« PoprzedniaDalej »
aussi nous ne les aymons que ung petit *.” In like manner in “ le Songe du Vergier," the knight proves that the Jews should not be molested. Again, the author of the Tree of Battles enquires, whether a Christian Prince may give a safe conduct to a Sarrazen. He answers in the affirmative. “ We should appear to hold that our law was but little reasonable or true were we to prevent those from coming among us who might embrace it.” “ Et aussi par leur aler et venir entre nous Chrestiennes ils se pourroient esmouvoir a devotion et requerir le saint baptesme a la gloire et essaucement de notre foy. Item pourroientils bien encore dire, les Chrestiens se vantent et dient que leur loy est la charitable de toutes les autres, mais ils le nous montrent mal pour deux raisons." First, if they were so charitable as they say, they would let us pass safely through their lands, with the hope that they might gain the freedom of their own who are prisoners with us. Secondly, “ ils devroient vouloir que ceulx de estrange loy veisent leur mistere et leur sacrifice affin que plusieurs qui le verroient y pourroient prendre tel exemple quils se convertiroient en leur loy t." I might have quoted the great doctors of the Church and the ecclesiastical canons, but I have preferred presenting my reader with extracts from these chivalrous writings which were in the hands of every knight, and which do certainly furnish the most un. deniable evidence that toleration and chivalry were perfectly compatible. And after all, however easy it may be to affect a philosophic air, and talk of the danger resulting from the abuse of chivalrous zeal, however easy it may be to declaim upon the savage inhumanity of such intolerance, and upon the inconsistency of cherishing hatred with the religion of Christ, it is not for the cool calculating and systematic supporters of intolerance in the nineteenth century to affect that tone, and to declaim against that intolerance ; for their's is an intolerance without passion, and a zeal without the faith and piety which could furnish the shadow of a reason for its exercise ; for them there can be no excuse. But it is far otherwise with the zeal of chivalry. There was no insensibility or coward selfishness in its nature; and besides, may it not be reasonably
suggested to all who acknowledge the truth of revelation, that generous zeal, even without knowledge, is better than indifference with whatever accomplishments it may be accompanied, better than that practical renunciation of all religion which so frequently in these ages throws a shade of gloom and bitter despair over the evening of a suspicious life? Highly as every lover of mankind must admire the philosophic reflections of the amiable writer, to whose memoir I have lately referred, deeply as he will lament that fatal result consequent upon all human ina stitutions which perverted into intolerance, the effects of a theory, than which even its enemies have acknowledged, " nothing could be more beautiful or praiseworthy;" still must it be the conviction of his understanding, and the feeling of his heart, that zeal is less to be feared than the spirit of indifference to revealed truth; still is it unquestionably certain, that the enthusiasm of chivalry, in loving a name at which “ every knee should bow," and a cause, for the service of which every heart should beat, while it may excite alarm and regret to the friends of virtue and Christianity, must, at the same time, be regarded with admiration, and even with reverence. There is something in it noble and dignified-something which indicates the presence of those high and generous feelings, which are the proud prerogative of the human soul; whereas, on the contrary, apathy and indifference upon such a subject, the abuse of that Name, the abandonment or neglect of that cause must not only be deprecated as fatal in consequence, but must be despised as base, unmanly, and ungenerous in origin; it is human nature to sin, but it is something below human nature to treat the name and religion of the Saviour with indifference and ingratitude.
The conclusion will still be unshaken, that it is safer and more virtuous, that it is more becoming the descendants of knights, and men of honour, to err upon the side of zeal, than that of apathy. Perish the name of that false philosophy, which first taught men to think otherwisé! That it is less injurious to the best interests of individuals, and therefore less hostile to the general happiness of mankind.
VI.- But it was not alone to defend the Christian religion that chivalry bound its sons. The great and powerful were to be examples of its influence; they were to devote their riches and their grandeur to maintain its institutions and to exalt its glory.
This position cannot be better introduced than in the words of the Count de Maistre, who more, perhaps, than any other writer of this age, had imbibed the spirit of the Christian chivalry. “ True nobility,” he says, “is the natural guardian of religion; it is related to the priesthood, and it never ceases to protect it." Appius Claudius cried out in the Roman Senate, religion is the affair of the Patricians, “ auspicia sunt patrum ;” and Bourdaloue, twenty centuries later, said in a Christian pulpit, “ holiness to be eminent can find no foundation more suitable to itself than grandeur *. It is the same idea, only clothed dit. ferently according to the colours of the aget." Thus Livy records of a king, “ in duabus tamen magnis hones. tisque rebus vere regius erat animus, in urbium donis et deorum cultu I." When Theseus composed the Common. wealth of Athens, he divided it into noblemen, husbandmen, and mechanics, and the nobility were to have the care of religion and the laws $. In truth this is the natural suggestion of reason following from the law of nature. Yet, before Christianity had taken root, and had reached the higher classes, the converts to the Gospel were alarmed at the difficulty of reconciling obedience to its spirit with the grandeur of an exalted rank. Tertullian who wrote before any emperor had embraced Christianity said, “ that if the Cæsars should become Christians, they would cease to be Cæsars; and if the Christians should become Cæsars, they would cease to be Christians 11." What a joy for them had they been able to foresee the characters of St. Louis, or of our Edward the Confessor ? Indeed the general character of the French monarchy in this respect, is a striking refutation of the views of Tertullian; for as the Count de Maistre justly observes, “a particular feature of this monarchy is, that it possesses a certain theocratic element which peculiarly belongs to it, and which has given it fourteen hundred years of duration. I do not believe that any other European monarchy
* Serm. sur la Concep.
of Du Pape, II. 154. I XLI. 20. S Plutarch in vit. Thes. . || Apolog.
bas employed for the good of the state a greater number of pontiffs in the civil government. I go back in imagi, nation from the pacific Fleury to those Saint Ouens, those Saint Legers, and so many others distinguished in political life in the night of their age-true Orpheuses of France, who tamed tigers, and made the chesnuts to follow them. I doubt if one can shew elsewhere a similar series *.” Indeed every thing belonging to that monarchy down to its innocent and mysterious Lily t, and to its sacred banner the Oriflamme I, the banner of the Abbey of St. Denis, is
* Considerations sur la France, 113.
