FROM the period of the fall of Acre, crusades were only spoken of; but the spirit of Chivalry was perhaps not the less active, though it had taken another course: nor did it lose in purity by being directed, moderated, and deprived of the ferocity which always follows fanaticism. The Holy Land had become a place of vice and debauchery, as well as a theatre for the display of great deeds and noble resolution; and we find, that however orderly and regular any army was on its departure from Europe, it soon acquired all the habits of immorality and improvidence which seemed some inherent quality of that unhappy climate. This was peculiarly apparent in the two Orders of the Hospital and the Temple, the rules of which were particularly calculated to guard against luxury of every kind; yet, the one, till its extinction, and both, during their sojourn, in Palestine, were the receptacle of more 313 depravity and crimes than perhaps any other body of men could produce. After the capture of Acre the knights of these two Orders retreated to Cyprus; and when some ineffectual efforts had been made to excite a new crusade for the recovery of Palestine, the Templars retired from that country, and, spreading themselves throughout their vast possessions in Europe, seem really to have abandoned all thought of fighting any more for the sepulchre. With the rest of Europe, they spoke of fresh expeditions it is true, but in the mean while they gave themselves up to the luxury, pride, and ambition, which, if it was not the real cause of their downfal, at least furnished the excuse. Philip the Fair of France, on his accession to the throne, showed great favour to the Templars,1 and held out hopes that he would attempt to establish the Order once more in the land which had given it birth. But the Templars were now deeply occupied in the politics of Europe itself: their haughty Grand Master was almost equal to a king in power, and would fain have made kings his slaves. In the disputes between Philip and Boniface VIII., the Templars took the part of the Pope, and treated the monarch, in his own realm, with insolent contempt: but they knew not the character of him whose wrath they roused. Philip was at once vindictive and avaricious, and the destruction of the Templars offered the gratification of both passions: he was also calm, bold, cunning, and remorseless, and from the vengeance of such a man it was difficult to escape. The vices of the Temple were notorious,2 and on these 314 it was easy to graft crimes of a deeper dye. Reports, rumours, accusations, circulated rapidly through Europe; and Philip, resolved upon crushing the unhappy Order, took care that on the very first vacancy, his creature, Bertrand de Got, Archbishop of Bordeaux,3 should be elevated to the papal throne. Before he suffered the ambitious Prelate to be elected, he bound him to grant five conditions, four of which were explained to him previously, but the fifth was to be kept in secrecy till after his elevation. Bertrand pledged himself to all these terms; and as soon as he had received the triple crown, was informed that the last dreadful condition was the destruction of the Order of the Temple. He hesitated, but was forced to consent; and after various stratagems to enveigle all the principal Templars into France, Philip caused them suddenly to be arrested throughout his dominions,4 and had them arraigned of idolatry, immorality, extortion, and treason, together with crimes, whose very name must not soil this page. Mixed with a multitude of charges, both false and absurd, were various others too notorious to be confuted by the body, and many which could be proved against individuals. Several members of the Order confessed some of the crimes laid to their charge, and many more were afterwards induced to do so by torture; but at a subsequent period of the trial, when the whole of the papal authority was used to give the proceeding the character of a regular legal inquisition, a number of individuals confessed, on the promise of pardon, different offences, sufficient to justify rigorous punishment against themselves, and to implicate deeply the institution to which they belonged. James de Mollay, however, the Grand Master, firmly denied every charge, and defended 315 himself and his brethren with a calm and dignified resolution that nothing could shake.
It would be useless as well as painful to dwell upon all the particulars of their trial, where space is not allowed to investigate minutely the facts: it is sufficient to say that the great body of the Templars in France were sentenced to be imprisoned for life, and a multitude were burnt at the stake, where they showed that heroic firmness which they had ever evinced in the field of battle. Their large possessions were of course confiscated. In Spain, their aid against the Moors was too necessary to permit of similar rigour, and they were generally acquitted in that country. In England, the same persecutions were carried on, but with somewhat of a milder course: and the last blow was put to the whole by a council held at Vienne, which formally dissolved the Order, and transferred its estates to the Hospitallers. James Mollay and the Grand Prior of France were the last victims, and were publicly burnt in Paris for crimes that, beyond doubt, they did not commit. To suppose that the Templars were guilty of the specific offences attributed to them, would be to suppose them a congregation of madmen; but to believe they were a religious or virtuous order, would be to charge all Europe with a general and purposeless conspiracy.
