The Tournament—Its Periods and Phases

by R. Coltman Clephan

Should the judge allow the combat the advocate of the appellant is to lay the case before the court in sober terms; but should the defendant deny the charge the appellant must say that, although he cannot prove it by witnesses or other evidence, yet he can avouch it in his own body or by another for him, in an enclosed field in presence of the king.

The appellant is to throw down his glove and retain counsel for arms, horse, etc., necessary for the gage of battle. The defendant may reply to the accusation that the appellant has falsely and maliciously lied; and that in his defence, by the help of God and our Lady, he will avouch his innocence with his body or by some other for him; and that he will be ready on the day and at the place fixed upon for the combat. Then he is to take up the gage thrown down by the appellant, and a decision will be given by the count as to whether trial by battle will be allowed or not.

If recourse to a duel be permitted the parties will swear to be on the ground on the day appointed; the combat to be overlooked by wise and honest men, clerks, knights, and esquires, without favour to either party; but should either appellant or defendant fail to keep his tryst he shall be proclaimed recreant, and afterwards arrested.

Regulations as to the procedure for the combat follows:—the parties to bring sustenance for themselves and their horses for the day; the lists to be 40 paces in width by 80 in length, and within them two pavilions are to be pitched for the use and comfort of the combatants. The herald is to come on horseback to the gate and to cry three times; firstly, before the arrival of the appellant; secondly, when the combatants have entered the lists; and thirdly, when they have taken their oaths. The appellant should be first in the field on the day of battle, before the hour of noon; the defendant not later than four in the afternoon. The parties make their affirmations and the sign of the cross, and appear before the stand on which the judge is seated, and he commands them to raise the visors of their helmets, after which they return to their pavilions. The herald, after having called them for the third time, motions them to kneel before a table on which a crucifix and missal are placed, when a priest admonishes them; and the marshal takes off their right-hand gauntlets and hangs them on the arms of the cross. The combatants then mount their horses, the pavilions are removed from the lists, and the marshal cries, “Gentlemen doe your Deuoire,” throwing down his glove, and the combat begins.

The body of the vanquished, dead or alive, shall be delivered by the judge to the marshal, his points cut and armour cast piecemeal in the lists, and his horse and armour shall appertain to the constable and marshal of the field. The victor shall depart honourably from the lists, on horseback.

Ashmole MS., No. 764, p. 7, furnishes the following:—“De la droite ordonnance du Gaige de Bataille par tout le royaume de France Philipe par la grace de Dieu Roy de France a touz ceulx qui ces presentes lettres verront salut.” This letter of King Philip IV, written in 1306, limits the practice of wager of battle, and is prefixed to regulations for the whole course of the combat (44-54 b).

In Favine’s Theatre of Honour and Knighthood,[253] rendered into English in 1622, judicial duels are thus defined:—“It was the custome of our auncient French to vndertake the hazard of armes and combat, to justifie themselues in an Accusation, fordged against their honour and good fame; and to sustaine the truth of some iust cause, whereof the proofes were doubtfull, yea, wholly hid and concealed.” In France the oaths were administered over the bones and relics of saints and martyrs.

In La Vie de Bertrand Du Guesclin[254] is an account of a singular legal duel between Jews, named Daniot and Turquant, which took place in Spain; and the narration aptly illustrates the superstitious character of the times and country. These Jews were accused of assassinating Blanche de Bourbon at night in her bed; and on being charged with the crime Daniot averred that he had not entered the bed-chamber of the princess at all, and had done his best to prevent Turquant from committing the murder. This Turquant denied on oath, stating that his accomplice had taken an equal part with himself in causing the death of the princess. On hearing of this direct conflict of testimony Bertrand Du Guesclin is stated to have suggested a judicial duel in the lists (champ-clos) between the parties, and this having been assented to the fight duly took place. The combatants, who were well mounted and in complete armour, fought with swords, and after some severe passages Turquant wounded Daniot in the arm so severely that he was incapacitated from further combat, owing mainly to the loss of so much blood. The coup de mort was about to be given to the vanquished champion and a confession of his guilt demanded when just at that moment a thick cloud appeared above the heads of the combatants, and issuing from it a flash of lightning struck them both dead.

Among the Monstrelet illustrations is a picture of a highly improbable judicial duel between a man and a dog, the man being accused of murdering the dog’s master. The picture was copied from an ancient painting which hung in the great hall of the Castle of Montargis, and is supposed to picture an event recorded by Colombière in Theatre d’Honneur et de Chevalerie. The fight is stated to have taken place in the reign of Charles V of France (1364-1380).[255] The scene represents the duel in progress within a large circular enclosure or lists, around which are galleries and promenades like a theatre, the numerous spectators being richly dressed nobles and ladies. Companies of soldiers are on guard and there is a large band of trumpeters. The defendant is clad in a leather jerkin, torn in places, and slashed drawers; he is armed with a baston or club and a large circular shield. The dog, a large staghound, is seen gripping the murderer by the throat, and justice is vindicated.

“On the seuenth of June 1380 a combat was fought afore the kings palace at Westminster, on the pauement there, betwixt one sir John Anneslie knight, and one Thomas Katrington esquire; the occasion of which strange and notable triall rose hereof. The knight accused the esquire of treason, for that which the fortresse of saint Sauior within the Ile of Constantine in Normandie, belonging sometime to sir John Chandois, had béene committed to the said Katrington, as capteine thereof, to keepe it against the enemies, he had for monie sold and deliuered it ouer to the Frenchmen, when he was suffientlie prouided with men, munition and vittels, to have defended it against them: and sith the inheritance of that fortresse and landes belonging thereto, had apperteined to the said Annerslie in right of his wife, as néerest cousine by affiniti vnto sir John Chandois, if by the false conueiance of the said Katrington, it had not beene made awaie, and alienated into the enemies hands: he offered therefore to trie the quarrell by combat, against the said Katrington, wherevpon was the same Katrington apprehended, and put in prison, but shortlie after set at libertie againe.” It was decided to try the case by combat, and the constable and marshal were duly notified. Lists were erected and crowds assembled on the day appointed to witness the fight. On being called three times by the herald-at-arms the parties entered the lists for fighting, and the articles of combat were publicly read, and after each had been duly sworn the fight commenced “first with speares, after with swords, and lastlie with daggers. They fought long till finallie the knight had bereft the esquire of all his weapons, and at length the esquire was manfull overthrowned by the knight,” who was declared the conqueror. The esquire died soon after from his hurts. The king was present at the fight.[256]