In the days of the Roman Empire, the exercise of arms was a profession. In the confusion which followed on the breaking up of that vast dominion, the profession of arms became an inheritance. The lord of land had to defend what he held from other lords who coveted it. As Christian civilization and social law prevailed, the profession of arms once more became a mere exercise. In the rude transition state of society, every man with property to lose, was necessarily a man-at-arms, ready to defend it; they who were less wealthy endowed assumed arms and sold their services. The sons of a noble family had, indeed, choice of but two vocations—they naturally went to the camp or the cloister; sometimes they commenced with the first, and, when weary of their calling, sought retirement in the latter. The Christian knight was a grand idea; but he was often only an idea, too seldom a realization; his professions were, with rare exceptions, better than his practice,—and even Bayard, eminent for his religious zeal, does not seem to have been a truer knight than Æneas, whose most resplendent title was drawn from his piety.

Apart from Christianity, the knight (in his character of warrior) may be said to have existed in all times. He who gave the first challenge to a duel,—the youthful David, who summoned and slew the gigantic Philistine, was moved by one of the most exciting impulses of chivalry—the defence of a good cause, and the reputation arising from exercising such defence with success. The virtues, and even the errors, of the Grecian leaders—their valour, their obedience, their love for, rather than devotion to, woman, their zeal for the gods, their defiance of temptation, their consequent vices, their repentance, and the idea that triumphant bravery was a compensation for all backslidings,—these were characteristics not merely of a heathen but also of a Christian chivalry. In Odin's Walhalla it was the brave alone who sat at the permanent board, and drank wine out of the skulls of their craven enemies. The spirit of no coward ever glided among the groves of Elysium. The Christian knight who quailed was deemed the rejected of heaven, unless reconciliation could be effected beneath the cowl. Undaunted courage was the first qualification of a knight; to have a heart touched by love divine, and affected not less readily by human love, was perhaps his second;—these, with truthfulness, charity, and a rigid sense and practice of justice, were expected of him. They were found in the few rather than in the many. Even in the Holy Land, when St Louis led the zealous host which left France and sailed across the deep to the harmony of religious chants, sung by the very sailors as they trimmed their sails,—even under the view of that sepulchre which they had come to rescue from the infidel, and around the royal tent itself, the camp of the Christian knights was too often a scene of wild debauchery. The priest was indeed there to reprove, and to urge to a better course of life; and the knights probably repented as frequently as they offended. The system to which they had bound themselves was good, but they were continually infringing the rules of the system. The exceptions were many, it may be hoped, but the knights cannot, as a body, be said to have been firmly mounted on their principles." So excellent, however, was the principle, that a perfect knight was a character of almost superhuman grandeur. It has been said, it is true, that only in the system of Christian chivalry were its followers taught to refine the rudenesses of society by a tender reverence for woman, and by assaulting to the death those who would offend her, or put her honour in peril. But, in justice to the old Germans, it must be confessed, that when the two gallant Romans attacked the tribes who rallied round the valiant Herman, the honour of the German women was the jewel most highly prized by the tribes. On the other hand, Walter Scott has illustrated the most romantically chivalrous period in England—that of king Arthur—by introducing three knights, of whom he significantly says—

"There were two who loved their neighbours' wives, And one who loved his own."

It must be remembered, however, that it was not till long after the establishment of Christianity that a religious character was given to knighthood. It has been sagely suggested that, as a system, it owes its morality to feudalism, which demanded from its champions truth, obedience, and bravery. The author of the Letters on Chivalry and Romance, published anonymously nearly a century ago, but well known to be from the pen of Bishop Hurd, states that chivalry, as a military order, conferred by investiture, and with certain oaths and ceremonies, sprung immediately out of the feudal constitution. When the lords of land, already referred to, were not in a state of war, the martial ardour of themselves and followers was kept up by jousts and tournaments. Knights, otherwise unemployed, rode leisurely from court to court, challenging the most famous wielders of sword or battle-axe in each city through which they passed. When the feudal policy generally prevailed throughout a great part of Europe, first the military, and then the religious, system of chivalry grew up as its natural consequence. Its effects went, however, much farther than this, it inspired not only the men, but it induced even female warriors to be moved by a passion for arms, to wander in quest of stirring adventure, to strive for the honours of knighthood and the rewards of valour, and to win fame in any way that spotless knight could win it. The romances illustrative of chivalry, and which tell us of handsome pages following their master to the field, falling in his defence, and being discovered to be love-lorn damsel, at least have no doubt a wide foundation on fact. The wife of Robert the Norman fought at his side, not under cover of his shield, like the young chief of the clan Quhele under that of Torquil, but "shoulder to shoulder," leaving him, only to rally the fugitives and lead them once more to the field. The Crusades saw many a female knight incased in steel, and valiantly doing knightly duty; and the poet of the Crusades has made use of the fact in order to brighten some of the most lively incidents of his marvellous tale.

In the state of feudalism, when society seemed antagonistic, one portion against the other, and combatants often fought, not with respect to the justice of the quarrel, but with reference to the guerdon to be got by fighting, the horrors of war were many and terrible. It was the interest of all to temper them by generosity, justice, and acts of mercy. The example was good for the friend of today who might be a foe on the morrow; and thereby the present foe was the more readily converted into friend, comrade, or partisan. When the piping time of peace had arrived there was still occupation for the knight, in addition to joust or tournament. The captives of the last, or of any fray, who had not reappeared, were to be sought out and recovered; and the going in quest of adventures for the benefit of these or of any other distressed individuals, was of the very essence of chivalry, and the great glory of knighthood. Another end in view was the instruction and edification of the young knight by travelling. He sojourned on his way at many a court, from that of king to that of baron. Each of the latter field court, interior, indeed, to that of the sovereign, but only in numbers, not in such refinement as was consistent with stately ceremony. Hence, he learnt courtesy, or practised what he had previously learned. The courteous knight derived that qualifying name from the practice of the manners which prevailed, or ought to have prevailed, in the courts of king or noble; for

"Of court, it seems, men courteous doe call, For that it there most useth to abound."

The authority of Spencer, however, has been met by that of Milton to show that such practice did not hold good in later times; for courtesy, as Milton understood it, was then

"sooner found in lonely sheds, With smokey rafters than in tapestried halls And courts of princes, where it first was named, And yet is most pretended."

These last words, however, will serve to show that the practice had not died out in the great poet's time. He, however, saw in such practice only a pretence, and he preferred the honest rough manner of the rigid republicans to the most polished style of the most courtly of the cavaliers.

To be faithful to the courteous knight was the religion of his mistress. She was, or was taught to be, as true in devotion as he was strong and ready to protect. He being of the bravest, merited the distinction of being the favourite servant of her whom he hailed as the "most fair." But it must be confessed, that this reciprocity of tenderness and service must have existed, and did naturally exist, in all states of society where women looked to men for protection, and where they knew that, if they themselves lacked faith, they would not, in their great need, find a defender.

If chivalry itself enjoined "love for the ladies," the church added to the injunction the necessity, also, of love towards God. It was held that he who felt the one must be inspired by the other; and possessing both, his happiness was secured here and hereafter. He who despised the one would be deserted of the other. There were knights who fell into the power of the Saracens, and who changed their religion. These were branded as "recreant knights," who had abandoned their God and proved false to their ladies. The double faith was impressed upon the very pages; and when the young ladies of the family whipped the latter for some peccadillo, the fair scourger would taunt him with lacking a heart that would never know how to be true to a lady. After the whipping at such hands, the embryo knight would be laid hold of by the chaplain, and gravely informed that he who could not gain the respect of a lady was ill likely to deserve an affection more divine. When young Jacques de Lelaiq entered the first list in the career of his thirty tournaments, he declared that no opponent could possibly unhouse him, unless God forgot to guard, and his lady to pray for him.

The Gothic system of chivalry has by some been looked upon as a reproduction of the heroic system. This fact has been already alluded to. In Greece, especially, has the similarity been detected by some writers. The numerous petty and independent governments there bear a resemblance to those of feudal times. In each system, the sword was the instrument of honour. The readers of Thucydides will not fail to remember that, at the very commencement of his history, he tells us at what period the Athenians began to leave off wearing the sword as a common appendage to the dress. When this change of fashion was effected, he recognised the extinction of a primitive sort of feudality. Times of violence had gone by; and as the wearing of the sword commonly only led to bloody quarrels, and kept up a race of ruffians, it ceased to be fashionable, because it ceased to be the distinctive sign of a courteous gentleman. It is curious that Beau Nash ordered the disuse of the sword as an appendage to the dress in the Bath Rooms, over which he ruled supreme, for the very reason adduced so many years before, with respect to the Athenians, by Thucydides. Ceasing to be a mark of nobility, noble and gentle ungirdled the weapon from their loins.

But there were many things similar, besides the extinction of the two sorts of chivalry, in the surrender of their common emblem—the sword. The Abbé Banier has shown us, in his great unveiling of the mysteries of classical stories, that the gods, monsters, and other heroes of legend and poetry, were but men, described after an exaggerated and distorted fashion, just as we know that the giants and savages of the romances of chivalry were only greater or less feudal lords of a more or less dread character. As for the hapless virgins delivered by cruel parents to old dragons, from whom they are rescued by enterprising knights—they are but maidens compelled to wed against their will, and who are carried off from their ill-matching mates just as young Lochinvar carried off the lady—too happy to fly with him—from the Forsters, the Fenwicks, and the Musgroves of Netherby. In many of these cases the heroes work under the irresistible power of enchantment. The greatest charm that impelled either classic or Gothic knight was that which acted on him from his lady's eyes. Occasionally, these charms were of too great a potentiality; but if ill results ensued, there was a happy method of getting out of the difficulty. Semele ascribed the paternity of her joyous son to the much-calamitated Jupiter; in later times, when it was obvious that anxious ingenuity could not find profit by plagiarizing such an idea, many a foundling was brought into a baronial hall, and reared to knighthood under the designation of being "fairy-born."

The courtesies of knighthood are among the best parts of the institution which has descended to us. They have existed among brave men since the time that Tubal Cain welded the first blade. Stern, but courteous, are the heroes of the Iliad; as stern, though less courteous, was Bayard, who was not averse to dealing an unfair blow, if it secured to him an advantage; and more courteous, yet perhaps even more stern, were those great captains of modern times who met at Fontenoy, and who almost deferred the battle till the next day, each being anxiously polite in requesting his adversary to commence the exterminating fire. It was the courtesy of chivalry that inspired Crillon to send vegetables to the scurvy-infected Elliot, whom he was besieging in Gibraltar; and, to come down to the last example, it was perhaps an unnecessary courtesy which inspired Sir Edward Lyons, when our own men were lying half-famished in the trenches before Sebastopol, to send a fat buck to the hostile admiral within the city. Still, courtesy between knights engaged in hostilities has ever received an universal and approving acknowledgment. When George II. sent the Garter to Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, the great victor at Minden, his investiture took place in front of the whole army. The French General, De Broglie, learning the nature of the ceremony, generously hastened to do honour to valour by the exercise of which the French had grievously suffered. He, too, drew up his men within sight of the spectacle, and then saluted the new knight, whose skill and courage had been rewarded by George II. De Broglie dined in the evening in Ferdinand's tent, the guest of his great adversary. On the following day they were as fierce enemies as ever.

