The cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance k. anders ericsson - Download the full eb
Ericsson
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/the-cambridge-handbook-of-expertise-and-expert-perf ormance-k-anders-ericsson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Communication
Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics Guido Rings
In this updated and expanded edition of The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, some of the world’s foremost experts on expertise share their scientific knowledge of expertise and expert performance and show how experts may differ from non-experts in terms of development, training, reasoning, knowledge, and social support. The book reviews innovative methods for measuring experts’ knowledge and performance in relevant tasks. Sixteen major domains of expertise are covered, including sports, music, medicine, business, writing, and drawing, with leading researchers summarizing their knowledge about the structure and acquisition of expert skills and knowledge, and discussing future prospects. General issues that cut across most domains are reviewed in chapters on various aspects of expertise, such as general and practical intelligence, differences in brain activity, self-regulated learning, deliberate practice, aging, knowledge management, and creativity.
K . A N D E R S E R I C S S O N is currently the Conradi Eminent Scholar and Professor of Psychology at Florida State University. He is also a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences. His research has been featured in cover stories in Scientific American, Time, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. He has been invited to give keynote presentations at conferences of surgeons, musicians, teachers, clinical psychologists, athletes, and coaches as well as professional
sports organizations, such as the Philadelphia Eagles, the San Antonio Spurs, the Toronto Blue Jays, and Manchester City Football Club.
R O B E RT R . H O F F M A N is a recognized world leader in cognitive systems engineering and human-centered computing. Currently he is senior research scientist at the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition in Pensacola, FL. He is a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, fellow of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, senior member of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, and a Fulbright scholar. His PhD is in experimental psychology from the University of Cincinnati. His Postdoctoral Associateship was at the Center for Research on Human Learning at the University of Minnesota. He also served on the faculty of the Institute for Advanced Psychological Studies at Adelphi University. Hoffman has been recognized internationally in psychology, remote sensing, human factors engineering, intelligence analysis, weather forecasting, and artificial intelligence – for his research on the psychology of expertise, the methodology of cognitive task analysis, HCC issues for intelligent systems technology, and the design of macrocognitive work systems.
A A R O N K O Z B E LT is Professor of Psychology at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His research focuses on creativity and cognition in the fine arts, with an emphasis on perception in visual artists, lifespan creativity in composers, and evolutionary aspects of aesthetics and creativity. He has published more than 80 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, and his research has been funded by the National Science Foundation. He serves on several editorial boards and has received several national and international awards for his research, including the
Daniel Berlyne Award from Division 10 of the American Psychological Association and the Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten Award from the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics.
A . M A R K W I L L I A M S is Professor and Chair of the Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation at the University of Utah. He is a fellow of the British Psychological Society, the British Association of Sport and Exercise Science, the National Academy of Kinesiology, and the European College of Sports Science. His research interests focus on the neural and psychological mechanisms underpinning the acquisition and development of perceptualcognitive and perceptual-motor skills. He has published over 300 journal articles and book chapters, and has written or edited 15 books. He is Editorin-Chief for the Journal of Sports Science and sits on the editorial boards of several prominent journals. His research has been funded by research councils in Australia and the UK, by industrial partners such as Nike, and by several professional sports teams and national and international governing bodies.
THE CAMBRIDGE HANDBOOK OF EXPERTISE AND EXPERT PERFORMANCE
Second Edition
Edited by
K. Anders Ericsson
Florida State University
Robert R. Hoffman
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition
Aaron Kozbelt
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
A. Mark Williams University of Utah
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi –110025, India
79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.
It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107137554
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2006
11th reprint 2013
Second edition 2018
Printed in the United States of America by Sheridan Books, Inc.
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978-1-107-13755-4 Hardback
ISBN 978-1-316-50261-7 Paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Notes on Contributors
Acknowledgments
Part I Introduction and Perspectives
1 An Introduction to the Second Edition of The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance: Its Development, Organization, and Content
.
2 A Sociological/Philosophical Perspective on Expertise: The Acquisition of Expertise through Socialization
3 Reframing Expertise and its Development: A Lifeworld Perspective
4 The Evolution of Expertise
5 Expertise in Other Animals: Canines as an Example
Part II Overview of Approaches to the Study of Expertise: Brief Historical Accounts of Theories
Methods
6 Studies of Expertise from Psychological Perspectives: Historical Foundations and Recurrent Themes
7 Expert Systems: A Perspective from Computer Science
8 Developing Occupational Expertise through Everyday Work Activities and Interactions
9 Professionalism, Science, and Expert Roles: A Social Perspective
Part III Methods for Studying the Structure of Expertise
10 Perception in Expertise
11 Eliciting and Representing the Knowledge of Experts
12 Capturing Expert Thought with Protocol Analysis: Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts’ Performance on Representative Tasks
13 Methods for Studying the Structure of Expertise: Psychometric Approaches
14 Studies of the Activation and Structural Changes of the Brain Associated with Expertise
Part IV Methods for Studying the Acquisition and Maintenance of Expertise
15 Collecting and Assessing Practice Activity Data: Concurrent, Retrospective, and Longitudinal Approaches
16 Multidisciplinary Longitudinal Studies: A Perspective from the Field of Sports M
17 Using Cases to Understand Expert Performance: Method and Methodological Triangulation
18 Historiometric Methods
Part V.I Domains of Expertise: Professions
19 Expertise in Medicine and Surgery
20 Expertise and Transportation
21 Expertise in Professional Design
22 Toward Deliberate Practice in the Development of Entrepreneurial Expertise: The Anatomy of the Effectual Ask
23 Professional Writing Expertise
24 Expertise and Expert Performance in Teaching
25 Expert Professional Judgments and “Naturalistic Decision Making”
26 Skilled Decision Theory: From Intelligence to Numeracy and Expertise E
27 What Makes an Expert Team? A Decade of Research
Part V.II Domains of Expertise: Arts, Sports, Games, and Other Skills
28 Expertise in Music
29 Brain Changes Associated with Acquisition of Musical Expertise
30 Expertise in Drawing
31 Expertise in Chess
32 Mathematical Expertise
33 Expertise in Second Language Vocabulary
34 Expertise in Sport: Specificity, Plasticity, and Adaptability in High-Performance Athletes
Part VI Generalizable Mechanisms Mediating Types of Expertise
35 Superior Anticipation
36 Superior Working Memory in Experts
37 Expertise and Situation Awareness
Part VII General Issues and Theoretical Frameworks
38 The Differential Influence of Experience, Practice, and Deliberate Practice on the Development of Superior Individual Performance of Experts
39 Practical Intelligence and Tacit Knowledge: An Ecological View of Expertise
40 Cognitive Load and Expertise Reversal
41 Expertise and Structured Imagination in Creative Thinking: Reconsideration of an Old Question
42 Aging and Expertise
Notes on Contributors
B R U C E A B E R N E T H Y, School of Human Movement & Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia
P H I L I P L . A C K E R M A N, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia
