CHIVALRY. 



337 



Chivalry 

 supposed to 

 arise from 

 the feudal 



CMvahy. preceding tnat fvent, if Would not have been possible for 

 ""'Y"*' the western princes to give that politic diversion to their 

 turbulent vassals, which the n<w hypothesis supposes." 

 And there is undoubted evidence th*t chivalry, " in its 

 most peculiar and characteristic forms." existed at least 

 as early as the beginning of the eleventh century. Be- 

 sides, in the account's which we havo of the first Crusades, 

 evident traces are to be found of thi* institution full 

 formed, and operating with powerful influence on the 

 manners and pursuits of the knights who embarked in it. 

 It now remains to consider the opinion of those, who 

 maintain that chivalry was the natural effect of the feu- 

 dal policy, and who consequently fix its origin at that 

 period, when this policy was in full establishment and 

 complete operation. 



The feudal policy may be regarded, either as the 

 cause of the ceremonies and institutions of chivalry only, 

 or of its spirit and characteristic principles. In the for- 

 mer point of view, it would naturally add to the solem- 

 nity of military investiture. As, under the feudal sys- 

 tem, those lands which belonged to minors were held by 

 the sovereign, till the owner was able to discharge the 

 military duties connected with their possession, the pe- 

 riod assigned by law, at which he was deemed capable of 

 defending his land with complete amis, or with those 

 which a knight was entitled to wear, and at which the 

 sovereign resigned it with his possession, would natural- 

 ly be celebrated with great pomp and solemnity. 



But the influence of the feudal system in giving form 

 and spirit to the institutions of chivalry, was much more 

 conspicuous and important. That passion for military 

 adventure, which may be traced in almost every nation, 

 at a certain stage of their progress towards civilization, 

 would be much increased by the principles and effects of 

 the feudal system. The territory each noble possessed 

 had been gained by the sword ; the acknowledgment he 

 paid for it, was the employment of his sword in the ser- 

 vice of his sovereign ; and by the same means alone, could 

 it be defended from the attacks of his restless and power- 

 ful neighbours. Much of his time, therefore, must 

 have been taken up in actual warfare ; and what was not 

 thus employed, was naturally devoted to those amuse- 

 ments, which would increase his military ikill, and which 

 bore the semblance of war. 



That high sense of honour, and that pride in redres- 

 sing wrongs and removing grievances, which distinguish- 

 ed the Scandinavian nations, would have ample scope du- 

 ring the violence, rapine, and plunder of the feudal state; 

 while the attentive and respectful gallantry which was 

 equally conspicuous among them, would be cherished 

 and called into constant exercise in the castles of the ba- 

 rons, amidst the free commerce and conversation of the 

 ladies. The religious character which distinguished 

 chivalry, arose out of the manners of the times and the 

 state of society, and therefore need not be traced to 

 any particular and predominating cause. 



The only author who regards the feudal system as ab- 

 solutely hostile to chivalry, is Pinkerton ; but as his opi- 

 nion is not supported either by authority or argument, 

 it cannot be expected to outweigh the reasons, which 

 have been brought forward to prove that this system, 

 though it did not actually give birth to chivalry, was 

 very instrumental in bunging it to maturity. 



To sum up the grand inference from the investigation 

 which has been gone into, and the train of reasoning 

 which has been purtu-d. The theories respecting the 

 origin of chivalry, which were enumi-rated in the begin- 

 ning of this article, evidently confound two things, quite 



VOL. VI. PART t. 



to the dif. 

 ferd.t 

 theories of 

 1 17. 



distinct in their nature and character. That theory which Chivalry. 

 would seek the origin of chivalry among the nations of **" ""Y"" 

 the East, overlooking that nice regard to honour, that 

 courtesy of manners, and that respectful and delicate gal- 

 lantry, which formed its characteristic features, insist* 

 only on that resemblance between the knights of chival- 

 ry and the warriors of the East, which consists in theit 

 common passion for war, enterprize, and adventure. In 

 this theory, therefore, the natural result of a certain stage 

 of society is confounded with a regular institution, exist- 

 ing certainly in a stage of society nearly similar, and 

 therefore embracing its features, but also superadding 

 many regulations, and exhibiting many points of charac- 

 ter, utterly inconsistent with the manners, the feelings, 

 and the institutions of the East. 



That theory, which ascribes the origin of chivalry t 

 the Scandinavian nations, approaches nearer the truth. 

 It can trace among them not merely the love of warfare, 

 enterpriz.e, and adventure, and a high estimation of per- 

 sonal valour, but also a nice regard to honour, and a re- 

 spectful and delicate attention to the female sex. But 

 these qualities existed generally ; they were not the pe- 

 culiar characteristic, nor regarded as the especial obliga- 

 tion of a certain portion of the community. In short, 

 among the Scandinavians, almost every feature that after- 

 wards composed chivalry may be traced ; but they were 

 not among them, as when it was established, arranged 

 in their regular order, and with their due proportion. 



It only remains to notice the theory, 1 which considers 

 chiv.-.lry as of Armorican origin. Among the Celtic 

 tribes, there is no evidence of that high regard to honour, 

 and the female sex, which has been so often stated as the 

 characteristics of chivalry. This theory, therefore, is 

 not built on such strong presumptive evidence as that 

 which refers it to a Scandinavian origin. 



Those authors who regard the examples of military 

 investiture, during or before the reign of Charlemagne, 

 as proofs of the existence of chivalry at that early pe- 

 riod, likewise confound two things quite distinct in their 

 nature and character. By the military investiture, the 

 right of carrying arms, and engaging in warfare alone, 

 was bestowed ; and there does not appear to have been 

 any other obligation imposed, but that of employing the 

 arms, with which the soldier was invested in the service, 

 and for the protection of his sovereign. Although, 

 therefore, the spirit of chivalry was drawn from the love 

 of military enterprise, which is common to all nations at 

 a certain period of their age, and from that nice suscep- 

 tibility of honour, and high estimation of the female sex, 

 which were peculiar to the Scandinavian tribes ; and 

 though the ceremonies of chivalry were borrowed from 

 those employed on occasions of military investiture, yet 

 these facts are by no means sufficient to warrant the con- 

 clusion, that it derived its origin from any of these 

 sources. 



Chivalry, properly so called, as has been already ob- O r jg' B f 

 served, cannot be traced further back than the eleventh c " lva ' rVt 

 century. In the beginning of that century, the rudi- 

 ments of the laws of chivalry may be found in the deci- 

 sions of the famous Council of Clermont. About the 

 year 1025, several prelates, and particularly the Arch- 

 bishop of Bourges, drew up a set of laws for the main- 

 tenance of order, and the protection of the weak ; which 

 were afterwards submitted to, and confirmed by, the 

 Council of Clermont. These laws every person of noble 

 birth, when he had attained the age of twelve years, was 

 obliged to submit himself to, by swearing to their obser- 

 vance before the bishop of his diocese. By the oath 

 2o 



