The History of Chivalry; Or, Knighthood and Its Times, Volume 2 (of 2)
John Stuart Mill · en
Such was the state of affairs in France, when, in the year 1444, Charles
established fifteen companies of cavalry. Each company consisted of one
hundred lances, and each of these men-at-arms had his archers, a coutiller
or soldier, whose weapon of offence resembled a knife rather than a sword,
and his personal attendant the page. Every one of these followers served
on horseback, and the whole force amounted to nine thousand cavalry. This
was intended to be a permanent establishment; and it was understood that
the soldiers should be paid out of the state finances, and should not like
the mercenaries of former times subsist by plunder. These companies of
ordonnance have ever been regarded as the foundation of the French
standing army. Here, then, closes the public military history of chivalry
in France. The new soldiers were stipendiaries, not cavaliers: they were
not educated for chivalry: they had not passed through the ranks of page
and squire; and not being necessarily gentlemen by name or arms, their
deeds could not be similar to those which sprang from the oath of the
cavalier. This new military force caused the feudatories of the crown no
longer to bring their vassals with them to war, except in certain extreme
cases, where the arriere ban was summoned, and then the appearance was but
a faint picture of the ancient chivalry. Thus the usage of banners and
pennons ceased, and with them the great distinctions of bannerets and
knights, because those titles no longer conferred honour and
command.[162] The title of knight lost its military character; and,
instead of being bestowed with religious solemnities, after a long and
painful education, it was often given to very young men without any
martial training whatever, when they first stepped from their father's
castles into the busy scenes of life. There was another circumstance which
sullied the glory of knighthood;--I mean the bestowing of its title upon
persons who were not of the military class. The exact time when this
innovation upon chivalry took place it is impossible to ascertain, and I
wish not to weary my readers with profitless antiquarian researches.
Knights of the law, as distinguished from those of arms, were known in the
thirteenth century; and when once the clergy, who exercised the judicial
functions, began to assume military titles, (which they did from their
spirit of engrossing every thing that was honourable,) the matter soon
grew into a custom: the lawyers claimed the privilege of wearing gold, and
in every point asserted the equality of the law, with the chivalry of a
country.[163] By degrees the title of knighthood began to be applied to
men distinguished for their learning or talents, or who for less
honourable causes were favoured by the King. This application of chivalric
honours to persons who were not within the order of chivalry was viewed
with a jealous and malignant eye by the military knights, who were not