The alleged fact, that the courtesy of Christian knights towards women was always of a more refined nature than that of the ancient heroes, has been accounted for on the ground of the difference of civil condition in the two. Under the feudal system, the ladies could hold fields, and hence, it has been suggested, the respect paid by cavaliers to dames so privileged. This is judging knightly gallantry by a very debased standard. It would simply prove that chivalry respected only a wealthy virtue; and that Christian knights, like common adventurers, had regard only for rich heiresses. The truth is, that the Christian system raised the condition of woman, and made of her a companion for man. The heroes of classical times did not sit at meat with the heroines. Under chivalry it was the greatest sign of friendship for a knight and fair companion to eat off the same plate. In such case it was understood that the two were unmarried. We have instances in romance of married ladies expostulating with their jealous lords, and giving warrant of their own reserved bearing by protesting that never, since their espousal, had they eaten off the same plate with any knight, save their respective husbands. No doubt the courtesy of which we were before speaking degenerated in many cases into mere formality; and often it was practised simply because it was the fashion. Louis XIV., for instance, was so scrupulously polite towards women, that he would not pass the lowest female servant in his palace without lifting his hand to his plumed hat. The multitude of courtiers followed the fashion thus royally set; and woman became an object of adoration. But this mere empty fashion lacked the Christian and chivalrous sentiment; and the very Knights of the Holy Ghost were ever ready to degrade the fair object which they professed to worship.

It must be confessed, however, that this was a period posterior to that of the so-called Gothic Knights, by which chivalry is usually judged. In the romantic descriptions of the feudal period something must be allowed for the imagination of the romancers. Still, checking them by history, and remembering the influences most powerful at the period in question, it cannot be denied that it abounds with proofs of enabling love and triumphs of exalted friendship. These were the more renowned at the time, because of their rarity in the ages immediately preceding, and among the rude contemporaries from whom such instances of truthful affection and friendship exacted admiration. The pyramid of praise raised in honour of the virtue of Lucretia and the consternation of Scipio is a satire upon the manners of the women and of the leaders of armies of the two periods. The eulogy awarded to faithful knights is an unsatisfactory proof of the general condition of the times and of the society in which they lived. It was a part of their mission to reform both; and hence the praise which has been showered on their vocation, and the respect paid to the virtues, in the practice of which they set so bright an example. That some knights failed either to fulfil the vocation to which they had bound themselves, and to practise the virtues which were held to be inseparable from the knightly character, is only a proof that chivalry was not above poor human nature and its many errors. In Germany, perhaps, the system was carried out more completely than in any other country, and it is precisely there that the phrase, "Er will Ritter an mir werden,"—He wants to play the knight over me,—implied an inclination to oppress and do wrong on the part of the Ritter or knight. Our own early poets were acute observers of the defects of chivalry; but because they satirized these, they did not, therefore, believe that chivalry itself had been founded on a wrong principle. If Chaucer raises a laugh by Sir Topaz, he makes amends by exacting respect for Cambuscene.

Bacon, in speaking of knighthood as a military dignity, remarks, that "there be now, for martial encouragement, some degrees and orders of chivalry, which are nevertheless conferred promiscuously upon soldiers and no soldiers." The rules by which the conferring of chivalry was regulated were, from very early times, irregularly observed. Bacon's words, "martial encouragement," have, perhaps, especial reference to these innovations. In the early feudal period, men who had borne themselves nobly in battle received not "martial encouragement," so much as "martial reward;" and they were dubbed knights, that is,

"Might all the chivalry of England move, To do brave acts."

In process of time, however, martial encouragement often took place of martial reward; and we frequently hear of men being made knights previous to a battle, in order to inspire them with indomitable resolution in the coming fight. The spurs were thus significative of a stimulant; and he to whose heels they were affixed before the battle felt, that if he had not to win, he had at least to prove that he deserved those appendages to, as well as symbols of, chivalry.

In certain cases this rule was no doubt found effective. At all events, it rested on a better principle than that of later times, which affixes stars of knighthood on the breasts of men with nothing to recommend them save brute courage, but whose incompetency and indifference have been more fatal to their heroically patient followers than the arms or valour of their adversaries. Bacon states, that the honours of chivalry were conferred promiscuously upon soldiers and no soldiers. The first civilian in England, or, to describe him more correctly, the first tradesman in England, who was a recipient of these honours, was that Sir William Walworth, Lord Mayor of London, who won the distinction by slaying, in presence of the king, that unlucky Wat Tyler, whose insurrectionary spirit had not been excited without something like reasonable cause. Sir William was a tradesman; but he drew profit also from less honourable sources than those of trade; and the houses along the river side, of which he was the proprietor, brought him a revenue less cleanly earned than that which Vespasian derived from his celebrated tax. The popular error, which describes the sword in the shield of arms of the city of London as one placed there in memory of the knightly service rendered by Sir William in Smithfield, does rank injustice to St Paul. The sword in the shield is the sword of the great apostle; and had the first tradesman-knight in England been moved as readily by the apostolic principle, as he was to use the sword, he would perhaps have been a less wealthy man, but he would have been none the less worthy a knight. In Bacon's own time there was a "no soldier" who attained the dignity of knight for better service rendered to the community than that which Walworth had rendered to the king. The individual in question was Spielman. His great service was in erecting a paper-mill, the first ever seen in England. This general service received the great reward of knighthood at the hands of Elizabeth. The same guerdon was given by her father for service profitable only to his own royal person. As an instance may be cited the proctor Tregonneil. This astute lawyer had been employed in the affair of the divorce between Henry and Katherine of Aragon; and his ability had been exercised to such speedy and desired purpose, that the enfranchised monarch, free to marry again, made a knight and a pensioner of the proctor whose zeal had mainly helped, and certainly hastened, the completion of the cherished object of the king. On the other hand, Charles I. conferred the honour of knighthood on a Scottish ecclesiastic; but the reason for such act has not been ascertained. The fact, however, remains undisputed, that, at his coronation, Charles raised to the dignity of a knight William Murray, the minister of Aldby, in Scotland. Local antiquarians may, perhaps, be able to discover for what service rendered the warlike dignity of chivalry was conferred upon this steward of the mysteries of the Prince of Peace.

Among our doughtiest old knights, not these of ballads, but of history, Sir Hugh Calvèy of Calvèy is famous, in a double sense, for it was said of him, that he could feed like two, and fight like ten. He was as successful in love as in the lists; for he espoused the widowed Queen of Aragon, and the royal Aragonese arms were quartered on Sir Hugh's tomb towards the end of the fourteenth century. He was not the only knight or man-at-arms who wedded with a queen,—Sir William de Albini espoused the widow of Henry I.; the relict of King John was successfully wooed by the chivalrous Count de Marche; after the death of Henry V., his fair Katherine joined hands with gallant Owen Tudor; and Katherine Parr forgot Henry VIII. after she became the bride of the faithless Seymour.

Let us now consider some of the forms of knighthood, and their origin.—"And he (Pharaoh) took his ring from his own hand, and gave it into his (Joseph's) hand; and he put upon him a robe of silk, and put a chain of gold about his neck." In these words, they who think a remote origin adds respectability to a system affect to discern that Pharaoh conferred the dignity of knighthood on the son of Jacob. This was, however, but an ordinary act of royal favour, and it made Joseph no member of any companionship. Among the ancient Germans, a spear and a shield were placed in the hands of each new young member of the republic; but they symbolized only a common citizenship, and were not marks of any distinction. The equestrian order in Rome was a privileged body, at first swift horsemen, and subsequently judges, but it was not a brotherhood of knights. We have long since given up the Order of Constantine, the alleged origin of which rested on the authority of a conveniently discovered statue, which as little proved that Constantine founded the "Golden Knights," as that statue which represented Augustus, with outstretched hands imploring Nemesis, proved that the implorer was Belisarius begging by the wayside. There are some who traced the Order of Constantine to Isaac Comnenus; and if he really founded any order so named, it was probably at the suggestion of those monks whose influence was often potential from behind the throne. The German Catti were distinguished among the tribes generally, by certain manners, fashions, and vows, which bound them to one another, and laid them under obligation to achieve certain feats of arms. In this respect there is some similarity between the Catti and the chivalry of later times; and to this tribe, thus singular in its customs,—customs which are familiar to us by the descriptions of Tacitus,—may, perhaps, be ascribed the honour of having originated observances which were adopted by chivalry. But chivalry had organizations unknown to this remote and doubtful ancestry, and traces of this organization are not to be found earlier than the period of the Crusades. There were knights, rather than orders of knighthood, indeed, previous to this period; but the machinery of a great company, if we may be allowed such a phrase, was not known till warriors were possessed with a desire to rescue the sepulchre of our Lord from the keeping of the infidel. Nearly a thousand years have elapsed since this desire first agitated society; and the infidel still keeps watch over the Holy Tomb. As far as this object was concerned, therefore, chivalry was only temporarily successful; but, as we have elsewhere hinted, knighthood had other ends in view, besides that which regarded the

enfranchising of Jerusalem from the slavery in which it was held by the sons of Sarah. The first company was both spiritually and temporally minded. Its object was the extension of Christianity, the destruction of unbelievers, and the protection of those who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land. With the zeal sprang up imposition. A man who had vowed to repair to the East, either as a protector or a pilgrim, received substantial help, if he needed it, from all the religiously-minded who chose, however, to remain at home. One consequence was, that the castle-gate and humble homesteads were infested by idle mendicants, who begged for alms to help them on their pretended way. So general was this imposition, that the name of *sanctuarer* was given to the greatest idlers of the day—those who lived on the charity which they claimed as pilgrims on their road to the *Sainte Terre*, or Holy Land. The Knights of St. John, and also the Templars, originated in a religious feeling of the most praiseworthy kind. Prosperity and superstition ruined both orders, and the sepulchre was once more surrendered to the keeping of the Saracens.

It is after this first "break up" that we find scattered companies of knights in various parts of Europe, who, sword in hand, converted such communities as had not yet merged from heathenism, and who, by right of that sword, took possession of the lands of the people whom they thus converted.

The exclusively temporal orders did not confine themselves, like the exclusively religious knights of St John and of the Temple, to the extension of the Christian faith, and the protection of those who professed it. Their object was to foster valour and all moral virtues, to increase the glory of particular nations, and to maintain unity among certain princely houses. The Knights of the Round Table,—an order which poets have founded for King Arthur in the year 51, are the types of such brotherhoods. Of all such orders known to have existed the statutes are true manuals of morality and *règles* of those desiring to be virtuous. The object of each founder, whether ghostly or military, seems to have been to have made true Christians, as far as his knowledge lay, of the brethren. If these failed, the fault lay in their not acting up to the instructions of the founder. In no two orders are the statutes precisely the same; they differ respecting elective qualification, condition, and object. Some have been but of small account; companionship in others has been eagerly sought by sovereigns themselves; and mighty rulers of great nations have found pride and satisfaction in suspending the collar of a knight round the neck of their newly-born heir. In most of them, nobility of blood was an essential qualification. This was especially so in the Order of the Holy Ghost. When Catinat became Marshal of France, Louis XIV. announced to him the royal intention of admitting him into the exclusive brotherhood. Catinat was an honest man, but he said he was not half gentleman enough. He was well content to remain disqualified by his birth, for an honour which he had won, if desert only were in question. The makers of pedigrees offered to furnish the modest warrior with hosts of noble ancestors, but Catinat declared that he would not be pressed into greatness by a visionary crowd of noble-necessities. "I would not purchase this very great honour," said Catinat, "at the cost of the smallest lie."

The Order of St Louis was expressly founded, in 1693, for the admission of well-deserving men, who had served the king faithfully for ten years. The order was, however, flung to any who would stoop for it; and so many were willing to do this, that Knights of St Louis were created by hundreds. People remarked of this order, as had been done in reference to that of St Michael, founded and abused by Henry III., that the star of the saint was to be seen upon every ass in the streets. The feeling of contempt for the Order of St Michael is exemplified in the case of the man who purchased the mantle and collar of a deceased Knight. and therewith decorated his mule. Our own James I. made knighthood almost as common, particularly in the early portion of his reign in England. Indeed, he never then drew his sword unless to dub a knight; and he was for ever laying the weapon, in the way of honour, on individuals more or less willing to endure the infliction.

