The History of Duelling. Vol. 1 (of 2) (2024)

i

ii

LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.
iii

CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.

1

HISTORY OF DUELLING.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

While calmly perusing the annals of duelling,we cannot but be amazed when we behold, in thepresent day of pretended intellectual perfection,this practice adopted in a society which pridesitself upon its boasted high state of civilization.

The details of ancient duels and single combats,which in fact were little better than qualifiedmurders, may be revolting from their barbarousexcesses; yet no study will tend more effectuallyto rub off from the pictorial romance of historyits deceptive varnish, than that of duelling, itsprogress, and its occasional comparative disappearancewhen it ceased to be fashionable, orresorted to by the upper classes of society.2

The very origin of duelling should make usblush at its permanency,—springing from thedarkest eras of barbarism, when scarcely a vestigewas left, in the wreck of empires, of ancientglory, and of those arts, sciences, and polite accomplishmentsthat had distinguished precedingages, and of which the scattered ruins and traditionalone remained, fearful records of thevanity of earthly grandeur and mortal fame.

The martial and independent spirit of Romewas extinct. Sybarite luxury had succeeded itsdays of iron; and civilization, degraded by overrefinement into effeminacy, had built palaces, butoverthrown the barriers against invasion. Thisweakness was felt, tried, and overwhelmed.Swarms of barbarians overran that once greatdominion,—the torrent swept all before it, andfamine and pestilence marched in the train of thesavage invaders; every institution that policy hadlaboured to establish was overthrown; and, forcenturies, scarcely a vestige was to be traced oflaw, justice, or reason. The right of the swordwas the only authority recognised; and a feudalsystem divided mankind into lords and slaves.Turbulence, oppression, and rapine were calledgovernment. The Deity was supposed to bepropitiated by deeds of blood; while religionbecame a useful mask for the hypocrite, and wasconfined to the observance of external ceremonies.

It was during this dark period that the practice3of trials by ordeal,1 duelling, and single combatreigned paramount; and, when we consider thestate of society into which mankind were brutalized,we cannot wonder at this mode of decidingdifferences being considered the wisest and mostjust. This epoch cannot be better described thanin the fitting passage of Robertson:

“To repel injuries and to revenge wrongs, isno less natural to man, than to cultivate friendships;and, while society remains in its mostsimple state, the former is considered as a personalright no less inalienable than the latter. Nor domen in this situation deem that they have a titleto redress their own wrongs alone; they aretouched with the injuries done to those withwhom they are connected, or in whose honourthey are interested, and are no less prompt toavenge them. The savage, how imperfectlysoever he may comprehend the principle of politicalunion, feels warmly the sentiments ofsocial affection, and the obligations arising fromthe ties of blood. On the appearance of an injuryor an affront offered to his family or tribe,he kindles into rage, and pursues the author of4it with the keenest resentment. He considers itas cowardly to expect redress from any arm buthis own, and as infamous to give up to anotherthe right of determining what reparation heshould accept, or with what vengeance he shouldbe satisfied.”

Here we find the ground-work of duelling,—andit is to be lamented, that man, even in aprogressive state of civilization, differs little fromthe savage in his thirst for gratifying the degradingindulgence of revenge.

Let us strip the romantic days of chivalry oftheir fantastic and glittering panoply,—the hallof wassail of its pomp and beauty,—the troubadour’sfond theme of its florid attractions,—andthe feats of knighthood in the cause of theladies loved par amours of their Quixotic devotion,—andwhat shall we behold? Treacheryand ferocity of the blackest die,—profligacy anddebauchery of the most revolting nature,—viceclad by a morbid imagination in the most fascinatinggarb of virtue,—and a murderer’s browlaurelled by beauty’s hand, instead of fallingunder the headsman’s axe!

Balzac has truly said that we might travel tothe world’s end upon a word. If we could butdefine certain words, and make that definitionrecognized by society, which is drawn by reason,instead of fashion and prejudice, how much morehappy might we not be! Then should we know5the real meaning of the words, “liberty, glory,honour, love, courage,”—now fantastic idols, atwhose shrine so much blood has been vainlyshed!—while, by a strange perversion of humanintellect, satisfaction has been considered to consistin the probable aggravation of our own sufferings,and the misery of all those whom we holddear.

