Definition
Jousts (also Justs) were regulated martial exercises conducted between individual men of honor, typically on horseback with spears, recognized and governed under English law. The legal significance of the term arises from statutory regulation of such activities, distinguishing them from the broader category of tournaments. In legal contexts, jousts appear primarily as a subject of royal licensing and regulation — activities that could be permitted or prohibited by the Crown, and which carried legal consequences for participants who engaged in them without proper authorization.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Plural of joust; a combat between two mounted knights or men-at-arms with lances, or more broadly any vigorous contest or competition.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): A personal combat on horseback between two knights, each endeavoring to unhorse the other with a lance; a tilt.
The gap between common and legal meaning here is one of regulatory dimension rather than definitional substance. In common usage, jousts are simply a form of mounted combat or sport. In law, the term carried formal significance as a category of controlled activity subject to Crown licensing, with specific legal distinctions between individual jousting (jousts/justs) and group combat (tournaments) that determined which statutory regime applied.
Common Confusion
Jousts and tournaments are frequently treated as interchangeable in general historical usage, but English law drew a deliberate distinction between them. Jousts were individual contests — one man against one man. Tournaments involved many combatants engaged in group military exercises. This distinction was not merely descriptive; it was legally operative, as the statutory framework governing each differed. Researchers should not assume that sources discussing one term necessarily address the other, and should check whether a given statute or writ applies to individual combat, group exercises, or both.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering "jousts" or "justs" in historical legal sources should understand several navigational points.
First, the terms jousts and justs are orthographic variants of the same word. Bouvier's cross-references between them without separate definition, and historical sources may use either form interchangeably. A corpus search limited to one spelling may miss relevant material.
Second, the primary statutory anchor in English law is 24 Hen. VIII, c. 13, cited in Black's. This statute is the reference point for the legal regime governing these activities during the Tudor period. Researchers working with pre- or post-Tudor sources should be alert to the possibility that the regulatory framework differed.
Third, the term appears in an unusual dual context in Bouvier: once as a reference to the martial exercise, and once embedded within the entry for TOUT TEMPS PRIST, a procedural plea of always ready. These are unrelated legal subjects sharing proximity in the dictionary only because of Bouvier's cross-reference structure. A researcher following the JUSTS cross-reference in Bouvier will arrive at the TOUT TEMPS PRIST entry, which addresses pleading practice around tender and refusal — not martial exercises at all. This is a structural artifact of Bouvier's editorial method and should not be read to imply a substantive legal connection between jousting and the plea.
Fourth, jousts as a legal subject belong to a cluster of Crown-regulated activities in medieval and early modern English law. Researchers interested in the broader regulatory framework should look to materials on royal licensing, the law of arms, and the jurisdiction of the Court of Chivalry.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's 2nd edition provides the substantive definition, drawing the individual/group distinction and anchoring it to 24 Hen. VIII, c. 13. This is the more useful entry for research purposes.
Bouvier's handling is minimal: the JOUSTS entry is a bare cross-reference to JUSTS, and the JUSTS entry is itself a cross-reference to TOUT TEMPS PRIST, where the martial meaning disappears entirely in favor of pleading doctrine. This cross-reference chain reflects the limits of Bouvier's coverage of archaic Crown-regulated activities and should not be treated as substantive guidance on the law of jousting itself.
Neither dictionary addresses the jurisdictional history of the Court of Chivalry in relation to these activities, nor the question of civil liability for injuries sustained in licensed versus unlicensed jousting — gaps that researchers pursuing those questions will need to fill from primary sources and specialized secondary literature on the law of arms.
Jurisdictional Note
This term is essentially confined to English legal history. Its statutory grounding in 24 Hen. VIII, c. 13 places it within the Tudor regulatory framework. No comparable legal category with this name exists in modern common law jurisdictions.