While some orders have fallen to decay, or altogether disappeared, new companionships have been created, or old ones revived. On some occasions the sovereign of the order has set but an indifferent example of gallantry to his knights. Louis XV., for instance, marred the effect of a grand installation of the Knights of the Holy Ghost, by previously informing the foreign ambassadors that it was not his intention, if they attended the ceremony, to salute them. The ambassadors accordingly absented themselves, and the show lost thereby half its brilliancy.

Roman Catholic sovereigns can found orders without papal sanction, as the German princes could without the imperial consent; but the approval of pope or emperor was considered as giving an additional lustre to the order. Perhaps the most unusual, if not the most irregular circumstance connected with the dignity of knighthood, is the fact of three ladies having, at different times, been created Knights of Malta. The first was the Neapolitan Princess von Rosella, in 1723; the second was a princess of Wurtemberg, twelve years later; and the third was Nelson's Lady Hamilton, knighted by the Czar. In all these cases the honour was conferred with the sanction of the grand master; and gallant deputies, clad in full costume, first dubbed the ladies knights, and then invested them with the insignia of their newly-acquired rank. But many of the ceremonies of this order were inconsistent. After election, a knight was bound to eat his penitence feast, and accordingly he sat down to bread and salt, these being the only things which the order bound itself to provide for him. But this feast concluded, one more substantial and magnificent followed; and at every health the brazen mouths of the artillery boomed forth their loud hurrah!

To receive the insignia of knighthood from the hand of a sovereign has been usually deemed the highest honour; but there is one instance at least of an individual preferring to take the dignity from the hand and sword of a less noble person. Frederick, landgrave of Thuringen, in 1388, was at the court of our King Edward, who offered to create him knight. "I will only accept such honour," said Frederic, "at the hands of a man who has never turned away from an enemy." The king promised to sanction the performance of the office by such a deputy, if he could be found; and this was done in the person of one of Frederick's own officers. This rude story, however, seems to us to be rather apocryphal.

We have spoken of the knights being enrolled in various orders; we may add, that there was a class division also. Knights were of two classes, the Equites Aurati, who received the honour at the hands of emperors or kings, and whose Latin title was derived from the golden spurs fastened to their heels; and the Militae, who were dubbed by other knights of renown, or by ecclesiastics of great dignity. Many a civilian was decorated with the golden spurs, but the Miles, who was stricken knight by a knight of great reputation, was more highly honoured. Even kings were proud of such distinction at the hands of their subjects. Francis I. of France was made chevalier by the hand and sword of Bayard; and in England, among other instances, may be mentioned Edward IV., knighted by the Earl of Devonshire; Henry VII., by the Earl of Arundel; and Edward VI., by the Duke of Somerset. The Miles made oath that he despised death, and would be the protector of widows and orphans whenever appealed to. It was the Miles who figured in the lists in which he sometimes fought without revealing his name, whereby his honour was safe in case of a defeat. Such a knight was ordinarily of noble blood, or had shown by his deeds that a noble spirit inspired him. He was usually followed by armiger and scutifer, who looked to his spear, shield, arms, and armour generally, and who stood by him in the fight, to help him in or out of the mêlée.

For valuable services rendered, these knights frequently received land from their lord, and this land was held on condition of further service being rendered whenever the holder of it was called upon by the lord. In process of time this method of recompensing past, and purchasing future services, was accounted as being of too costly a nature; and the different orders of knighthood are said by some writers to have arisen partly out of the difficulty of otherwise fitly rewarding military service.

From the earliest times the sovereign, especially, looked for support from such service. Such an one, it is believed, was that incredulous nobleman who disbelieved the prophecy of Elisha, and who was trodden to death at the city-gate, because of his want of faith. He is described as "one of the lords on whose hand the king leaned" (2d Kings, chap. 7). The Hebrew word for this honoured personage is derived from one which signifies "three;" but interpretations vary as to whether the word signified one of those knights, if we may here use the name, who fought in a chariot where there was room for three to fight; or who went into battle with three war-horses; or, finally, that he was third in order after the king. However this may be, it was on such a champion that the king is said to have leaned; and, in more recent times, the sword was girt to the side, and the spurs put to the heels of him on whom the king knew he could lean with security of unfailing support. In more recent times, the spurs have been the emblem and stimulus of chivalry. It is therefore singular, that although a knight's spurs were almost invariably first attached to his heels in chapel, church, or cathedral, he could not afterwards wear them within the sacred precincts, except he paid a fine to the choristers. One result of this custom was, that the choristers became less careful of their duty than of looking out for, and demanding money from, all persons who entered the holy edifice wearing spurs. This evil was sought to be remedied by an enactment, or rather a rule, that if the chorister applying for the fine were challenged to say his gamut, and failed, the wearer of the spurs should be exempt from all impost. The late Duke of Cumberland once entered the metropolitan cathedral with rowels in his boots. He was immediately beset by the choristers for the usual fine, but he, rather ungenerously and irregularly, evaded the impost by pleading that he certainly had a right to wear spurs in a cathedral, inasmuch as that it was under the roof of such an edifice that they had been first put on. The late Duke of Wellington, on a similar occasion, conducted himself in a way highly characteristic. He entered the chapel-royal booted and spurred. A young chorister approached him, and boldly demanded spur-money. The duke immediately challenged the boy to repeat his gamut; the boy failed in the attempt, and his grace passed laughingly on, impost-free. A warrior of far less note, the Earl of Cardigan, being similarly accosted, on entering the chapel-royal, was similarly appealed to by the choristers, but the applicants were unceremoniously thrust aside by the accomplished leader of the lost brigade.

In the old days, the sword played an important part in the creation of a knight. After the candidate for chivalry had confessed, and spent a night in church in prayer and fasting, he appeared before the priest for consecration. During the "office" he placed his sword upon the altar. When the priest had finished reading the gospel, he took the weapon, blessed it, and then, with benison on the warrior, laid the blade on the neck of the knight, who was not, however, accounted a knight complete until he had re- Knights and Knighthood.

received the sacrament, and vowed obedience to the faith. In later times, the church ceremony was not a necessary, though still an approved form for the knight to go through. He was a true chevalier if he received the accolade, the sword on the neck, the box on the ear, and the spurs to his heels, from the hand of his prince, or prince's deputy.

If there were knights who kept up the reputation of their country, and their own renown abroad, by the sword, there were some who, in time of peace, employed themselves usefully at home with the pen. The Livre du Chevalier de la Tour Landry exhibits to us not a mere literary knight, but one who did for the young ladies of his time what Mrs Chapon did for her young contemporaries at a later period. The book was originally written for the benefit of the good knight's two daughters, and it abounds in maxims, counsels, and illustrative lessons,—the object of all which is the better training of "damoises," both physically and morally, than had hitherto been their lot. It is singular to find a man from the camp lecturing his fair readers on deportment, seriousness of mind, daily behaviour, and religious feelings. The lecturer is by no means nice of phrase, nor delicate of allusion, in pursuing his theme; and he occasionally puts his conclusions in such antagonism with his premises as may have produced hilarity in many a hall, even in his own days.

The married knights had often good reason for anxiety touching their daughters, and also their wives, during their absence on distant expeditions. They had some resource, however, in the benevolence and gallantry of richer men of their own class. Sir Thomas Berkeley, in the reign of Richard II., left £100 for the use of poorer knights desirous of proceeding to the Holy Land. Those married knights who repaired thither, or to foreign wars, and who had not castles of their own wherein to leave, or which were not strong enough to protect, their wives, entered into singular agreements with respect to the ladies in question. Thus, in Surtees's Durham, mention is made of an indenture in the Treasury there, to the effect that "Sir William Claxton is minded to go to the wars in France, Sir Thomas Surtees has agreed to receive the Dame Elizabeth, wife of Sir William, into his house of Dinsdale, for the space of one year, to be well and honourably entertained, with her waiting-maid and page (being of decent and sober behaviour), and for this Sir William covenants to pay ten marks." This indenture is dated "At Sudberge, April 1416;" and there are others of a similar nature extant.

Fulke of Anjou, however indifferently he may have treated his wife while at home, was a rigid disciplinarian of his son, the celebrated Geoffrey. He so subdued this boy's proud spirit, that Geoffrey, after being compelled to carry a heavy saddle many miles, laid it reverently at his father's feet when bidden to do so. Fulke foretold that such unmurmuring obedience would make a good knight of him. Nor did Fulke spare himself. When in the Holy Land, he bound two of his servants by oath to do whatever he commanded. In accordance with the oath, they dragged him naked, in sight of the infidels, into the holy sepulchre. There, while one held his neck in a withe, the other scourged him with a rod on his bare back; and the knight cried the while upon God to have mercy upon him, "perfidious and ruminate" as he was.

The law had great regard that a knight should never suffer "let or hindrance." We find an instance of this in the case of Sir Franco Tyas. Sir Franco had a squire, named William Lepton, and "Will" owed a small sum for mercery, to one German, who being unable to get his money, levied a distress, and seized the squire's horse. The knight immediately brought an action against German, whose seizure of the horse was described as being "ad decus et damnum predicti Franco," as his squire was thereby prevented from attending on him. Sir Franco recovered

from the unlucky mercer 100s.; and as money was worth twenty times more in the days of the Edwards than it is now, that sum represented L100 of the coin of current value. Something, too, may have depended on the exact rank of Lepton. The armiger, or spear-bearer always ranked before the scutifer, or shield-bearer.

Some knights, took to horse for other purposes than tilting or crusading. Taylor, the water-poet, has celebrated one of this sort, of the times of Edward II., and also the fate which righteously befell him and his companions.

"Sir Goscelin Denville, with two hundred more, In friar's weeds, robbed, and were hanged."

Sir Goscelin and his followers therefore formed a less joyous, but perhaps a not much less respectable company than the troop headed by Sir Roger de Mortimer (circa 1280). Sir Roger left London for the grand jousting and tourney at Kenilworth, attended by 100 knights, and as many ladies, who preceded them all along the road, carolling gay ballads as they went.

Despite the courage with which these chivalrous soldiers fronted death, they incurred no reproach by doing their very utmost to avoid it. This was especially the case with the German knights, who thought it not unseemly to wear the Noth Hemd, or "shirt of need," which was supposed to render the wearer proof from all wounds. There was much ceremony used in the making of this garment, on which were embroidered figures of very frightful aspect, worked in by fair hands, with the intention of terrifying any antagonist bold enough to encounter the knight who wore this shirt, or tunic rather, over his armour.

In the encounters which took place between respective knights, the laws of chivalry were not always respected. We read frequently of adversaries assailing each other with "fool" strokes; and the most renowned of these warriors is not free from this charge. Where death ensued, it was sometimes customary to slaughter the dead knight's horse at his master's grave, and fling the carcass in, upon the cavalier's corpse. This ceremony was observed as recently as the last century in Germany; and we have a trace of it in our own country in the steed which is led to the grave's side at the funerals of cavalry soldiers. Among English knights who have sprung from low estate to be at once the flower and mirror of chivalry, Sir Robert Knowles bears a brilliant reputation. In the wars of France, under Edward III., he was so renowned as a destroyer of cities, that the standing fragments of ruined houses were called Knowles's Mitres. Sir John Hawkwood was of as low birth as Knowles; and at first of even lower vocation, for Hawkwood was originally a tailor. He turned soldier, was knighted for his valour by Edward III., became a celebrated "soldier of fortune" in Italy, and is not yet forgotten in the city of Florence. Hawkwood was noted for the readiness with which he extricated himself from apparently insuperable difficulties. This was one of the happiest qualities of a knight, and it distinguished Sir Richard Edgecumbe, who escaped from the pursuers, despatched after him by Richard III., in a manner very closely resembling that by which Rob Roy Macgregor got clear off, after being unbuckled by Ewan of Brigglands.