J I N A N N . A L L A N, National Institute for Risk & Resilience, and Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
E C K A RT A LT E N M Ü L L E R, Institute of Music Physiology and Musicians’ Medicine, University of Music, Drama and Media, Hanover, Germany
J O S E P H B A K E R, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Canada
M A R G A R E T E . B E I E R, Department of Psychology, Rice University, Texas
M E R I M B I L A L IĆ , Department of Psychology, University of Northumbria at Newcastle, UK
S T E P H E N B I L L E T T, School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia
B R U C E G . B U C H A N A N, Computer Science Department, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
B R I A N B U T T E RW O RT H, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, UK
G U I L L E R M O C A M P I T E L L I, School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Australia
N E I L C H A R N E S S, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Florida
A N N A T. C I A N C I O L O, School of Medicine, Southern Illinois University, Illinois
E D WA R D T. C O K E LY, National Institute for Risk & Resilience, and Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, and Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany
H A R RY C O L L I N S, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK
N I G E L C R O S S, Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, The Open University, UK
G L O R I A D A L L’ A L B A , School of Education, The University of Queensland, Australia
A N D R E W R . D AT T E L, College of Aviation, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Florida
R A N D A L L D AV I S, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts
N I C H O L A S D E W, Graduate School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, California
F R A N C I S T. D U R S O, School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia
M A R I J E T. E L F E R I N K - G E M S E R , Center for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
M I C A R . E N D S L E Y, SA Technologies, Inc., Arizona
K . A N D E R S E R I C S S O N, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Florida
R O B E RT E VA N S, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK
J U L I A E V E T T S, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, UK
D A M I A N FA R R O W, Institute for Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria University, Australia
E D WA R D A . F E I G E N B A U M, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, California
PA U L J . F E LTO V I C H, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Florida
A D A M F E LT Z, Department of Cognitive and Learning Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Michigan
U T E F I S C H E R, School of Literature, Media & Communication, Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia
PA U L R . F O R D, Centre for Sport and Exercise Science and Medicine, University of Brighton, UK
S H I N I C H I F U R U YA, SONY Computer Science Laboratory, Tokyo, Japan
R O C I O G A R C I A - R E TA M E R O , Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, Spain, and Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany
M É L O D I E G A R N I E R, University of Cambridge, UK
D AV I D C . G E A RY, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Missouri
S A I M A G H A Z A L, Institute of Applied Psychology, University of the Punjab, Pakistan
F E R N A N D G O B E T, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, UK
L AW R E N C E E . M . G R I E R S O N, Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Canada
H A N S G R U B E R, Department of Educational Science, University of Regensburg, Germany, and Faculty of Education, University of Turku, Finland
S TA N L E Y J . H A M S T R A, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Illinois
C H R I S T I A N H A RT E I S, Institute of Educational Science, University of Paderborn, Germany
N I C O L E D . H E LTO N, Independent scholar, Virginia
W I L L I A M S . H E LTO N, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Virginia
N I C O L A J . H O D G E S, School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Canada
R O B E RT R . H O F F M A N, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Florida
S L AVA K A LY U G A, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Australia
R O N A L D T. K E L L O G G, Department of Psychology, St. Louis University, Missouri
G A RY K L E I N, MacroCognition LLC, District of Columbia
R E I N H A R D K O P I E Z, Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien, Germany
A A R O N K O Z B E LT, Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, New York
R A L F T. K R A M P E, Brain & Cognition Laboratory, University of Leuven, Belgium
C H R I S T I N A L A C E R E N Z A, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
D AV I D L A N D Y, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, Indiana
A N D R E A S C . L E H M A N N, Hochschule für Musik Würzburg, Germany
G AVA N L I N T E R N, Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Australia
M A R I J A N A M A C I S, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
S I LV I A M A M E D E, Graduate School of Social Sciences and the Humanities, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
D AV I D L . M A N N, Department of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
S H A N N O N M A R L O W, Department of Psychology, Rice University, Texas
T R I S TA N M C I N TO S H, Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
H A R A L D A . M I E G, Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
K E V I N F. M I L L E R, School of Education, University of Michigan, Michigan
B R I A N M O O N, Perigean Technologies LLC, Virginia
K AT H L E E N M O S I E R, Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, California
T Y L E R M U L H E A R N, Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
M I C H A E L D . M U M F O R D, Center for Applied Social Research, and Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma
G E O F F R E Y R . N O R M A N, Department of Health Research Methods, McMaster University, Canada
J U S T I N O S T R O F S K Y, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Stockton University, New Jersey
D A F I N A P E T R O VA, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, Spain
V L A D L . P O P, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Georgia
M I C H A E L J . P R I E T U L A, Goizueta Business School, Emory University, Georgia
A N U S H A R A M E S H, Darden School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Virginia
S T U A RT R E A D, Atkinson Graduate School of Management, Willamette University, Oregon
E D U A R D O S A L A S, Department of Psychology, Rice University, Texas
S A R A S D . S A R A S VAT H Y, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Virginia
H E N K G . S C H M I D T, Department of Psychology, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
N O R B E RT S C H M I T T, School of English, University of Nottingham, UK
J O N AT H A N S H E R B I N O, Hamilton General Hospital, McMaster University, Canada
D E A N K E I T H S I M O N TO N, Department of Psychology, University of California at Davis, California
R E I D G . S M I T H, i2k Connect LLC, Texas
S H I R L E Y C . S O N E S H, Sonnenschein Consulting LLC, Louisiana
R O B E RT J . S T E R N B E R G, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, New York
J A M E S W. S T I G L E R, Department of Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, California
J O H N S W E L L E R, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Australia
S A N N E C . M . T E W I E R I K E, Sport Science Institute Groningen, The Netherlands
L A U R A V I L K A I TĖ , Faculty of Philology, Vilnius University, Lithuania
C H R I S V I S S C H E R, Center for Human Movement Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
PA U L WA R D, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, Colorado
R O B E RT W. W E I S B E R G, Department of Psychology, Temple University, Pennsylvania
A . M A R K W I L L I A M S, Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, Utah
M E L I S S A J . W I L S O N, Paralympics New Zealand, New Zealand
B E N J A M I N W I N E G A R D, Carroll College, Montana
B O W I N E G A R D, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Florida
Acknowledgments
K. Anders Ericsson wants to gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Conradi Eminent Scholar Endowment at the Florida State Foundation during the editing phase of the work on this new edition of the handbook.
Robert R. Hoffman would like to thank the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition for its support during the writing and editing process.
Aaron Kozbelt would like to acknowledge Brooklyn College of the City University of New York for support during the preparation of the handbook.
A. Mark Williams would like to thank the College of Health at the University of Utah for its support during the writing and editing process.