It would be anticipating further observations onthis important point, to dwell longer upon it inthis place. In the following pages are recordedthe most celebrated duels of various ages, and ofdifferent countries. In their perusal we mayshudder at the atrocity of the details, and flatterourselves with the idea that the present times aremore civilized, but reflection will convince usthat we are in error; the causes and the effects ofthe evil continue the same,—the one equally frivolous,the other equally disgraceful, and equallycriminal. Not only will the history of duellingthrow considerable light on the history of thetimes, but it will materially tend to illustrate themanners and the institutions of society at thedifferent periods of its progression towards amore humanized condition; at the same time weshall see what has been the effect of example insanctioning or discouraging the practice. In thehistory of duelling we read the history of mankindin the developement of our evil passions, andthe occasional display of some redeeming qualities.6It is a reflective mirror stained with blood, and wemust wipe off the clotted gore of ages to contemplatetruth in all its bearings, to feel whatmiserable creatures we are!—the occasional foot-ballsof vanity and pride, or the tools of ambitionand hypocrisy, but always the victims of idealpursuits and visionary joys! Worldly pomp andall its attractions—its honours and its glories—remindone of the vain youth who embraces thecareer of arms, to sport a dazzling uniform.Behold him now moving in a galaxy of militarysplendour; soon after, alas! stretched uponthe battle-field, alone, abandoned; wounded andfaint, not a drop of water to moisten his burninglips, not a friendly hand to raise him from theground, while, thinking on the home that he hasleft, and the friends whom he shall never seemore, he gazes on the embroidery of his laceratedcostume! The dream is passed! sad reality ushersin despair!

As it was from France that the practice ofduelling was introduced into the British isles, Ishall first follow the history of the practice duringthe several reigns of that monarchy, and bring itup progressively through the revolutionary era tothe present day; I shall then trace the progressof single combat in the other countries of Europe;and finally illustrate this execrable relict of barbarismas at different periods it prevailed in ourown country.7

The advantage that may arise from thuschronicling, in all their hideous details, such scenesof blood and turbulence, may be questionable,yet one result seems to be obvious: if the recordsof noble deeds are calculated to produce a praiseworthyemulation in youthful minds,—to inspiregenerous feelings and justifiable ambition,—maynot the annals of what may be called honourableaberrations lead us to come to a just conclusion ona subject so long mooted and advocated (as weshall see in another part of this history) by asmany eloquent men as it has been condemned byothers of an equally persuasive authority? It isno doubt true, that the perusal of the NewgateCalendar has seldom or never deterred a youthfultyro in guilt from the commission of furtheroffences; but a relation of absurdities (for suchmust be considered the origin of most duels) is,perhaps, more likely to prove beneficial thantales of terror. Such is the force of prejudice,that ridicule is more dreaded than merited contumely.A man of the world prefers the charge ofmurder to the ignominious brand of cowardice.

The difficulty of suppressing duelling has beenbut too generally admitted, and it is thereforeconsidered an unavoidable evil. To mitigate itby such regulations as are most likely to renderit less fatal, and afford a more equal chance tothe parties unfortunately compelled to submitto society’s capricious laws, has, therefore, been8a task which various experienced duellists haveundertaken, more especially in France. In thefollowing pages will be found three several codes,if such they may be called, an observance ofwhich may prevent many fatal rencontres, and,when they do take place, much effusion of bloodand frequent loss of life.9

CHAPTER II.

ON DUELLING AMONGST THE ANCIENTS, AND INOLDEN TIMES.

Whatever may have been the opinion ofBrantôme, and other writers on this subject,it is evident that the practice of duelling wasunknown to the ancients. History, no doubt,has recorded the personal conflicts of several oftheir warriors, who have called each other outto single combat in presence of their respectivearmies; and also of various bands of distinguishedindividuals, who have maintained the honour oftheir national character in presence of arbitersnamed to judge the combatants. Thus do wefind Achilles contending with Hector, Turnuswith Æneas; while Eteocles with seven of hiscompanions in arms defeats his brother Polyniceswith an equal number of followers. In theRoman annals we read of the conflict betweenthe Horatii and the Curiatii; the combats ofManlius, Valerius Corvinus, Sergius, and Marcellus:while the records of Greece have registeredthe meeting of Pittacus of Mitylene, and10Phrynon the general of the Athenians. In thisinstance, Pittacus, who was one of the seven wisem*n of Greece, displayed his wisdom by showingthat “the better part of valour was discretion;”for, having concealed a net in his shield, he did soentangle his antagonist therewith, that he fell aneasy prey to his combined courage and cunning.

