A knight is a knight

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

A knight is a knight

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 apr 2005 03:11:02

I found a description by Cyril Hankinson in his book "My Forty Years with Debrett"

"The origin of the ceremonial form of knighthood is lost in the mists of antiquity, but Shaw's _Knights of England_, the most complete record of knights from the earliest times until the early days of this century, relates that at Pentecost in 1127, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, received Knighthood of the Bath at the hands of his father-in-law, Henry I, but the next entry is not until 1204.

Does this imply there was more than one way a person could be a knight? Geoffrey was a _Knight of the Bath _ and in this book is explained the time consuming "ceremony" involved. You read how people are knighted on the battlefield and surely _that_ ceremony was not used. And so was there more than one kind of knight?

This is the description give:

Knights-elect had to spend the evening before their investiture in the chapter room of the order at Westminster. A bath was made ready with cross-hoops over it covered with tapestry for defence against the night air. The knight was then shaved and had his hair cut, after which some of the senior knights were sent to him to give him counsel and to direct him in the order and feats of chivalry. Next, esquires of the King's household with minstrels playing, proceeded to the room, whilst the squires of the knight-elect on hearing the sounds of tha approaching music undressed him and put him into the bath. With the arrival of the King's esquires, and with the poor knight still in the bath, further instructions were given about the nature of the bath and in injunction that he should thereafter keep his body and mind undefiled, after which each of the senior knights poured water upon his shoulders.
Finally, having been clothes in something warm, the victim had to pray and watch throughout the night and then to hear matins before being conducted to the Sovereign to be dubbed and invested. Seeing that our ancestors of two hundred years ago were mostly strangers to baths, the intensity of the ordeal must have been all the greater.

Hope this is of interest.
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: A knight is a knight is a knight

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 13 apr 2005 03:37:49

In article <000801c53fc6$2cbbb220$c3b4fea9@email>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

I found a description by Cyril Hankinson in his book "My Forty Years with
Debrett"

"The origin of the ceremonial form of knighthood is lost in the mists of
antiquity, but Shaw's _Knights of England_, the most complete record of
knights from the earliest times until the early days of this century, relates
that at Pentecost in 1127, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, received Knighthood of
the Bath at the hands of his father-in-law, Henry I, but the next entry is
not until 1204.

Does this imply there was more than one way a person could be a knight?
Geoffrey was a _Knight of the Bath _ and in this book is explained the time
consuming "ceremony" involved. You read how people are knighted on the
battlefield and surely _that_ ceremony was not used. And so was there more
than one kind of knight?

Hmmm. The Order of Bath was created in 1725, based on some well-known
14th- and 15th-century precedents about group ritual baths involved in
the creation of knights around one or more later Plantagenet kings
(see http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page495.asp).

The 1127 reference is obviously misinterpreted by your source. The
original testimony comes from John of Marmoutier's life of Geoffrey of
Anjou, actually written in the 1180s (hence anachronistic in its
fanciful reconstruction of the long-ago event). What it refers to is
*a* ritual bath--not a specific order of the name--as part of Geoffrey's
knighting (essentially a coming-of-age ritual, as Geoffrey was only 15
at the time). In the mid 12th century such ceremonies were only just
evolving: earlier there had been no formal rituals associated with
qualifying to be referred to by terms such as 'miles', reserved (by that
time) in written usage for an elite, aristocratic warrior.

So, yes, there was more than one way a person could be a knight. Your
source (and probably John of Marmoutier as well) fell victim to the
anachronism of assuming that 'knighting' was always the romanticized
ritual it later became. It's like the issue of who was a 'peer' and who
was not, in the 12th or 13th centuries--CP anachronistically applies
what it called 'modern peerage doctrine' as a solution of convenience.

Eventually (by the 13th century, and definitely in the 14th & 15th),
people expected knighting to involve an elaborate rituals such as
purification (a bath), dubbing and the cingulatio (girding), but the
ritual would not necessarily have been the same everywhere. And
battlefield knightings, when they appeared, may have been the sort of
thing (like an acting promotion in the field, subject to later
confirmation from HQ) expected to be followed by some suitable
commemoration when people had the time. (Barber doesn't mention
battlefield knightings--I wonder what the earliest instances are).

I would recommend Richard Barber's _The Knight and Chivalry_ (2d ed.,
Boydell, 1995) as a good read on the general social, economic and
military development of the social rank we call 'knights'. The chapter
on the origins of knighthood covers many of these issues.

