Each knight was expected to bi ing into the field with him, his esquire, his archers, and men at arms, and four, five, or six soldiers. This was reckoned the furniture of a complete lance : but if he could bring fifty men at arms, or at least twenty-four, each with one or more ser jeants, he might be admitted to the dignity of a knight banneret. This dignity does not appear to have been known in France before the reign of Philip Augustus; nor does it occur in English history before the reign of Edward I. The knight-banneret was distinguished by his banner, which was a flag of a square or oblong form, while the pennon was rounded at the end, and the guidon was nearly of a similar form. A knight-banneret could only be made by the king on the field of battle : the per son for whom this honour was intended, was led between two senior knights, with trumpets sounding before them, the heralds carrying his pennon with his coat of arms ; —when lie reached the tent of the king, the latter took the pennon, and tearing off the top of it, converted it into a banner, and restored it to its owner. The knight-ban neret had some privileges which distinguished him from the simple knights : he had his peculiar cry at arms, the presents bestowed upon him were double in value to those given to the knight, and he could aspire to, and ob tain, the titles of Count, Baron, Marquis, and Duke. As his standard on the field of battle was a banner of a square form, so also that which he displayed on the sum mit of his castle was of the same shape. Knights, unable to maintain men at arms, thought it no disgrace to fight under his banner.
In Spain, there seems to have been other distinctions ; for we are informed that Count Raymond Berenpier, of Barcelona, divided the knights of his court into two classes; the highest were called Miles vero. On the day on which a knight of this class was made, he appointed a gentleman to hold in feu under him, and another to hear his shield and lance. The other class consisted of knights minor, who followed the art of minor chivalry without the order.
In the court of a sovereign, where there were many knights, a master was appointed over them, whose au thority was very great and extensive : he carried the king's standard—judged all knights in cases of selling or pawning their horses or arms,—and settled all disputes about debts—he had power to expel, but not to adjudge to loss of limb or to death. It was his duty to see that the knights behaved to each other with friendship, cour tesy, and decorum ; and to maintain among them perfect order and good discipline.
" The virtues and endowments that were necessary to form an accomplished knight in the flourishing times of chivalry, were such as these :—beauty, strength, and agi lity of body ; great dexterity in dancing, wrestling, hunt ing, hawking, riding, tilting, and every other manly ex ercise ; the virtues of piety, chastity, modesty, cour tesy, loyalty, liberality, sobriety ; and, above all, an in \ iolablc attachment to truth, and an invincible courage."
Henry's Hist. of Eng. book iii. ch. 7.
The oath taken by the knight consisted of twenty-six articles ; and no point, next to courage, was more in t-isted upon than a regard to truth. He was even ex pected to relate the whole truth, when, by this means, he might expose his own misfortune or cowardice in combat. On his return from any expedition or enter prise on which he might have been engaged, he was bound to give in a full and minute account of all his ad entures, honourable or dishonourable, fortunate or un fortunate, that they might be registered by the heralds, and cited to animate or to console his companions. No disgrace was reckoned so indelible as that which was received by the imputation of falsehood, or by doubting the word of a knight. Such firm reliance was placed on what he promised, that if taken prisoner, he was permitted frequently to go at liberty, on the condition that he returned and surrendered himself on the appoint ed day. The most solemn oath that a sovereign could take, was on his character, and on the word of a knight.
But his love of truth, however great and predomi nating, was in some cases not equivalent to the power and influence of gallantry. A Provencal poet, gives a chevalier instructions in the art of love, expressly tells him to prefer his mistress's favour to his regard for truth, where by expressing that truth, he might injure her character, or weaken her passion for him. His gal lantry was even to lead him to disbelieve the evidence of his own senses, if they informed him that his mis tress had given him just reason to be jealous. Gallantry, indeed, as has been already observed, entered into the earliest lessons, impressions, and habits, of a chevalier. No motive or command, not even the safety of his coun try, the preservation of his ONVII life, or the orders of his sovereign, could animate him to such exertions, and to such display of valour, as the hope and desire of ob taining the favour of his mistress, and the determina tion to render her fame and beauty known and acknow ledged throughout Christendom. His highest and most valued title was that of the Servant of Love : the por trait, the device, the livery, or even the most trifling gift of his mistress, was received and cherished with the utmost fondness and reverence: the sight of these roused and preserved alive his resolution and courage in the midst of the greatest dangers and peril. He thought he established the superior and unparalleled beauty of his mistress, if he excelled his companions in feats of arms: when he challenged them to single combat, it was in the name of his mistress ; when the sovereign or ge neral led his army to the attack, " Let every one think on his mistress," was the usual and the never failing in junction. The approbation of his commander or his comrades was but a secondary consideration—the source of inferior joy. rib! si inc Dame me voyoit, was the exclamation of the knight when performing a feat of valour.