themselves　to　be　superseded　by　the　dragoons　and　dragonnades　of　Louis
  XIV。then　the　end　of　the　French　chivalry　was　at　hand；　and　came。
  But　centuries　before　that　shameful　fall　there　had　come　in　with
  Christianity　the　new　thought；　that　domination　meant　responsibility；
  that　responsibility　demanded　virtue。　　The　words　which　denoted　rank；
  came　to　denote　likewise　high　moral　excellencies。　　The　nobilis；　or
  man　who　was　known；　and　therefore　subject　to　public　opinion；　was
  bound　to　behave　nobly。　　The　gentlemangentile…manwho　respected
  his　own　gens；　or　family　and　pedigree；　was　bound　to　be　gentle。　　The
  courtier；　who　had　picked　up　at　court　some　touch　of　Roman
  civilisation　from　Roman　ecclesiastics；　was　bound　to　be　courteous。
  He　who　held　an　〃honour〃　or　〃edel〃　of　land　was　bound　to　be
  honourable；　and　he　who　held　a　〃weorthig；〃　or　worthy；　thereof；　was
  bound　himself　to　be　worthy。　　In　like　wise；　he　who　had　the　right　to
  ride　a　horse；　was　expected　to　be　chivalrous　in　all　matters　befitting
  the　hereditary　ruler；　who　owed　a　sacred　debt　to　a　long　line　of
  forefathers；　as　well　as　to　the　state　in　which　he　dwelt；　all　dignity；
  courtesy；　purity；　self…restraint；　devotionsuch　as　they　were
  understood　in　those　rough　dayscentred　themselves　round　the　idea　of
  the　rider　as　the　attributes　of　the　man　whose　supposed　duty；　as　well
  as　his　supposed　right；　was　to　govern　his　fellow…men；　by　example；　as
  well　as　by　law　and　force；attributes　which　gathered　themselves　up
  into　that　one　wordChivalry：　　an　idea；　which；　perfect　or　imperfect；
  God　forbid　that　mankind　should　ever　forget；　till　it　has　become　the
  possessionas　it　is　the　God…given　rightof　the　poorest　slave　that
  ever　trudged　on　foot；　and　every　collier…lad　shall　have　becomeas
  some　of　those　Barnsley　men　proved　but　the　other　day　they　had　become
  already：
  A　very　gentle　perfect　knight；
  Very　unfaithful　was　chivalry　to　its　idealas　all　men　are　to　all
  ideals。　　But　bear　in　mind；　that　if　the　horse　was　the　symbol　of　the
  ruling　caste；　it　was　not　at　first　its　only　strength。　　Unless　that
  caste　had　had　at　first　spiritual；　as　well　as　physical　force　on　its
  side；　it　would　have　been　soon　destroyednay；　it　would　have
  destroyed　itselfby　internecine　civil　war。　　And　we　must　believe
  that　those　Franks；　Goths；　Lombards；　and　Burgunds；　who　in　the　early
  Middle　Age　leaped　on　the　backs　（to　use　Mr。　Carlyle's　expression）　of
  the　Roman　nations；　were　actually；　in　all　senses　of　the　word；　better
  men　than　those　whom　they　conquered。　　We　must　believe　it　from　reason；
  for　if　not；　how　could　they；　numerically　few；　have　held　for　a　year；
  much　more　for　centuries；　against　millions；　their　dangerous
  elevation？　　We　must　believe　it；　unless　we　take　Tacitus's　〃Germania；〃
  which　I　absolutely　refuse　to　do；　for　a　romance。　　We　must　believe
  that　they　were　better　than　the　Romanised　nations　whom　they
  conquered；　because　the　writers　of　those　nations；　Augustine；　Salvian；
  and　Sidonius　Apollinaris；　for　example；　say　that　they　were　such；　and
  give　proof　thereof。　　Not　good　men　according　to　our　higher　standard
  far　from　it；　though　Sidonius's　picture　of　Theodoric；　the　East　Goth；
  in　his　palace　of　Narbonne；　is　the　picture　of　an　eminently　good　and
  wise　ruler。　　But　not　good；　I　say；　as　a　rulethe　Franks；　alas！　often
  very　bad　men：　　but　still　better；　wiser；　abler；　than　those　whom　they
  ruled。　　We　must　believe　too；　that　they　were　better；　in　every　sense
  of　the　word；　than　those　tribes　on　their　eastern　frontier；　whom　they
  conquered　in　after　centuries；　unless　we　discredit　（which　we　have　no
  reason　to　do）　the　accounts　which　the　Roman　and　Greek　writers　give　of
  the　horrible　savagery　of　those　tribes。
  So　it　was　in　later　centuries。　　One　cannot　read　fairly　the　history　of
  the　Middle　Ages　without　seeing　that　the　robber　knight　of　Germany　or
  of　France；　who　figures　so　much　in　modern　novels；　must　have　been　the
  exception；　and　not　the　rule：　　that　an　aristocracy　which　lived　by　the
  saddle　would　have　as　little　chance　of　perpetuating　itself；　as　a
  priesthood　composed　of　hypocrites　and　profligates；　that　the
  mediaeval　Nobility　has　been　as　much　slandered　as　the　mediaeval
  Church；　and　the　exceptions　takenas　more　salient　and　excitingfor
  the　average：　　that　side　by　side　with　ruffians　like　Gaston　de　Foix
  hundreds　of　honest　gentlemen　were　trying　to　do　their　duty　to　the
  best　of　their　light；　and　were　raising；　and　not　depressing；　the
  masses　below　themone　very　important　item　in　that　duty　being；　the
  doing　the　whole　fighting　of　the　country　at　their　own　expense；