In the mean while, the knights Hospitallers confined themselves to the objects for which they were originally instituted; and, that they might always be prepared to fight against the enemies of Christendom, they obtained a cession of the island of Rhodes, from which they expelled the Turks. Here they continued for many years, a stumblingblock in the way of Moslem conquest; but at length, the chancellor of the Order, named d’Amaral,5 disappointed of the dignity of grand master, in revenge, it is said, invited the Turks to the 316 siege, and gave them the plan of the island with its fortifications. Soliman II. instantly led an army against it, but the gallant knights resisted with a determined courage that drove the imperious Sultaun almost to madness. He commanded his celebrated general, Mustapha, to be slain with arrows,6 attributing to him the misfortune of the siege; and at length had begun to withdraw his forces, when a more favourable point of attack was discovered, and the knights were ultimately obliged to capitulate. The city of Rhodes was by this time reduced to a mere heap of stones, and at one period of the siege, the Grand Master himself remained thirty-four days in the trenches, without ever sitting down to food, or taking repose, but such as he could gain upon an uncovered mattress at the foot of the wall. So noble a defence well merited an honourable fate; and even after their surrender, the knights were the objects of admiration and praise to all Europe, though Europe had suffered them to fall without aid. The Sultaun, before he allowed the Order to transfer itself to Candia, which had been stipulated by the treaty, requested to see the Grand Master: and to console him for his loss, he said “The conquest and the fall of empires are but the sports of fortune.” He then strove to win the gallant knight who had so well defended his post, to the Ottoman service, holding out to him the most magnificent offers, and showing and his devoted companions. In vain he wrote the viceroy of Sicily; no succour arrived for many days. The town was almost reduced to extremity. The bastion of St. Catherine was scaled, and remained some time in the hands of the infidels, who would have maintained it longer, had not La Valette himself rushed to the spot; and, after receiving a severe wound, succeeded in dislodging the assailants.
A small succour came at length under the command of Don Juan de Cardonna; but this was overbalanced by the junction of the viceroy of Algiers with the attacking force. The bulwark of all Christendom was being swept away, while Christian kings stood looking on, and once more saw the knights of St. John falling man by man before the infidels, without stretching forth a hand to save them.
A large army had, in the mean while, been assembled in Sicily, under the pretence of assisting Malta: and at the last the soldiers clamoured so loudly to be led to the glorious service for which they had been enrolled, that the vacillating viceroy, after innumerable delays was forced to yield to their wishes, and set sail for the scene of conflict.12 The island was reached in 322 safety, the troops disembarked; and, though the Turks still possessed the advantages of numbers, a panic seized them, and they fled. Joy and triumph succeeded to danger and dread, and the name of La Valette and his companions, remains embalmed amongst the memories of the noble and great.
This was the last important event in the history of the Order of St. John; and since that day, it has gradually descended to later years, blending itself with modern institutions, till its distinctive character had been lost, and the knights of Malta are reckoned amongst the past.
It does not seem necessary to trace the other military fraternities, which originated in the crusades, to their close; but something more must be said concerning the progress of Chivalry in Europe, and the effect that it had upon society in general. The Holy Wars were, indeed, the greatest efforts of knighthood; but during the intervals between each expedition beyond the seas, and that which followed; and often during the time of preparation, the knight found plenty of occupation for his sword in his own country. The strife with the Moors in Spain bore entirely the aspect of the crusades, but the sanguinary conflicts between France and England offered continual occasions both for the display of knightly valour and of knightly generosity. The bitterest national enmity existed between the two countries — they were ever engaged in struggling against each other; and yet we find, through the whole, that mutual courtesy when the battle was over; and, in the times of truce, that frank co-operation, or that rivalry in noble efforts, which belonged so peculiarly to Chivalry. Occasionally, it is true, a cruel and bloodthirsty warrior would stain his successes with ungenerous rigour — for where is the institution which has ever been powerful enough to root out the evil spot from the heart of man? But the great tone of all the wars of Chivalry was valour in the field and courtesy in the 323 hall. Deeds were often done in the heat of blood, which general barbarism of manners alone would excuse; and most of the men whom we are inclined to love and to admire, have left some blot on that page of history which records their lives. But to judge of the spirit of the Order, we must not look to those instances where the habits of the age mixed up a vast portion of evil with the general character of the knight, but we must turn our eyes upon those splendid examples, where chivalrous feeling reached its height, did away all the savage cruelty of the time, and raised human actions almost to sublimity.