The ransom of knights was always a criterion of their value. In some cases this seems to have been significantly small. Thus, Queen Elizabeth gave two mastiffs for a noble knight's ransom. The history of Birmingham, too, presents us with a curious incident connected with the subject of ransom-money. When Prince Rupert took vengeance on the republican town which refused to wield a blade for the royalists, he captured many hard-fighting denizens of the place; and these ransomed themselves at a shilling, eighteenpence, and even twopence a piece. In the great fight at Evesham the Birmingham smiths followed the Knights and Knighthood.

banners of their lord of the manor, and showed by their valour how worthy they were of chivalric honours.

Perhaps knighthood was never more fairly won than when John Copeland captured the gallant King David Bruce at the battle of Neville's Cross. The value of the service was proved by Edward's estimation of it; for he not only knighted the captor of a king, but granted him an annuity of £500 per annum. Commercial men, however, have gained the highly-prized honour for services of a different sort, indeed, but of higher social value. We may cite as an instance, Stephen Brown, the Newcastle grocer, who became Lord Mayor of London in 1438. It was a year in which the horrors of famine were aggravated by the cruel covetousness of the forestallers. The mayor privately despatched ships to Danzig, which returned so heavily laden with rye, that the price of grain fell immediately, and the famishing people were fed at a reasonable rate. Fuller says of this knight that "he was one of the first merchants who, in want of corn, showed the Londoners the way to the Barn-door, I mean into Spruce-land." The very name of Brown, however, would have been considered a disgrace to chivalry by Spanish knights, who had a decent horror of monosyllables. Thus, when the plague prevailed in London, in the reign of Elizabeth, the Queen placed the Spanish ambassador under the hospitable guardianship of Sir John Cutts. The ambassador was rejoiced to profit by the refuge afforded him in the mansion of a bountiful housekeeper, but he expressed his disgust at being lodged with a knight with a monosyllabic surname! The custom of conferring the honours of chivalry on men of low degree was not confined to England. Plasquette informs us that the Earl of Mar, who owed his title and spurs to James III. of Scotland, was originally a mason; but Cochrane, the name of the individual thus ennobled, seems to have been, at least, an architect. If James III. gave signal honour to the arts in the person of Cochrane, Henry VIII., as much distinguished science, in its legal view, by raising a sergeant-at-law to the dignity of chivalry. A curious result followed. All the sergeants took a corporate view of the matter, and declared that the entire learned brotherhood had been elevated by the honour conferred upon one member of it. Accordingly, since the period in question, the learned sergeants have claimed equality of rank with knights-bachelors, and they decline to "go below" them.

Although the monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland have frequently rewarded great desert, so far as it can be poorly rewarded by the now barren, yet not unenviable, distinction of chivalry, the rule by which such recompense is regulated is incredibly absurd. We do not speak now of that more simple "knighting," which tasks "Sir" to a sheriff's name for carrying to court a congratulatory address. We allude to the coveted distinction of the civil K.C.B. A man may be an unparalleled benefactor to his country, but unless he be in the government service, in some way bearing the Queen's commission, he cannot possibly be a Knight Companion of the Bath. It is an error to suppose that the "civil" dignity is open to the meritorious generally. If the aspirant, however deserving, be not in the actual service of the government, he may be "knighted," but he cannot be a K.C.B. The injustice of this rule is equalled only by its absurdity. Almost as absurd is the latest incident that has been put on record with respect to chivalric decorations. The Emperor of the French conferred on several British subjects, who had distinguished themselves in the great competition at the Paris Universal Exhibition, the Order of the Legion of Honour. No foreign order can be worn by an English subject, but with the sanction of the sovereign, and in this case the sanction has been withheld. Thus, we neither distinguish our really great men at home, nor allow them to be distinguished abroad. Queen Anne once thought of an order of Minerva for the reward of great literary merit. The symbol was to be a silver owl, and therewith the matter was laughed at and forgotten. Let us hope that under Queen Victoria we may have an order of merit for knights of a more useful character than those of old, whose merits, however, were properly recognised in rewarding service most useful in its day.

At a not very remote period it was customary to address the clergy by the knightly title of "Sir." This title was, however, originally employed to distinguish the Bachelor of Arts, who was called "Dominus," from the Master of Arts, whose proper appellation was "Magister." For a long time, however, the chivalrous prefix was conferred on all the clergy indifferently; and "Sir" equally distinguished knight and cleric. It was used, however, not as in chivalry, with the Christian name of the dignified person, but with his surname.

This custom existed throughout England, and it was observed also in the Isle of Man, but with some exceptional clauses. Thus, in the ancient island, the prefix of the knightly title of "Sir" was only allowed to native ministers, "unless," says an old history of the island, "they be parsons of the parishes, which are but few (most of the parsonages being appropriated to the Lord of the Isle or the Bishop), as thus, Sir Thomas Parr, minister of Kirk Malow. But if they have the title of parson, then they are only called Mr, as Mr Robert Parr, parson of St Mary of Bellalough."

The word "Sir," as we have previously observed, stood for Dominus, Sieur, Sire, or Seigneur. Richard II., in his Act of Abdication, is styled "Mon Sire Richard." The monosyllable which adorns knighthood is said to have a very remote origin, and a very extensive circulation in all countries and languages. It is found in the Hebrew, "Sar," lord or prince, and "Sarah," a noble lady. In the Egyptian "Scrapes," we have the Lord Apis; and it has been even suggested that the Saracens are not so called because of any connection with "Sarah," but as "Ser-agarenorum," lords of flocks; and, finally, as the Muscovites refuse to trace the word Czar to Caesar, some etymologists are inclined to believe that the former word is only a form of the knightly "Sir," or lord. But we leave the consideration of this matter to the etymologists. Whatever may be the origin of the word, few who bore the title conducted themselves ill in the field or at the tournament. On occasions of very serious encounters, either in the battle or the lists, great attention was paid to the condition of the armour. This was considered of such great importance that, as painters of old used to mix their own colours, so knights of old were wont to forge their own armour. When the Duke of Burgundy was about to meet in mortal combat the great Duke Humphrey; the former lit his armourer's furnaces within his Castle of Heslin, and forged with his own ducal hands every plate of the defences behind which he hoped to get through the encounter, if not unscathed, at least as nearly unsathed as might be.

We will now proceed to briefly notice the history of the principal orders of knighthood, whose names are familiar to us, and the deeds of many of whose members have been subjects for the historian, the poet, and, when he would question the uses of chivalry, the philosopher, and statesman also.

Charity may be said to have been the foundress of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem, A.D. 1043. The sufferings of poor and wounded crusaders touched some kind hearts; a hospital was raised, and the male nurses of the patients became the Knights of St John. They were at first mere "Hospitallers Brothers of St John the Baptist of Jerusalem," were incorporated by the Pope, wore the habit of St Augustine, and were bound accordingly to poverty, chastity, and obedience. They had to make fre- Knights and Knight-hood.

quent journeys, and they had need of arms for self-defence. They were permitted to carry weapons, and gradually they grew into a great military order, bound to smite the infidel wherever encountered, and to defend the Holy Sepulchre and its cause. Candidates for admission presented themselves from all countries; and rich donations reached them from all Christian kingdoms. Ultimately, they were classed into seven languages or divisions. Three belonged to France, under the titles of France, Provence, and Auvergne. The other languages were Italy, Germany, Arragon, and England. The last was abolished at the Reformation, and replaced by what was called the Anglo-Bavarian.

The seven classes were subdivided into three divisions—1st, The knights of justice, the governing body, of which every man was noble, from which the grand-master was elected, and whose members shared the lion's portion among them. 2d, The priests of the order, with the Bishop of Malta and the prior of the conventual church of St John at their head. There were true samples of a "working clergy" in this class, particularly in the chaplains on board the knights' galleys. 3d, The servans d'armes, the fighting squires who followed the knights in all expeditions, and did the work of active troopers. They were required to be "respectable," and none were admitted who had ever demeaned himself by engaging in trade, or even exercising any art. A worthless fellow of legitimate [respectable] birth might put on armour and serve in this class, but Pythagoras himself would have been black-balled had he been a candidate for admission. All classes voted at the election of grand-master.

Originally, the knights of the first class were not exclusively noble, but when the plebeians threatened, by continual increase, to outnumber the aristocrats, the latter looked to their interests in time, and so arranged, that not only was the admission of a candidate of low degree impossible, but none could enter who failed to prove a nobility of many centuries' standing.

When the order, after passing from the Holy Land to Rhodes, ultimately settled in Malta, many alterations took place. A knight was not required to ride before he was of age; but during his novitiate it was necessary that he should serve in three or four caravans, or naval expeditions, against the infidels. Among the celebrated men who so served, were the two Counts Königsmark. The younger of whom will ever be remembered in connection with the story of Sophia Dorothea, the consort of George I. The knights of whom we have briefly treated held their own in Malta till 1798, when Bonaparte extinguished them; but they still slumber on in a refuge said to have been granted them in Russia, where they are neither ornamental to the Muscovite system nor useful to mankind.

The Templars, or Knights-Templars, were distinguished for being at once a military and a spiritual body, which took its rise at Jerusalem about the year 1118. Nine Christian knights there resident devoted themselves to the service of God, as Cononici Regulares; and to the three ordinary vows of chivalry they added a fourth—namely, that they would protect all pilgrims on their way to the Holy City. King Baldwin assigned them a house near the "Temple of Solomon," from which they took the name of Templars; and the poverty of an order which existed on the alms of the compassionate was illustrated in the device which showed two knights riding on one horse. They soon became renowned for their intrepidity, an excellence which was sharpened all the more by the fact, that if a Templar allowed himself to be taken, his order would offer no ransom-money to the avaricious infidel, nor would purchase his freedom by anything more costly than the gift of a sword or dagger. The great St Bernard is said to have been the author of the statutes framed at Troyes, in Champagne, in 1128, for the regulation of the order. Ten years later, Pope Eu-

genius III. gave the knights permission to wear the red cross on their white cloaks.

From this period they began to increase in wealth and numbers. Even kings enrolled themselves in their company; and in every powerful nation in Europe, there were numerous "commanderies," enjoying more ample revenues than the crown itself. The increase in their wealth is proved by their purchase of the island of Cyprus from Richard I., for the sum of 35,000 silver marks. But with wealth they acquired a taste for luxury; thence came many vices, and one of them, which is generally the source of several that are worse, was alluded to in the popular proverb, "he tipple like a Templar." They became oppressors rather than protectors, especially in the Holy Land, renounced obedience to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and waged war even against Christian sovereigns. They were the opponents rather than the allies of Frederick II., in the celebrated crusade of which that German monarch was the head, and the partial failure of which was among the least of the treacheries of the Templars. At length, for the greater crimes of a few, the whole order in France fell a sacrifice to the vengeance, hatred, and, it may safely be added, the cupidity of Philip the Fair. It was to France that the majority of the knights repaired after the loss of the Holy Land; and Philip had little difficulty in capturing the whole on one and the same day. His hatred against them was of long standing. When King Louis besieged Damascus, the Templars were under his banner, but just as the assault was about to be made, they placed themselves between the Christian army and the besieged infidels. With the latter they negotiated, offering to secure good terms for them on condition that they should deliver to the knights three basketsful of money. The Templars compelled Louis to agree to the conditions which the order proposed, and when they were signed, the cunning Damascenes sent to the knights the number of baskets agreed upon, full to the brim of copper money.

