But the influence of the feudal system in giving form and spirit to the institutions of chivalry, was much more conspicuous and important. That passion for military adventure, which may be traced in almost every nation, at a certain stage of their progress towards civilization, would be much increased by the principles and effects of the feudal system. The territory each noble possessed had been gained by the sword ; the acknowledgment he paid for it, was the employment of his sword in the ser vice of his sovereign; and by the same means alone could it be defended from the attacks of his restless and power ful neighbours. Much of his time, therefore, must have been taken up in actual warfare; and what was not thus employed, was naturally devoted to those amusements which would increase his military skill, and which bore the semblance of war.
That high sense of honour, and that pride in redress ing wrongs and removing grievances, which distinguish ed the Scandinavian nations, would have ample scope during the violence, rapine, and plunder of the feudal state; while the attentive and respectful gallantry which was equally conspicuous among them, would be cherish ed and called into constant exercise in the castles of the barons, amidst the free commerce and conversation of the ladies. The religious character which distinguished chivalry arose out of the manners of the times and the state of society, and therefore need not be traced to any particular and predominating cause.
The only author who regards the feudal system as ab solutely hostile to chivalry, is Pinkerton ; but as his opi nion is not supported either by authority or argument, it cannot be expected to outweigh the reasons, which have been brought forward to prove that this system, though it did not actually give birth to chivalry, was very instrumental in bringing it to maturity.
To sum up the grand inference from the investigation which has been gone into, and the train of reasoning which has been pursued. The theories respecting the origin of chivalry, which were enumerated in the begin ning of this article, evidently confound two things, quite distinct in their nature and character. That theory which would seek the origin of chivalry among the nations of the East, overlooking that nice regard to honour, that courtesy of manners, and that respectful and delicate gal lantry, which formed its characteristic features, insists only on that resemblance between the knights of chival ry and the warriors of the East, which consists in their common passion for war, enterprize, and adventure. In
this theory, therefore, the natural result of a certain stage. of society is confounded with a regular institution, exist mg certainly in a stage of society nearly similar, and therefore embracing its features, but also superadding many regulations, and exhibiting many points of charac ter, utterly inconsistent with the manners, the feelings, and the institutions of the East.
That theory, which ascribes the origin of chivalry to the Scandinavian nations, approaches nearer the truth. It can trace among them not merely the love of warfare. enterprize, and adventure, and a high estimation of per sonal valour, but also a nice regard to honour, and a re spectful and delicate attention to the female sex. But these qualities existed generally; they were not the pe culiar chara-teristic, nor regarded as the especial obliga tion of a certain portion of the community. In short, among the Scandinavians, almost every feature that after wards composed chivalry may be traced ; but they were not among them, as when it was established, arranged in their regular order, and with their due proportion.
It only remains to notice the theory, which considers chivalry as of Armorican origin. Among the Celtic tribes, there is no evidence of that high regard to honour, and the female sex, which has been so often stated as the characteristics of chivalry. This theory, therefore, is not built on such strong presumptive evidence as that which refers it to a Scandinavian origin.
Those authors who regard the examples of military investiture, during or before the reign of Charlemagne, as proofs of the existence of chivalry at that early pe riod, likewise confound two things, quite distinct in their nature and character. By the military investiture, the right of carrying arms, and engaging in warfare alone, was bestowed; and there does not appear to have been any other obligation imposed, but that of employing the arms with which the soldier was invested, in the service and for the protection of his sovereign. Although, therefore, the spirit of chivalry was drawn from the love of military enterprize, which is common to all nations at a certain period of their age, and from that nice suscep tibility of honour, and high estimation of the female sex, which were peculiar to the Scandinavian tribes ; and though the ceremonies of chivalry were borrowed from those employed on occasions of military investiture, yet these facts arc by no means sufficient to warrant the con clusion, that it deriN ed its origin from any of these sources.