Part I ◈ Introduction
and Perspectives
1
An Introduction to the Second Edition of The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance: Its Development, Organization, and
Content
◈
K. Anders Ericsson Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Florida
The study of expertise and expert performance reached a significant milestone in 2006 when its first handbook was published (Ericsson, Charness, Hoffman, & Feltovich, 2006). In the ten subsequent years, the handbook surpassed 10,000 copies sold, which is pretty impressive for a book of almost 1,000 pages. During this last decade there has been a dramatic increase in articles and books reporting on expertise and expert performance. There are several edited books written about particular domains of expertise, such as sports expertise (Baker & Farrow, 2015) and developing sports expertise (Farrow & Baker, 2013), entrepreneurial expertise (Sarasvathy,
2008), and design expertise (Lawson & Dorst, 2009). Other books have taken more general perspectives on the structure of expertise and its acquisition (Montero, 2016), the social aspects of how expertise is evaluated and experts evaluated (Collins & Evans, 2007), and the relation between skill acquisition and expertise (Johnson & Proctor, 2016). General books on the topics of expertise and expert performance have been published, focusing on professional development (Ericsson, 2009), accelerating the development of expertise (Hoffman et al., 2014), as noted earlier, and expertise in professional decision making (Hoffman, 2007). Another sign of impact is the large number of popular books describing how insights from the study of expertise and expert performance can inform individuals on how to improve their performance. A few examples of such popular books are Colvin (2008), Coyle (2009), Ericsson and Pool (2016), Foer (2011), Gladwell (2008), and Marcus (2012). This new edition of the handbook will update the most active areas of research and provide an up-to-date summary of our knowledge about perspectives, approaches, and methods in the study of expertise and expert performance as well as updated assessments of the knowledge of expertise and expert performance in different domains of expertise. There is also a new section identifying similar mechanisms that mediate expertise and expert performance across different domains, as well as generalizable issues and theoretical frameworks.
Expert, Expertise, and Expert Performance: Dictionary Definitions
Encyclopedias describe an Expert as “one who is very skillful and wellinformed in some special field” (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1968, p. 168), or “someone widely recognized as a reliable source of knowledge, technique, or skill whose judgment is accorded authority and status by the public or his or her peers. Experts have prolonged or intense experience through practice and education in a particular field” (Wikipedia). Expertise then refers to the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that distinguish experts from novices and less experienced people. In some domains there are objective criteria for finding experts, who are consistently able to exhibit superior performance for representative tasks in a domain. For example, chess masters will almost always win chess games against recreational chess players in chess tournaments, medical specialists are far more likely to diagnose a disease correctly than advanced medical students, and professional musicians can perform pieces of music in a manner that is unattainable for less skilled musicians. These types of superior reproducible performances on representative tasks capture the essence of the respective domains, and authors have been encouraged to refer to them as Expert Performance in this and the original handbook.
It has been known for some time that in some domains it is difficult for non-experts to identify experts, and consequently researchers rely on peernominations by professionals in the same domain. However, people recognized by their peers as experts do not always display superior
performance on domain-related tasks. Sometimes they are no better than novices even on tasks that are central to the expertise, such as selecting stocks with superior future value, treatment of psychotherapy patients, and forecasts (Ericsson & Lehmann, 1996). There are several domains where experts disagree and make inconsistent recommendations for action, such as recommending selling versus buying the same stock. For example, expert auditors’ assessments have been found to differ more from each other than the assessments of less experienced auditors (Bédard, 1991). Furthermore, experts will sometimes acquire differences from novices and other people as a function of their repetitive routines, that is, as a consequence of their extended experience rather than a cause for their superior performance. For example, medical doctors’ handwriting is less legible than that of other health professionals (Lyons, Payne, McCabe, & Fielder, 1998). In sum, Shanteau (1988) suggested that “experts” may not need a proven record of performance and can adopt a particular image and project “outwards signs of extreme selfconfidence” (p. 211) to get clients to listen to them and continue to offer advice after negative outcomes. After all, the experts are nearly always the best qualified to evaluate their own performance and explain the reasons for any deviant outcomes.
When the proposal for the first edition of the handbook was originally prepared, the outline focused more narrowly on the structure and acquisition of highly superior (expert) performance in many different domains (Ericsson, 1996, 2004). In response to the requests of the reviewers of that proposal, the final outline of the handbook covered a broader field that included research on the development of expertise and how highly experienced individuals accumulate knowledge in their respective domains and eventually become socially recognized experts and masters. Consequently, to reflect the scope of
the handbook it was entitled The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. The first edition of the handbook thus included a multitude of conceptions of expertise, including perspectives from education, sociology, and computer science, along with the more numerous perspectives from psychology emphasizing basic abilities, knowledge, and acquired skills. In this second edition there is an even more committed effort to include new perspectives, such as the evolution of expertise over many millennia, the phenomenology of expertise, and even the concept of expertise in non-human animals, such as service dogs and dogs herding sheep. In this introductory chapter, I will briefly introduce some general issues and describe the structure and content of the handbook as it was approved by Cambridge University Press.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
FOREIGN KNIGHTS OF THE GARTER.
T is some error in Mr Macaulay’s statement, which, as a matter of history, may be worth correcting. So far from there having been few aliens, except sovereign princes, admitted into the order, the fact, save in recent times, is exactly the reverse. The order contemplated the admission of foreigners, from the very day of its foundation. On that day, three foreigners were admitted, none of whom was a sovereign prince. Not one of the foreign sovereigns with whom Edward was in alliance, nor any of the royal relatives of the Queen, were among the original companions. The aliens, who were not sovereign princes, were the Captal de Buch, a distinguished Gascon nobleman, and two bannerets or knights, who with the other original companions had served in the expeditions sent by Edward against France.
