants. Not seldom two knights joined together in a brotherhood in arms, pledging themselves to sustain each other in every peril.
THE VIRTUES OF KNIGHTHOOD.—There were characteristic obligations of knighthood. One was loyalty, which included a strict fidelity to all pledges, embracing promises made to an enemy. Another knightly virtue was courtesy, which was exercised even towards a foe. The spirit of gallantry, inspiring devotion to woman, especially the chosen object of love, and protection to womanly weakness, was always a cardinal trait of the chivalric temper. Courage, which delighted in daring exploits, and sought fields for the exercise of personal prowess, was an indispensable quality of the knights. The ideal of chivalry was honor rather than benevolence. The influence of chivalry in refining manners was very great; but, especially in its period of decline, it allowed or brought in much cruelty and profligacy. Its distinctive spirit could find room for exercise only amid conflict and bloodshed, which it naturally tended to promote.
CEREMONIES OF INVESTITURE.—When the knight was created according to the complete form, he entered into a bath on the evening previous, was instructed by old knights in "the order and feats" of chivalry, was then clad in white and russet, like a hermit, passed the night in the chapel in "orisons and prayers," and at daybreak confessed to the priest, and received the sacrament. He then returned to his chamber. At the appointed hour he was conducted to the hall, where he received the spurs and was girded with the sword by the prince or other lord who was to confer the distinction, by whom he was smitten on the shoulder and charged to be "a good knight." Thence he was escorted to the chapel, where he swore on the altar to defend the church, and his sword was consecrated.
JUDICIAL COMBATS.—The disposition to resort to single combats as a judicial test of guilt or innocence was stimulated by the development of chivalry. There were other ordeals long in vogue, by which it was thought that Heaven would interpose miraculously to shield, and thus to vindicate, the innocent, and to expose the criminal. Such were the plunging of the hand into boiling water, the contact of the flesh with red-hot iron or with fire, the lot, the oath taken on holy relics, the reception of the Eucharist, which would choke the perjurer, and send his soul to perdition. The ordeals were regulated and managed by the clergy. Among the German, and also the Celtic tribes, there are traces of the duel between combatants, for purposes of divination, or of determining on which side in a controversy the right lay. The judicial combat in mediaeval Europe became general. Champions, in cases where the rights of women were in debate, and in other instances where the wager of battle between the direct antagonists in a dispute was impracticable, were selected, or volunteered, to try the issue in an armed conflict. Sometimes professional champions, hired for the occasion, were employed. The custom of judicial combats by degrees declined. The municipalities and the spirit of commerce were averse to it. It was opposed by the Emperor Frederic II. and by Louis IX. of France. The influence of the Roman law helped to undermine it; but the opposition of the Church was the most effectual agency in doing away with it. The modern duel, which survived the judicial combat, is a relic of the ancient custom of avenging private injuries, and of proving the courage of the combatants between whom a quarrel had arisen. In the opening of Shakespeare's play of Richard II., in the quarrel of Mowbray and Bolingbroke, the idea of the judicial combat mingles with the motives and feelings characteristic of the duel when stripped of its religious aspect.
FRANCE.—DESCENDANTS OF HUGH CAPET
HUGH THE GREAT (d. 956), m.
3, Hedwiga, daughter of Henry I of Germany.
|
+—HUGH CAPET, 987-996.
|
+—ROBERT, 996-1031.
|
+—HENRY I,1031-1060.
|
+—PHILIP I, 1060-1108, m.
Bertha, daughter of Florence I, Count of Holland.
|
+—LOUIS VI, 1108-1137.
|
+—LOUIS VII, 1137-1180,
m. 3, Alice, daughter of Theobold II,
Count of Champagne.
|
+—PHILIP II (Augustus), 1180-1223,
m. 1, Isabella, daughter of Baldwin V,
Count of Hainault.
|
+—LOUIS VIII, 1223-1226,
m. Blanche, daughter
of Alfonso IX of Castile.
|
+—(St.) Louis IX, 1226-1270,
m. Margaret, daughter of
Raimond Berengar IV, Count of Provence.
|
+—2, PHILIP III, 1270-1285,
| m. 1, Isabella, daughter
| of James I of Aragon.
| |
| +—PHILIP IV, 1285-1314,
| | m. Jeanne,
| | heiress of Champagne and Navarre.
| | |
| | +—LOUIS X, 1314-1316.
| | |
| | +—PHILIP V, 1316-1322.
| | |
| | +—CHARLES IV, 1322-1328.
| |
| +—Charles, Count of Valois (d.
| 1325), founder of the house of
| Valois, m. Margaret, daughter
| of Charles II of Naples.
| |
| +—PHILIP VI, succeeded 1328.
|
+—Robert, Count of Clermont,
founder of the house of Bourbon.
ENGLAND.—FROM THE CONQUEST TO EDWARD I.
WILLIAM I, 1066-1087, m.
Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders
|
+—WILLIAM II (Rufus), 1087-1100.
|
| (Malcolm Canmore m. St. Margaret)
| |
| +—Mary m. Eustace, Count of Boulogne
| |
| +—Maud
| |
| +—Matilda.
| m.
+—HENRY I, 1100-1135
| |
| +—MATILDA (d. 1167) m.
| 1, Emperor Henry V;
| 2, Geoffrey Plantagenet,
| Count of Anjou
| |
| +—HENRY II, 1154-1189 m.
| Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc.,
| wife of Louis VII of France.
| |
| +—3, RICHARD I, 1189-1199.
| |
| +—5, JOHN, 1199-1216, m.
| Isabella of Angouleme
| |
| +—HENRY III, 1216-1272,
| m. Eleanor, daughter of
| Raymond Berengar IV of
| Provence.
| |
| +—EDWARD I, succeeded 1272.
|
+—Adela, m. Stephen, Count of Blois.
|
+—STEPHEN, 1135-1154. m.
Maud, daughter of Malcolm Canmore and St. Margaret.