ained _damoiseaux_, or pages, all
their lives. The majority, of course, did nothing of the kind; but all
could do so, and a great many did.

On the other hand we see conferred the dignity of chivalry upon
insignificant people who had never held fiefs, who owed to no one any
fealty, and to whom no one owed any.

We cannot repeat too often that it was not the cavalier (or knight), it
was the _vassal_ who owed military service, or _ost_, to the _seigneur_,
or lord; and the service _in curte_ or _court_: it was the vassal, not
the knight, who owed to the "lord" relief, "aid," homage.

The feudal system soon became hereditary. Chivalry, on the contrary, has
never been hereditary, and a special rite has always been necessary to
create a knight. In default of all other arguments this would be
sufficient.

But if, instead of regarding chivalry as an institution, we consider it
as an ideal, the doubt is not really more admissible. It is here that,
in the eyes of a philosophic historian, chivalry is clearly distinct
from feudalism. If the western world in the ninth century had _not_ been
feudalized, chivalry would nevertheless have come into existence; and,
notwithstanding everything, it would have come to light in Christendom;
for chivalry is nothing more than the Christianized form of military
service, the armed _force_ in the service of the unarmed Truth; and it
was inevitable that at some time or other it must have sprung, living
and fully armed, from the brain of the church, as Minerva did from the
brain of Jupiter.

Feudalism, on the contrary, is not of Christian origin at all. It is a
particular form of government, and of society, which has scarcely been
less rigorous for the church than other forms of society and government.
Feudalism has disputed with the church over and over again, while
chivalry has protected her a hundred times. Feudalism is force--chivalry
is the brake.

Let us look at Godfrey de Bouillon. The fact that he owed homage to any
suzerain, the fact that he exacted service from such and such vassals,
are questions which concern feudal rights, and have nothing to do with
chivalry. But if I contemplate him in battle beneath the walls of
Jerusalem; if I am a spectator of his entry into the Holy City; if I see
him ardent, brave, powerful and pure, valiant and gentle, humble and
proud, refusing to wear the golden crown in the Holy City where Jesus
wore the crown of thorns, I am not then anxious--I am not