On whatever amount of truth this tradition may rest, it is certain that Philip strove energetically to obtain the approval of Rome and the French University respecting the step he had taken in seizing upon the persons and property of the Templars. But the church and the schools desired the jurisdiction of a temporal governor over a spiritual body; and Pope Clement V. sent ecclesiastical commissioners into France to watch over the possessions and bodies of the religious cavaliers. In the hands of these commissioners Philip placed several of the knights, and these, on being taken into the presence of the Pope, at Poictiers, accused themselves and the order of crimes at which the most hardened nature shudders, and of absurdities at which the dullest nature must laugh. Moved by this confession, or pretended confession, Clement surrendered the order to the mercy or vengeance of Philip, providing, however, that the wealth of the knights should be devoted to the furtherance of the Christian cause in the Holy Land. The Templars, despite some traitors among them, made a noble stand against their enemies, but they were foredoomed as well as pre-judged, and ultimately the order was annihilated, by the delivery of the members to continual captivity or to a cruel death, and the king and the Pope divided the wealth of the order between them.

The military knights of Prussia, those against whom the Teutonic Polish astronomer Copernicus so successfully contended, Knights, not by force of arms, indeed, but of argument and truth, were probably a far less innocent society than the Templars. The Teutonic Knights not only knew how to acquire wealth, but also how to retain it.

Among the religious orders, that of the Teutonic Knights is assuredly not the least famous, nor was it the least influential. The order arose out of the misery which reigned among the besiegers at the celebrated siege of Acre, at the close of the twelfth century. The sufferings of the Christian soldiers excited the compassion of certain German merchants. These erected tent-hospitals, and rendered other services to the unhappy warriors of such value that the German princes enrolled the princely merchants in an order of knighthood, named the Teutonic Knights of St Mary of Jerusalem. This order had the especial sanction and patronage of Pope Celestine III. None could be admitted into it but men of noble birth; and, probably, the merchants who were the original members of the order were ennobled before they were enrolled. Their equestrian garment was a white mantle with a black cross, and this, with bread and water, constituted all the reward sought for by men who vowed to remain pure in body and mind, poor in purse, and to carry succour to Christians wherever it was most needed. The vow, however, was strangely construed in succeeding years. At the opening of the thirteenth century the order was powerful and rich, and carried on a bloody war in defence of the infant church of Prussia, under the sanction of the Pope and crusade-preaching saints. The order, after withdrawing from Palestine, conquered Prussia, Livonia, Courland, and other territories, which they swept of their pagan proprietors by means of fire and sword. Innocent III. was especially fierce against the Livonian pagans; and the Teutonic Knights who carried out his terrible behests gained glory or martyrdom by slaying or being slain.

It must be acknowledged that the Lithuanian heathens were not excessively tender-hearted. When they caught a knight, they immolated him in a fashion of barbaric splendour and stupendous cruelty. Voight describes one of these executions, on the person of the knight Margerard Von Raschan. The latter had been captured when bleeding from a score of wounds. His captors bound him upright on his horse, and burnt both alive—knight and steed.

Pious princes, and gentlemen of the sword who desired to see service, flocked to the banner of the order from all European nations. Our Henry IV., when only Earl of Derby, went over to Dantzig in 1390, with three hundred followers, and fought in the ranks of these formidable cavaliers.

The knights and their paid men-at-arms became in time nearly as cruel as, and far more wealthy than, the pagans whom they had destroyed, plundered, or converted. Pope after pope exhorted them to remember their vows, but all in vain. They chose rather to increase their possessions than defend the faithful. In some respects they may be said to have done both. But they became absolute masters of Prussia especially, their administration of which was of mingled good and evil—mercilessness and humanity. Their great apologist, Voight, insists upon eulogizing their spirit of toleration, which appears to have consisted in only slaying those of the enemy who could not be convinced that the new religion was superior to the old.

The romances abound in illustrations of the view in which these cavaliers looked upon the principle of honour. But reality is not less prolific of instances than romance. We will name one.

Prussia was infested by a band of gentlemen bandits, under the command of a squire named Arnold. No less desirable a prisoner than the Duke of Gueldres fell into their hands. To rescue so noble a cavalier, the Grand Master of the Teutonic order, with an overwhelming force, set out to storm the stronghold of the adventurers. Arnold did not await his coming. He first, however, visited his prisoner, made him acquainted with the condition of things, informed him whither he was about to retreat, and, hiding him tarry in the castle if he preferred doing so, took from him his promise to surrender at a certain time or place, or send his ransom. The duke was rescued, but no entreaties nor representations could induce him to remain at large, after he knew that Arnold had again a roof over his head. He then surrendered himself, and remained a prisoner until his friends ransomed him. This illustration, however, is somewhat unsatisfactory; for if a knight, by breaking a promise, was dishonoured, how was it that so chivalric a body as the Teutonic order repeatedly and earnestly urged the duke to break the faith which he had pledged to Arnold?

Of more recently created orders, those of the Golden Fleece and the Garter may be said to have been the most famous, as they have also been the most enduring. The French orders of St Louis and the Holy Ghost threatened to eclipse all other fraternities, but these orders, without having been suppressed, have ceased to exist. The insignia may occasionally be seen on the breast of some ancient "legitimist" of illustrious birth, but since the fall of the Bourbons no new members have been officially created. At Frohsdorf, perhaps,—where the so-called Henri V. "hides his time,"—a faithful servant may occasionally be authorized to wear the august symbols, as they are worn by their exiled master; but these are not knights acknowledged by France; and their creation is not counter to our assertion, that the orders may be said rather to have ceased to exist than to have been officially suppressed.

Of the other two fraternities named, we will give precedence to that of the Golden Fleece. This brotherhood was renowned for its courtesy, and it may be fittingly treated with as much of that commodity here as we can show it, by giving it precedence in our pages.

The Golden Fleece (Aureum Vellus; Toison d'Or) has a classical origin. When Athamas of Thebes, in obedience to the oracle, was about to sacrifice his son Phryxus and his daughter Helle, they were rescued by their defunct mother Nephele, who had been metamorphosed into a cloud, and who gave to her children a ram with a golden fleece, on which they were to cross the seas, and find safety in Asia. Helle fell off by the way, and gave her name to the sea in which she perished—the Hellespont. Phryxus, more fortunate, crossed the Black Sea in safety, and landed at Colchis, a part of what is now called Mingrelia. There he slew the ram, and hung up the fleece, a thank-offering, in the Temple of Mars. The golden wool became an object of universal cupidity; but it was watched by a fiery dragon, whose vigilance was not overcome till the Thessalian Jason came, armed with cunning, and carried off the prize to Greece. In such wise have the poets sung of what is supposed by more matter-of-fact persons to have been a matter of gold-yielding mines in Colchis, and of the sheepskin "cradles" in which the lucky finders washed the auriferous earth.

When Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, was about to marry Isabella of Portugal, in 1430, he resolved to celebrate the auspicious event by founding an order under the patronage of St Andrew. He had a pious desire to further the extension of the Church and the Christian religion in the East, and particularly in the Mingrelia region, where the Golden Fleece had once hung, and St Andrew, according to tradition, had preached. But the Duke's fleece was to carry the Northern Church and the Roman religion more safely than the ram had borne Phryxus and Helle. This is the most reasonable of the many origins given to the renowned order. We are bound, however, to add, that it has been the most laughed at. Old Favina ridiculed it; and laborious Zeidler, while he ridicules ancient Favina, agrees with him in ridiculing the account of the origin of the name and object of the order. Favina thinks that the Fleece of the valiant Grecian was in the mind of the valiant Duke when he founded the grand order of chivalry. Other explanations are not lacking. Thus, Philip loved a damsel of low degree, who was so little addicted to luxuries that she covered her toilet-table with a fleece, and the sight set laughing a whole bevy of courtiers who once followed the Duke into her room. Philip swore an oath that he would make every noble in Christendom proud to wear this fleece, which he made the sign of an order founded in honour of this "light o' love" lady. Some old chroniclers denounce this as a disgraceful story, and tell a worse, touching a lady still less scrupulous than the last, and whom Philip celebrated because of her infidelity. Others, again, come back to the Colchian theory, by asserting that the Duke took the vow of knighthood on a pheasant, a bird which originally came from the banks of the River Phasis, in the vicinity of Colchis. After all, there is a forgotten, but a common-sense and an ingenious origin ascribed to this order, and which may serve also to show how it came to be mentioned in connection with Jason and the Golden Fleece. In July 1430, such a harvest was reaped throughout Flanders, and the prospects of the remainder of the year were rendered so secure thereby, that the Duke, out of pure gratitude, constituted the knightly brotherhood; and as he perceived that the word Jason contained the initials of the names of the five months to come, July, August, September, October, and November, he was reminded of the fleece, and took it for a symbol. This is too ingenious a story to be omitted in an account of the origin of the order.

The object of the founder was expressed in an inscription on his coffin:

"Poor maintenir l'église, qui est de Dieu Maizon, J'ay mis sus le noble ordre qu'on nomme la Tolson."

Philip fixed the number of knights at thirty—all noble, and without reproach. They were bound by statutes, laid down at considerable length, and ninety-four in number. The knights were required to be without blemish; but this did not apply physically, for among the thirty original knights we find Baldwin de Launoy, Lord of Molembre, surnamed "the Stammerer." On the occasion of the first chapter Philip created only two dozen knights; and we may notice among them John de Villiers, the ancestor of the English plenipotentiary (Lord Clarendon) at the late peace conferences of Paris. To this descendant of the old De Villiers the Emperor of the French offered the grand cross of a chevalier of the Legion of Honour, which was respectfully declined, on the ground of its being unusual—perhaps illegal—for English ministers to receive orders of knighthood from foreign sovereigns. It was not till the accession of Duke Charles that an English king was invested with the insignia of the order, in the person of Edward IV., who was created Knight of the Golden Fleece at the chapter held in Bruges in the year 1467. At the death of Charles, the Netherlands fell into the possession of Maximilian of Austria, the husband of Charles's only child. The order passed to the Spanish crown with that portion of the Flemish inheritance of Charles V., Emperor of Germany, which was made over to his second son Philip, King of Spain; and the Fleece of Jason and of Burgundy is now stabled in the Spanish capital.

Of English orders, the most highly prized, if not the most illustrious, is that of the Garter, which we now proceed to notice.

The Order of the Garter has a properly chivalrous foundation. It springs from a double gallantry—from arms as well as love. In the days of the Crusades, when Richard Cœur de Lion was our King, there was a body of noble fighting men in the Holy Land, who were distinguished by a blue leathern thong, worn round the left knee. The symbol was not that of a recognised order, but the wearers of it were doubtless "brothers in arms" after the strictest manner, and were probably therewith the personal friends or companions of the king.

"Round Ormonde's knee thou ty'st the mystic String, That makes the Knight Companion to the King."

In 1348 the symbol of the thong was converted into the garter by Edward III. That monarch, having heard of the surpassing beauty of the Countess of Salisbury, celebrated a tournament in her honour at Windsor. The lady accompanied her lord to this rough festival reluctantly, and in very simple attire. All around her was a blaze of gold, jewellery, and beauty: she alone shone with the last only, and therein excelled all other ladies present. The king was, to use an old phrase, "stricken" with her charms, and he seems to have paid her that audacious homage which princes then could pay with impunity. But the Countess of Salisbury was as honest as she was fair, and had no intention, as Froissart remarks, to obey the king "in anything evil that might tend to the dishonour of her dear lord." The king persecuted the noble countess with his suit, whereby he outraged some of the strictest rules of chivalry. Divested of its romantic features, the narrative of the foundation of the garter would seemingly resolve itself to this—that the feast given by the king, who had great curiosity to see this lady, was annually repeated in honour of her, or in memory of her womanly virtues. Froissart calls the feast to which Edward originally invited the countess a "convocation of the order." Some organization, therefore, existed previous to the appearance of the lady at Windsor. The first regular chapter, however, was not held till St George's day, in the year 1344. At this first chapter Queen Philippa was present, wearing the robes of the order. Some authors, however, describe the chapter of 1349 as the first regular chapter of the order.