Remarking these instances, and seeing what the spirit of Chivalry could produce in its perfection, we may judge what the society of that day would have been without it: we may trace truly the effect if had in civilizing the world, and we may comprehend the noble legacy it left to after-years. Had Chivalry not existed, all the vices, which we behold in that period of the world’s history, would have been immensely increased; for there would have been no counteracting incitement. The immorality of those times would have been a thousand degrees more gross, for passion would have wanted the only principle of refinement; the ferocity of the brave would have shown itself in darker scenes of bloodshed, for no courtesy would have tempered it with gentleness. Even religion would have longer remained obscured; for the measures taken to darken it, by those whose interest it was to make it a means of rule, would have been but faintly opposed, had not Chivalry, by softening the manners of the age, and promoting general communication between man and man, gradually done away darkness and admitted light.
Because knights were superstitious, it has been supposed that superstition was a part of knighthood; but this was not at all the case. The gross errors grafted by the Roman church on the pure doctrine of salvation, often taught the knight cruelty, 324 and disgraced Chivalry, by making it the means of persecution; but the tendency of the Order itself was to purify and refine, and the civilization thereby given to the world in general, ultimately produced its effect in doing away superstition. The libertinism of society in the middle ages has also been wrongly attributed to knighthood, and thus the most beneficial institutions are too often confounded with the vices that spring up around them. That the fundamental doctrine of Chivalry, if I may so express myself, was decidedly opposed to every infraction of morality, is susceptible of proof. In all authors who have collected the precepts of Chivalry, we find sobriety and continence enjoined as amongst the first duties of a knight: and female chastity was so particularly esteemed, that we are told by the Chevalier de la Tour, if a lady of doubtful virtue presented herself in company with the good, whatever her rank, the knights would cause her to give place to those of unsullied fame. From every thing that I can read or hear, I am inclined to believe that the virtues of the knights of old arose in the Order of Chivalry alone, and that their faults belonged to the age in which they lived.13
In common with all human institutions, Chivalry presents a new aspect in every page of the book of history. Sometimes it is severe and stern; sometimes light and gay; but the qualities of valour, courtesy, and enthusiasm, shine out at every period of its existence.
At the battle of Crecy, Edward the Black Prince, then fourteen years of age, fought for his knightly spurs; and his father, King Edward III., from a mound near the mill, beheld his gallant son surrounded on every side by enemies. The companions of the young hero sent to the King for succour, alleging the dangerous situation of the Prince of Wales; 325 on which Edward demanded, “Is he dead, or overthrown, or so wounded that he cannot continue to fight?” And on being informed that his son still lived, he added, “Return to him, and to those who sent you, and tell them, whatever happens, to seek no aid from me so long as my son be in life. Further say, that I command them to let the boy well win his spurs; for, please God, the day shall be his, and his honour shall rest with him.”14
In this instance, Edward required no more from his child than he was willing in his own person to endure. No one ever evinced more chivalrous courage than that monarch himself; and in the skirmish under the walls of Calais, he fought hand to hand with the famous De Ribaumont, who brought him twice upon his knee; but was at length vanquished by the King. After the battle, Edward entertained his prisoners in the town; and when supper was concluded the victorious monarch approached his adversary, took the chaplet of rich pearls from his own brow, placed it on the head of De Ribaumont, and said, “Sir Eustace, I give this wreath to you, as the best of this day’s combatants, and I beg you to wear it a year for my love. I know that you are gay and gallant, and willingly find yourselves where ladies are. Tell them then, wherever you may be, that I gave you this token; and, moreover, I free you from your prison. Go tomorrow, if it please you.”15
Such was the character of knighthood; and whether we read anecdotes like the above, or trace in the rolls of history the feats of an Edward the Black Prince, of a Duguesclin, of a Talbot, a Henry, or a Bayard, we find the same spirit; varied, indeed, according to the mind of the individual, but raising all his virtues to the highest pitch of perfection, and restraining all his faults as much as human errors can be restrained.
