Part 13

[26] Daniel, _Histoire de la Milice Françoise_, i. 99-104; Byshe's Upton, _De Studio Militari_, pp. 21-24; Dugdale, _Warwickshire_, ii. 708-710; Segar, Honor _Civil and Military_, pp. 69 seq. and Nicolas, _Orders of Knighthood_, vol. ii. (_Order of the Bath_) pp. 19 seq.... It is given as "the order and manner of creating Knights of the Bath in time of peace according to the custom of England," and consequently dates from a period when the full ceremony of creating knights bachelors generally had gone out of fashion. But as Ashmole, speaking of Knights of the Bath, says, "if the ceremonies and circumstances of their creation be well considered, it will appear that this king [Henry IV.] did not institute but rather restore the ancient manner of making knights, and consequently that the Knights of the Bath are in truth no other than knights bachelors, that is to say, such as are created with those ceremonies wherewith knights bachelors were formerly created." (Ashmole, _Order of the Garter_, p. 15). See also Selden, _Titles of Honor_, p. 678, and the _Archæological Journal_, v. 258 seq.

[27] As may be gathered from Selden, Favyn, La Colombiers, Menestrier and Sainte Palaye, there were several differences of detail in the ceremony at different times and in different places. But in the main it was everywhere the same both in its military and its ecclesiastical elements. In the _Pontificale Romanum_, the old _Ordo Romanus_ and the manual or Common Prayer Book in use in England before the Reformation forms for the blessing or consecration of new knights are included, and of these the first and the last are quoted by Selden.

[28] Selden, _Titles of Honor_, p. 678; Ashmole, _Order of the Garter_, p. 15; Favyn, _Théâtre d'Honneur_, ii. 1035.

[29] "If we sum up the principal ensigns of knighthood, ancient and modern, we shall find they have been or are a horse, gold ring, shield and lance, a belt and sword, gilt spurs and a gold chain or collar."--Ashmole, _Order of the Garter_, pp. 12, 13.

[30] On the banner see Grose, _Military Antiquities_, ii. 257; and Nicolas, _British Orders of Knighthood_, vol. i. p. xxxvii.

[31] _Titles of Honor_, pp. 356 and 608. See also Hallam, _Middle Ages_, iii. 126 seq. and Stubbs, _Const. Hist._ iii. 440 seq.

[32] Riddell's _Law and Practice in Scottish Peerages_, p. 578; also Nisbet's _System of Heraldry_, ii. 49 and Selden's _Titles of Honor_, p. 702.

[33] Selden, _Titles of Honor_, pp. 608 and 657.

[34] See "Project concerninge the conferinge of the title of vidom," wherein it is said that "the title of vidom (vicedominus) was an ancient title used in this kingdom of England both before and since the Norman Conquest" (_State Papers_, James I. Domestic Series, lxiii. 150 B, probable date April 1611).

[35] Selden, _Titles of Honor_, pp. 452 seq.

[36] _Ibid._ pp. 449 seq.

[37] Du Cange, _Dissertation_, ix.; Selden, _Titles of Honor_, p. 452; Daniel, _Milice Françoise_, i. 86 (Paris, 1721).

[38] Selden, _Titles of Honor_, p. 656; Grose, _Military Antiquities_, ii. 206.

[39] Froissart, Bk. I. ch. 241 and Bk. II. ch. 53. The recipients were Sir John Chandos and Sir Thos. Trivet.

[40] _Commonwealth of England_ (ed. 1640), p. 48.

[41] _State Papers_, Domestic Series, James the First, lxvii. 119.

[42] "Thursday, June 24th: His Majesty was pleased to confer the honour of knights banneret on the following flag officers and commanders under the royal standard, who kneeling kissed hands on the occasion: Admirals Pye and Sprye; Captains Knight, Bickerton and Vernon," _Gentleman's Magazine_ (1773) xliii. 299. Sir Harris Nicolas remarks on these and the other cases (_British Orders of Knighthood_, vol. xliii.) and Sir William Fitzherbert published anonymously a pamphlet on the subject, _A Short Inquiry into the Nature of the Titles conferred at Portsmouth_, &c., which is very scarce, but is to be found under the name of "Fitzherbert" in the catalogue of the British Museum Library.

