The History of Chivalry; Or, Knighthood and Its Times, Volume 1 (of 2)Mills, Charles
Philosophy
The History of Chivalry; Or, Knighthood and Its Times, Volume 1 (of 2)
Mills, Charles
Chivalry
The virtue of liberality seems to have been a striking feature of the
chivalric character. It proceeded from that loftiness of spirit which felt
that avarice would have debased a heroism that should contend for crowns
and kingdoms. The minstrels of the times, who kept alive the flame of
chivalry, encouraged this virtue above all others, for upon it depended
their own subsistence. But it often sprang from better motives than pride
or vanity. The good Lord de Foix gave every day five florins, in small
money, at his gate, to poor folks, for the love of God; and he was liberal
and courteous in his gifts to others; for he had certain coffers in his
chambers, out of which he would oft-times take money to give to lords,
knights, and squires, such as came to him, and none departed from him
without a gift.[176] A knight, indeed, was taught to consider nothing his
own, save his horse and arms, which he ought to keep as his means of
acquiring honour, by using them in the defence of his religion and
country, and of those who were unable to defend themselves.[177]
* * * * *
[Sidenote: Humility.]
The valiancy of chivalry was beautifully chastened by humility;
"And of his port as meek as is a maid."
Every hero, as well as Chaucer's knight, demeaned himself in all things as
if he had been in the hands of God, and in his name used his arms,
without vaunting or praising himself; for praise was regarded as blame in
the mouth of him who commended his own actions. It was thought that if the
squire had vain-glory of his arms, he was not worthy to be a knight, for
vain-glory was a vice which destroyed the merits and the claims of
chivalry.
The heroes of the Round Table were the mirror of all Christian knights;
and the generous modesty of Sir Lancelot was reflected in the conduct of
many a true soldier of chivalry. In the lofty fancies of romantic Europe
that valiant friend of Arthur was the prowest of all the heroes of
Britain; yet he always gave place to Sir Tristram, and often retired from
the field of tournament when that noble son of arms was performing his
devoir. Even when he was entitled to the prize, Sir Lancelot would not
receive it, maugre the offering of king, queen, and knights; but when the
cry was great through the field, "Sir Lancelot, Sir Lancelot hath won the
field, this day!" that noble subject of praise cried, on the contrary,
"Sir Tristram hath won the field; for he began first, and endured last,
and so hath he done the first day, the second, and the third day."[178]
[Sidenote: Courtesy.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account