The presence of the knights at the feasts held on the anniversary of the day of their patron, Saint George, was very strictly enforced. If a knight allowed two festivals to pass without being present he was fined in a jewel, which he deposited on the altar in the chapel. For every succeeding year's absence the knight who so offended paid the forfeiture of two jewels. It was imperative on every knight to wear the garter in public, and on all occasions. He was equally strictly bound to wear the "sanguine mantle" from the eve of, to the morrow after St George's day. Though a knight was mulcted in a jewel for being absent from the annual feast, he had only to pay a silver penny for not being present at prayers, in St George's Chapel, whenever he was in the vicinity of Windsor. His own soul was otherwise well cared for; and whenever a member of the order died, the surviving members subscribed their gold pieces for a certain number of masses for his rescue from purgatory. It was the privilege, too, of any knight who incurred the penalty of death, to die only by decapitation. The rules of the order also enjoined especial forms of degradation for any member who should be guilty of cowardice. Such a crime was held to be almost impossible; at least as long as the heart of St George stood in its golden shrine above the altar of the chapel. This relic was brought to England by the Emperor Sigismund. St Ambrose tells us that when St George was dying, he bequeathed his trunk to the infidel—counting upon their conversion, in consequence. His heart he left as a legacy to the Christians. He must have had a prophetic vision, indeed, if it be true, as Anstas tells us, that the saint bequeathed his heart, not to Christians generally, "but to Englishmen alone;" and not to every part of England, but only to his own Windsor; which, on this account, must have been more pleasing to the sovereigns and all other the knights of this most illustrious order." The Emperor Sigismund brought to England, not only this treasure, ac- counted so precious, but a portion of the skull of the saint also. He presented the same to the invincible Henry V.; and, till the time of the Reformation, the relic was an object of great veneration on the part of the Knights of the Garter, who had a particular reverence for their great patron, St George.

The rules and constitution of the order form a document of very great length; but there is nothing new in them touching the qualifications for chivalry. Piety, charity, truth, fidelity to Heaven and the fair, is the sum of all. It was, moreover, distinctly laid down that no person could be elected unless he were without reproach; but this rigid rule has been more frequently infringed than any other. In the wars of the Roses, knights were made or unmade with very little ceremony. If the chapter was full, the triumphant faction beheaded a few of the antagonistic party, in order to create vacancies for the conquerors. Not that there was always great desire to reach the honours of companionship. There are frequent instances of foreign sovereigns declining to accept the honour offered to them. Some hesitated, fearing that the fees might be heavier than they cared to pay. Occasionally we meet with princes who have accepted the dignity, but who forfeit it, because they neglect to appear, within a prescribed time, to take possession of their stalls.

The installation almost invariably took place at Windsor, but it was not there that the chapters were always held. A century after the order was founded, we hear of a grave king, Henry VI., holding a chapter in a very gay locality,—the Lion Inn at Brentford. In this jovial resort were elected two knights, Sir Thomas Hastings and Sir Alonso D'Almada, on whom the king conferred a handsome gold cup. This hostelry was not the last place of its sort in which companionship in a first order of knighthood has been conferred. When Louis XVIII. was in London, on his way to his recently recovered throne in France, he was visited at Grillion's Hotel, Albemarle Street, by the Prince Regent. The French monarch improvised on the instant a chapter of the Holy Ghost—and taking the insignia from his own neck, he placed them round that of the prince, with the remark—"Of all I once possessed this alone is left to me; and I give it willingly to the most generous of princes." The new chevalier of the Holy Ghost returned the compliment, the same evening, by buckling round the knee of Louis the jewelled garter. "I am the first King of France who has worn this decoration since the days of Henry IV." His Majesty, in thus speaking, was not strictly correct, for Louis XIV. had worn the order. But the Grand Monarque received it from the hands of the uncrowned James II., at St Germain's; and the "late King James," as the English journals used to call him from the time of his deposition, was held as having no right to confer an honour which could spring only from the reigning sovereign of England.

With regard to insignia, it may be noticed here that the "George" and "collar" were added to the garter in the time of Henry VII. So particular was this king in observing the rules of the order, and so earnest in his veneration of the patron saint, that, to encourage the royal knight, the Cardinal of Rouen presented him with a portion of a leg bone of St George. The bone was solemnly exhibited at one of those gorgeous chapters which Henry loved to hold in cathedrals;—the chapter in question was held in the old metropolitan church of St Paul. The monarch was so gratified with the cardinal's gift that he erected, at his own expense, a solid silver image of St George on the altar of his chapel at Windsor, and ordered that it should remain and receive homage there, "at all solemn feasts,"—"while the world shall endure."

That general remodeller of many things, Henry VIII., entirely recast the statutes of the "noble order." It was found that the rules which bound the men of one time could not be rendered obligatory on the men of a later period. One of the new rules may have been useful when made; at all events, it deserves to be recorded. Originally it was not necessary that an individual should be a peer in order to gain admission into the order. Merit of some sort, the more distinguished the better, was the first qualification. In Henry's time there were several members of the order who were below the rank of peers. To these, indiscriminately, he granted permission to wear dresses made of woollen cloth manufactured in foreign countries. This was a movement in the direction of free trade; but the benefit of it was confined solely to the knights and peers: the common people were compelled to deck themselves, as before, in home-made productions. It is from Henry's time that date the regulations whereby men of high merit, yet of inferior social degree, are debarred from companionship. The king, very characteristically, broke his own rule, by giving the garter to Thomas Cromwell. In the reign of Edward VI., under whom much of the religious ceremony at installations was abolished, Lord Paget was ejected from the order on the ground of original lack of noble blood; but he was reinstated by Mary. There was, certainly, no lack of noble spirit under this queen. In proof of this may be cited an incident which followed the reception of her husband Philip in the order. The obsequious heralds, in honour of the occasion, were proceeding to take down the arms of England, in the chapel, and to substitute the shield of Spain; but some stout old English lords opposed the attempt, and with such vigour, that it was not persevered in. It was a rule of the order, that if a member plotted or rebelled against the sovereign, he thereby incurred forfeiture of his knighthly degree, as far as it was connected with the order of the garter. It is very remarkable, however, that even after Philip had despatched the Armada against this country, he was not deprived of the garter, nor was his banner taken down. The conduct of Elizabeth, with regard to the two great enemies of the Protestant faith was remarkable. She retained Philip on the roll of knights, and she sent the garter to Charles IX. It is strange, fond as this queen was of magnificent displays, that she was the first sovereign of the order who discouraged the anniversary banquets. Her treatment of the newly-elected knights was also characteristic of the woman. Their election was not reckoned valid till it had received her sanction; and this she frequently withheld to the latest moment, finding pleasure in keeping the candidate for a highly-coveted honour in painful suspense.

Down to the reign of James I., the "ride" of a knight to Windsor, to be installed, was among the most magnificent, as well as popular spectacles of the period. The outlay for "bravery," as the incidental finery was called, was often enormous. James forbade much of it, under peril of a pecuniary mulct. He prohibited the giving of "livery coats, for saving charge, and avoiding emulation." This prohibition, however, he turned in some degree to his own profit, for his Majesty ordained, as an improvement on the old custom, that all companions, at their installation, should present a piece of plate, of the value of L20 at least, "for the use of the altar in St George's Chapel," and, of course, for the adornment of the royal banqueting-room in the castle. The sumptuary law of James would seem to have been inoperative; for never were there more splendid cavalcades of knights from London to Windsor than in the early period of the reign of Charles; but, also, never were there more dismal chapters held (sometimes only three or four knights obeying a sovereign summons) than when the times became agitated through the obstinacy of the king and the resolution of the popular party and their leaders. The "George" of this sovereign displayed his gallantry; for it bore, on the under side, the portrait of his wife, Henrietta. This famous jewel, cut in an onyx, and surrounded by twenty-one table diamonds, in guise of a garter, was worn, subsequently, by the worthless Launz, and is now in the possession of the Duke of Wellington, who inherits it from the late duke. Cromwell did not touch the garter, but he dubbed half-a-score knights; and "Oliver's Knights" were unjustly made the buffoons of the stage, long after the Restoration. Charles II. did not wait for that Restoration before he created Knights of the Garter. He made several during his period of exile; and the first two on whom he conferred the dignity, on recovering "his own again," had well earned the distinction,—they were Monk and Montague; and they were among the last who received the garter before they had been raised to the dignity of the peerage. James II. would have restored the ancient religious ceremonial if he had had time. On the other hand, under the grave William, the custom by which a knight was expected to celebrate his newly-gained dignity by a splendid banquet was renewed. In the newspapers of this period frequent mention is made of these feasts. As a sample, may be noticed the installation-banquet of Lord Portland, in March 1697. It is described as being of extreme splendour, and the fare was, certainly, equally abundant. The friends of Bentinck sat down with him to "three oxen, eighteen calves, twenty-five sheep, and a vast quantity of fowl." The journalist, however, has forgotten to inform his readers of the number of the guests. While Anne and George I. were creating Knights of the Garter at home, the Stuart king did not fail to exercise the same right at St Germain, or wherever the court happened to be, for the time. It is said that George II. changed the colour of the riband, from dark to light, or garter-blue, in order to distinguish the genuine Knights of the Garter from those created by the Pretender, who retained the original colour. Under this same king, not only were the splendid banquets revived, but the popular curiosity concerning them seems to have been of a very exciting character. Thus, in 1752, on the anniversary of the birthday of the young prince, who was afterwards George III., there was an installation of knights at Windsor, followed by a dinner and ball. In connection with the banquet, Sylvanus Urban tells us that "the populace attempted several times to force their way into the hall, where the knights were at dinner, against the guards; on which some were cut and wounded, and the guards fired several times on them, with powder, to deter them, but without effect, till they had orders to load with ball, which made them desist."

Under George III. there were more irregular elections in the order than under any other king. Junius detected and exposed the illegality of the election of Earl Gower; and George III. abolished the statute of Edward, confining the number of companions to twenty-five, in order that he might admit all his sons. This bad example authorized George IV. to infringe the statute still more, by admitting foreign sovereigns to companionship, without any regard to the regulation by statute. The royal founder would now hardly recognise his own order, so different are, in many respects, its rules from those by which it was governed in the early days of its grandeur. Changes of manners, mutability of human fashion, and necessary modifications of religious ceremonials, authorize, in a very great degree, the statutes which are now in force. Many of the old ones, indeed, could not in these days be acted upon. No knight would accept the honour, on condition of always wearing the habit; and it would hardly be edifying to observe the whole chapter on their knees, as in the days of Henry V., before the supposed heart, and fragments of the skull and leg bone, of St George of Cappadocia.

In connection with the sovereign of the Order of the Garter we may notice, that after George, Prince Regent, had bound the Garter round the knee of Louis XVIII., he expressed his own sense of the absurdity of English kings retaining among their titles that of "King of France." From the accession, therefore, of George IV., this title was dropped, and there disappeared from the coronation ceremonial those two knights who were, for the nonce, converted into dukes of Aquitaine and Normandy, and who were supposed to have repaired to the foot of the throne of the new king, in order to do homage for those provinces. Churchill alludes to this folly in his "Ghost," when he speaks of peers

"Who walk,' nobility forget, With shoulders fitter for a knot Than robes of honour. For whose sake Heralds, in form were forc'd to make,— To make, because they could not find, Great predecessors to their mind, Could she ('Satire') not (though 'tis doubtful since, Whether he plumber is, or prince), Tell of a simple knight's advance To be a doughty peer of France? Tell how he did a dukedom gain, And Robinson was Aquitaine."

