From the accounts before me, I suppose that all of these tilts at the South differed in several essential particulars from the tournaments of olden time. JOUST, OR JUST. This was a combat between two persons, and in this was unlike the tournament; and it differed in the further particular, that, by agreement, it might be a mortal fight, or common duel. In a joust to the death, the knights generally belonged to different countries; in that of courtesy, they met at the close of a tourney, though sometimes at a place specially designated for the purpose. Two instances of the latter form will answer the purpose intended by these notes. In honor of the coronation of the queen of Edward the Fourth of England, in 1465, a challenge for a joust of courtesy was sent by Sir Anthony Woodville, her Majesty's brother, to the Count de la Roche, the most renowned champion in Europe. The Count accepted the invitation, but failed to appear. Two years afterwards, however, the knights met in England, and Woodville vanquished the French noble. sup The most celebrated joust of the sixteenth century was, I pose, in 1590, between David Lindesay, Earl of Crawford, and the Lord Wells, ambassador of Richard the Second to the court of Scotland. Richard, by letter of Privy Seal, gave "safeconduct for David de Lindesy, knight, for the duel to be fought with John de Welles," with his retinue of twenty-nine persons in armor, and twelve other knights, with their esquires, varlets, and pages. The combat was on London Bridge, on horseback, with square ground spears. The king, the nobles, and a vast throng, were spectators. At the signal, the jousters "rushed hastily together with a mighty force," and splintered their weapons. At the second encounter, the spears were again shivered. At the third, the English knight was dismounted, and fell breathless to the ground, amid the cry of the multitude that he was killed. Lindesay, proclaimed victor, suddenly leaped from his horse, and, casting himself upon the neck of his antagonist, tenderly embraced him until he revived, and the surgeon came to attend him. Among the distinguished jousters of a later period, Sir Philip Sidney, an accomplished writer and statesman of Queen Eliza 66 beth's time, deserves respectful mention. The joust was assailed by vigorous pens, even in the reign of Henry the Eighth; the Lyon king at arms " of the Court of James the Fifth of Scotland, in a satirical poem entitled "The Justing between James Watson and John Barbour"; and an English writer in an essay ridiculed the splendid solemnities and unnecessary bloodshed of the joust and the tourney, and with effect upon the public mind. CHAMPIONSHIP OF ENGLAND. The crown of England is, in theory at least, put in issue by appeal to the Judicial Duel, or Wager of Battle, at every demise of the sovereign. The custom was introduced by William the Conqueror. At the coronation of himself and his queen, in the year 1068, a cavalier completely armed rode into the hall, and, interrupting the festivities, uttered this challenge three times : "If any person denies that our most gracious sovereign, Lord William, and his spouse Matilda, are not king and queen of England, he is a falsehearted traitor and a liar; and here I, as champion, do challenge him to single combat." This challenge has been continued to the present day. Omitting notice of the coronation of William the Second, of the Henrys, of Stephen and John, the Richards, the Edwards, and of Mary, the first that claims particular attention is that of Elizabeth, in 1559, when the champion, Sir Edward Dymock, cast down his gauntlet, and offered to defend the "Most high and mighty princess, our dread sovereign, Lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queen of England, France, Ireland, defender of the true, ancient, and Catholic faith, most worthy empress from the Örcade Isles to the Mountains Pyrenee." The words in italics are singular, inasmuch as the Bishop of Carlisle was the only bishop who would consent to crown her, because she had declared against the "Catholic faith," and had become a Protestant or heretic. This was an era in the Church. We pass to a change in the state, and in the royal family. A curious incident, according to tradition, occurred at the coronation of William and Mary, in 1689. The substance of the story is, that after Sir Charles Dymock had thrown his gauntlet, and pronounced his defiance in the name of "our sovereign lord and lady," an unknown female stepped from the crowd and lifted the glove, dropped her gage, with a paper containing an acceptance of the challenge in behalf of a champion of rank and birth, who, if fair field were allowed, would appear in Hyde Park to defend the rights of another claimant to the throne; and further, that at the time appointed a stalwart man repaired to the Park, and paced the ground for some hours as if expecting an antagonist. The legend is used in "Redgauntlet," but Sir Walter Scott relates it as having happened at the coronation of George the Third, or at a time when the cause of the Stuarts was hopeless. At the coronation of George the Fourth, in 1821, Mr. Dymock entered Westminster Abbey on horseback, during the royal banquet, and said : "If any person shall deny that [his Majesty, &c., &c.] is heir to the imperial crown of this United Kingdom, or that he ought not to enjoy the same, here is his champion; who saith he lieth, and is a false traitor, being ready in person to