[43] "Sir Henry Ferrers, Baronet, was indicted by the name of Sir Henry Ferrers, Knight, for the murther of one Stone whom one Nightingale feloniously murthered, and that the said Sir Henry was present aiding and abetting, &c. Upon this indictment Sir Henry Ferrers being arraigned said he never was knighted, which being confessed, the indictment was held not to be sufficient, wherefore he was indicted de novo by the name of Sir Henry Ferrers, Baronet." Brydall, _Jus Imaginis apud Anglos, or the Law of England relating to the Nobility and Gentry_ (London, 1675), p. 20. Cf. _Patent Rolls_, 10 Jac. I., pt. x. No. 18; Selden, _Titles of Honor_, p. 687.

[44] Louis XIV. introduced the practice of dividing the members of military orders into several degrees when he established the order of St Louis in 1693.

[45] G. F. Beltz, _Memorials of the Most Noble Order of the Garter_ (1841), p. 385.

[46] Heylyn, _Cosmographie and History of the Whole World_, bk. i. p. 286.

[47] Beltz, _Memorials_, p. xlvi.

[48] _Orders of Knighthood_, vol. i. p. lxxxiii.

[49] Mémoires, i. 67, i. 22; _History of Chivalry_; Gibbon, _Decline and Fall_, vii. 200.

[50] _Orders of Knighthood_, vol. i. p. xi.

[51] Selden, _Titles of Honor_, p. 638.

[52] Harleian MS. 6063; Hargrave MS. 325.

[53] _Patent Rolls_, 35th Hen. VIII., pt. xvi., No. 24; Burnet, _Hist. of Reformation_, i. 15.

[54] Spelman, "De milite dissertatio," _Posthumous Works_, p. 181.

[55] _London Gazette_, December 6, 1823, and May 15, 1855.

[56] On the Continent very elaborate ceremonies, partly heraldic and partly religious, were observed in the degradation of a knight, which are described by Sainte Palaye, _Mémoires_, i. 316 seq., and after him by Mills, _History of Chivalry_, i. 60 seq. Cf. _Titles of Honor_, p. 653.

[57] Dallaway's _Heraldry_, p. 303.

[58] Even in 13th century England more than half the population were serfs, and as such had no claim to the privileges of Magna Carta; disputes between a serf and his lord were decided in the latter's court, although the king's courts attempted to protect the serf's life and limb and necessary implements of work. By French feudal law, the villein had no appeal from his lord save to God (Pierre de Fontaines, _Conseil_, ch. xxi. art. 8); and, though common sense and natural good feeling set bounds in most cases to the tyranny of the nobles, yet there was scarcely any injustice too gross to be possible. "How mad are they who exult when sons are born to their lords!" wrote Cardinal Jacques de Vitry early in the 13th century (_Exempla_, p. 64, Folk Lore Soc. 1890).

[59] Sainte Palaye, ii. 90.

[60] Medley, _English Constitutional History_ (2nd ed., pp. 291, 466), suggests that Edward might have deliberately calculated this degradation of the older feudal ideal.

[61] Being made to "ride the barriers" was the penalty for anybody who attempted to take part in a tournament without the qualification of name and arms. Guillim (_Display of Heraldry_, p. 66) and Nisbet (_System of Heraldry_, ii. 147) speak of this subject as concerning England and Scotland. See also Ashmole's _Order of the Garter_, p. 284. But in England knighthood has always been conferred to a great extent independently of these considerations. At almost every period there have been men of obscure and illegitimate birth who have been knighted. Ashmole cites authorities for the contention that knighthood ennobles, insomuch that whosoever is a knight it necessarily follows that he is also a gentleman; "for, when a king gives the dignity to an ignoble person whose merit he would thereby recompense, he is understood to have conferred whatsoever is requisite for the completing of that which he bestows." By the common law, if a villein were made a knight he was thereby enfranchised and accounted a gentleman, and if a person under age and in wardship were knighted both his minority and wardship terminated. (_Order of the Garter_, p. 43; Nicolas, _British Orders of Knighthood_, i. 5.)

[62] Gautier, pp. 21, 249.

[63] Du Cange, _s.v. miles_ (ed. Didot, t. iv. p. 402); Sacchetti, _Novella_, cliii. All the medieval _orders_ of knighthood, however, insisted in their statutes on the noble birth of the candidate.

