University of Virginia Library

In the times of chivalry, the knight who threw his gauntlet on the ground offered the challenge, he who took it up accepted it.

The result of a combat, in the bad logic of our forefathers, was always admitted to refute or substantiate a charge. “William D'Ow, a Norman in the reign of William Rufus, was accused of Treason, and maintaining his innocence, by single combat, was defeated, upon which, by order of the King, he was deprived of his eyes.”—Camden.

The name given to the rails which excluded the gazers, and to approach so near as to touch which was proclaimed punishable with death.

From time immemorial references have been made to this extraordinary circumstance, as to an indubitable fact; but one who reasons on the subject, in the absence of direct evidence, must regard the assertion, that no venomous creature will live in Ireland, as utterly unfounded It is difficult to trace vulgar prejudices to their sources, but perhaps, from the infrequency with which noxious reptiles are found in Ireland, a person originally may have expressed a belief in the opinion. This is marvellous, and as the marvellous never wants propagators, another, on the faith of his predecessor, may have gone a little further, and roundly have asserted, what before was only a conjecture, and thus the story becomes strengthened by a progressive accession of worthless evidence, till at length no one is so unpolite as to doubt what every body believes. The old legends however assign a much easier cause for this peculiarity, by affirming, that, St. Patrick, at the approach of Lent, went into a mountain in Connaught, and, that after long abstinence, to this place he collected the several tribes of serpents and venomous creatures, when, after giving them a suitable address, he drove the whole of them into the Atlantic!

It is rather an unfortunate circumstance for those who espouse this sentiment, that the same story should have been propagated of the Isle of Thanet, in Kent; a privilege which it was supposed to enjoy from the virtue of St. Augustine, who, on coming over to Britain to convert the Saxons, first landed, it is said, on that island, when the whole of the poisonous brood, fled, never more to return. The assertion has long been refuted respecting Thanet, and it is an unaccountable circumstance that the evidence should be so lax respecting Ireland, as to allow any one, in the present day, to hesitate in affirming, that the whole is not more contrary to analogy than it is to fact. Giraldus (even in his time) mentions, that there was a dispute whether the Isle of Man should be regarded as naturally belonging to England or Ireland, it being about equally distant from both. It was at length however admitted to belong to England, as, upon inquiry, it was proved to contain “venomous creatures.”

The helmet was sometimes tied loosely, to save the wearer in a charge, Several instances have occurred where the helmet was cast from the head by the lance in tilting. This was the case at a tournament in which the champions were John of Holland, on the part of the English, and Raynard de Roye, on the part of the French. The latter had laced his helmet so slightly to his armour, that when the lance of his antagonist lighted on his visor, it fell from his head and averted the injury he would otherwise have received. This was considered as an artifice which gave great offence to the English spectators, but the Duke of Lancaster who was present commended the Frenchman's dexterity, and said that “both of them, in this matter should be permitted to do as they pleased, but added, for his part he should wish to have his helmet buckled as tight as it was possible.”

One of the most furious combats on record is that mentioned by Holinshed, in the reign of Richard II. between a Knight and a Squire, which, as a picture of the times, is here presented to the reader.

“On the seventh of June, 1380, a combat was fought afore the King's Palace at Westminster, on the pavement there, betwixt one Sir John Anneslie, Knight, and one Thomas Katering Esquier; the occasion of which strange and notable triall rose hereof. The Knight accused the Squire of treason, for that where the fortresse of St. Saviour, in Normandy, belonging sometime to Sir John Chandois (to which the Knight was heir. This is the Sir John Chandos, who was one of the chief military heroes, in the reign of Richard II. who won the battle of Auray, over the French, under disadvantageous circumstances, and whose death is so circumstantially and feelingly described by Froissart,) had been committed to the said Katrington, to keep it against the Enemy, whereas he, for money, had sold: and delivered it over to the Frenchmen, when he was sufficiently provided of men, munition and vittals to have defended it against them. By the opinion of true and ancient Knights it was ordained that the truth of the charge should be proven or refuted by fair battell. Hereupon was the place and day appointed, and all things provided readie, with rails and lists made so substantiallie as if the same should have endured forever. The concourse of people that came to London to see this sight was supposed to exceed that of the King's Coronation.

