Chivalry and knighthood

tion were called loyalists. Most of us now think that the king in this case was opposing liberty and that those who were disloyal to him were in the right.

Chivalry combined the courage of the warrior and the loyalty of the vassal with something finer and broader. The knight was brought up to be faithful to his superior; he was also to be a brave warrior. But he was not loyal just to his superior, nor did he fight with the single idea of conquering, no matter how. The true knight must protect the weak. He must be especially courteous to ladies and help them in distress. If a woman were ill treated it was the part of the knight to right her wrongs. Walter Scott represented the knight Ivanhoe as undertaking the cause of the Jewess Rebecca who had been accused of witchcraft. When a knight fought he must fight fair. He must be generous to his defeated foe, not kill him after he had yielded. To make a slave of his prisoner. or of ladies whom he might capture would be contrary to his ideals. The knight indeed took vows, much as the priest took VOWS. When he was made a knight he handed over his sword to a priest who blessed it and gave it back. Chaucer describes a knight who "loved chivalrie, truthe and honour, freedom and curtoisie." He was a valiant fighter and yet he did not boast or abuse. "He nevere yet no vileyne ne sayd: In all his lyf, unto no manner wight."

Chevalier Bayard was a French type of the perfect knight, a gallant fighter for country, a passionate admirer of justice, sans peur et sans reproche,”—without fear and without reproach. Later changes in the social order made the outer forms of chivalry as empty and meaningless as Don Quixote's charging the windmill.

While the institution of knighthood passed away except as a form, generosity to the unfortunate, an ideal which knighthood had taught, survived as a fine tradition. Sir Philip Sidney, dying on the field of Zutphen in 1586, declined the offered drink of water, and passed the flask to a soldier lying mortally wounded beside him, saying "Thy necessity is greater than mine." In the battle of Santiago, when a Spanish battleship was burning and sinking, the American sailors began to cheer in victory, but Captain Philip saw Spanish sailors wounded, struggling in the waters, and called to his men, "Don't cheer, boys, the poor fellows are dying." This was the finest chivalry.

Finally we notice the ideal of the gentleman. Today The no one likes to be told, "you are no gentleman." Yet gentleman it is not long since only a few were regarded as gentlemen. It is one of the words that at first applied to a select class. Then it came to stand for the qualities which that class had or ought to have. Finally when men became more democratic, they began to think that any one might be a gentleman if he had the right qualities. In this respect it is something like the word "kind" which we saw at first was applied only to the way in which a man treated his own kin. Then it came to be thought right to be kind to all. The word gentleman was at first an exclusive word, a word meaning "upper class," and especially "military upper class." The word "lady" corresponded to the word gentleman," but in recent times it has not succeeded as well in taking on new meaning. polite term.

It is largely a

The word gentleman is from the Latin word "gens,” which means "family family" or stock." In Rome the

66

Meaning of the word

Two

classes

of men

66

prominent men all belonged to certain great families
or clans which had been the nucleus of the city. Julius
Cæsar belonged to the Julian gens. Those who did not
belong to any of these families were plebeians, and were
regarded as inferior. The "first families," or gentes,
doubtless owed their position in the first place to the
fact that they were the best fighters. In the Middle
Ages there was, as we have seen, a great division into
two classes: the warriors and their families were in one
class and were called "noble," or nobiles in Latin;
the villeins, citizens of towns, traders, craftsmen, and
laborers were in the other class and were called ig-
noble," or ignobiles. A warrior in battle wore a special
sign upon his armor to show who he was, and it later
came to be regarded as necessary for a gentleman to
have a coat of arms. Certain men who did not orig-
inally belong to the class of gentry might enter it. In
Shakespeare's time a student of law, or liberal sciences,
a captain in war, or good adviser of the state who could
afford to live without manual labor and keep up a good
appearance might have a coat of arms granted him,
"be called master, which is the title that men give to
esquires and gentlemen, and be reputed for a gentleman
ever after." Shakespeare became a gentleman instead
of a
"vagabond" in this way. A little later Daniel
Defoe, who wrote Robinson Crusoe, tells us that
although a tradesman could not be a gentleman, he
might buy land and then his sons could be gentlemen.
The title of "master" referred to above has now come
to be pronounced "mister" and used to address almost
any man. But among the early settlers in this country
it was not so generally applied. The writer's great-
grandfather at the time of the Revolution signed his
name, "William Tufts, gentleman," while his brother

signed his," John Tufts, yeoman." As both brothers were farmers, it seems likely that William signed himself" gentleman " because he was an officer in the army.

of the

gentleman

It was natural that the gentry should expect a certain The standard of their class. Every group tends to do this, standard and we have seen how chivalry or knighthood set up a very definite ideal for all its members. The gentleman was expected to act like a member of his class. He was expected, as becomes a military class, to be brave. His word of honor always had to be taken as true. If his word was doubted, he was expected to fight to prove that he was right. He was expected to be ready to fight a duel if any one of his own class challenged him, because this was the way to maintain his "honor," that is, his reputation as belonging to the upper class of fighters. He dared not do manual labor, for this was the sign of the lower class of villeins or slaves who were not fighters. To "spend money like a gentleman" implied that you did not think of money or care for it—as perhaps a merchant or a poor man would care for it. A gentleman was expected to pay gambling debts to those of his own class, for these were debts of honor, but he did not need to be so particular about paying his landlady, or his washerwoman, or his tailor, for these belonged to a lower class. He must treat a "lady" with respect and politeness, for she was of his class. He might deceive a girl of lower rank or treat her outrageously without feeling that he had done anything unworthy of a gentleman.

A lady of course was not expected to be brave; The indeed it was unladylike to be strong minded or inde- lady pendent. She was expected to be scrupulously dignified, careful in her manners, not too free with men; and like the gentleman, she dared not do servile labor,

Group

standards

Noblesse

oblige

though certain kinds of fine needlework and housework were not disgraceful.

“Gentleman" and "lady " have then their good and their bad elements, which are due to their origin as class words. Part of the good and bad points go with belonging to any kind of group or class; part of them are due to the particular kind of class which was made up of gentlemen and ladies.

To belong to any group means that we must conform to what the group stands for. If we belong to a club we must keep the rules. If we belong to a church we know that this ought to make a difference in our conduct. A member of a school cannot behave exactly as though he were not a member of it. As members of any group we cannot do just exactly as we may fancy, or just as our first impulse may prompt us; we must stop and think. We saw how the clan had customs for its members which they had to follow. And we saw that they were chiefly customs that prescribed how to behave toward other members of the clan; we saw that the important custom for dealing with outsiders was blood revenge. In the case of such a group as the gentry which lived among other people they would be more constantly reminded of their own standards by contrast with the common people. They felt so proud to belong to the gentry class that its rules had a very strong hold upon them. The French had a phrase for this, noblesse oblige, to belong to the nobility has its obligations. The rules of this class became what we call a code, that is, a system of rules or standards that all in the class should obey.

Besides this feeling of obligation is the feeling that in your group all are equal or nearly so. You are but