Again, under Richard II., among the most famous alien gentlemen created knights of the Garter, were the Gascon soldier Du Preissne; Soldan de la Tour, Lord of much land in Xaintonge; the Dutch Count William of Ostervant, who made a favor of accepting the honorable badge; the Duke of Bavaria (not yet Emperor), and Albert, Duke of Holland, who was hardly a sovereign prince, but who, nevertheless, may be accounted as such, seeing that, in a small way indeed, more like a baron than a monarch, he exercised some sovereign rights. The Duke of Britanny may, with more justice, be included in the list of sovereign dukes who were members of the order. Under Henry IV., neither alien noble nor foreign prince appears to have been elected, but under his successor, fifth of the name, Eric X., King of Denmark, and John I., King of Portugal, were created companions. They were the first kings regnant admitted to the order. Some doubt exists as to the date of their admission, but none as to their having been knights’ companions. Dabrichecourt is the name of a gentleman lucky enough to have been also elected during this reign, but I do not know if he were of foreign birth or foreign only by descent. The number of the fraternity became complete in this reign, by the
election of the Emperor Sigismund. Under Henry V., the foreign sovereign princes, members of the order, were unquestionably more numerous than the mere alien gentlemen; but reckoning from the foundation, there had been a greater number of foreign knights not of sovereign quality than of those who were. The sovereign princes did not seem to care so much for the honor as private gentlemen in foreign lands. Thus the German, Sir Hartook von Clux, accepted the honor with alacrity, but the King of Denmark allowed five years to pass before he intimated that he cheerfully or resignedly tendered his acceptance At the first anniversary festival of the Order, held under Henry VI., as many robes of the order were made for alien knights not sovereign princes, as for gartered monarchs of foreign birth. The foreign princes had so little appreciated the honor of election, that when the Sovereign Duke of Burgundy was proposed, under Henry VI., the knights would not go to election until that potentate had declared whether he would accept the honor. His potentiality declared very distinctly that he would not; and he is the first sovereign prince who positively refused to become a knight of the Garter! In the same reign Edward, King of Portugal, was elected in the place of his father, John:—this is one of the few instances in which the honor has passed from father to son. The Duke of Coimbra, also elected in this reign, was of a foreign princely house, but he was not a sovereign prince. He may reckon with the alien knights generally. The Duke of Austria too, Albert, was elected before he came to a kingly and to an imperial throne; and against these princes I may place the name of Gaston de Foix, whom Henry V. had made Earl of Longueville, as that of a simple alien knight of good estate and knightly privileges. One or two scions of royal houses were elected, as was Alphonso, King of Aragon. But there is strong reason for believing that Alphonso declined the honor. There is some uncertainty as to the period of the election of Frederick III., that economical Emperor of Austria, who begged to know what the expenses would amount to, before he would “accept the order.” All the garters not home-distributed, did not go to deck the legs of foreign sovereign princes. Toward the close of the reign we find the Vicomte de Chastillion elected, and also D’Almada, the Portuguese knight of whose jolly installation at the Lion in Brentford, I have
already spoken. An Aragonese gentleman, Francis de Surienne, was another alien knight of simply noble quality; he was elected in the King’s bedchamber at Westminster; and the alien knights would more than balance the foreign sovereign princes, even if we throw in Casimir, King of Poland, who was added to the confraternity under the royal Lancastrian.
The first foreigner whom Edward IV. raised to companionship in the order, was not a prince, but a private gentleman named Gaillard Duras or Durefort. The honor was conferred in acknowledgment of services rendered to the King, in France; and the new knight was very speedily deprived of it, for traitorously transferring his services to the King of France. Of the foreign monarchs who are said to have been elected companions, during this reign—namely, the Kings of Spain and Portugal—there is much doubt whether the favor was conferred at all. The Dukes of Ferrara and Milan were created knights, and these may be reckoned among ducal sovereigns, although less than kings; and let me add that, if the Kings of Spain and Portugal were elected, the elections became void, because these monarchs failed to send proxies to take possession of their stalls. Young Edward V. presided at no election, and his uncle and successor, Richard III., received no foreign prince into the order. At the installation, however, of the short-lived son of Richard, that sovereign created Geoffrey de Sasiola, embassador from the Queen of Spain, a knight, by giving him three blows on the shoulders with a sword, and by investing him with a gold collar.
Henry VII. was not liberal toward foreigners with the many garters which fell at his disposal, after Bosworth, and during his reign. He appears to have exchanged with Maximilian, the Garter for the Golden Fleece, and to have conferred the same decoration on one or two heirs to foreign thrones, who were not sovereign princes when elected. It was not often that these princes were installed in person. Such installation, however, did occasionally happen; and never was one more singular in its origin and circumstances, than that of Philip, Archduke of Austria. Philip had resolved to lay claim to the throne of Spain by right of his wife Joan, daughter of Ferdinand of Castile and Aragon. He was on his way to Spain, when foul winds and a
tempestuous sea drove him into Weymouth. Henry invited him to Windsor, treated him with great hospitality, and installed him Knight of the Garter. Philip “took the oath to observe the statutes, without any other qualification than that he might not be obliged to attend personally at the chapters, or to wear the collar, except at his own pleasure. In placing the collar round his neck, and in conducting him to his stall, Henry addressed him as ‘Mon fils,’ while Philip, in return, called the King ‘Mon père,’ and these affectionate appellations are repeated in the treaty of peace and unity between the two countries, which was signed by Henry and Philip, while sitting in their respective stalls, and to the maintenance of which they were both then solemnly sworn. Previously to the offering, Philip wished to stand before his stall, like the other knights, and to follow the King to the altar, requesting to be allowed to do his duty as a knight and brother of the order ought to do to the sovereign; but Henry declined, and taking him by the left hand, the two Kings offered together. After the ceremony, Philip invested Henry, Prince of Wales, with the collar of the Golden Fleece, into which order he had, it is said, been elected at Middleburgh in the preceding year, 1506.
Under Henry VIII. we find the first Scottish monarch who ever wore the Garter, namely James V. He accepted the insignia “with princely heart and will,” but, in a formal instrument, he set down the statutes which he would swear to observe, and he rejected all others. Francis, King of France, Charles V., Emperor of Germany, and Ferdinand, King of Hungary, were also members of the order. But the sovereign princes elected during this reign did not outnumber the alien knights of less degree. When Henry was at Calais, he held a chapter, at which Marshal Montmorency, Count de Beaumont, and Philip de Chabot, Count de Neublanc, were elected into the order. This occasion was the first and only time that the Kings of England and France attended together and voted as companions in the chapters of their respective orders. Like the other knights, Francis nominated for election into the Garter, three earls or persons of higher degree, three barons, and three knights-bachelors, and the names present an interesting fact, which has not been generally noticed. Henry was then enamored of Anne Boleyn, whom he had recently created Marchioness of Pembroke, and who accompanied
him to Calais. With a solitary exception, the French King gave all his suffrages for his own countrymen, and as the exception was in favor of her brother, George, Lord Rochford, it was evidently intended as a compliment to the future Queen of England.
It was the intention of Edward VI. to have created Lewis, Marquis of Gonzaga, a knight of the order, but there is no evidence that he was elected. It is difficult to ascertain the exact course of things during this reign; for Mary, subsequently, abrogated all the changes made by Edward, in order to adopt the statutes to the exigencies of the reformed religion. She did even more than this; she caused the register to be defaced, by erasing every insertion which was not in accordance with the Romish faith. It is known, however, that Henri II. of France was elected. His investiture took place in a bed-room of the Louvre in Paris. He rewarded the Garter King-at-arms with a gold chain worth two hundred pounds, and his own royal robe, ornmented with “aglets,” and worth twenty-five pounds. Against this one sovereign prince we have to set the person of an alien knight—the Constable of France. The foreign royal names on the list were, however, on the accession of Mary, three against one of foreign knights of lower degree. That of Philip of Spain soon made the foreign royal majority still greater; and this majority may be said to have been further increased by the election of the sovereign Duke of Savoy. Mary elected no foreign knight beneath the degree of sovereign ruler—whether king or duke.