The ancients were certainly in the habit ofputting to the test the courage and dexterityof wrestlers in the Pancration. The combatantswere obliged to present themselves several daysbefore the fight, and to undergo a strict examination;no slave or malefactor, nor any onerelated to such, being admitted to the contest.The selection of the combatants was decided bylot; various balls, each of which was markedwith a letter, were put into a box, and the firsttwo who drew balls of the same letter werematched against each other, and continued thestruggle until one of them yielded, by holdingup his finger. In this contest the prize was adjudgedby umpires, amongst whom, according toPausanias, certain ladies in disguise managed tointroduce themselves, to bestow the palm of victoryupon their favourite champion; in consequenceof which it was ordered that in futurethe judges should sit unclothed with the victorialgarlands before them.

Many of these combats were mortal, and attendedwith circ*mstances of great ferocity. At11first the parties fought with fists, into which wereintroduced balls of stone, iron, or some hard substance.The Cæstus was then introduced,—aheavy glove or gauntlet of thick leather studdedwith nails and pellets of iron or brass: hencefatal results were most frequent. Anacharsis theScythian observed, that he admired how theGrecians could so much honour and encouragethis exercise, when, by their laws, all violenceand injury were severely punished. Ælian mentionsa Crotonian Pancratiast who dropped downdead while they were carrying him to the judgesto receive the garland. The same author relatesthe case of another pugilist, who, having receiveda blow in the mouth that knocked in all histeeth, swallowed them together with the bloodthat followed, in order to conceal from his antagonistan injury that might have induced himto continue the contest with greater ardour.Pausanias relates several extraordinary instancesof the kind: one of a man named Arrachion,who had been twice crowned at the Olympicgames, who fought and conquered all who enteredthe lists against him till but one remained,who, running violently upon him, at the sametime entangled him with his feet, and with hishand grappled his throat, which strangled him;but, before Arrachion expired, he broke off a toeof his adversary, which gave him such pain thathe died on the spot. The judges ordered the12dead body of Arrachion to be crowned with thepalm of victory. Two other combatants, namedCreugas and Damoxenus, fought until wearywith equal advantage, when it was agreed thatthe combat should end, and be decided by twoblows on the same part; that is, he who gavethe first blow, should suffer the other to returnit on the same place. It fell by lot to Creugas,who struck his antagonist on the head, whichalmost stunned him; Damoxenus, afterwards, inviolation of the conditions, seized Creugas underthe ribs, and with his nails tore out his bowels.The victorious wreath was bestowed upon Creugas,and his treacherous opponent was banished.In these combats killing was judged neithercriminal nor punishable. Our modern boxingis little more than a continuance of this practice,which cannot possibly be said to constituteduelling, in which a personal injury is supposed,at least, to have been received by the challengingparty. In modern times, as I shall shortly show,ladies have been known to fight duels; but itappears that, if pugilistic feats are to be consideredsuch, the fair sex of antiquity offer a flatteringprecedent. Not only did Roman ladies patronizethese amusem*nts by their presence, but theythemselves not unfrequently stepped into thelists; according to Tacitus, ladies of quality wereof the number. Juvenal, in his sixth satire, andStatius, have noticed the practice. It is true that13they did not fight “altogether naked,” as co*ckburnquaintly expresses it, but were dressed likethose who were called the Samnites, wearinga shield calculated to protect the breast andshoulders, and growing more narrow towards thebottom, that it might be used with greater convenience.

Not only were women admitted as gladiators,but dwarfs also were matched against each other.If we have seen nobles and knights of moremodern times making destruction a pastime, theytoo could adduce the example of the ancients.Although gladiators were usually slaves or captives,yet freemen and men of rank soon put intheir claims to be allowed publicly to destroyeach other. Grave senators, to court the favourof their imperial masters, descended into thearena. Augustus was obliged to command thatnone of the senatorian order should turn gladiators,and soon after laid the same restraint uponknights. These prohibitions were little regarded,since we find Nero exhibiting in one show fourhundred senators and six hundred of the equestrianrank. It was chiefly during his reign, andthat of Domitian, that the ladies partook of thediversion.