As for dubbing, the 'colee', and battlefield knighting, I recently
watched the trailer for the upcoming Ridley Scott movie set in the
Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1186-87, with Liam Neeson and Orlando
Bloom as Ibelins. Absurdly, they've made the same silly issue out of
'commoners' breaking taboo to be made 'knights' that we saw in 'A
Knight's Tale'. Here, again, it looks like they may have taken the
powerful and tragic true story of Jerusalem in the 1180s and turned it
into a fictitious, thoroughly modern morality play about class mobility.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Ginny Wagner

RE: A knight is a knight

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 13 apr 2005 06:30:01

I found your post quite interesting, Leo. Thank you.

Am interested as to whether the following is regarded as accurate.

The footnote for the information is given and the general and supplemental
bibliography is also at the end of this email. I've been advised that
knighthood didn't come into play until the late 12c at earliest; yet
Cubberley's book indicates the chivalric ideal began in the ninth. So, I am
confused as to whether Cubberley is correct. Thanks for any advice, etc.
that is forthcoming.

The seal of Sigillvme Gidii de Gorram used between 1175 and 1180 (a Crusader
from 1158-1162) shows a knight in mail with shield, sword, plain helm and
mail. The description of the Crusaders was, "They crossed themselves on the
forehead, mouth, breast, and heart, 'their shoulder being adorned with a
white and red cross.'" in Family of De Gorram, of Britanny, CTG Vol. V.

From Ellwood P. Cubberley's The History of Education, Part II, Chapter VII:

THE EDUCATION OF CHIVALRY. This form of education was an evolution. It began
during the latter part of the ninth century and the early part of the tenth,
reached its maximum greatness during the period of the Crusades (twelfth
century), and passed out of existence by the sixteenth. The period of the
Crusades was the heroic age of chivalry. The system of education which
gradually developed for the children of the nobility may be briefly
described as follows:

1. Page. Up to the age of seven or eight the youth was trained at home, by
his mother. He played to develop strength, was taught the meaning of
obedience, trained in politeness and courtesy, and his religious education
was begun. After this, usually at seven, he was sent to the court of some
other noble, usually his father's superior in the feudal scale, though in
case of kings and feudal lords of large importance the children remained at
home and were trained in the palace school. From seven to fourteen the boy
was known as a page. He was in particular attached to some lady, who
supervised his education in religion, music, courtesy, gallantry, the
etiquette of love and honor, and taught him to play chess and other games.
He was usually taught to read and write the vernacular language, and was
sometimes given a little instruction in reading Latin. [17] To the lord he
rendered much personal service such as messenger, servant at meals, and
attention to guests. By the men he was trained in running, boxing,
wrestling, riding, swimming, and the use of light weapons.

2. Squire. At fourteen or fifteen he became a squire. While continuing to
serve his lady, with whom he was still in company, and continuing to render
personal service in the castle, the squire became in particular the personal
servant and bodyguard of the lord or knight. He was in a sense a valet for
him, making his bed, caring for his clothes, helping him to dress, and
looking after him at night and when sick. He also groomed his horse, looked
after his weapons, and attended and protected him on the field of combat or
in battle. He himself learned to hunt, to handle shield and spear, to ride
in armor, to meet his opponent, and to fight with sword and battle-axe. As
he approached the age of twenty-one, he chose his lady- love, who was older
than he and who might be married, to whom he swore ever to be devoted, even
though he married some one else. He also learned to rhyme, [18] to make
songs, sing, dance, play the harp, and observe the ceremonials of the
Church. Girls were given this instruction along with the boys, but naturally
their training placed its emphasis upon household duties, service, good
manners, conversational ability, music, and religion.

3. Knight. At twenty-one the boy was knighted, and of this the Church made
an impressive ceremonial. After fasting, confession, a night of vigil in
armor spent at the altar in holy meditation, and communion in the morning,
the ceremony of dubbing the squire a knight took place in the presence of
the court. He gave his sword to the priest, who blest it upon the altar. He
then took the oath "to defend the Church, to attack the wicked, to respect
the priesthood, to protect women and the poor, to preserve the country in
tranquillity, and to shed his blood, even to its last drop, in behalf of his
brethren." The priest then returned him the sword which he had blessed,
charging him "to protect the widows and orphans, to restore and preserve the
desolate, to revenge the wronged, and to confirm the virtuous." He then
knelt before his lord, who, drawing his own sword and holding it over him,
said: "In the name of God, of our Lady, of thy patron Saint, and of Saint
Michael and Saint George, I dub thee knight; be brave (touching him with the
sword on one shoulder), be bold (on the other shoulder), be loyal (on the
head)."

[17] In the earlier days of noblemen's education reading and writing were
regarded as effeminate, but in the later times the nobles became
increasingly literate. By the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries many began
to pride themselves on their patronage of learning.

