confined to overturn so deep rooted a prejudice. The whole face of society presented them with the conviction, that the unwarlike were equally useless to themselves and to others; the idea of questioning the consistency of war with the holy spirit of Christianity did not enter their minds; hence their religion, instead of leading them to interpret its doctrines against what they held as man's great duty, superadded enthusiasm to its practice. But their vows mitigated the personal enmity of the combatants, and disowned the practice of unnecessary cruelty. We are frequently led, by an unphilosophical wonder at the caprices of passion, to doubt the sincerity of that virtue, which on some occasions prompted the utmost magnanimity, and yet, on others admitted of deeds, which the blood recoils from. But the inconsistency was not felt by those who acted from no general principle, at least, from no well reasoned principle; nor are the meltings of pity, or the glow of generosity on one occasion, any security that the fury of revenge, or the insensibility of selfishness will not prevail at another. Our own principles, in minds not used to generalizing, sometimes display equal inconsistency. Were we to take the hatred and severity, rigid sectarians exhibit towards their opponents, as a test of their general humanity, we should think them more like fiends than human beings. A stranger would scarcely understand the self-denying fervour with which, on all other occasions, he would observe them devoting themselves to acts of benevolence.

Therefore, neither are we entitled to deny the

reality of chivalrous virtue, because, even in its best days, its generosity and tenderness were not uniformly consistent.

On the other side, with respect to its effects on the condition of women, if chivalry preserved them from the slavery or degradation, to which the feudal spirit always tended to reduce the defenceless, we cannot therefore infer that their actual condition was as good as in civilized times like the present. When respect and deference were considered their unquestionable right, and their approbation and love one of the highest honours, their station and influence in domestic life must certainly have been raised. From the outrage and violence of the times, they were probably very much protected. The manners of chivalry must have banished from general society many of those galling inflictions, which flow from contempt; and which rough and insolent tempers are so apt to indulge in, when they can do so without personal danger. The scorn of female understandings, the sneer at their opinions, the petty jealousy of their interference, the servile acquiescence arrogant men sometimes extort from women, appear scarcely compatible with the respectful demeanour towards them, in which the knights were brought up from their earliest years. But, notwithstanding this stream of refinement with which chivalry had embellished the dark hues of society, we must not forget that the dark hues were the more prevalent. Whatever the generous principles of the order, we must not forget the selfishness and violence of the feudal spirit, and the irritability of tempers, to whom leisure was uneasiness.

Are men, who have sincerely adopted generous principles now, always consistent in applying them to practice? For example, are the families and dependants of Liberals, always more free than those of Tories? In describing the spirit of chivalry, it is too much forgotten, that the constancy of the knight to his ladye love was always before marriage. We have no reason to believe the violation of its sanctity afterwards, on the part of the husband, was more strongly condemned by the spirit of chivalry, than by the moral principle of the present day. It is strongly condemned at present, and yet it occurs. It is certain, that in those times manners were generally very licentious*; and, whatever the restraint his vows may have imposed on his passions while the enthusiasm of the order was in its first strength, the cus

* The period of chivalry extended over many ages and many countries. Diversity of manners and morals might, therefore, be expected. Regarding it as a whole, it was one of the most horrible in history. Nevertheless, the morality and the chivalrous ideas, were co-existing with the ferocity and the licentiousness. These contradictions, says M. Guizot, are the peculiar character of the Middle Ages. In strictness, therefore, perhaps nothing ought to be represented as general. With regard to private morals, two opposite influences were acting upon men; the passion for adventure and war, and the influence of domestic life. The first stimulated bad passions, the last promoted virtue; chivalry attempted to unite the best qualities of both. The characters of men were different as each influence prevailed. Sometimes, perhaps, the same individual, at different times, obeyed different impulses, as is frequent with rude minds. But as a code of opinion, Guizot and Hallam are both agreed that chivalry assisted long and powerfully to civilize Europe. See page 127, where the views now recalled to the attention of the reader are given at greater length.

tom, which appears very early, for the knight, even when married, always to have some fair idol, not his wife, to serve with a sort of poetic worship, however guiltless it may often have been, was not favourable to morals.

Nor should we omit to remark, that the annals of chivalry relate only to the noble. It is not easy to discover what influence it had on the condition or manners of other classes. There is no doubt that the knight's vow included protection to the poor. It was long held dishonourable to injure peasants*. Instances occur in the Chronicles, in which the troops of both nations or parties passed through the same village, while the peasants scarcely interrupted their works. At the siege of La Reole, as related by Froissart, when the English were insisting on unconditional surrender, we find Sir Agos de Bans, who had conducted its defence, as earnest for terms for the meanest of his men as for the knights themselves. "If we should do so, sir," says he, (surrender unconditionally,) "I hold you of such honour and gallantry, that you will show us every mark of favour, as you should wish the King of France should do towards any of your knights; and, please God, you will never stain your honour for a few poor soldiers that are within here, who have gained their money with great pain and trouble, and whom I have brought here with me from Provence, Savoy, and Dauphiné; for know, that if the lowest of our men be not treated with mercy, as well as the highest, we will sell our lives in such manner as

• MILLS's Chivalry. Encyc. Brit.—Supp.; art. Chivalry.

none besieged ever did." Neither are instances of this nature related with pomp, as bestowing peculiar lustre on the deed, but as the simple and natural conduct of those who moved in the ranks of the knightly.

On the other side, the spirit of the order was highly aristocratical. The Bourgeoisie were restricted from the use of gold, silver, or silk in their apparel; and in most countries, the duty of the knight towards ladies was expressly confined to those of noble birth. In the Spanish order of merit already mentioned, one of its rules was, that the knight was never to converse with mechanics or artisans! The Jacquerie, the most fearful and savage insurrection ever known, of the poor against the rich, and which was marked by a spirit of the most deadly malice, was occasioned entirely by the deplorable sufferings of the peasantry, who were totally neglected by their landlords and owners: at the same time that industry and accumulation were almost wholly impeded by the ravages of war.

That mercy to the peasantry which has just been alluded to, seems therefore to have implied little more, than the protection of those who came within the immediate reach of the knight's courtesy. It restrained useless slaughter, and even that was an important step compared with the sanguinary spirit of barbarian warfare; but it evidently created no feeling that it was a duty to improve the general condition of the dependent people, nor did it ever restrain the pillage of a country, when it was the interest of the invader to lay it waste.

Sir Walter Scott, who cannot be accused of