More frequently jousts were held at places appointed expressly for the occasion. When they were jousts of peace, the mode of combat was always specifically described. A knight would often challenge another for love of his lady to joust three courses with a spear, three strokes with a sword, three with a dagger, and three with an axe.[329] It was the rule for knights to strike at each other only on the body, or within the four quarters, as the times phrased their meaning. The loss of his good name and the forfeiture of his horse and arms were the penalties of violating this usage. Sometimes the weapons were similar to those used in tournaments; but more frequently they were weapons of war[330]; and though the lances were sharp, and the bright swords were not rebated, seldom was blood shed in these jousts, so truly admirable was the military skill of the soldiers in chivalry. The tournaments are interesting in the general circumstances of their splendour and knightly gallantry; but the jousts give us a far more curious knowledge of ancient manners.
Singular questions regarding jousts.
But before I describe these martial amusements, let me call my reader’s attention for a few moments to the subtlety of intellect with which questions respecting the circumstances that happened at jousts were discussed.
Two gentlemen agreed to fight on horseback, and he who first fell was to be deemed the vanquished man. By the chance of battle it happened that they both fell together, and the sage spirits of chivalry were agitated by the question, who should be accounted victorious. Some thought that the defender ought to have the honour, for in all doubtful cases the challenged person should be favoured; others contended, that as the fall of the challenger might proceed from his own force, and not the virtue of the enemy, the judgment ought to lie dead: but the best and general decision was this:—if the combat were for trial of skill or love of the ladies, the challenger ought to lose the honour; but if it were for the decision of any mortal quarrel, the battle ought to be resumed some other day, because in combats of that kind no victory was gained until one of the parties were either slain or yielded himself prisoner, or had with his own mouth denied the words whereon the combat was occasioned.
On another occasion, seven knights agreed with seven of their companions to run certain courses for honour and love of the ladies. When the joust took place, five of one side acquitted themselves right chivalrously, but their two brother-tilters were overthrown. On the other side, two only performed their courses well, the rest of that company lost many lances and ran very foul. It was then debated whether unto five well-doers and two evil, or unto two well-doers and five evil, the honour ought to be allotted. As the question did not regard the merit of any particular man, but which party in general best performed the enterprise, it was alleged that the party wherein were most well-doers ought to have the honour, notwithstanding the fall of two of their companions. This opinion was met by the acknowledged rule of arms, that the fall from horseback by the enemies’ force or skill was the most reproachful chance that could happen to a knight. Therefore it was contended that the misadventure of two men only might reasonably be the loss of honour to the rest.[331] But further details of chivalric subtleties would afford little pleasure, and contenting myself with having shown that our ancestors’ intellects were as sharp as their swords, we will progress to the tilting ground.
An earl of Warwick.
One of the earls of Warwick went to France dressed in weeds of peace, but carrying secretly his jousting harness. In honour of his lady he set up three shields on three pavilions, and his heralds proclaimed his challenges, apparently from three different knights, among the lords, knights, and squires of honour in France. The devices on his shields and the names he assumed were emblematical of love and war. Three skilful jousters of France on three successive days touched the shields, and the earl, dressed in different guises, overthrew them all. They now became his friends: he entertained them with chivalrique magnificence, and gave jewels of price to them all. For himself he had acquired renown, and that was all he wished; for he now could return to his lady, and showing how he had sped in his chivalric courses, could proudly claim the reward of valour.[332]
Celebrated joust at St. Ingelbertes.
“Ye have heard oftentimes, it said, how the sport of ladies and damsels encourageth the hearts of young lusty gentlemen, and causeth them to desire and seek to get honour.”[333]
Such is Froissart’s beautiful and romantic prelude to his account of a very interesting joust.