326It would be endless to detail all those marvels which Chivalry at various times effected; nor have I space to dwell upon Crecy, or Poitiers, or Agincourt. With respect to these great battles, where England was so eminently triumphant, it is sufficient to point out the extraordinary fact, that though the glory rested with the British, no disgrace attached to their enemies. Each knight in the French armies did every thing that personal valour could do to win the field; and the honour to England consists not so much in having conquered, as in having conquered such opponents. For long, however, it appears that the French commanders were inferior to the English in skill, and that their forces were destitute of that unity which alone secures success. At length, the son of a nobleman of Brittany, who had been much neglected in his early ears, began to make head against the English. From his infancy Bertrand Duguesclin had shown the most persevering passion for arms, which had been always repressed; till at a tournament — from the neighbourhood of which he had been purposely sent way — he appeared in disguise, defeated all that encountered him, and was only discovered by refusing to meet his own father. From that hour Duguesclin rose in the estimation of the world; and after opposing, with considerable success, Edward the Black Prince himself, on the death of that noble commander he delivered the greater part of France from the domination of the English.
One of the favourite schemes of Duguesclin was to restore to Chivalry its ancient simplicity, and he strove by every means to enforce the more severe and salutary laws by which it had been originally governed. Of course an institution, which had vast privileges and obligations, was not without rewards and punishments; and many of these were revived by Duguesclin after he had become Constable of France.
The custom of cutting the tablecloth with a knife 327 or dagger before a knight who had in any way degraded himself,16 is said, by some, to have been brought into use by Duguesclin, though others affirm that he only renewed an ancient habit. Much more severe inflictions, also, were destined for those who had dishonoured the order to which they belonged by cowardice, treachery, or any other unmanly crime. The criminal, condemned to be stripped of his knighthood, was placed upon a scaffold in the sight of the populace, while his armour was broken to pieces before his face. His shield reversed, with the coat of arms effaced, was dragged through the dirt, while the heralds proclaimed aloud his crime and his sentence. The king at arms then, thrice demanded his name; and at each time, when the pursuivant replied, the king added, “A faithless and disloyal traitor!” A basin17 of hot water was poured upon the culprit’s head, to wash away the very memory of his knighthood; and, being drawn on a hurdle to the church, he was covered with a pall, while the funeral prayers were pronounced over him, as one dead to honour and to fame.
Notwithstanding every means taken to uphold it, Chivalry gradually declined from the beginning of the fourteenth century. In England the long civil wars between the houses of York and Lancaster called into action a thousand principles opposed to knightly courtesy and generosity. Many flashes of the chivalrous spirit blazed up from time to time, it is true, but the general character of those contentions was base and interested treachery on all parts.
The mean and avaricious spirit which seized upon Henry VII. in his latter years, of course had its effect on his court and country; and the infamous extortions of his creatures, Empson and Dudley, the ruin which they brought upon many of the nobility, and the disgust and terror which their tyranny spread through the 328 land, served to check all those pageants and exercises which kept alive the sinking flame of Chivalry. Henry VIII., in the vigour of his youth, made vast efforts to give back to knighthood its ancient splendour, but the spirit had been as much injured as the external form, and though he could renew the one, he could not recall the other. The wavering tyranny of his old age, also, did more to extinguish the last sparks of knightly feeling, than his youth had done to revive the pomp of Chivalry. Then came the Reformation, and a new enthusiasm grew up through the land.
In Germany the reign of the emperor Maximilian was the last in which Chivalry can be said to have existed. Charles V. reduced all things to calculation, and though the name of knighthood remained, it soon became nothing but a sound.