combat with him, and in this quarrel will adventure his life against him on what day soever he shall appoint." The championship is hereditary in the family of Dymock. The official champion at the coronation of William the Fourth being in holy orders, a debate arose in the courts, whether the challenge could be given by deputy. The decision finally was, that the clergyman's eldest son might be allowed to appear as his father's representative. PRIZE FIGHTS. The term "barbarous ages" falls flippantly from our tongues. As we read of the strange filial piety of the Brutus who introduced the gladiatorial fight to solemnize the funeral of his father, we are amazed; as we reflect upon the custom, even while the combatants were prisoners of war, and domestic slaves, and convicts, who used neither sword nor buckler, we denounce it as brutal; as we pursue its history, and find free citizens of Rome fighting from inclination or for pay, and the greatest of the Cæsars personally arranging a show in which three hundred pairs of gladiators were to be let loose upon one another to maim and slay, that he might win the plaudits of the people; as we find the combat reduced to a science with professors to teach the wounded to fall in the most graceful postures, and to die in the finest attitudes; as at last we conclude the record with the knowledge that hundreds, probably thousands, of victims were annually slaughtered in the great cities of the empire, merely to gratify the spectators of the amphitheatres, we are shocked, and, forgetting his many crimes, eulogize the emperor whose edict stayed the desolating amusement. 66 But why deplore the past to the neglect of the present? Why speak of Roman gladiators, or of the gymnastic combats of other ancient republics, when the same barbarous custom exists among ourselves, and among the people from whom we proudly claim descent? There died in England, in the last century, a gladiator by profession, who had visited the principal parts of Europe, and had fought at home and abroad no less than three hundred and fifty times" with honor and applause." Nay, in the year 1825, the son of an English earl and the nephew of a British marquis, plied with brandy "between the rounds," and, cheered on by other noble youths, shamed the plebeian pugilists of the realmwho are generally content to maim and disfigure - by a contest with their noble fists, which ended only at the fall and death of one of them. In the United States, prize fights are by no means rare. A year has barely elapsed since one which would have disgraced Rome, at the worst period of her history, occurred near the boundary between Massachusetts and New York; the gathered mass of human beings overawed the inhabitants, indulged in every excess, and retired sated with every abomination. In some parts of the country, the prize-fighter or modern gladiator is hailed as a hero; the newspapers contain his biography, his portrait, and a description of his person and proportions, and wondering thousands read and comment upon the account of the "rounds" and "hits," the wounds and bruises, the amount of strength exhausted, and the quantity of "claret lost during his latest fight. In fine, we may spare declamation about the barbarous ages," until the magistrates, high and low, have courage to execute the laws, and the "barbarous " customs of duelling and boxing cease among ourselves. DUELS OF KINGS, GENERALS, AND NAVAL OFFICERS. 25 CHAPTER IV. CHALLENGES AND DUELS OF KINGS, GENERALS, NAVAL COMMANDERS, AMONG AUTHORS, KINGS, GENERALS, AND NAVAL OFFICERS. SOVEREIGNS, heroes, the commanders of fleets and armies, have frequently offered to decide personal or national differences by duel. Several instances occur prior to the Christian era. Thus, whatever were the motives of David, the challenge on Goliah's part, according to Josephus, was to "determine the war "between the Hebrews and the Philistines. In poetry, we have the duel between Menelaus and Paris, two of Homer's heroes, who, by consent of the adverse kings, and in behalf of their respective armies, were to decide the war. In returning to history, we have the cartel of Cyrus to the king of Assyria; that of Pittacus to Phyrnon; and that of Antony to Cæsar. In later times, we have the challenges of William the Conqueror to King Harold, before the decisive battle of Hastings, and of Philip of France to Richard the First of England; the combat by champions arranged between John of England and Philip of France; and the cartels of defiance of Richard the Second and of Edward the Third of England, to the French monarchs with whom they had private and national disputes. So, again, we find that Ferdinand of Spain sent a herald to the camp of Alfonso, king of Portugal, to defy him to a fair field of fight with his whole army, or, declining that, to invite him to decide their differences by personal combat. In Scottish history, we have the message of Haco, king of Norway, to Alexander the Third; of Bothwell to his adversaries generally; and, previous to the calamitous battle of Flodden, the overture to settle the fate of contending parties without a conflict between the armies. In naval warfare, the challenge of Marshal Boucicault to Carlo Zeno, the commander of the fleet of Venice, at the commencement of the fifteenth century, and the proposition of our own Decatur, in the war of 1812, are examples of chivalry worthy of mention. And, last, the manifesto of Paul of Russia, |