  instead　of　leaving　it　to　a　standing　army　of　mercenaries；　at　the　beck
  and　call　of　a　despot；　and　that；　as　M。　de　Tocqueville　says：　　〃In
  feudal　times；　the　Nobility　were　regarded　pretty　much　as　the
  government　is　regarded　in　our　own；　the　burdens　they　imposed　were
  endured　in　consequence　of　the　security　they　afforded。　　The　nobles
  had　many　irksome　privileges；　they　possessed　many　onerous　rights：
  but　they　maintained　public　order；　they　administered　justice；　they
  caused　the　law　to　be　executed；　they　came　to　the　relief　of　the　weak；
  they　conducted　the　business　of　the　community。　　In　proportion　as　they
  ceased　to　do　these　things；　the　burden　of　their　privileges　appeared
  more　oppressive；　and　their　existence　became　an　anomaly　in　proportion
  as　they　ceased　to　do　these　things。〃　　And　the　Ancien　Regime　may　be
  defined　as　the　period　in　which　they　ceased　to　do　these　thingsin
  which　they　began　to　play　the　idlers；　and　expected　to　take　their　old
  wages　without　doing　their　old　work。
  But　in　any　case；　government　by　a　ruling　caste；　whether　of　the
  patriarchal　or　of　the　feudal　kind；　is　no　ideal　or　permanent　state　of
  society。　　So　far　from　it；　it　is　but　the　first　or　second　step　out　of
  primeval　savagery。　　For　the　more　a　ruling　race　becomes　conscious　of
  its　own　duty；　and　not　merely　of　its　own　powerthe　more　it　learns　to
  regard　its　peculiar　gifts　as　entrusted　to　it　for　the　good　of　menso
  much　the　more　earnestly　will　it　labour　to　raise　the　masses　below　to
  its　own　level；　by　imparting　to　them　its　own　light；　and　so　will　it
  continually　tend　to　abolish　itself；　by　producing　a　general　equality；
  moral　and　intellectual；　and　fulfil　that　law　of　self…sacrifice　which
  is　the　beginning　and　the　end　of　all　virtue。
  A　race　of　noblest　men　and　women；　trying　to　make　all　below　them　as
  noble　as　themselvesthat　is　at　least　a　fair　ideal；　tending　toward；
  though　it　has　not　reached；　the　highest　ideal　of　all。
  But　suppose　that　the　very　opposite　tendencyinherent　in　the　heart
  of　every　child　of　manshould　conquer。　　Suppose　the　ruling　caste　no
  longer　the　physical；　intellectual；　and　moral　superiors　of　the　mass；
  but　their　equals。　　Suppose　themshameful；　but　not　without　example
  actually　sunk　to　be　their　inferiors。　　And　that　such　a　fall　did　come…
  …nay；　that　it　must　have　comeis　matter　of　history。　　And　its　cause；
  like　all　social　causes；　was　not　a　political　nor　a　physical；　but　a
  moral　cause。　　The　profligacy　of　the　French　and　Italian
  aristocracies；　in　the　sixteenth　century；　avenged　itself　on　them　by　a
  curse　（derived　from　the　newly…discovered　America）　from　which　they
  never　recovered。　　The　Spanish　aristocracy　suffered；　I　doubt　not　very
  severely。　　The　English　and　German；　owing　to　the　superior　homeliness
  and　purity　of　ruling　their　lives；　hardly　at　all。　　But　the
  continental　caste；　instead　of　recruiting　their　tainted　blood　by
  healthy　blood　from　below；　did　all；　under　pretence　of　keeping　it
  pure；　to　keep　it　tainted　by　continual　intermarriage；　and　paid；　in
  increasing　weakness　of　body　and　mind；　the　penalty　of　their　exclusive
  pride。　　It　is　impossible　for　anyone　who　reads　the　French　memoirs　of
  the　sixteenth　and　seventeenth　centuries；　not　to　perceive；　if　he　be
  wise；　that　the　aristocracy　therein　depicted　was　ripe　for　ruinyea；
  already　ruinedunder　any　form　of　government　whatsoever；　independent
  of　all　political　changes。　　Indeed；　many　of　the　political　changes
  were　not　the　causes　but　the　effects　of　the　demoralisation　of　the
  noblesse。　　Historians　will　tell　you　how；　as　early　as　the　beginning
  of　the　seventeenth　century；　Henry　IV。　complained　that　the　nobles
  were　quitting　their　country　districts；　how　succeeding　kings　and
  statesmen；　notably　Richelieu　and　Louis　XIV。；　tempted　the　noblesse　up
  to　Paris；　that　they　might　become　mere　courtiers；　instead　of　powerful
  country　gentlemen；　how　those　who　remained　behind　were　only　the　poor
  hobereaux；　little　hobby…hawks　among　the　gentry；　who　considered　it
  degradation　to　help　in　governing　the　parish；　as　their　forefathers
  had　governed　it；　and　lived　shabbily　in　their　chateaux；　grinding　the
  last　farthing　out　of　their　tenants；　that　they　might　spend　it　in　town
  during　the　winter。　　No　wonder　that　with　such　an　aristocracy；　who　had
  renounced　that　very　duty　of　governing　the　country；　for　which　alone
  they　and　their　forefathers　had　existed；　there　arose　government　by
  intendants　and　sub…delegates；　and　all　the　other　evils　of
  administrative　centralisation；　which　M。　de　Tocqueville　anatomises
  and　deplores。　　But　what　was　the　cause　of　the　curse？　　Their　moral
  degradation。　　What　drew　them