[64] Lecoy de la Marche (_Chaire française au moyen âge_, 2nd ed., p. 387) gives many instances to prove that "al chevalerie, au xiii^e siècle, est déjà sur son déclin." But already about 1160 Peter of Blois had written, "The so-called order of knighthood is nowadays mere disorder" (_ordo militum nunc est, ordinem non tenere_. Ep. xciv.: the whole letter should be read); and, half a century earlier still, Guibert of Nogent gives an equally unflattering picture of contemporary chivalry in his _De vita sua_ (Migne, _Pat. Lat._, tom. clvi.).

[65] It has been taken as the Latin word meaning "he bears" or as representing the initials of the legend _Fortitudo Ejus Rhodum Tenuit_, with an allusion to a defence of the island of Rhodes by an ancient count of Savoy.

KNIGHT-SERVICE, the dominant and distinctive tenure of land under the feudal system. It is associated in its origin with that development in warfare which made the mailed horseman, armed with lance and sword, the most important factor in battle. Till within recent years it was believed that knight-service was developed out of the liability, under the English system, of every five hides to provide one soldier in war. It is now held that, on the contrary, it was a novel system which was introduced after the Conquest by the Normans, who relied essentially on their mounted knights, while the English fought on foot. They were already familiar with the principle of knight-service, the knight's fee, as it came to be termed in England, being represented in Normandy by the _fief du haubert_, so termed from the hauberk or coat of mail (_lorica_) which was worn by the knight. Allusion is made to this in the coronation charter of Henry I. (1100), which speaks of those holding by knight-service as _milites qui per loricam terras suas deserviunt_.

The Conqueror, it is now held, divided the lay lands of England among his followers, to be held by the service of a fixed number of knights in his host, and imposed the same service on most of the great ecclesiastical bodies which retained their landed endowments. No record evidence exists of this action on his part, and the quota of knight-service exacted was not determined by the area or value of the lands granted (or retained), but was based upon the _unit_ of the feudal host, the _constabularia_ of ten knights. Of the tenants-in-chief or barons (i.e. those who held directly of the crown), the principal were called on to find one or more of these units, while of the lesser ones some were called on for five knights, that is, half a _constabularia_. The same system was adopted in Ireland when that country was conquered under Henry II. The baron who had been enfeoffed by his sovereign on these terms could provide the knights required either by hiring them for pay or, more conveniently when wealth was mainly represented by land, by a process of subenfeoffment, analogous to that by which he himself had been enfeoffed. That is to say, he could assign to an under-tenant a certain portion of his fief to be held by the service of finding one or more knights. The land so held would then be described as consisting of one or more knights' fees, but the knight's fee had not, as was formerly supposed, any fixed area. This process could be carried farther till there was a chain of mesne lords between the tenant-in-chief and the actual holder of the land; but the liability for performance of the knight-service was always carefully defined.

The primary obligation incumbent on every knight was service in the field, when called upon, for forty days a year, with specified armour and arms. There was, however, a standing dispute as to whether he could be called upon to perform this service outside the realm, nor was the question of his expenses free from difficulty. In addition to this primary duty he had, in numerous cases at least, to perform that of "castle ward" at his lord's chief castle for a fixed number of days in the year. On certain baronies also was incumbent the duty of providing knights for the guard of royal castles, such as Windsor, Rockingham and Dover. Under the feudal system the tenant by knight-service had also the same pecuniary obligations to his lord as had his lord to the king. These consisted of (1) "relief," which he paid on succeeding to his lands; (2) "wardship," that is, the profits from his lands during a minority; (3) "marriage," that is, the right of giving in marriage, unless bought off, his heiress, his heir (if a minor) and his widow; and also of the three "aids" (see Aids).

The chief sources of information for the extent and development of knight-service are the returns (_cartae_) of the barons (i.e. the tenants-in-chief) in 1166, informing the king, at his request, of the names of their tenants by knight-service with the number of fees they held, supplemented by the payments for "scutage" (see SCUTAGE) recorded on the pipe rolls, by the later returns printed in the _Testa de Nevill_, and by the still later ones collected in _Feudal Aids_. In the returns made in 1166 some of the barons appear as having enfeoffed more and some less than the number of knights they had to find. In the latter case they described the balance as being chargeable on their "demesne," that is, on the portion of their fief which remained in their own hands. These returns further prove that lands had already been granted for the service of a fraction of a knight, such service being in practice already commuted for a proportionate money payment; and they show that the total number of knights with which land held by military service was charged was not, as was formerly supposed, sixty thousand, but, probably, somewhere between five and six thousand. Similar returns were made for Normandy, and are valuable for the light they throw on its system of knight-service.