Elizabeth very closely followed the same principle. Her foreign knights were sovereigns, or about to become so. The first was Adolphus, Duke of Holstein, son of the King of Denmark, and heir of Norway The second was Charles IX. of France, and the third, Frederick, King of Denmark; the Emperor Rudolf was, perhaps, a fourth; and the fifth, Henri Quatre, the last king of France who wore the Garter till the accession of Louis XVIII. As for the Spanish widower of Mary, Sir Harris Nicholas observes, “Philip, king of Spain, is said to have returned the Garter by the hands of the Queen’s ambassador, Viscount Montague, who had been sent to induce him to renew the alliance between England and Burgundy. Philip did not conceal his regret at the change which had taken place in the
religion and policy of his country; but he displayed no sectarian bitterness, expresses himself still desirous of opposing the designs of the French, who sought to have Elizabeth excommunicated, and stated that he had taken measures to prevent this in the eyes of a son of the Church of Rome, the greatest of all calamities, from befalling her, without her own consent. It appears, however, that Elizabeth did not accept of Philip’s resignation of the Garter, for he continued a companion until his decease, notwithstanding the war between England and Spain, and the attempt to invade this country by the Spanish Armada in 1588.”
When I say Elizabeth closely followed the example of Mary I should add as an instance wherein she departed therefrom—the election of Francis Duke of Montmorency, envoy from the French King. The Queen bestowed this honor on the Duke, “in grateful commemoration,” says Camden, “of the love which Anne, constable of France, his father, bore unto her.” At the accession of James I., however, Henri IV. of France was the only foreigner, sovereign or otherwise, who wore the order of the Garter. Those added by James were the King of Denmark, the Prince of Orange, and the Prince Palatine. Of the latter I have spoken in another place; I will only notice further here, that under James, all precedence of stalls was taken away from princes below a certain rank; that is to say, the last knights elected, even the King’s own son, must take the last stall. It was also then declared “that all princes, not absolute, should be installed, henceforth, in the puisne place.”
There was one foreign knight, however, whose installation deserves a word apart, for it was marked by unusual splendor, considering how very small a potentate was the recipient of the honor This was Christian, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. On the last day of the year 1624, James, with his own hands, placed the riband and George round the neck of the Duke. The latter was then twenty-four years of age. “The Duke of Brunswick,” says Chamberlain, in a letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, January 8, 1625, “can not complain of his entertainment, which was every way complete, very good and gracious words from the King, with the honor of the Garter, and a pension of two thousand pounds a year. The Prince lodged him in
his own lodgings, and at parting, gave him three thousand pounds in gold, besides other presents.” James conferred the Garter on no less than seven of his Scottish subjects. If these may be reckoned now, what they were considered then, as mere foreigners, the alien knights will again outnumber the foreign sovereign princes, wearers of the Garter.
The first knight invested by Charles I. was an alien chevalier, of only noble degree. This was the Duke de Chevreuse, who was Charles’s proxy at his nuptials with Henrietta Maria, and who thus easily won the honors of chivalry among the Companions of St. George. It seems, however, that the honor in question was generally won by foreigners, because of their being engaged in furthering royal marriages. Thus, when the King’s agent in Switzerland, Mr. Fleming, in the year 1633, suggested to the government that the Duke of Rohan should be elected a knight of the Garter, Mr. Secretary Coke made reply that “The proposition hath this inconvenience, that the rites of that ancient order comport not with innovation, and no precedent can be found of any foreign subject ever admitted into it, if he were not employed in an inter-marriage with this crown, as the Duke of Chevreuse lately was.” There certainly was not a word of truth in what the Secretary Coke thus deliberately stated. Not only had the Garter frequently been conferred on foreign subjects who had had nothing to do as matrimonial agents between sovereign lovers, but only twelve years after Coke thus wrote, Charles conferred the order upon the Duke d’Espernon, who had no claim to it founded upon such service as is noticed by the learned secretary
At the death of Charles I. there was not, strictly speaking, a single foreign sovereign prince belonging to the order The three foreign princes, Rupert, William of Orange, and the Elector Palatine, can not justly be called so. The other foreign knights were the Dukes of Chevreuse and Espernon.
The foreign knights of the order created by Charles II. were Prince Edward, son of “Elizabeth of Bohemia;” Prince Maurice, his elder brother; Henry, eldest son of the Duke de Thouas, William of Nassau, then three years of age, and subsequently our William III.; Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg; Gaspar, Count de Morchin;
Christian, Prince Royal of Denmark; Charles XI., King of Sweden; George, Elector of Saxony; and Prince George of Denmark, husband of the Princess Anne. It will be seen that those who could be strictly called “sovereign princes,” claiming allegiance and owing none, do not outnumber alien knights who were expected to render obedience, and could not sovereignly exert it. Denmark and Sweden, it may be observed, quarrelled about precedency of stalls with as much bitterness as if they had been burghers of the “Krähwinkel” of Kotzebue.
The short reign of James II. presents us with only one alien Knight of the Garter, namely, Louis de Duras, created also Earl of Feversham. “Il était le second de son nom,” says the Biographie Universelle, “qui eut été honoré de cette decoration, remarque particulière dans la noblesse Française.”
The great Duke of Schomberg, that admirable warrior given to England by the tyranny of Louis XIV., was the first person invested with the Garter by William III. The other foreign knights invested by him were the first King of Prussia, William Duke of Zell, the Elector of Saxony, William Bentinck (Earl of Portland), Von Keppel (Earl of Albemarle), and George of Hanover (our George I.) Here the alien knights, not of sovereign degree, again outnumbered those who were of that degree. The Elector of Saxony refused to join William against France, unless the Garter were first conferred on him.
Anne conferred the Garter on Meinhardt Schomberg, Duke of Leinster, son of the great Schomberg; and also on George Augustus of Hanover (subsequently George II. of England). Anne intimated to George Louis, the father of George Augustus, that, being a Knight of the Garter, he might very appropriately invest his own son. George Louis, however, hated that son, and would have nothing to do with conferring any dignity upon him. He left it with the commissioners, Halifax and Vanbrugh, to act as they pleased. They performed their vicarious office as they best could, and that was only with “maimed rights.” George Louis, with his ordinary spiteful meanness, ordered the ceremony to be cut short of all display. He would not even permit his son to be invested with the habit, under a canopy as was usual, and as had been done in his own case; all that he would grant was
an ordinary arm-chair, whereon the electoral prince might sit in state, if he chose, or was able to do so! These were the only foreigners upon whom Anne conferred the Garter; an order which she granted willingly to very few persons indeed.
“It is remarkable,” says Nicolas, “that the order was not conferred by Queen Anne upon the Emperor, nor upon any of the other sovereigns with whom she was for many years confederated against France. Nor did her Majesty bestow it upon King Charles III. of Spain, who arrived in England in September, 1703, nor upon Prince Eugene (though, when she presented him with a sword worth five thousand pounds sterling on taking his leave in March, 1712 there were seven vacant ribands), nor any other of the great commanders of the allied armies who, under the Duke of Marlborough, gained those splendid victories that rendered her reign one of the most glorious in the annals of this country.”
