If chivalry existed prior to the regular and full estab lishment and operation of the feudal system, and was deriNed, in its perfect state, from the Scandinavians, we should be able to trace it in England before the con quest. On the continent, it may be difficult to deter mine, whether it owed its origin to the feudal system, or how far that system, co-operating with other antece dent or cotemporary causes, modified and perfected it ; because it is not easy to fix the time when the feudal system was in full and regular operation there : but it is well known, that in England this system did not exist till the conquest, and that it was introduced and esta blished by William. It is therefore necessary to exa mine those instances of investiture of which history in forms us before the conquest, in order that it may be de termined whether they were purely military, or whether in their nature and object they resembled the ceremonies, and were intended to impose the obligations and duties of chivalry. There are only two instances in the Anglo Saxon period of the English history of investiture. The most ancient occurs in the time of Alfred, and is related by William of Al almcsbury : that monarch, struck with the appearance and character of Athelstan, made him a miles before the prescribed and usual age, by investing him with a purple garment, a belt adorned with gems, and a Saxon sword with a golden scabbard. In this ac count there are certainly no traces of chivalry. The in vestiture was purely military ; it had not even many of the ceremonies of chivalry, and does not appear to have imposed any of its peculiar duties. The other instance occurred subsequently, in the time of Edward the Con fessor, and is recorded much more fully by Ingulphus. In giving an account of Hereward, who had distinguish-. ed himself by his prowess and his victories, he says, that as, notwithstanding- the military command he possessed, he had not yet been legally bound with the belt, ac cording to the established custom, he resolved to under go that ceremony ; for it was the custom of the English, (adds Ingulphus,) that whoever meant to be legally consecrated to warfare, should, on the eve of the day appointed for his consecration, confess all his sins to some priest ; and afterwards spend the night in the church, in prayer and mortification ; on the morrow, af ter having attended mass, he should offer his sword on the altar, and the gospel being mad, the priest should place the sword, having blest it, on the neck of the sol dier (miles) bestow ing on him at the same time, his be nediction." Ingulphus concludes this account with ob serving, that the Normans abominating this mode of consecrating a miles, considered the person so consecrated not us a legitimate miles, but as a degenerated and sloth ful knight. The part of the ceremony which the Nor mans objected to, was that which vested the power of making a miles with the priesthood, not the forms which were passed through ; and accordingly, soon after the establishment of the Norman power in England, the pri vilege of making knights was virtually, though not ex pressly taken from that order.
The instance quoted from Ingulphus, is by no means sufficient to prove the existence of chivalry in England before the Conquest. The ceremonies, indeed, are simi lar, but there is no mention of the duties imposed by chi valry ; and, what is still more decisive of the question, Ingulphus expressly points out the object and effect of the consecration, viz. that the person so consecrated, might legitimately engage in warfare. Here, then, we have only military investiture, but no traces of the spit i' and genius of chivalry. That high regard for their ho nour, and that refined and enthusiastic gallantry which may be traced in the manners of the Scandinavian na tions, was not yet expressly and solemnly incorporated with the love of military enterprise, so common and so necessary to all barbarous nations. The opinion that
chivalry took its rise from the Crusades, is advanced by a friend of Bishop Hurd's, in his Letters on Chivalry and Romance ; and, although no attempt is made to sup port it by the evidence of cotemporary authors, yet the ingenuity with which it is maintained, by means of pre sumptive evidence, renders it deserving of some notice.
The advocate of this opinion supposes, that the rest less spirit of the vassals of the Gothic princes, which had been checked and retarded by the Crusades, broke out, when they were no longer engaged in them, in all the extravagancies of knight errantry. That the war like and restless genius of the feudatories took this turn. he ascribes to the military fame they had acquired in the Holy Land, and the love and passion of enterprise with which the Crusades had inspired them. " Their late expeditions had given them a turn for roving in quest of adventures ; and their religious zeal had infused high no tions of piety, justice, and chastity." The scene of action being now more confined, they turned themselves from the world's debate to private and personal animosities. Chivalry was employed in rescu ing humble and faithful vassals from the oppression of petty lords ; their women from savage lust ; and the hoary heads of hermits (a species of eastern monks much reverenced in the Holy Land,) from rapine and out rage.
" In the mean time, the courts of the feudal reigns grew magnificent and polite ; and, as the military constitution still subsisted, military merit was to be up held ; but, wanting its old objects, it naturally softened into the fictitious images and courtly exercises of war, in jests and tournaments, where the honour of the ladies supplied the place of zeal for the holy sepulchre ; and thus the courtesy of elegant love, but of a wild and fa natic species, as being engrafted on spiritual enthusiasm, came to mix itself with the other characters of the knight errants." But this opinion, however plausible, will not bear the test either of argument or authority. Bishop Hurd just ly remarks, " that unless the seeds of that spirit, which appeared in the Crusades, had been plentifully sown, and indeed grown up to some maturity in the feudal times preceding that event, it would not have been possible for the western princes to give that politic diversion to their turbulent vassals, which the new hypothesis supposes." And there is undoubted evidence that chivalry, " in its most peculiar and characteristic forms," existed at least as early as the beginning of the eleventh century. Be sides. in the accounts which we have of the first crusades, evident traces are to be found of this institution full formed, and operating with powerful influence on the manners and pursuits of the knights who embarked in it.
It now remains to consider the opinion of those who maintain, that chivalry was the natural effect of the feu dal policy, and who consequently fix its origin at that period, when this policy was in full establishment and complete operation.
The feudal policy may be regarded, either as the cause of the ceremonies and institutions of chivalry only, or of its spirit and characteristic principles. In the former point of view, it would naturally add to the solemnity of military investiture. As, under the feudal system, those lands which belonged to minors were held by the sove reign, till the owner was able to discharge the military duties connected with their possession, the period as signed by law, at which he was deemed capable of de fending his land with complete arms, or with those which a knight was entitled to wear, and at which the sovereign resigned it with his possession, would naturally be cele brated with great pomp and solemnity.