“The king, his nobles, and all the people being come together in the morning of the day appointed, to the place where the lists were set up, the Knight being armed mounted on a faire courser seemelie trapped, entered first as appellant, and shortly after was the Squire called to defend his cause. He, at the third call, did come armed likewise, and riding on a courser trapped with traps imbroidered with his arms. Before they entered battell, they take an oath, as well the Knight as the Squire, that the cause in which they were to fight was true, and that they dealt with no witchcraft, nor art magike, whereby they might obteine the victorie of their adversarie, nor had about them any herbe or stone, or other kind of experiment with which magicians used to triumph over their enemies. This oath received of either of them, and therewith having made their praiers devoutlie, they began the battell, first with spears, after with swords, and lastlie with daggers. They fought long, till finallie the Knight had bereft the Esquier of all his weapons, and at length the Esquier was manfully overthrown by the Knight. But as the Knight would have fallen upon the Esquier, through sweat that ran down by his helmet, his sight was hindered, so that thinking to fall upon the Esquier he fell down sideling himselfe, not coming neere to the Esquire, who perceiving what had happened, although he was almost overcome with long fighting, made to the Knight and threw himselfe upon him, so that many thought the Knight should have beene overcome, other doubted not but that the Knight would recover his feete againe, and get the victorie of his adversary.

“The King in the mean time caused it to be proclaimed that they should staie, and that the Knight should be raised up from the ground, and so meant to take up the matter petwixt them. To be short, such were sent as should take up the Esquier, but coming to the Knight, he besought them that it might please the King to permit them to lie still, for he thanked God he was well, and mistrusted not to obteine the victorie, if the Esquier might be laid on him in manner as he was earst. Finallie when it would not be so granted, he was contented to be raised up, and was no sooner set on his feet, but he cheerfullie went to the King, without any man's helpe, where the Esquier could neither stand nor go without the helpe of two men to hold him up, and therefore was set in his chair to take his ease, to see if he might recover his strength.

“The Knight, at his comming before the King besought him and his nobles to grant him so much that he might be oftsoones laid on the ground, as before, and the Esquier to be laid aloft upon him: for the Knight perceived that the Esquier, through excessive heat, and the weight of his armour, did marvellouslie faint, so as his spirits were in a manner taken from him.

“The King and his nobles perceiving the Knight so couragiouslie to demand to try the battle forth to the uttermost, offering great summes of monie that so it might be doone, decreed that they should be restored againe to the same plight in which they laie when they were raised up. But in the mean time the Esquier fainting, and falling downe in a swoone, fell out of his chaire, as one who was like to yeeld up his last breath presentlie among them. Those that stood about him cast wine and water upon him, seeking to bring him again, but all would not serve till they plucked off the armor and his whole apparell, which thing proved the Knight to be vanquisher. After a little time the Esquier begane to come to himselfe, and lifting up his eyes, began to hold up his head, and to cast a ghostlie looke on every one about him, which when it was reported to the Knight, he cometh to him armed as he was and speaking to him, called him Traitor and false perjured man, asking him if he durst trie the battell with him againe, but the Esquier having neither sense nor spirit whereby to make answer, proclamation was made that the battell was ended. The Esquier immediatelie after he was brought to his lodging and laid in bed, began to war raging words, and so continuing still out of his wits, about nine of the clocke the next day, he yeelded up the ghost. This combat was fought the seventh of June to the great rejoicing of the common people and discouragement of Traitours.”

The appointed battle at Coventry, in the year 1398, between the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Hereford, as detailed by Stow, and Holinshed, presents a better exhibition than the preceding of the circumstances attendant on a solemn combat, but it is too long for a note in this place.