I. Orifjiii of Knifjhthood or Cliivalrj/. — Under the im- pulse of the same uncritical spirit which referred the descent of the Britons to Brutus and wanderers from Troy, the origin of knighthood has been traced back to the judges of Israel or to the heroes of the Iliad. More modest inqmrers have been content to go no further back than to Constantine's supposed "Order of the Golden Angel" (313), or to the equally imaginary Ethi- opian " Order of St. Anthonj-," and the anchorites of the African deserts. Others, more modest still, ascend onlj' to " King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table," or to Charles Martel and the " Order of the Gennet," or to '• Cliarlemagne and his Paladins." In all such genealogies there is much fantasy, confusion, and retrospective legend. The incidents of war must in all ages present some general resemblances. There must always have been leaders and followers, brothers in arms, and associations of warriors — " i-irere fortes ante A^amemnona." Such tendencies in human nature as prompted these miUtarj'^ unions might furnish the im- pulse to subsequent institutions, but to ascribe the ori- gin of the institutions themselves to the first recorded manifestation of these tendencies is to renounce all his- torical discrimination. When the origin of knighthood is investigated, what is desired is the discovery of the existence of a definite institution, with precise and dis- tinctive cliaracteristics, animated l)y a peculiar spirit, which gave its coloring to society for many generations, and which still exercises a potent influence over life and manners. What is contemplated is "a military insti- tution, prompted liy enthusiastic 1)enevolence, sanctioned by religion, and combined with religious ceremonies, the purpose of which was to protect the weak from the op- pression of the powerful, and to defend the right against
the wrong" (James, History of Chivalry, chap. i). The only important omissions in this definition arc the obli- gation of ^•honneur aux dumes," knightly trutli, and the thorough interpenetratioii of Cliristiaii pn)fession, if rarely of Christian practice.
The germ of knighthood, but only the germ, may un- questionably be found in the ancient usages of the Teu- tonic trifles aud in the Teutonic comitatus, which co- alesced with Ii(jman customs and with the suggestions of the times in shaping feudalism. The very name of knight. — cniht, cnicht, bo}', servant, military follower — would indicate such a derivation. " Arma sumere non ante cuiquam moris quam civitas suflFecturum proba- verit. Turn in ipso concilio principum aliquis, vel pa- ter, vel propinqui, scute framcaque juvenem ornant. Hoc apud illos toga, hie publicus juventa; honos; ante hoc domus pars videntur, mox reipublic;i?. . . . Ceteris robustioribus ct jam pridem probatis adgregantur; nee rubor inter comites aspici" (Tacitus, Germ. c. xiii ; comp. c. xiv). To this same source must be ascribed in part, but only in part, the chivalrous deference for women : " in esse quin etiam sanctum aliquid et providum per- tant; nee aut consilia earum aspernantur aut responsa neglegunt" {ibid, c. viii). The intensification and spir- itualization of this deference are due to Christianity.
Ethnical temperaments, ethnical tendencies, and eth- nical usages are seldom entirely eradicated. They con- tinue under many transmutations and disguises; lurk under new forms, animate new institutions, and enter into strange and often undetected combinations. With this explanation, knighthood may be, in some measure, referred to the rude warriors of the forests of Germany, who are described in the satirical romance of Tacitus in terms more appropriate to the Indians of North Ameri- ca than to any populations which really occupied the provinces of the crumbling empire of Rome. The act- ual historical origin of knighthood, though verj' ob- scure, may be safely assigned to a much later age, and to other more potent influences than those which flowed from the Rhine, and the Elbe, and the shores of the Baltic.
AVithoiit recurring to the details of the feudal system [see Fief], it may be stated that feudal services {ser- rilia) were strictly limited, and jirescribed military service for a fixed time and of a fixed amount. Cir- cumstances might occur which woidd demand longer, less restricted, and less formallv organized warfare. Such circumstances did occur in the ninth, tenlli, and eleventh centuries. During the Norman ravages of France, on the disruption of the Carlovingian empire and the decay of the Carlovingian dynasty, universal anar- chy, misery, and outrage covered the land. The ]ierils from the barbarous enemy were scarcely greater than those from violent and rapacious barons, and from law- less and lordlcss plunderers. The multiplied horrors of the dismal period were aggravated by general destitu- tion, by famine, by plague, and by disastrous ])rodigies on the earth and in the heavens. The bonds of authoritj'- were snapped ; the regular organization of tlie feudal society was rent and suspended ; immediate protection and prompt redress, without too nice distinction of rank and sidjordination, were demanded on all sides. Tliose who had the power, the heart, and the will, found abun- dant work for active hands to do in the defence of wom- en and children, of the old and infirm, of unarmed mer- chants and pilgrims, of priests and monks; and rode through the coimtry endeavoring to repress disorder, if unable to establish order. The conilition of things was even worse than such as might now provoke Lyncli law or instigate vigilance committees. Of course, the vigi- lance committees of the closing millennitmi assumed the moidd of the time iij which their services were rendered. Accordingly, the avengers of iniquity were guided by an earnest, though usually rude and blundering sense of Christian obligation in their generous warfare. It thus became the avowed duty of the true knight to serve women, to protect the feeble, to minister to the wound-