George I. had more regard for his grandson than for his son; and he made Frederick (subsequently father of George III.) a Companion of the Order, when he was not more than nine years of age. He raised to the same honor his own brother, Prince Ernest Augustus, and invested both knights at a Chapter held in Hanover in 1711. With this family exception, the Order of the Garter was not conferred upon any foreign prince in the reign of George I.
George II. gave the Garter to that deformed Prince of Orange who married his excitable daughter Anne. The same honor was conferred on Prince Frederick of Hesse Cassel, who espoused George’s amiable daughter Mary; Prince Frederick of Saxe Gotha, the Duke of Saxe Weisenfels, the Margrave of Anspach, the fatherless son of the Prince of Orange last named, and, worthiest of all, that Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick who won the honor by gaining the battle of Minden. He was invested with cap, habit, and decorations, in front of his tent and in the face of his whole army. His gallant enemy, De Broglie, to do honor to the new knight, proclaimed a suspension of arms for the day, drew up his own troops where they could witness the spectacle of courage and skill receiving their reward, and with his principal officers dining with the Prince in the evening. “Each party,” says Miss Banks, “returned at night to his army, in order to
recommence the hostilities they were engaged in, by order of their respective nations, against each other, on the next rising of the sun.” I do not know what this anecdote most proves—the cruel absurdity of war, or the true chivalry of warriors.
The era of George III. was indeed that in which foreign princes, sovereign and something less than that, abounded in the order. The first who received the Garter was the brother of Queen Charlotte, the reigning Duke of Mecklenburg Strelitz. Then came the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, who married Augusta, the sister of George III. Caroline of Brunswick was the issue of this marriage. Of the kings, roitelets, and petty princes of Germany who were added to the Garter, or rather, had the Garter added to them, it is not worth while speaking; but there is an incident connected with the foreign knights which does merit to be preserved. When Bonaparte founded the Legion of Honor, he prevailed on the King of Prussia (willing to take anything for his own, and reluctant to sacrifice anything for the public good) to accept the cross of the Legion for himself, and several others assigned to him for distribution. The king rendered himself justly abhorred for this disgraceful act; but he found small German princes quite as eager as he was to wear the badge of the then enemy of Europe. A noble exception presented itself in the person of the Duke of Brunswick, a Knight of the Garter, to whom the wretched king sent the insignia of the French order in 1805. The duke, in a letter to the king, refused to accept such honor, “because, in his quality of Knight of the most noble Order of the Garter, he was prevented from receiving any badge of chivalry instituted by a person at war with the sovereign of that order.” The Prussian king found an easier conscience in the Prince of Hesse Cassel, who was also a Knight of the Garter. This individual, mean and double-faced as the king, wore the cross of the Legion of Honor with the Garter. At that troubled period, it was exactly as if some nervous lairds, in the days of Highland feuds, had worn, at the same time, the plaids of the Macdonalds and Campbells, in order to save their skins and estates by thus pretending to be members of two hostile parties. Under the Regency of George IV., the foreign sovereign princes were admitted into the order without any regard whatever to the
regulations by statute. Within one year, or very little more than that period, two emperors, three kings, and an heir to a throne, who soon after came to his inheritance, were enrolled Companions of the order. But it was the era of victories and rejoicings, and no one thought of objecting to a prodigality which would have astounded the royal founder. Long after the period of victory, however, the same liberality continued to be evinced toward foreign princes of sovereign degree. Thus at the accession of Charles X., the England monarch despatched the Duke of Northumberland as Embassador Extraordinary to attend at the coronation of the French monarch, and to invest him, subsequently, with the Order of the Garter. I remember seeing the English procession pass from the duke’s residence in the Rue du Bac, over the Pont Royal to the Tuileries. It puzzled the French people extremely. It took place on Tuesday, June 7, 1825. At noon, “four of the royal carriages,” says the Galignani of the period, “drawn by eight horses, in which were the Baron de Lalivre and M. de Viviers, were sent to the Hotel Galifet for the Duke of Northumberland.” The two envoys who thus contrived to ride in four carriages and eight horses—a more wonderful feat than was ever accomplished by Mr. Ducrow—having reached the ducal hotel, were received by the duke, Lord Granville, our ordinary embassador, and Sir George Naylor, his Britannic Majesty’s Commissioners charged to invest the King of France with the insignia of the Garter. The procession then set out; and, as I have said, it perplexed the French spectators extremely. They could not imagine that so much ceremony was necessary in order to put a garter round a leg, and hang a collar from a royal neck. Besides the four French carriagesand-eight, there were three of the duke’s carriages drawn by six horses; one carriage of similar state, and two others more modestly drawn by pairs, belonging to Lord Granville. The carriage of “Garter” himself, behind a couple of ordinary steeds; and eight other carriages, containing the suites of the embassadors, or privileged persons who passed for such in order to share in the spectacle, closed the procession. The duke had a very noble gathering around him, namely, the Hon. Algernon Percy, his secretary, the Marquis of Caermarthen, the Earl of Hopetoun, Lords Prudhoe (the present duke), Strathaven, Pelham, and Hervey, the Hon. Charles Percy, and
the goodhumored-looking Archdeacon Singleton. Such was the entourage of the embassador extraordinary. The ordinary embassador, Lord Granville, was somewhat less nobly surrounded. He had with him the Hon. Mr. Bligh, and Messrs. Mandeville, Gore, Abercrombie, and Jones. Sir George Naylor, in his Tabard, was accompanied by a cloud of heralds, some of whom have since become kings-of-arms—namely, Messrs. Woods, Young, and Wollaston, and his secretary, Mr. Howard. More noticeable men followed in the train. There were Earl Gower and Lord Burghersh, the “Honorables” Mr Townshend, Howard, and Clive, Captain Buller, and two men more remarkable than all the rest—the two embassadors included—namely, Sir John Malcolm and Sir Sidney Smith. Between admiring spectators, who were profoundly amazed at the sight of the duke in his robes, the procession arrived at the palace, where, after a pause and a reorganizing in the Hall of Embassadors, the party proceeded in great state into the Gallery of Diana. Here a throne had been especially erected for the investiture, and the show was undoubtedly most splendid. Charles X. looked in possession of admirable health and spirits—of everything, indeed, but bright intellect. He was magnificently surrounded. The duke wore with his robes that famous diamond-hilted sword which had been presented to him by George IV., and which cost, I forget how many thousand pounds. His heron’s plume alone was said to be worth five hundred guineas. His superb mantle of blue velvet, embroidered with gold, was supported by his youthful nephew, George Murray (the present Duke of Athol), dressed in a Hussar uniform, and the Hon. James Drummond, in a Highland suit. Seven gentlemen had the responsible mission of carrying the insignia on cushions, and Sir George preceded them, bearing a truncheon, as “Garter Principal King-at-arms.” The duke recited an appropriate address, giving a concise history of the order, and congratulating himself on having been employed on the present honorable mission. The investiture took place with the usual ceremonies; but I remember that there was no salute of artillery, as was enjoined in the book of instructions drawn up by Garter. The latter official performed his office most gracefully, and attached to the person of the King of France, that day, pearls worth a million of francs. The royal knight made a very
pleasant speech when all was concluded, and the usual hospitality followed the magnificent labors of an hour and a half’s continuance.
