a national effort, the strict code of chivalry was more honoured
in the breach than in the observance.[1] But when the Hundred
Years’ War brought a real national conflict between England
and France, when archery became of supreme importance, and
a large proportion even of the cavalry were mercenary soldiers,
then the exigencies of serious warfare swept away much of that
outward display and those class-conventions on which chivalry
had always rested. Siméon Luce (chap. vi.) has shown how
much the English successes in this war were due to strict business
methods. Several of the best commanders (e.g. Sir Robert
Knolles and Sir Thomas Dagworth) were of obscure birth, while
on the French side even Du Guesclin had to wait long for his
knighthood because he belonged only to the lesser nobility. The
tournament again, which for two centuries had been under the
ban of the Church, was often almost as definitely discouraged
by Edward III. as it was encouraged by John of France; and
while John’s father opened the Crécy campaign by sending
Edward a challenge in due form of chivalry, Edward took
advantage of this formal delay to amuse the French king with
negotiations while he withdrew his army by a rapid march from
an almost hopeless position. A couple of quotations from
Froissart will illustrate the extent to which war had now become
a mere business. Much as he admired the French chivalry, he
recognized their impotence at Crécy. “The sharp arrows
ran into the men of arms and into their horses, and many fell,
horse and men.... And also among the Englishmen there
were certain rascals that went afoot with great knives, and they
went in among the men of arms, and slew and murdered many
as they lay on the ground, both earls, barons, knights and
squires, whereof the king of England was after displeased,
for he had rather they had been taken prisoners.” How far
Edward’s solicitude was disinterested may be gauged from
Froissart’s parallel remark about the battle of Aljubarrota,
where, as at Agincourt, the handful of victors were obliged by a
sudden panic to slay their prisoners. “Lo, behold the great
evil adventure that fell that Saturday. For they slew as many
good prisoners as would well have been worth, one with another,
four hundred thousand franks.” In 1402 Lord Thomas de
Berkeley bought, as a speculation, 24 Scottish prisoners.
Similar practical considerations forced the nobles of other
European countries either to conform to less sentimental
methods of warfare and to growing conceptions of nationality,
or to become mere Ishmaels of the type which outlived the
middle ages in Götz von Berlichingen and his compeers.
Bibliography.—Froissart is perhaps the source from which we may gather most of chivalry in its double aspect, good and bad. The brilliant side comes out most clearly in Joinville, the Chronique de Du Guesclin, and the Histoire de Bayart; the darker side appears in the earlier chronicles of the crusades, and is especially emphasized by preachers and moralists like Jacques de Vitry, Étienne de Bourbon, Nicole Bozon and John Gower. John Smyth’s Lives of the Berkeleys (Bristol and Gloucs. Archaeol. Soc, 2 vols.) and the Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry (ed. A. de Montaiglon, or in the old English trans. published by the Early English Text Soc.) throw a very vivid light on the inner life of noble families. Of modern books, besides those quoted by their full titles in the notes, the best are A. Schultz, Höfisches Leben z. Zeit der Minnesänger (Leipzig, 1879); S. Luce, Hist. de Du Guesclin et de son Époque (2nd ed., Paris, 1882), masterly but unfortunately unfinished at the author’s death; Léon Gautier, La Chevalerie (Paris, 1883), written with a strong apologetic bias, but full and correct in its references; and F. W. Cornish, Chivalry (London, 1901), too little reference to the more prosaic historical documents, but candid and without intentional partiality. (G. G. Co.)