Still, in the midst of this savage practice, wefind no traces of duelling, either as an amusem*ntor a satisfaction; and the ladies, insteadof procuring champions to fight their quarrels,14very independently maintained their ownrights.

In more modern times we read in chronicles ofvarious national conflicts of a similar nature. Suchwas the battle called that of the Thirty, whenthat number of Englishmen and Frenchmen contendedfor superiority. Richard Bembrough,an English chief commanding the garrison ofPloërmel, anxious to avenge the death of hiscomrade Thomas Dagarne, killed before Auray,had ravaged the surrounding country, carryingdesolation into every quarter, and murdering indiscriminatelytraders, artisans, and labourers.The Sire de Beaumanoir, a gentleman of Britanny,asked for a conference; which being granted,he remonstrated with Bembrough on his conduct,reproaching him with waging a cruel andfoul warfare, by attacking unarmed and helplessindividuals. The British captain, who consideredhimself insulted by these reproaches, proudlyanswered, that it little became him and his followersto compare themselves with Englishmen.Beaumanoir immediately challenged him to a trialof arms, which was as readily accepted by Bembrough.The place appointed for the meetingwas at a certain ancient oak-tree, between Ploërmeland Josselin; and, on the appointed day,thirty combatants appeared on each side, whileall the nobility of the district crowded to thespot to witness the conflict.15

Before giving the signal of the onset, Bembrough,it appears, had some scruples; as he consideredthat the battle would be irregular unlesshe had received the permission of his prince: hetherefore wished to postpone the battle until suchleave was obtained. To this proposal the sturdyBreton would not agree, but insisted upon immediatelydeciding which of the two was thebetter man, and was loved by the fairest lady;the Countess de Blois being the lady of Beaumanoir’saffection.

The conflict was desperate; and the Frenchchronicler states that nearly all the English bitthe dust, the wounded being despatched by theconquerors. Bembrough was killed by a certainAlain de Kaërenrech, when on the point of assailingBeaumanoir. The latter, being grievouslywounded, asked for drink, when one of his companions,the Sire de Teuteniac, charitably toldhim to drink his own blood, and that wouldquench his untimely thirst.2

In 1404 another combat of the same descriptiontook place, between seven French and sevenEnglish knights, before the castle of Montendre,in Saintonge; Charles VII. having selected ArnaultGuillem de Barbazas to lead on the Frenchagainst their antagonists, commanded by the Lord16Scales. The combat took place in presence ofboth armies; Jean de Harpedene and the Earlof Rutland having been appointed arbiters bytheir respective monarchs. Here again, accordingto Moreri, the French arms were triumphant;and Barbazas was honoured with the title of theChevalier sans reproche, and allowed to bear thefleur de lis without a bar on his escutcheon,Charles VII. moreover ordained that he shouldreceive sepulchral honours in the church of St.Denis, and be buried by his own side.

At various periods we see sovereigns challengingeach other, but reserving to themselves theoption of accepting or declining the combat.Thus, Francis I, when a prisoner of Charles V,conceived himself insulted when the latter monarchvery justly reproached him with havingbroken his royal word, by violating every promisewhich he had made to him; for, in orderto obtain his liberty, the French prince mademany solemn promises, amongst others the cessionof Burgundy, which he broke so soon as hewas free, on the plea of having acted under moralviolence. A similar plea was adduced, during thelate war, by the many French prisoners who sorepeatedly broke their parole. The challenge ofthe French King is so curious and bombastic, andso unbefitting a man who had just violated everylaw of honour, that it is worth translating.

“We, Francis, by the grace of God, &c. to17you, Charles, by the same grace, King of Spain,do maintain that if you accuse me of having doneany act unbecoming a gentleman jealous of hishonour, we tell you that you have lied in yourthroat so often as you may have made, or shallmake, such an assertion. And, as we are determinedto defend our honour to the end of ourlife, we protest that, after this declaration, inwhatever place you either speak or write anymatter against our honour, any delay in the combatshall, to your shame, be attributed to you,as your attending this challenge will put an endto all further correspondence.”

