CHIVALRY. 



343 



Privileges 

 of the 

 knight*. 



unadorned wish armorial bearings, for the space of a 

 year, unless some opportunity occurred before that pe- 

 riod of signalizing himself in battle. If he had fought 

 against the Infidels, he assumed a cross as part of his 

 arms ; if he excelled in the management of the lance or 

 the sword, he added these ; had he forced a barrier or a 

 castle, these a!?o were assumed ; and in several instances, 

 the wounds which he had received, were pictured in dif- 

 ferent modes on his blasonry. The head of the lance was 

 very commonly adopted ; and from this circumstance, 

 according to St Palaye, the fleur-de-lys of France takes 

 its origin.* 



Another privilege bestowed by chivalry, immediately 

 connected with, and indeed necessarily resulting from, 

 that of armorial bearings, consisted in the new knight 

 being authorised to make use of a seal. A passage is 

 quoted by Selden from an old chronicle, in which it is 

 expressly stated that Richard, Earl of Chester, in the 

 reign of Henry I., when he conveyed his lands in Wey- 

 rnonsley to the Abbey of Abingdon, made use of his 

 mother's seal, because he had not yet arrived at the ho- 

 nour of knighthood, (nondum enim militare balthio cirtc- 

 lus erat,) and St Palaye and Boullainvilliers (Histoire 

 de I'Aiicien Gain-eminent de Frcutfc, i. 326,) maintain 

 the same opinion. Yet that in England, seals might be 

 used even by inferior persons, appears from a passage 

 from Ingulphus, quoted by Selden, and another from 

 Glanville, given by the same author. Du Tillet also 

 ekes a judgment as old as the year 1366, in which an e> 

 quire is said to change hit seal when he attains the rank 

 of knight. 



It is probable, however, that to wear seals with armo- 

 rial bearings on them, was the exclusive privilege of a 

 knight ; and that the seals mentioned by Ingulphus and 

 Glanville, and the judgment cited by Du Tillet, refer to 

 seals without armorial bearings ; since it is undoubted, 

 that esquires, and men of inferior birth, were not per- 

 mitted the use of coats of arms. A knight, beside a 

 large seal which he employed on grand and important 

 occasions, had generally one or more seal-rings on his 

 finger ; and the possession of these was deemed so sure 

 a mark of his delegated authority, that his vassals yield- 

 ed implicit obedience to whoever displayed them.-J- 



The knight was aho privileged in the dress he wore, 

 and in the ornaments by which it was distinguished. On 

 the day of his knighthood, he received from his sove- 

 reign a splendid mantle, which completely covered his 

 person, and swept the ground with a long train. This, 

 which was called the king's livery, and which was re- 

 newed regularly twice a year in winter and summer, as 

 well as at grand feats or tournaments, was lined with the 

 most costly furs, and adorned with gold. No person of 

 rank inferior to that of a knight, durst presume to wear 

 gold, fur, or silk. Gold, as the most precious metal, 

 was reserved for their use : it formed or covered their 

 purs, and adorned the trappings of their horses, as well 

 as their own robes. If the chevalier appeared in the 

 rich and splendid silk of Damascus, the esquire was 



clothed in satin ; and if the latter was dressed in the silk Chivalry.^ 



of Damascus, the chevalier was clothed in velvet. Scar- JTT"Y"7 

 i , r , Privileges 



let, or some other colour partaking of red, was appro- of t]ie 



priated to the knight, and no inferior person durst pre- feniglits. 

 sume to appear in any colour at all resembling it.f 



But the knight possessed rights and privileges of y. high- 

 er nature, and more dignified importance. Such was the 

 estimation hi which knighthood was held, that for a 

 long time no sovereign could be crowned till he had 

 been knighted ; and the son of a king was scarcely per- 

 mitted to approach the person of his father, certainly 

 not to sit down to table with him, previous to his being 

 invested with the order of chivalry. Birth, however il- 

 lustrious and noble, bestowed no personal rank, till to it 

 had been added the title of knight. While the rank was 

 only that of esquire, even the son of a king was consider- 

 ed as the servant of the knight in whose family he resi- 

 ded ; and, till he became an esquire, he was looked upon 

 as belonging entirely to the women. But, when made a 

 knight, though under the legal age, his knighthood con- 

 ferred upon him the right of holding his lands, and of 

 rendering homage for them in person ; for he was then 

 considered as emancipated, and admitted to the full pri-. 

 vileges of nobility. 



In many cases he was exempt from taxes ; and even 

 his servants, and all who were attached to his household, 

 shared in some degree in the same privilege. Neither hi 

 horse nor his armour could be seized for debt, although 

 the crown were the creditor. If he came into a court of 

 justice as a complainant, and gained his suit, fines beyond 

 the usual proportion were awarded him ; and he could 

 not himself be summoned to appear, without the obser- 

 vance of particular forms, all of which were intended to 

 shew respect to his rank. He was empowered to act in 

 the capacity of a magistrate ; and was frequently called 

 upon by his sovereign for his advice as a counsellor, as 

 well as for his assistance as a warrior. When ambassa- 

 dors were to be sent on any special and important mis- 

 sion, they were always chosen from among the clergy or 

 the knights. 



If he chanced to be taken in war, he was seldom con- 

 fined in prison, and never put in fetters ; his word was 

 generally deemed sufficient security. When he was con- 

 fined, a particular kind of prison was allotted him, 

 called the prison of courtesy, (courtoise, ) where he ex- 

 perienced the most delicate and respectful attention, and 

 received every indulgence, consistent with his situation, 

 that could softenjthe rigours of his captivity, and soothe 

 the anguish he experienced on account of hia ill fortune. 

 He was at liberty to offer his services to a foreign power, 

 when his own sovereign did not require them. When 

 he travelled, either for the purposes of engaging in bat- 

 tle or tournament, himself and all his train were received 

 and hospitably entertained at the castle of every knight 

 which lay in his way. 



The outward appearance and internal decorations of 

 his castle bespoke his rank. The crenncls and tower* 

 which were intended for their defence, marked also 



Pmlcerton, in hi* note* to Barbour's Bruce, i. 47, says, that the fleur-de-lys was only known in the time of Philip the Hardy, king 



of France, A. D. 1270, and was taken from the gold coins of Florence with that flower ; but, according to Ruddiman, (Introduction to 



[nrferioM . Diplomats, 1U.) Louii VII., surnamcd the Younger, in 1136, first used the lily, but only a single one. Some suppose, 



ssure of Scotland was borrowed from the arms of France, in consequence and in token of the amity between the two kingdoms ; 



t is more probable that, in both injtanccs, the arms were originally the he-ad of lances, and were adopted in conformily to the 



custom mentioned in the text. 



t For a striking instance of this, sec Si Palaye, i. 3.J3. This author also cites and corrects a passage from an ancient Fabliau, which 



he armorial shield and the seal an peculiar and privileged marks of a chevalier. 



laye offers a derivation of the -.vord rogue, which has puzzled etymologists, at least plausible and ingenious. From the 



cc of the red (rouge) colour being appropriated to men of rank and power, the word rouge acquired the meaning of proud 



mu ami. by a transposition of the tetters, by no means unlikely or uncommon, thi author supposes the word rogue was. 