On the following evening, the Duke gave a splendid fête at his hotel, in honor of the coronation of Charles X., and of his admission into the Order of the Garter. The King and Queen of Wurtemburg were present, with some fifteen hundred persons of less rank, but many of whom were of greater importance in society. Perhaps not the least remarkable feature of the evening was the presence together, in one group, of the Dauphin and that Duchess of Angoulême who was popularly known as the “orphan girl of the Temple,” with the Duchess of Berri, the Duke of Orleans (Louis Philippe), and Talleyrand. The last-named still wore the long bolster-cravat, of the time of the Revolution, and looked as cunning as though he knew the destiny that awaited the entire group, three of whom have since died in exile —he alone breathing his last sigh, in calm tranquillity, in his own land.
Charles X. conferred on the ducal bearer of the insignia of the Garter a splendid gift—one of the finest and most costly vases ever produced at the royal manufacture of Porcelain at Sèvres. The painting on it, representing the Tribunal of Diana, is the work of M. Leguai, and it occupied that distinguished artist full three years before it was completed. Considering its vast dimensions, the nature of the painting, and its having passed twice through the fire without the slightest alteration, it is unique of its kind. This colossal vase now stands in the centre of the ball-room in Northumberland House.
The last monarch to whom a commission has carried the insignia of the Garter, was the Czar Nicholas. It was characteristic of the man that, courteous as he was to the commissioners, he would not, as was customary in such cases, dine with them. They were entertained, however, according to his orders, by other members of his family. It is since the reign of George III. that Mr. Macaulay’s remark touching the fact of the Garter being rarely conferred on aliens, except sovereign princes, may be said to be well-founded. No alien, under princely rank, now wears the Garter. The most illustrious of the foreign knights are the two who were last created by patent, namely, the Emperor Louis Napoleon and the King of Sardinia. The
King of Prussia is also a knight of the order, and, as such, he is bound by his oath never to act against the sovereign of that order; but in our struggle with felonious Russia, the Prussian government, affecting to be neutral, imprisons an English consul on pretence that the latter has sought to enlist natives of Prussia into the English service, while, on the other hand, it passes over to Russia the material for making war, and sanctions the raising of a Russian loan in Berlin, to be devoted, as far as possible, to the injury of England. The King is but a poor knight!—and, by the way, that reminds me that the once so-called poor knights of Windsor can not be more appropriately introduced than here.
THE POOR KNIGHTS OF WINDSOR,
AND THEIR DOINGS.
T founder of the Order of the Garter did well when he thought of the “Milites pauperes,” and having created a fraternity for wealthy and noble cavaliers, created one also for the same number of “poor knights, infirm of body, indigent and decayed,” who should be maintained for the honor of God and St. George, continually serve God in their devotions, and have no further heavy duty, after the days of bustle and battle, than to pray for the prosperity of all living knights of the Garter, and for the repose of the souls of all those who were dead. It was resolved that none but really poor knights should belong to the fraternity, whether named, as was their privilege, by a companion of the noble order, or by the sovereign, as came at last to be exclusively the case. If a poor knight had the misfortune to become the possessor of property of any sort realizing twenty pounds per annum, he became at once disqualified for companionship. Even in very early times, his position, with house, board, and various aids, spiritual and bodily, was worth more than this.
To be an alms knight, as Ashmole calls each member, implied no degradation whatever; quite the contrary. Each poor but worthy gentleman was placed on a level with the residentiary canons of Windsor. Like these, they received twelvepence each, every day that they attended service in the chapel, or abode in the College, with a honorarium of forty shillings annually for small necessaries. Their daily presence at chapel was compulsory, except good and lawful reason could be shown for the contrary. The old knights were not only required to be at service, but at high mass, the masses of the Virgin Mary, as also at Vespers and Complins—from the beginning to the end. They earned their twelvepence honestly, but nevertheless the ecclesiastical corporation charged with the payment, often did what such corporations, of course, have never tried to do since the Reformation—namely, cheat those who ought to have been
recipients of their due. Dire were the discussions between the poor (and pertinacious) knights, and the dean, canons, and treasurers of the College. It required a mitred Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England to settle the dispute, and a very high opinion does it afford us of the good practical sense of Church and Chancery in the days of Henry VI., when we find that the eminent individual with the double office not only came to a happy conclusion rapidly, and ordered all arrears to be paid to the poor knights, but decreed that the income of the treasurer should be altogether stopped, until full satisfaction was rendered to the “milites pauper.” For the sake of such Chancery practice one would almost consent to take the Church with it.
But not only did the lesser officials of that Church cheat the veteran knights of their pay, but their itching palm inflicted other wrong. It was the fitting custom to divide the fines, levied upon absentees from public worship, among the more habitually devout brethren. Gradually, however, the dean and canons appropriated these moneys to themselves, so that the less godly the knights were, the richer were the dean and canons. Further, many dying noblemen had bequeathed very valuable legacies to the College and poor fraternity of veterans. These the business-like ecclesiastics had devoted to their own entire profit; and it required stringent command from king and bishop, in the reign of Richard II., before they would admit the military legatees even to a share in the bequest.
Not, indeed, that the stout old veterans were always blameless. Good living and few cares made “fast men” of some of them. There were especially two in the reign last named, who created very considerable scandal. These were a certain Sir Thomas Tawne and Sir John Breton. They were married men, but the foolish old fellows performed homage to vessels of iniquity, placed by them on the domestic altar. In other words, they were by far too civil to a couple of hussies with red faces and short kirtles, and that—not that such circumstance rendered the matter worse—before the eyes of their faithful and legitimate wives. The bishop was horror-stricken, no doubt, and the exemplary ecclesiastics of the College were enjoined
to remonstrate, reprove, and, if amendment did not follow, to expel the offenders.
Sir Thomas, I presume, heeded the remonstrance and submitted to live more decorously, for nothing more is said of him. Jolly Sir John was more difficult to deal with. He too may have dismissed Cicely and made his peace with poor Lady Breton, but the rollicking old knight kept the College in an uproar, nevertheless. He resumed attendance at chapel, indeed, but he did this after a fashion of his own. He would walk slowly in the procession of red-mantled brethren on their way to service, so as to obstruct those who were in the rear, or he would walk in a ridiculous manner, so as to rouse unseemly laughter. I am afraid that old Sir John was a very sad dog, and, however the other old gentleman may have behaved, he was really a godless fellow. Witness the fact that, on getting into chapel, when he retired to pray, he forthwith fell asleep, and could, or would, hardly keep his eyes open, even at the sacrament at the altar.
