The History of Chivalry; Or, Knighthood and Its Times, Volume 1 (of 2) — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
The History of Chivalry; Or, Knighthood and Its Times, Volume 1 (of 2)
John Stuart Mill · en
Some of the rules and maxims of chivalry had their origin in that state of
society in which the feudal system arose; and regarded particularly in a
military light, we find chivalry a part of the earliest condition of a
considerable part of the European world. The bearing of arms was never a
matter of mere private choice. Among the Germans, it rested with the
state to declare a man qualified to serve his country in arms. In an
assembly of the chiefs of his nation, his father, or a near relation,
presented a shield and a javelin to a young and approved candidate for
martial honours, who from that moment was considered as a member of the
commonwealth, and ranked as a citizen. In northern as well as in central
Europe, both in Scandinavia and Germany, the same principle was observed;
and a young man at the age of fifteen became an independent agent, by
receiving a sword, a buckler, and a lance, at some public meeting.[9]
[Sidenote: Fraternity.]
The spirit of clanship, or fraternity, which ran through the chivalry of
the middle ages, is of the remotest antiquity. It existed in Germany, in
Scandinavia, and also in Gaul.[10] In all these countries, every young
man, when adorned with his military weapons, entered the train of some
chief; but he was rather his companion than his follower; for, however
numerous were the steps and distinctions of service, a noble spirit of
equality ran through them all. These generous youths formed the bulwark of
their leader in war, and were his ornament in peace. This spirit of
companionship shewed itself in all its power and beauty in the field. It
was disgraceful for a prince to be surpassed in valour by his companions;
their military deeds were to be heroic, but the lustre of them was never
to dim the brightness of his own fame. The chief fought for victory, the
followers fought for their chief. The defence of the leader in battle, to
die with him rather than to leave him, were, in the minds of the military
fathers of Europe, obvious and necessary corollaries of these principles.
The spirit of companionship burnt more fiercely in remote ages, than in
times commonly called chivalric; for if, by the chance of war, a person
was thrown into the hands of an enemy, his military companions would
surrender themselves prisoners, thinking it disgraceful to live in
security and indolence, when their chief and associate was in misery.[11]