CHIVALRY. 



I'W.hT. the dtt>itie and boaouri of the owaer. On the 



~~ highctt itimmit of them, a ranr, or pennon, or a hcl- 



.* fixed, which served a* t iignal of courteous 



ka,.,t4. and welcome hospitality to all of die same order, who 

 were journeying that way on affairs of gallantry or 



.11 castle, and the furniture 



with v as embellished, and the whole domestic 



my and arrangement also, were marked by the pe- 



ct and honours of knighthood, 

 ^werer, the knight po Jeued th**e privilege* 

 :*, and wa* authorised to exercise over the 

 rtqaire* and page* of his household supreme authority, 

 he was deemed aniwerable for the faults they might 

 commit, and erery infraction of the laws of chivalry or 

 :i they might be guilty. If his armorial 

 bearing, the symbol and proof of his rank, opened for 

 htm a patHgo through every fortified place, and a<lmit- 

 ted him to the palaces of sovereigns, where he was ncei- 

 vcd with the utmost hospit Jity, and when he departed 

 loaded with costly presents, and even supplied with mo- 

 ney to defray the expencea of his journey ; he was on 

 his part expected not only to demean himself with the 

 utmost courtesy, but to maintain such good discipline 

 among hit esquires pages, and other attendants, t hat there 

 might be no room to complain against them. He was obli- 

 ged to recompence by every means in hi > power, or which 

 w*re required of him, erery act of injustice or violence 

 which they committed. The law lined, or punished 

 with infamy, all who detained strayed hawks, hunting 

 dog*, or horses ; and if these were found in the posses- 

 sion of any of the family of a knight, not only the guilty 

 person, but the knight himself, payed the fine, and was 

 exposed to the infamy of the punishment. So complete 

 and unrestricted was his authority overall who inhabited 

 his castle, that nothing wac supposed to be done with- 

 out his order*, permission, or knowledge. 



The institutions and laws of chivalry were so careful 

 to mark out the knight, that the line of distinction be- 

 tween him and the esquire was drawn with great mi- 

 nuteness and particularity. This has been already part- 

 ly noticed in describing the armour, the dress, and the 

 privileges of the knight ; but there are a few other par- 

 ticulars which we shall now point out. A shield and 

 (word were the only weapons allowed the esquire ; and he 

 wa* not permitted, nor with this imperfect armour would 

 it have been prudent, for him to engage in combat with a 

 knight. * He was also debarred from engaging in tour- 

 naments, at least on the most solemn day, and on high 

 ccasions. Whik the spurs of the chevalier were gilt, 

 those of the esquire were only silvered. The hair on 

 the forehead of the former was carefully kept cut short, 

 probably in order that no advantage might otherwise be 

 taken of him in combat ; the hair of the latter was not 

 thu* distinguished. It would appear, also, from two 

 passages quoted by St Palaye, (i. 329.), from William 

 of Tudela, that the horses of the chevaliers and the 

 esquire* were distinguished, by the former neither hav- 

 ing their hair cut off or concealed by the armour ; while 

 the latter were unarmed, and with their hair in its na- 

 tural state. It is probable that the hair of the cheva- 

 liers hones were cut off, in order that the armour might 

 sit m .re closely and easily. 



Beside* awarding to the knight double the sum when 

 he came iato a court of law, which, under the same 

 circumstances would hare been awarded to an esquire j 

 the former, when he received present* from his sove- 



reign, or any noble, had always double in ralue to the Chivalry. 

 After a battle, when the booty was to be di- ^""Y-''' 

 vidt-d, the gold, silver, tin- war-horses, and the palfrey*, 

 belonged to the knight > ot the army ; the rest were given 

 to the esquires. In the plunder of a country, it wat 

 deemed below the digiiity of the former to take any of 

 the sheep or cattle for their share ; the ransom of a 

 knight, also, was double that of an esquire. While 

 the esquires and pages were obliged to perform military 

 n<alch, this duty wac dispensed with on the part of the 

 knights. The appellations of themselves and their wivea 

 were also kept can-fully distinct ; while the titles of Don, 

 S'ie, Messire, Mi-nseigneur, (for we must be indebted 

 to the French language for the sevrral terms), were 

 given to the chevalier-, and those of Dame or Madame 

 to their ladie-. Thv titles of Monsieur, or Dumon-eau, 

 were given to the esquires, and to their wires that of 

 Demoiselle. In short, the coat of arms, the grand 

 symbol of chivalry, not only brought along with it 

 many privileges, but also drew a broad and marked line 

 of distinction betwixt all who wore it, and those wha 

 had not attained that honour. 



Each knight was expected to bring into the field witk 

 him, his esquire, his archers, and men at arms, and four, 

 five, or six soldiers. This was reckoned the furniture 

 of a complete lance : but if he could bring fifty men at 

 arms, or at least uvcnty-four, each with one or more 

 Serjeants, he might be admitted to the dignity of a knight 

 banneret. This dignity does not appear to have been 

 known in France before the reign of Philip Augustus ; 

 nor does it occur in English history before the reign of 

 Edward I. The knight-banneret was distinguished by Privilege* 

 his banner, which was a flag of a square or oblong form, of knight- 

 while the pennon was rounded at the end, and the gui- bannerets, 

 don was nearly of a similar form. A knight banneret 

 could only be made by the king on the field of battle : 

 the person for whom this honour was intended, was led 

 between two senior knights, with trumpets sounding be- 

 fore them, the heralds carrying his pennon with his coat 

 of arms ; when he reached the tent of the king, the 

 latter took the pennon, and tearing off the top of it, 

 converted it into a banner, and restored it to its owner. 

 The knight banneret had some privileges which distin- 

 guished him from the simple knights : he had his pecu- 

 liar cry at arms, the presents bestowed upon him were 

 double in value to those given to the knight, and he 

 could aspire to, and obtain, the titles of Count, Baron, 

 Marquis, and Duke. As his standard on the field of 

 battle was a banner of a square form, so also that which 

 he displayed on the summit of his castle was of the same 

 shape. Knights, unable to maintain men at arms, thought 

 it no disgrace to fight under his banner. 



In Spain, there seems to have been other distinctions ; 

 for we are informed that Count Raymond Berenpier, of 

 Barcelona, divided the knights of his court into two 

 classes ; the higheot were called Miles vtro. On the 

 day on which a knight of this class was made, he ap- 

 pointed a gentleman to hold in feu under him, and ano- 

 ther to bear his shield and lance. The other class con- 

 sisted of knights minor, who followed the art of nun*r 

 chivalry without the order. 



In the cnurt of a sovereign, where there were many 

 knights, a master was appoint* d over them, whose au- 

 thority was vrry groat and extensive : he carried the 

 king's standard judged all knights in cases of selling or 

 pawiiing their horse* or arms, and settled all dispute* 



If. h.>. \- r, a knight acted with unauthoriMt! violence, IT unjuuly, toward* an etquirt, the Uws f cWralrj ordered, tin! Be 

 ihould figtit him on fool, armed like him wily, with a L word uid fh'u'd. ' 



