The Ecclesiastical Orders of Knighthood

by James Herman Van der Veldt

Within the framework of the above twofold classification of pontifical and military orders, another dual grouping exists which is based on historical criteria. Some of the ecclesiastical orders of knighthood go back to the age of chivalry; this is certainly the case with the military orders, the Order of Christ, and probably the Order of the Golden Spur. The origin of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre is still historically debatable. The remaining pontifical orders of knighthood were established long after the age of chivalry came to a close.

Distinct from the orders of knighthood are a certain number of ecclesiastical decorations. These are marks of honor (distintivi de onore), without, however, extending the title of Knight to the recipient. It is, therefore, incorrect to designate a person receiving such an honor as knighted by the Pope, as it is equally incorrect to put all the ecclesiastical orders of knighthood under the heading of papal decorations.

Ecclesiastical decorations, like the ecclesiastical orders of knighthood, are of two kinds. Those bestowed directly by the Holy See and consequently strictly pontifical are the Cross “Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice” and the Medal “Benemerenti.” The second category are those approved by the Holy See and their recipients may wear the decoration at the papal court and at ecclesiastical ceremonies. The honor, however, is not granted directly by the Pope. An example thereof is the Lateran Cross, which is conferred by the Chapter of the Basilica of Saint John Lateran.

This brief outline will be clarified as the various orders are treated in subsequent articles. It is our intention in the present article to confine ourselves to a survey of the historical background of the orders of knighthood.

Although much of the information about the early beginnings of knighthood is rooted in conjecture, a plausible thesis would make knighthood coincide with the rise of the cavalry in Europe, during the first half of the eighth century. It coincides with the times when the Christians in the encounters with the Saracens soon discovered that their infantry were no match for those who fought on horseback. Such armies had much greater mobility, and the center of gravity in the Christian military strategy shifted accordingly.

Throughout the first hundred years after this new horseback “militia” had been introduced, all free men could join it, on condition that they were able to provide a horse and equip it at their own expense. Only people of some means could afford this luxury, and the wealthier class was that of the landowners. Service in the cavalry, therefore, implied the possessing of some property, preferably in the form of land.

A revolutionary innovation took place simultaneously in the system of land ownership, changing from an allodial, i.e., absolute ownership, to a feudal system. That is why the horseback military service came to be linked with the feudal method of land tenure. It accounts for the historical development of knighthood being so closely related to the history of the feudal system. The history of feudal land ownership is hardly pertinent here, and it will suffice here to state that the tenants-in-chief and their subalterns in the feudal system formed the cavalry of the army; they were the horsemen, chevaliers, or knights. That is how the original form of knighthood became so intimately associated with the tenure of land, and how the knights were known as feudal knights.

While the knights were initially landed gentry, gradually—and already a considerable time before the Crusades—a different type of knight appeared, namely, that of the horseman without land. Equally so, knighthood began to constitute a distinct social class. No longer was feudal tenure the background of knighthood but rather personal valor. The development was the consequence of the custom of primogeniture as it existed in the Frankish form of the feudal system.

Two types of feudal succession were known on the European continent. Where the Longobard feudal law held sway, as was the case in Italy, at the death of the feudatory incumbent, the land was divided among his male heirs. In many cases the original fief was cut into ever smaller portions during successive generations. This gentry were still landholders, even though their financial position, due to the divisions and subdivisions of the ancestral property, might not be much better economically than that of the peasants who actually worked the land.

In France and other countries where the Frankish feudal system prevailed, conditions were altogether different. Here, according to the law of primogeniture, the entire feud passed to the eldest son, who was then bound by an oath of fealty to his overlord. The younger sons had to be satisfied with precious little; they might make a livelihood by offering their service to their eldest brother, in which case they were obliged to do the menial work of the estate very much the same as that of domestics and peasants. It is quite understandable that many of these younger sons, particularly the less amenable and the more venturesome, could be expected to scorn such an inferior station in life. Being of noble birth, this dispossessed youth might say with the steward of the gospel: “What shall I do?... To dig I am not able; to beg I am ashamed.” Only two callings were open to them, the priestly or the military vocation, and of the two the calling of soldier was far more attractive. Upon leaving the paternal domain, they usually were given a horse and armor to aid in their search for economic independence. For the most part, they did not have to look long, because war was in progress all over Europe among the many and small feudal states. Yet, because they were no longer aligned with the feudal hierarchy, they had no obligation to render military service to any specific lord and could approach the highest bidder. This meant that a new and ever increasing group of independent, non-feudal horsemen came into existence who sought to win their spurs on their own merit. They became knights, not because they happened to have a feudal estate, but because of personal exploits on the battlefield. These soldiers frequently gained more than glory and honor inasmuch as a grateful employer who had taken them into his pay would extend his bounty to presenting them with a castle and some land, upon success in a military expedition. The medieval right of plunder could provide the victorious knight with the necessary accoutrement to furnish his newly-won castle. One readily appreciates the consolidation of the economic position for those concerned. There was this difference, however, that their possessions came to them not by right of birth but by personal valor.