Orders of Knighthood
When orders ceased to be fraternities and became more and more marks of favour and a means of recognizing meritorious services to the Crown and country, the term “orders” became loosely applied to the insignia and decorations themselves. Thus “orders,” irrespective of the title or other specific designation they confer, fall in Great Britain generally into three main categories, according as the recipients are made “knights grand cross,” “knights commander,” or “companions.” In some orders the classes are more numerous, as in the Royal Victorian, for instance, which has five, numerous foreign orders a like number, some six, while the Chinese “Dragon” boasts no less than eleven degrees. Generally speaking, the insignia of the “knights grand cross” consist of a star worn on the left breast and a badge, usually some form either of the cross patée or of the Maltese cross, worn suspended from a ribbon over the shoulder or, in certain cases, on days of high ceremonial from a collar. The “commanders” wear the badge from a ribbon round the neck, and the star on the breast; the “companions” have no star and wear the badge from a narrow ribbon at the button-hole.
Orders may, again, be grouped according as they are (1) Prime Orders of Christendom, conferred upon an exclusive class only. Here belong, inter alia, the well-known orders of the Garter (England), Golden Fleece (Austria and Spain), Annunziata (Italy), Black Eagle (Prussia), St Andrew (Russia), Elephant (Denmark) and Seraphim (Sweden). Of these the first three only, which are usually held to rank inter se in the order given, are historically identified with chivalry. (2) Family Orders, bestowed upon members of the royal or princely class, or upon humbler individuals according to classes, in respect of “personal” services rendered to the family. To this category belong such orders as the Royal Victorian and the Hohenzollern (Prussia). (3) Orders of Merit, whether military, civil or joint orders. Such have, as a rule, at least three, oftener five classes, and here belong such as the Order of the Bath (British), Red Eagle (Prussia), Legion of Honour (France). There are also certain orders, such as the recently instituted Order of Merit (British), and the Pour le Mérite (Prussia), which have but one class, all members being on an equality of rank within the order.
Of the three great military and religious orders, branches survive of two, the Teutonic Order (Der hohe deutsche Ritter Orden or Marianen Orden) and the Knights of St John of Jerusalem (Johanniter Orden, Malteser Orden), for the history of which and the present state see Teutonic Order and St John of Jerusalem, Knights of the Order of.
Great Britain.—The history and constitution of the “most noble” Order of the Garter has been treated above. The officers of the order are five—the prelate, chancellor, registrar, king of arms and usher—the first, third and fifth having been attached to it from the commencement, while the fourth was added by Henry V. and the second by Edward IV. The prelate has always been the bishop of Winchester; the chancellor was formerly the bishop of Salisbury, but is now the bishop of Oxford; the registrarship and the deanery of Windsor have been united since the reign of Charles I.; the king of arms, whose duties were in the beginning discharged by Windsor herald, is Garter Principal King of Arms; and the usher is the gentleman usher of the Black Rod. The chapel of the order is St George’s Chapel, Windsor. The insignia of the order are illustrated on Plate I.
The “most ancient” Order of the Thistle, was founded by James II. in 1687, and dedicated to St Andrew. It consisted of the sovereign and eight knights companions, and fell into abeyance at the Revolution of 1688. In 1703 it was revived by Queen Anne, when it was ordained to consist of the sovereign and 12 knights companions, the number being increased to 16 by statute in 1827. The officers of the order are the dean, the secretary, Lyon King of Arms and the gentleman usher of the Green Rod. The chapel, in St Giles’s, Edinburgh, was begun in 1909. The star, badge and ribbon of the order are illustrated on Plate II., figs. 5 and 6. The collar is formed of thistles, alternating with sprigs of rue, and the motto is Nemo me impune lacessit.
- ↑ Lecoy de la Marche (Chaire française au moyen âge, 2nd ed., p. 387) gives many instances to prove that “al chevalerie, au xiiie siècle, est déjà sur son déclin.” But already about 1160 Peter of Blois had written, “The so-called order of knighthood is nowadays mere disorder” (ordo militum nunc est, ordinem non tenere. Ep. xciv.: the whole letter should be read); and, half a century earlier still, Guibert of Nogent gives an equally unflattering picture of contemporary chivalry in his De vita sua (Migne, Pat. Lat., tom. clvi.).