The Order of the Bath has its peculiarly legendary tradition, which must be noticed, although it need not, necessarily, be credited. Henry IV., it is said, was surprised in his bath by two widows who had a feud, and who requested him to pronounce judgment between them. From these litigants the modest monarch made his escape by springing from the bath, and he founded the order in memory of the circumstance. It was the rule of all knighthood that the candidate for chivalry should bathe the night previous to the celebration of the solemnity at which he was to be created a knight. The order, which took its name peculiarly from an observance which was common to all orders, was founded at the close of the fourteenth century. The shield of the order bore three golden crowns in a field azure, with the inscription, *Trium in unum*. One of the most brilliant assemblies of the order was at the coronation of Charles II.; and in former times a Knight of the Bath was seldom created save at extraordinary seasons, such as the birth of an heir apparent, a royal marriage, or a coronation. The Order of the Bath, which some writers describe as a simple order of Knights Bachelors, fell into disuse. It was revived, however, in 1725, in the reign of George I., when the Duke of Montague is spoken of under the title of "Grand Master." When Walpole re-established this companionship, for the sake partly of rewarding or of purchasing political service, a few persons affected to make light of the honour, but when the minister declared that the Bath was a necessary preliminary to the Garter, the former rose in estimation, and the insignia became objects of a laudable ambition.

The old constitution of the Order of the Bath remained in force until the period immediately following the battle of Waterloo, when the Bath was divided into three classes, for the purpose of rewarding the various claimants of distinction. These are the Grand Cross, Knights Commanders, and Knights Companions. The first two rank above ordinary Knights Bachelors.

Ireland had no order of knighthood till the year 1783, when that of St Patrick was instituted by George III. In Patrick, 1815, George IV. established the Guelphic order of Hanover. The decoration was at first conferred almost exclusively on Englishmen, but the Guelphic order having gone with the kingdom of Hanover, apart from England, the star is now seldom seen but on continental members.

The ancient Order of the Thistle dates at least from the times of Robert II., whose coins bore the cross and the Thistle, impress of St Andrew. The badge of the Thistle, however, was not worn before the reign of James III. It was said that these emblems were not connected with any distinct order of knighthood previous to the reign of James V. Subsequently this chivalric companionship was suppressed by the Reformers, and it was not till the reign of James VII. (II. of England) that the thistle and chivalry again bloomed together. The order is accessible to peers only.

"A commoner," says a recent writer, "may have conferred more honour and service on his country than all the Scottish peers put together, but no amount of merit could procure him admission into the Order of the Thistle." Nevertheless, three commoners did once belong to it; but their peculiar merit was that they were heirs-presumptive to dukedoms.

The first order of chivalry known in France was that of the Gennet, a species of fouine, or "wood-martin," once well-known and valued for its beautiful fur. When Charles of Aquitaine had defeated the Moors at Tours, in the year 726, he found in the camp which the invaders left behind them a large number, alive and dead, of those once valued, but now almost forgotten animals. In memory of the battle which he gained by the aid of "St Martin of the war," he built a church to the Saint, and founded the order of the Gennet, or "Wood-Martin," in his honour. The founder received, in return, the designation of the Martel, or "Hammer of the Saracens." The order consisted of sixteen knights, and it was held in high regard by the Carlovingian kings, but became extinct after the accession of the Capetian race, when King Robert founded the Order of the Star, out of homage to the Virgin Mary, the star of the Sea. Although the Gennet was the first order or brotherhood known in France, it had not been unusual to reward that sort of valour, which was considered the peculiar distinction of a knight, in individuals. Thus, we read of Chilperic bestowing the bauldrice, or girdle, as a reward for great courage. This bauldrice is termed the "royal gift," a king alone having the privilege to bestow this jewelled girdle, which, by its mounting, differed from the plain gold girdles worn by such nobles as cared to put them round their loins. Although this order was instituted especially in honour of the Virgin, it became remarkable for the good eating and drinking of the companionship more than anything else. They had promised to be vigilant, but the insignia of the star and collar were given to the Chevaliers of the Watch, and the knights caroused while their deputies kept ward. Sumptuous, and even profligate, as some of these banquets were, we find that young princes waited at the table—that is, if they had not been knighted; for it was a rule that no son, not of the order of chivalry, could sit down at the same table with a sire who was a belted knight.

There was a French Order of the Thistle, which was, during a considerable period, of much celebrity. It was founded by Louis II., Duke of Bourbon, in 1463. The order was instituted on the duke's wedding-day, out of gratitude to the Virgin, who had endowed his highness with a bride of great beauty, to whom he behaved, as those mirrors of chivalry, the Guisses, did to their wives, very "cavalierly." It was thought sufficient if a man were only exquisitely polite to the wife whom he shamelessly betrayed. When the merit of Louis XV. was noticed in a funeral oration, the reverend speaker said of that sovereign of the Order of the Holy Ghost, that however he may have lacked fidelity to his spouse, he never uttered a cross word to her.

The knights of the French Order of the Thistle were twenty-six in number. On the gold chain which they wore round the neck were interwoven links so fashioned and disposed as to form the word Esperance. From the chain was suspended an oval-shaped ornament of gold, in the centre of which, above a half-moon, stood the Virgin, surrounded by rays, and crowned with a coronet of twelve stars. From this oval hung a thistle blossom. The dress and the statutes of this order bore a close resemblance to those of the knights of the Order of the Garter.

The French Order of the Thistle was patronized, not by St Andrew, but by our Lady. On the other hand, Russia has an order of St Andrew, which has no connection with the Thistle. The Muscovite order was founded by the Czar Peter Alexiowitch, in the year 1698. It was at first conferred only on those who had borne themselves bravely against the Turks. Subsequently, they who had distinguished themselves in the Swedish wars were admitted, and finally, it was given indiscriminately to great soldiers and civilians of merit at home; and it often served to distinguish the officers in foreign courts who were in the interest of Russia. The knights carry a "St Andrew's cross," with the figure of the Apostle, with a smaller cross beneath, and above, an ornament rather complicated, but in which may be defined the double-headed eagle. A portion of the inscription of the original crosses stated, very characteristically, that the order was founded by "Peter, possessor and autocrat of Russia."

We have already incidentally noticed the French Order of St Michael, which long since fell into disuse, through derision of its honours being rendered too common and too cheap.

King Henry III. abolished the Order of St Michael, which had fallen into contempt, and created in its stead that of the Holy Ghost. The intention was good, but it failed of its end. It soon became overcrowded. One rule was, that no one could gain admission who could not show certain proofs of his nobility. This proved no safeguard. Candidates for admission forged papers without scruple, or produced whole cart-loads of titles from Italy, which the examiners passed without reading. The Marshal de Biron, in submitting his papers to the king, observed that his titles were set out therein, but that he had a better one at the point of his sword. One gentleman who could not prove his nobility, did as good, by presenting the king with a couple of puppies; and, as these were of a breed of dogs much prized by the monarch, he very appropriately clapped a collar on the neck of the donor.

The Order of St Louis was founded, or perhaps restored, on an ancient foundation, by Louis XIV. In process of time it became even more common than that of St Michael had been; and it was no unusual thing to see the diminutive cross of the order tacked to the button-hole of individuals who were hardly honest enough to pay for the coat on which sparkled the decoration.

The Legion of Honour has taken place of all the French orders, but it is, in truth, less a chivalrous body than a vast crowd of scattered members, who are not companions, in the knightly sense of the word, but who wear the cross in testimony of some particular merit—now, that of gaining victory on a stricken field, anon for a new fashion in very humble matters of dress. It is worn by monarchs and magnificers; the classes being different, but the members of them being all alike legionaries.

We may here notice a few of those orders which have been remarkable for their singularity. Among them were the Knights of the Holy Ampulla, who were knights only for a day, and who carried the Sancta Ampulla, or holy chrysal, at the coronation of the kings of France. In contrast with these ephemeral knights may be noticed the Ladies of the Axe. This was a Spanish order, founded by Raymond Berengarius, count of Barcelona, at Tortosa, in 1148, in honour of those stout-hearted Aragonese ladies who beat back the Moors in a siege. The weapon which they wielded so effectually at the siege of Tortosa was figured on their cap and mantle. The members had several privileges. They took precedence, in all public ceremonies, of the men (a privilege which does not give satisfactory warrant of the general gallantry of Spain); they became, as widows, exempt from all taxes, and they inherited all jewellery and female ornaments, without partition of value with any of their brothers.

The Moors had, before this, given rise to an order of chivalry—that of the Knights of the Oak. In the eighth century, García, king of Navarre, was about to withdraw from before a large Moorish force, when he beheld a cross in an oak; believing this to be a sign from heaven, he charged victoriously, and, at the conclusion of a sanguinary conflict, founded that chivalry of the oak, the members of which were remarkable for their superstition and daring courage.

It was a different motive that created the "Order of the Brotherhood opposed to Cursing and Swearing," or vitanda-ram exservationum surrilitatisque cobindea causa Vimariae socie. This order was established at the close of the sixteenth century, by the Saxon dukes William and John, at Weimar. At this period hard drinking and unseemly language were prevalent in Germany; with great profession of piety, nevertheless, on the part of those whose practice was so discreditable. Licentiousness of speech was such a characteristic of table manners, that we read of banquets at which he who presided rang a bell fixed beneath the board, and when this sound was heard, the blaspheming guests were bound to bridle their profane tongues, and observe greater cleanliness of expression. It would seem that the noble-born who were distinguished for their purity were raised to companionship in this order, the symbol of which was a gold medal suspended from the neck.

Some orders have been founded on an error, as, for example, that of the Order of the Girdle of Hope, by Charles VI. of France, who, having lost his way when hunting, and found the right path again, attributed his good fortune to "our Lady," and founded this order in her honour. Charles, however, was held by the theological heralds to have thereby done considerable wrong to St Hubert, who, if he had not sole sovereignty over woods and chases, yet was of such consequence, that no one wandering in their labyrinths could escape without his sanction and aid. George William of Leignitz, when he founded the Order of the Golden Stag, in 1672, in honour of a brilliant day, for which the duke was grateful to St Hubert, much better understood, according to the ideas of the time, where his gratitude was due.

There was more of marked singularity in the old Venetian Order of the Boot, which was founded in 1400, by the Duke Michael Steno, for the encouragement of youths in warlike exercises both by sea and land. The members of this order wore an embroidered boot, decked with precious stones, on either the right or left leg indifferently. The absurdity consisted in there being but one boot for each knight, but Michael Steno no more thought a pair of boots necessary for his chevalier than Edward did a couple of garters for his "companions" at Windsor.

The Emperor Sigismund of Germany is one of the few potentates who founded an order which died with the founder. On his return from the Council of Konstnitz in Hungary, in 1418, he founded the knightly brotherhood of the Overthrown Dragon. The members wore, suspended from a chain round the neck, the figure, in gold, of a dragon, overthrown, and with his wings flapping, crushed, and helpless. There were many who rightly read in this terrible hieroglyphic the stern resolution of the imperial grand-master and knights to pursue to the death John Huss, Jerome of Prague, and their followers.

St Michael was the patron of more than one order in Spain, founded out of gratitude for succour against the irreligious, particularly the Moors, or to invoke such succour. The Brothers of St Michael's Wing, with their device of Quis ut Deus, did good knight-service against the Moors, and rendered acceptable help to all sorely-pressed Christians in the bloody days of the fierce contests between the two antagonistic peoples.