After all, there was a gayer old fellow than Sir John Breton among the poor knights. One Sir Emanuel Cloue is spoken of who appears to have been a very Don Giovanni among the silly maids and merry wives of Windsor. He was for ever with his eye on a petticoat and his hand on a tankard; and what with love and spiced canary, he could never sit still at mass, but was addicted to running about among the congregation. It would puzzle St. George himself to tell all the nonsense he talked on these occasions.
When we read how the bishop suggested that the King and Council should discover a remedy to check the rollicking career of Sir Edmund, we are at first perplexed to make out why the cure was not assigned to the religious officials. The fact, however, is that they were as bad as, or worse than, the knights. They too were as often to be detected with their lips on the brim of a goblet, or on the cheek of a damsel. There was Canon Lorying. He was addicted to hawking, hunting, and jollification; and the threat of dismissal, without chance of reinstalment, was had recourse to, before the canon ceased to make breaches in decorum. The vicars were as bad as the canons. The qualifications ascribed to them of being “inflated and wanton,” sufficiently describe by what sins these very reverend gentlemen
were beset. They showed no reverence for the frolicsome canons, as might have been expected; and if both parties united in exhibiting as little veneration for the dean, the reason, doubtless, lay in the circumstance that the dean, as the bishop remarked, was remiss, simple, and negligent, himself. He was worse than this. He not only allowed the documents connected with the Order to go to decay, or be lost, but he would not pay the vicars their salaries till he was compelled to do so by high authority. The dean, in short, was a sorry knave; he even embezzled the fees paid when a vicar occupied a new stall, and which were intended to be appropriated to the general profit of the chapter, and pocketed the entire proceeds for his own personal profit and enjoyment. The canons again made short work of prayers and masses, devoting only an hour each day for the whole. This arrangement may not have displeased the more devout among the knights; and the canons defied the bishop to point out anything in the statutes by which they were prevented from effecting this abbreviation of their service, and earning their shilling easily. Of this ecclesiastical irregularity the bishop, curiously enough, solicited the state to pronounce its condemnation; and an order from King and Council was deemed a good remedy for priests of loose thoughts and practices. A matter of more moment was submitted to the jurisdiction of meaner authority. Thus, when one of the vicars, John Chichester, was “scandalized respecting the wife of Thomas Swift” (which is a very pretty way of putting his offence), the matter was left to the correction of the dean, who was himself censurable, if not under censure—for remissness, negligence, stupidity, and fraud. The dean’s frauds were carried on to that extent that a legacy of £200 made to the brotherhood of poor knights, having come to the decanal hands, and the dean not having accounted for the same, compulsion was put on him to render such account; and that appears to be all the penalty he ever paid for his knavery. Where the priests were of such kidney, we need not wonder that the knights observed in the dirty and much-encumbered cloisters, the licentiousness which was once common to men in the camp.
Churchmen and knights went on in their old courses, notwithstanding the interference of inquisitors. Alterations were made in the statutes, to meet the evil; some knights solicited incorporation among
themselves, separate from the Church authorities; but this and other remedies were vainly applied.
In the reign of Henry VIII. the resident knights were not all military men. Some of them were eminent persons, who, it is thought, withdrew from the world and joined the brotherhood, out of devotion. Thus there was Sir Robert Champlayne, who had been a right lusty knight, indeed, and who proved himself so again, after he returned once more to active life. Among the laymen, admitted to be poor knights, were Hulme, formerly Clarencieux King-at-arms; Carly, the King’s physician: Mewtes, the King’s secretary for the French language; and Westley, who was made second baron of the Exchequer in 1509.
The order appears to have fallen into hopeless confusion, but Henry VIII., who performed many good acts, notwithstanding his evil deeds and propensities, bequeathed lands, the profits whereof (£600) were to be employed in the maintenance of “Thirteen Poor Knights.” Each was to have a shilling a day, and their governor, three pounds, six and eightpence, additional yearly. Houses were built for these knights on the south side of the lower ward of the castle, where they are still situated, at a cost of nearly £3000. A white cloth-gown and a red cloth-mantle, appropriately decorated, were also assigned to each knight. King James doubled the pecuniary allowance, and made it payable in the Exchequer, quarterly.
Charles I. intended to increase the number of knights to their original complement. He did not proceed beyond the intention. Two of his subjects, however, themselves knights, Sir Peter La Maire and Sir Francis Crane, left lands which supplied funds for the support of five additional knights.
Cromwell took especial care that no knight should reside at Windsor, who was hostile to his government; and he was as careful that no preacher should hold forth there, who was not more friendly to the commonwealth than to monarchy
At this period, and for a hundred years before this, there was not a man of real knight’s degree belonging to the order, nor has there since been down to the present time. In 1724 the benevolent Mr.
Travers bequeathed property to be applied to the maintenance of Seven Naval Knights. It is scarcely credible, but it is the fact, that seventy years elapsed before our law, which then hung a poor wretch for robbing to the amount of forty shillings, let loose the funds to be appropriated according to the will of the testator, and under sanction of the sovereign. What counsellors and attorneys fattened upon the costs, meantime, it is not now of importance to inquire. In 1796, thirteen superannuated or disabled lieutenants of men-of-war, officers of that rank being alone eligible under Mr. Travers’s will, were duly provided for The naval knights, all unmarried, have residences and sixty pounds per annum each, in addition to their half-pay. The sum of ten shillings, weekly, is deducted from the “several allowances, to keep a constant table.”
The Military and Naval Knights—for the term “Poor” was dropped, by order of William IV.—no longer wear the mantle, as in former times; but costumes significant of their profession and their rank therein. There are twenty-five of them, one less than their original number, and they live in harmony with each other and the Church. The ecclesiastical corporation has nothing to do with their funds, and these unmarried naval knights do not disturb the slumbers of a single Mr. Brook within the liberty of Windsor.
In concluding this division, let me add a word touching the
KNIGHTS OF THE BATH.
There was no more gallant cavalier in his day than Geoffrey, Earl of Anjou. He was as meek as he was gallant. In testimony of his humility he assumed a sprig of the broom plant (planta genista) for his device, and thereby he gave the name of Plantagenet to the long and illustrious line.
If his bravery raised him in the esteem of women, his softness of spirit earned for him some ridicule. Matilda, the “imperially perverse,” laughed outright when her sire proposed she should accept the hand of Geoffrey of Anjou. “He is so like a girl,” said Matilda. “There is not a more lion-hearted knight in all Christendom,” replied the king. “There is none certainly so sheep-faced,” retorted the arrogant