† Some suppose that Clovis, upon becoming a Christian, adopted the Fleur-de-Lis for the arms of France; and that Charles VI. in 1381, reduced the number to three as a symbol of the Trinity. There have been writers of all nations, who treated of this noble Fleur-de-Lis, named by St. Gregory Nazianzen Baollikòv ävdos. Many are the grave authors who mention, that the shield of France had an origin “ toute celeste," though Limneous will have this to be " sermonem phantasticum.” Some have thought these lilies to be only darts and javelins. The motto of the Bourbons, “ neque laborent neque nent,” in allusion to the Salic law, would argue another meaning. Bonald admits, that no certainty can be expected respecting what they really are. All possible information on the subject, and references to an immense number of learned authors, will be found in the “ Traité singulier du Blason contennant les regles des armoiries des armes de France et de leur Blason ce qu'elles representent et le sentiment des auteurs qui en ont écrit par Messieur Gilles Andre de la Roque, Chevalier, Sieur de la Loutiere, Paris, 1681." Charlemagne bore the shield azure, charged with the Black Eagle and the Fleur-de-Lis or, The Old Royal Seals of St. Louis have only one Fleur-de-Lis. The Chevalier de la Roque takes care to shew, that several French and foreign families who bear the Fleur-de-Lis have not the honour to be of the blood of France, “ quia omne simile non est idem," and this he says, with great courtesy, may be proved, " sans blesser l'ancienneté de ces maisons." He gives a very learned account how some families derived it by special grant from the French kings, and others from hereditary succession, adopted originally, he supposes, from the expression of the Wise King *, " qui pascuntur in Lilliis.”. These houses bear them in three ways, “les unes les portent semées, comme les armes de Beaumont, Fréauville, Saint Brisson, Saint Gilles, Saint Valeri, Mortemer, Brucourt, Recusson, Du Fai, Carronges, Cheneviére, Alleman, Chambes, Moreul; d'autres les ont en nombre certain, comme aux ecus de Montgommeri, Nino, Venoix, Porcon, Queret, Vignacourt, la Marzeliere, Farneze, La Rochefaton, Kenellec, Brillac, Nanteuil, Chamblai, Grispokerque, Bazentin, Arscot; ou enfin en nombre singulier, comme Saint Germain d'Argences, Digbi, Clerci, Andelot, Rechignevoi. sin, Le Bouteilles," &c. &c. The Oriflamme was red, without device or figure. It was the banner
* Lib. Cant. c. 4.
strongly characteristic of a religious spirit. In the time of Clovis the banner of devotion was that of St. Martin, under Charlemagne it was that of St. Maurice. Father Campian takes another view, when he says, speaking of the princes who in various ages defended the Church, “How many Theodosiuses in the East, and Charleses in the West, how many Edwardses in England, and Louises in France ; how glorious is the memory of the Hermenegilds in Spain, of the Henries in Saxony, of the Winceslases in Bohemia, of the Leopolds in Austria, of the Stephens in Hungary * ?” Monsieur de Machault sieur de Romaincourt, who wrote the “ Livre des Faicts des Mareschal de Boucicaut,” says, in the beginning of his book, “ Deux choses sont par la volontè de Dieu establies au monde, ainsi comme deux piliers à soustenir les ordres des loix divines et humaines. Sceulx deux piliers sans faille sont chevalrie et science, qui moult bien conviennent ensemble; car en pays, royaume ou empire au quel l'une des deux faudroit, conviendroit que le lieu eust peu de durée." Here again we have the same idea, which Alain Chartier expresses thus in his Bréviaire des Nobles :
“ Car Dieu forma noble condition
Pour foi garder et pour vivre en justice." St. Anselm, addressing a king, Henry of England, urges the duty on another ground, saying to him, “ Nulli homini magis expedit quam regi se subdere legi Dei; et nullus periculosius se subtrahit à lege ejus t."
" Earthly rank and grandeur,” says Nicole ,“ are but the instruments of Providence to enforce and recommend the observance of his will : Ainsi la grandeur est une pure ministère qui a pour fin l'honneur de Dieu et l'avantage des hommes, qui ne les rapporte point à elle-même. Elle n'est point pour soi, elle est pour les autres ;—pour établir l'empire de Dieu et pour procurer sa gloire.” This is unguardedly expressed ; but the lesson which he wished to convey, was that impressed upon all knights: the Prince
of the Abbey. The last that we hear of it is in the inventory of the treasury of this Church in 1534. “ Etendard d'un cendal fort épais, fendu par le milieu en façon d'un gonfaron fort caduque.” It was seen in Henry IV.'s time. * Appeal to the two Universities.
† Epist. lib. ii. 95.. De la grandeur, Essais de Morale, tom. 2.