The principle of commuting for money the obligation of military service struck at the root of the whole system, and so complete was the change of conception that "tenure by knight-service of a mesne lord becomes, first in fact and then in law, tenure by escuage (i.e. scutage)." By the time of Henry III., as Bracton states, the test of tenure was scutage; liability, however small, to scutage payment made the tenure military.

The disintegration of the system was carried farther in the latter half of the 13th century as a consequence of changes in warfare, which were increasing the importance of foot soldiers and making the service of a knight for forty days of less value to the king. The barons, instead of paying scutage, compounded for their service by the payment of lump sums, and, by a process which is still obscure, the nominal quotas of knight-service due from each had, by the time of Edward I., been largely reduced. The knight's fee, however, remained a knight's fee, and the pecuniary incidents of military tenure, especially wardship, marriage, and fines on alienation, long continued to be a source of revenue to the crown. But at the Restoration (1660) tenure by knight-service was abolished by law (12 Car. II. c. 24), and with it these vexatious exactions were abolished.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The returns of 1166 are preserved in the _Liber Niger_ (13th cent.), edited by Hearne, and the _Liber Rubeus_ or _Red Book of the Exchequer_ (13 cent.), edited by H. Hall for the Rolls Series in 1896. The later returns are in _Testa de Nevill_ (Record Commission, 1807) and in the Record Office volumes of _Feudal Aids_, arranged under counties. For the financial side of knight-service the early pipe rolls have been printed by the Record Commission and the Pipe Roll Society, and abstracts of later ones will be found in _The Red Book of the Exchequer_, which may be studied on the whole question; but the editor's view must be received with caution and checked by J. H. Round's _Studies on the Red Book of the Exchequer_ (for private circulation). The _Baronia Anglica_ of Madox may also be consulted. The existing theory on knight-service was enunciated by Mr Round in _English Historical Review_, vi., vii., and reissued by him in his _Feudal England_ (1895). It is accepted by Pollock and Maitland (_History of English Law_), who discuss the question at length; by Mr J. F. Baldwin in his _Scutage and Knight-service in England_ (University of Chicago Press, 1897), a valuable monograph with bibliography; and by Petit-Dutaillis, in his _Studies supplementary to Stubbs' Constitutional History_ (Manchester University Series, 1908). (J. H. R.)

KNIGHTS OF THE GOLDEN CIRCLE, a semi-military secret society in the United States in the Middle West, 1861-1864, the purpose of which was to bring the Civil War to a close and restore the "Union as it was." There is some evidence that before the Civil War there was a Democratic secret organization of the same name, with its principal membership in the Southern States. After the outbreak of the Civil War many of the Democrats of the Middle West, who were opposed to the war policy of the Republicans, organized the Knights of the Golden Circle, pledging themselves to exert their influence to bring about peace. In 1863, owing to the disclosure of some of its secrets, the organization took the name of Order of American Knights, and in 1864 this became the Sons of Liberty. The total membership of this order probably reached 250,000 to 300,000, principally in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kentucky and south-western Pennsylvania. Fernando Wood of New York seems to have been the chief officer and in 1864 Clement L. Vallandigham became the second in command. The great importance of the Knights of the Golden Circle and its successors was due to its opposition to the war policy of the Republican administration. The plan was to overthrow the Lincoln government in the elections and give to the Democrats the control of the state and Federal governments, which would then make peace and invite the Southern States to come back into the Union on the old footing. In order to obstruct and embarrass the Republican administration the members of the order held peace meetings to influence public opinion against the continuance of the war; purchased arms to be used in uprisings, which were to place the peace party in control of the Federal government, or failing in that to establish a north-western confederacy; and took measures to set free the Confederate prisoners in the north and bring the war to a forced close. All these plans failed at the critical moment, and the most effective work done by the order was in encouraging desertion from the Federal armies, preventing enlistments, and resisting the draft. Wholesale arrests of leaders and numerous seizures of arms by the United States authorities resulted in a general collapse of the order late in 1864. Three of the leaders were sentenced to death by military commissions, but sentence was suspended until 1866, when they were released under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the famous case _Ex parte Milligan_.