Some princes have founded orders for the furtherance of friendship, but they seem to have been rather pleasant ca-

prices than anything more serious. So, Elizabeth Christina, Empress of Germany, founded, in the last century, at Vienna, the Order of Love for Your Neighbour. As the order was open to both knights and ladies, and as either lady or knight wearing the order could bestow the insignia once on a very dear friend, the wits had much to remark touching such regulations. These were subsequently modified; but the order, with its agreeable legend of "Amore Proximi," was the desired object of many an aspirant. It was not the first of its class which arose, as fighting began to be a little less common than in days of old, and Christian people had more leisure to cultivate friendly relations.

There was a still more singular order, confined to knights only, and which is said to have peculiarly belonged to the house of Montmorency. The tradition relates, that after a feud, in which the King, Louis, sided with the Abbot of St Dennis against Bouchard Barberotte de Montmorency, first baron of France, a reconciliation having been established, Montmorency appeared before his sovereign with a company of knights, all of whom wore a thong (Hirschgeweihes), from which was suspended the figure of a dog. This was supposed to be a tacit assertion of their fidelity towards the king. The knightly brotherhood not only flourished, if the old chroniclers speak truly, but Montmorency is said to have founded a second, that of the Cock, and to have subsequently amalgamated the two. Of the order, however, either of Dog or Cock, very little is known, and that little is very doubtful. We suspect that the orders attributed to the house of Montmorency are as truly legendary as that of the Waning Moon, which romancers ascribe to St Louis in 1269; and which, it is added, though it ceased with his demise, was temporarily renewed by Charles of Anjou, when he obtained possession of Sicily. This order, we are told, was founded in opposition to the infidel Order of the Crescent, founded by Soliman II. Perhaps the most remarkable fact connected with the latter is, that the famous Christian painter, Gentilis Bellino, was a member of the order. At such a period, this showed more liberal toleration on the part of the Turkish sovereign than was exhibited by the King of France, in 1665, with respect to the Star of St Michael. Originally that order had been founded in opposition to the Garter and the Golden Fleece, but it was given to the most worthless, or sold to them, when foolish purchasers could be found. Even from an order so degraded as this, the king ejected all Protestants, and declared them incapable of wearing the brilliant insignia. Of a plainly-dressed Protestant of those days, standing in the midst of a glittering crowd of Knights of St Michael, might have been said what was said of Viscount Castlerengh, when he stood, the only man in a plain dress coat, amid the gilded and embroidered members of the Congress of Vienna, "Ma foi, il est très distingué!"

The history of comic companionships would require Comte a separate, and not a very brief article. These, indeed, Compa- were not knightly orders, but societies founded in imitation nionships of them, and with mirthful, though not always useless, ends in view. Of these we can only notice the principal; and first among them stands the Order of Fools, or Company of Simpletons, founded by Adolph Count of Cleves in 1381, for three dozen knights, who were bound by ordinances, the originals of which still exist in Germany. The "decoration" consisted of a small fantastic figure of a court fool, holding fruit in his hand, as a sign of the affection which the court's knightly fools were expected to bear the one to the other. They met in solemn assembly on the first Sunday after Michaelmas, and separated the Sunday following. From this meeting no member dared be absent, unless incapacitated by grievous illness, or engaged in business at a distance of six days' journey from Cleves. There were fines for non-attendance, and for not wearing the symbol of the Fool, but these were given to the poor, after being rigorously exacted by the king and council annually elected to preside over the order. If any members died between the anniversary meetings, it was the first business of the community to proceed to the cathedral and celebrate a mass in their honour, with abundance of prayer to rescue them from purgatory. The least foolish part of the ceremonial used by this "Company of Fools" was in their brotherly reconciliations. If two members happened to be at feud, they presented themselves before the king and council, during the grand assembly, on an appointed day, and embraced each other, before the sun went down. As peacemakers and charitable persons the noble members of this companionship were not such fools as they pretended to be. At a time when the soldier's vocation was the only one greatly honoured—when there was little equality among men, and compassion for the suffering was by no means general—it was no folly which moved the court to form a companionship in which every member was equal, the rulers being only nominally superior to their fellows, and the object of which was to reconcile the estranged, and to relieve the poor.

The "Dijon Infantry," or the "Mother of Fools," was a society early formed on the model of that of Cleves, and re-formed, in the fifteenth century, by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy. There was, however, no limit, whether with respect to number or quality of the members. These amounted to several hundreds, and among them were princes, bishops, dignitaries of parliament, artists, and tradesmen. The rules and the formulas of reception were in very rough rhymes. One object in view was to forget worldly cares over very sumptuous banquets, and another was to censure the views and criticise the sayings and doings of society generally. The order of the "Mother of Fools" met yearly about carnival time; and, in the dresses of labourers in vineyards, the members rode through the town, singing satirical songs as they went, and attracting universal attention in their green, red, and yellow costume, with bells on their two-pointed and tri-coloured caps, the narroette, or stick with a zany's head upon it, in their hands, and the sublime "Mother of Fools" leading the joyous and very mixed company. The officers were numerous, and over all waved the sacred banner, with the undeniable device, "Stultorum infinitus est numerus." This banner was protected by a guard of sixty knights; and the august person of the "Mater Stultorum" was surrounded by fifty chevaliers, selected from among the most skilful artists of the city. The processions were at once magnificent and burlesque; and the power acquired by the children of "La Mère Folie" was extraordinary. If a citizen offended a member of the order, he was summoned to answer the charge made in presence of the Mother, who was, of course, a man. If a citizen declined to appear, he incurred a fine. If he refused to pay the penalty, six officials were sent to compel him to obedience. These took up their quarters in a neighbouring town, where they lived at his cost, while they levied a distress on his goods, and sold them to the highest bidder, the law giving them this strange authority, and refusing to interfere in behalf of the recusant burglar. Such an order was likely to fall into lamentable excesses; and, as a consequence of these, the order was suppressed in 1630, though twenty years later the then surviving members were allowed to ride in procession, in order to carry up some compliment to the authorities. The last "Mother of Fools" was Philippe des Clamps, procurator of parliament, and syndic of the states of Burgundy.

During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the "Societas Cornardorum," or Order of Hornbearers, flourished at Evreux and Rouen, under the auspices of the parliaments of Paris and Rouen. As the members of the order bore a hare's tail in the front of their caps, and wore a fox's brush round their necks, their proper appellation may have been "Societas Caudinadorum," or Order of Tail-Bearers. The objects of the order were originally like those of the Dijon Infantry and the Mother of Fools; but these were forgotten, and, in the interest of morality, it became necessary to abolish the "Cornardi." The sole merit of this comic chivalry consists in the additions made by them to the stock of macaronic poetry, in which form they lashed vices in churchmen and people which they were not ashamed to practise themselves.

The "Kingdom of the Bazoche" was the high-sounding title of an order of French law-students, founded when the parliament of Paris was first established in that capital, and deriving its name from the Greek word βασιλεύς, which implies that sort of loquacity in which a lawyer does not always say what he thinks, but boldly pledges his conscience for the truth of an assertion, and deems the honour of the bar to be satisfied by calling it a "mere formula." This order, which had much to do with comic literature, was founded in 1303, and was suppressed in 1476, with all its plays, mysteries, recitations, and roystering festivals. Its constitution was on the knightly principle, and the grand-master was styled king. This title was not an uncommon one for the chief of any community. The company of mercers (in France) had their king. One of the stewards of the royal household bore the name in derision, perhaps of his office, that of a sort of provost over the lower servants of both sexes. At this day, too, Belfast has, not its "mayor," but its "sovereign." In more recent times the Order (or Regiment) of the Calotte in France was one of those companies which, for a while, tilted with points of satire against the follies and vices of mankind, as the knights used to do, more seriously, against the oppressors of the weak and the enemies of the faith.

But it is time to close this imperfect record; and we perhaps cannot do so more appropriately than by giving a chronological list of some of the principal orders under which chivalry has been most distinguished.

**RELIGIOUS AND EQUESTRIAN-CHAPLAIN ORDERS.**

1. St John of Jerusalem, subsequently Knights of Rhodes and of Malta. A.D. 1043 2. The Knights Templars. 1118 3. The Teutonic Order. 1191 4. The Order of St Joachim. 1755

**PAPAL ORDERS.**

About a dozen are ascribed to the popes at various times, but these seem to have been mere guilds. The sole exception is in the Order of the Golden Spur (1559), of which Gallini the ballet-master was made a knight by Pius VI. Lord Kenyon refused, in a court of law, to take his testimony as that of "Sir John Gallini;" but Coke had previously settled that a knight, by whomsoever created, remained a knight, all law to the contrary notwithstanding.

**THE CHIEF IMPERIAL ORDERS.**

1. St Constantine, originally of the Greek Empire, subsequently Neapolitan. A.D. 313 2. St Andrew (and St Catherine) of Russia. 1698 3. St George of Russia. 1782 4. St Alexander Nevskoi. 1700 5. Maria Theresa (Austria). 1757 6. St Stephen of Hungary. 1754 7. St Vladimir. 1782

To these may perhaps be added, the Turkish Crescent, the Persian Lion and Sun, and the Legion of Honour (1802), which is not a military order exclusively, the cross being often conferred, as a medal is given to distinguish the wearer, without admitting him to knightly privileges. This order was founded by Napoleon I. Knolles.

CHIEF ROYAL ORDERS.

Round Table, England ........................................... A.D. 928 The Aris .................................................................. 1147 Calatrava .................................................................. 1158 Alcantara .................................................................. 1170 St James of Compostella ............................................ 1175 White Elephant of Denmark ....................................... 1190 Dannebrog .................................................................. 1219 Montera ..................................................................... 1317 Christ of Portugal ......................................................... 1319 White Eagle of Poland ................................................ 1325 Sarophim .................................................................... 1334 Garibaldi .................................................................... 1343 Bath .......................................................................... 1369 Annunciation of Savoy ................................................ 1355 St Maurice of Savoy ...................................................... 1454 St Michael of France .................................................... 1469 The Sword .................................................................. 1525 The Thistle 809, revived .............................................. 1540 Holy Ghost .................................................................. 1578 St Lazarus .................................................................. 1607 Generosity of Prussia .................................................. 1685 Lily of France ............................................................ 1701 Black Eagle of Prussia .................................................. 1701 Fidelity ....................................................................... 1729 St Jamarius .................................................................. 1738 Military Merit .............................................................. 1740 Polar Star .................................................................... 1748 Military Merit (France) ................................................ 1769 St Stanislaus .................................................................. 1765 Immaculate Conception, or Charles III. of Spain, founded on the old "Oak of Navarre" ......................... 1771 Vasa .......................................................................... 1783 St Patrick ..................................................................... 1783 St Ferdinand and Merit, Sicily ..................................... 1800 Iron Crown, for Holy only ............................................ 1805 Leopold ....................................................................... 1831 Saviour, Greece .......................................................... 1833

PRINCELY AND DUCAL ORDERS.

The orders of St Mark and of the Golden Stole of Venice, date from the earlier times of the Doges; added to these are—

The Golden Fleece ..................................................... A.D. 1430 St Stephen of Tuscany ................................................ 1561 Sleeper, or the Red Eagle of Bayreuth, subsequently the White Eagle of Prussia ........................................ 1705 Fidelity of Baden Durlach ............................................ 1716 White Falcon of Saxo Weimar ..................................... 1732 St Anne of Holstein (now Russia) .................................. 1735 The Chase of Wurtemberg ........................................... 1719 Happy Alliance (Saxe Hildburghausen) ......................... 1749