The land which had given birth to the institution cherished it long; and there its efforts were continually reawakened even on its decline. During the unhappy reign of Charles VI., France, torn by factions, each struggling for the sceptre of the insane monarch, saw Chivalry employed for the purposes of ambition alone. While all parties turned their arms against their fellow-countrymen, a stranger seized on the power for which they fought, and the English house of Lancaster seated itself on the throne of France. Charles VII. succeeded to a heritage of wars; but, apparently wreckless, from the desperate state of his dominion, he yielded himself wholly to pleasure, without striking a blow for the recovery of his kingdom, till Joan of Arc recalled him to glory and himself. From that moment Chivalry again revived, and no period in French history presents knighthood under a brighter aspect than during the wars of Charles VII. At the same time, however, an institution was founded which soon changed the character of Chivalry, and in the end reduced it to a name.
The inconveniences attached to the knightly mode 329 of warfare were many and striking; order and discipline were out of the question; and though courage did much, Charles VII. saw that courage well directed would do infinitely more. To establish therefore a body, over which he might have some control, he raised a company of gendarmerie, which soon by its courage and its success drew into its own ranks all the great and noble of the kingdom. Thus came a great change over the Order; knights became mere soldiers, and Chivalry was used as a machine. Louis XI. contributed still more to do away Chivalry, by depressing the nobility and founding a standing army of mercenary troops. Charles VIII. and Louis XII. by romantic wars in Italy, renewed the fire of the waning institution; and Francis I., the most chivalrous of kings, beheld it blaze up under his reign like the last flash of an expiring flame. He, however, unwittingly aided to extinguish it entirely, and by extending knighthood to civilians, deprived it of its original character. The pomps and pageants, the exercises and games, which had accompanied the Order from its early days, were now less frequent: Popes had censured them as vain and cruel, and many Kings had discountenanced them as expensive and dangerous; but the death of Henry II., from a wound received at a tournament, put an end to them in France: and from that time all the external ceremonies of Chivalry were confined to the reception of a knight into any of the royal Orders.
The distinctive spirit also had, by this time, greatly merged into other feelings. The valour was as much the quality of the simple solider as of the knight; the courtesy had spread to society in general, and had become politeness; the gallantry had lost its refinement, and had deteriorated into debauchery. Faint traces of the lost institution appeared from time to time, especially in the wars of Henry VI. and the League. The artful and vicious policy of Catherine de Medicis did much to destroy it; the 330 filthy effeminacy of Henry III. weakened it, in common with all noble feelings; and the iron rod of Richelieu, struck at it as a remnant of the feudal power. Still a bright blaze of its daring valour shone out in Condé, a touch of its noble simplicity appeared in Turenne, but the false brilliancy of Louis XIV. completed its downfal; and Chivalry is only to be seen by its general effects on society.
Thus things fleet by us; and, in reading of all the great and mighty deeds, of which this book has given a slight and imperfect sketch, and looking on the multitudes of men who have toiled and struggled through dangers, difficulties, and horrors, for the word GLORY, the empty echo of renown, or perhaps a worse reward, I rise as from a phantasmagoria, where a world of strange and glittering figures have been passing before my eyes, changing with the rapidity of light, and each leaving an impression for memory, though the whole was but the shadow of a shade.
1 Raynouard.
2 For the history of the Templars, see Raynouard and DuPuy, Vertot, William of Nangis, Historia Templariorum, &c. Almost all the modern writers are more or less in favour of the Templars, while every contemporary authority condemns them. As to Mills‘s assertion, that they were loyal and virtuous, it is perfectly untenable. All the historians of the Holy Land, many of whom died while the Templars were at the height of their power, declared that they were a corrupt, proud, perfidious body. Mills himself shows that such was the opinion entertained of them by the Saracens; and all the general letters of the popes accuse them of manifold vices and depravities.
3 Vertot.
4 Will. of Nangis.
5 Vertot.
6 He was afterwards pardoned when the Sultaun’s wrath had abated; but Soliman would never see him more.
7 Vertot.
8 Watson; Vertot; Nic. Villagagnon.
9 Vertot; Com. de Bel. Mel.
10 Vertot; Com. de Bel. Mel.; Nic. Villag.; Watson.
11 Watson; Vertot; Com. de Bel. Mel.
12 Vertot.
13 Jouvencel; Ordre de Chevalerie; Fabliaux de la Grand d’Aussi; Chevalier de la Tour; Notes on St. Palaye.
14 Froissart, chap. 290.
15 Ibid., chap. 329.
16 Alain Chartier; Le Grand.
17 La Colombiere Theatre.