AUTHORITIES.--_An Authentic Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle_ (Indianapolis, 1863); J. F. Rhodes, _History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850_ (New York, 1905) vol. v.; E. McPherson, _Political History of the Rebellion_ (Washington, 1876); and W. D. Foulke, _Life of O. P. Morton_ (2 vols., New York, 1899). (W. L. F.)

KNIPPERDOLLINCK (or KNIPPERDOLLING), BERNT (BEREND or BERNHARDT) (c. 1490-1536), German divine, was a prosperous cloth-merchant at Münster when in 1524 he joined Melchior Rinck and Melchior Hofman in a business journey to Stockholm, which developed into an abortive religious errand. Knipperdollinck, a man of fine presence and glib tongue, noted from his youth for eccentricity, had the ear of the Münster populace when in 1527 he helped to break the prison of Tonies Kruse, in the teeth of the bishop and the civic authorities. For this he made his peace with the latter; but, venturing on another business journey, he was arrested, imprisoned for a year, and released on payment of a high fine--in regard of which treatment he began an action before the Imperial Chamber. Though his aims were political rather than religious, he attached himself to the reforming movement of Bernhardt Rothmann, once (1529) chaplain of St Mauritz, outside Münster, now (1532) pastor of the city church of St Lamberti. A new bishop directed a mandate (April 17, 1532) against Rothmann, which had the effect of alienating the moderates in Münster from the democrats. Knipperdollinck was a leader of the latter in the surprise (December 26, 1532) which made prisoners of the negotiating nobles at Telgte, in the territory of Münster. In the end, Münster was by charter from Philip of Hesse (February 14, 1533) constituted an evangelical city. Knipperdollinck was made a burgomaster in February 1534. Anabaptism had already (September 8, 1533) been proclaimed at Münster by a journeyman smith; and, before this, Heinrich Roll, a refugee, had brought Rothmann (May 1533) to a rejection of infant baptism. From the 1st of January 1534 Roll preached Anabaptist doctrines in a city pulpit; a few days later, two Dutch emissaries of Jan Matthysz, or Matthyssen, the master-baker and Anabaptist prophet of Haarlem, came on a mission to Münster. They were followed (January 13) by Jan Beukelsz (or Bockelszoon, or Buchholdt), better known as John of Leiden. It was his second visit to Münster; he came now as an apostle of Matthysz. He was twenty-five, with a winning personality, great gifts as an organizer, and plenty of ambition. Knipperdollinck, whose daughter Clara was ultimately enrolled among the wives of John of Leiden, came under his influence. Matthysz himself came to Münster (1534) and lived in Knipperdollinck's house, which became the centre of the new movement to substitute Münster for Strassburg (Melchior Hofmann's choice) as the New Jerusalem. On the death of Matthysz, in a foolish raid (April 5, 1534), John became supreme. Knipperdollinck, with one attempt at revolt, when he claimed the kingship for himself, was his subservient henchman, wheedling the Münster democracy into subjection to the fantastic rule of the "king of the earth." He was made second in command, and executioner of the refractory. He fell in with the polygamy innovation, the protest of his wife being visited with a penance. In the military measures for resisting the siege of Münster he took no leading part. On the fall of the city (June 25, 1535) he hid in a dwelling in the city wall, but was betrayed by his landlady. After six months' incarceration, his trial, along with his comrades, took place on the 19th of January, and his execution, with fearful tortures, on the 22nd of January 1536. Knipperdollinck attempted to strangle himself, but was forced to endure the worst. His body, like those of the others, was hung in a cage on the tower of St Lamberti, where the cages are still to be seen. An alleged portrait, from an engraving of 1607, is reproduced in the appendix to A. Ross's Pansebeia, 1655.

See L. Keller, _Geschichte der Wiedertäufer und ihres Reichs zu Münster_ (1880); C. A. Cornelius, _Historische Arbeiten_ (1899); E. Belfort Bax, _Rise and Fall of the Anabaptists_ (1903). (A. Go.*)