General Bibliography:

II. GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHIES OF EDUCATION

1. Cubberley, E. P. Syllabus of Lectures on the History of Education. 358
pp. New York. First ed., 1902; 2d ed., 1905. Gives detailed and classified
bibliographies for all phases of the subject. Now out of print, but may be
found in most normal school and college libraries, and many public
libraries.


SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCES

* Abelson, Paul. The Seven Liberal Arts. Addison, Julia de W. Arts and
Crafts in the Middle Ages. Besant, W. The Story of King Alfred. * Clark, J.
W. The Care of Books. Davidson, Thomas. "The Seven Liberal Arts"; in
Educational Review, vol. II, pp. 467-73. (Also in his Aristotle.) Mombert,
J. I. History of Charles the Great. * Mullinger, J. B. The Schools of
Charles the Great. Sandys, J. E. History of Classical Scholarship, vol. I.
Scheffel, Victor. Ekkehard. (Historical novel of monastic life.) Steele,
Philip. Mediaeval Lore. (Anglicus' Cyclopaedia.)

Leo van de Pas

Re: A knight is a knight is a knight

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 13 apr 2005 07:31:02

Dear Nat
Many thanks for your message. A pity that Hankinson presented it as fact
instead of describing it as ritual that may (or may not) have been followed.
He did not confuse the Order of the Bath with _Knight of the Bath_ but by
the sound of it a Knight of the Bath did not really exist. Either a person
was a knight or he wasn't. Many thanks for explaining.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas



----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: A knight is a knight is a knight


In article <000801c53fc6$2cbbb220$c3b4fea9@email>,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au ("Leo van de Pas") wrote:

I found a description by Cyril Hankinson in his book "My Forty Years
with
Debrett"

"The origin of the ceremonial form of knighthood is lost in the mists of
antiquity, but Shaw's _Knights of England_, the most complete record of
knights from the earliest times until the early days of this century,
relates
that at Pentecost in 1127, Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, received Knighthood
of
the Bath at the hands of his father-in-law, Henry I, but the next entry
is
not until 1204.

Does this imply there was more than one way a person could be a knight?
Geoffrey was a _Knight of the Bath _ and in this book is explained the
time
consuming "ceremony" involved. You read how people are knighted on the
battlefield and surely _that_ ceremony was not used. And so was there
more
than one kind of knight?

Hmmm. The Order of Bath was created in 1725, based on some well-known
14th- and 15th-century precedents about group ritual baths involved in
the creation of knights around one or more later Plantagenet kings
(see http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page495.asp).

The 1127 reference is obviously misinterpreted by your source. The
original testimony comes from John of Marmoutier's life of Geoffrey of
Anjou, actually written in the 1180s (hence anachronistic in its
fanciful reconstruction of the long-ago event). What it refers to is
*a* ritual bath--not a specific order of the name--as part of Geoffrey's
knighting (essentially a coming-of-age ritual, as Geoffrey was only 15
at the time). In the mid 12th century such ceremonies were only just
evolving: earlier there had been no formal rituals associated with
qualifying to be referred to by terms such as 'miles', reserved (by that
time) in written usage for an elite, aristocratic warrior.

So, yes, there was more than one way a person could be a knight. Your
source (and probably John of Marmoutier as well) fell victim to the
anachronism of assuming that 'knighting' was always the romanticized
ritual it later became. It's like the issue of who was a 'peer' and who
was not, in the 12th or 13th centuries--CP anachronistically applies
what it called 'modern peerage doctrine' as a solution of convenience.

Eventually (by the 13th century, and definitely in the 14th & 15th),
people expected knighting to involve an elaborate rituals such as
purification (a bath), dubbing and the cingulatio (girding), but the
ritual would not necessarily have been the same everywhere. And
battlefield knightings, when they appeared, may have been the sort of
thing (like an acting promotion in the field, subject to later
confirmation from HQ) expected to be followed by some suitable
commemoration when people had the time. (Barber doesn't mention
battlefield knightings--I wonder what the earliest instances are).

I would recommend Richard Barber's _The Knight and Chivalry_ (2d ed.,
Boydell, 1995) as a good read on the general social, economic and
military development of the social rank we call 'knights'. The chapter
on the origins of knighthood covers many of these issues.

As for dubbing, the 'colee', and battlefield knighting, I recently
watched the trailer for the upcoming Ridley Scott movie set in the
Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1186-87, with Liam Neeson and Orlando
Bloom as Ibelins. Absurdly, they've made the same silly issue out of
'commoners' breaking taboo to be made 'knights' that we saw in 'A
Knight's Tale'. Here, again, it looks like they may have taken the
powerful and tragic true story of Jerusalem in the 1180s and turned it
into a fictitious, thoroughly modern morality play about class mobility.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»