Charles V. did accept the challenge, and sentto the French King a herald, bearing what wascalled la sureté du camp, to appoint time andplace. The French monarch, however, receivedthe messenger in the hall of the Louvre inpresence of all his court and the foreign ambassadors;when, strange to say, in the exerciseof his kingly power, he would not permit theherald to open his lips; thus pusillanimouslyavoiding a meeting he had so impudently provoked.

What made this gasconading worse than ridiculouswas, the circ*mstance of Francis applyingto Pope Clement VII. for absolution for havingceded Flanders and Artois; thus requiring absolutionfor the maintenance of an oath that hecould not violate, without asking for a similar18exoneration for the breach of the solemn promisehe had made to give up Burgundy. Voltaire hastruly said of this rodomontade, “Tant d’appareiln’aboutit qu’au ridicule, dont le trône même ne garantitpas les hommes.”

Not unfrequently was this recourse to arms declinedboth in ancient and modern times. Metellusin Spain refused the challenge of Sertorius;Antigonus was defied by Pyrrhus; andMarius sent word to a Teutonic chief, who urgedhim to a personal trial of prowess, that, if he wastired of life, he had better hang himself.

Our Edward III. provoked Philippe de Valoisto a similar trial, either in single combat,or by an action of a hundred against a hundredmen; when the latter declined the meeting,alleging that a vassal could not encounterhis sovereign, Edward having done homageto him for the duchy of Guienne: but subsequently,when the arms of Edward were triumphant,Philip expressed a desire to accept the formerchallenge; the victorious monarch, however,in his turn very wisely declined a meeting whichwould have staked the glory he had obtained onthe hazard of a doubtful rencontre. To the firstchallenge of Edward, Philip had replied, thathe offered to hazard his own person only, againstboth the kingdom of France and the person ofits King; but that if the latter would increase thestake, and put also the kingdom of England on19the issue of the meeting, he would very willinglyaccept the challenge. Hume very justly observes,that “it was easy to see that these mutual bravadoeswere intended only to dazzle the populace,and that the two kings were much too wise tothink of executing their pretended purpose.”

Christian IV. of Denmark answered a defianceof Charles IX. of Sweden by strongly advisinghim to take a dose of hellebore; and CharlesGustavus, when similarly circ*mstanced withFrederick of Denmark, simply replied, that heonly fought in good company. In our own daysGustavus IV. challenged Napoleon; and the onlyreply he received from the French Emperor issaid to have been, that he would send him afencing-master as a plenipotentiary, with whomhe might arrange the proceeding.

Duels, as I have before said, were unknownamongst the ancients, however acute and fastidiousmight have been their feelings of whatis called honour, and the duties which it imposes.The lie—the blow—the most slanderousabuse—were not then considered a stain upona man’s character requiring an appeal to armsin order to verify the old saying, that the deadare always in the wrong. When Eurybiadesraised his stick against Themistocles, the youthfulhero merely replied, “Strike, but listen tome!” Lycurgus did not deem it necessary toavenge the blow he received from Alcander,20although it deprived him of an eye; nor didCæsar bring Cato to account for the ridicule heheaped upon him in the senate. Agrippa, oneof the bravest chiefs of Augustus, allowed theson of Cicero to throw a cup at his head; andit appears that this rude custom often prevailedat their festive boards.

Cæsar relates that two of his centurions, whocould never agree, decided that they should bothrush on the ranks of the enemy, to put each other’svalour to the test. Sophocles, being advised toprosecute a man who had struck him, calmlyreplied, “If a donkey kicked me, would yourecommend me to go to law?” Indeed, theRoman law clearly stated that a blow did notdishonour,—Ictus fustium infamiam non importat.

The advocates of personal meetings have goneso far as to maintain that duels are recordedin Holy Writ, for such they consider the murderof Abel, and the combat between David andGoliath: they have also compared the combatsof the Roman gladiators to duelling,—a mostabsurd view of the subject, since those victimsof Roman ferocity entertained no personal hostilitytowards each other; and Sully, in his Memoirs,justly observes, that “duellists have revivedthe base profession of gladiators, and renderedthemselves more contemptible and hateful thanthe unfortunates who bore that name.”21

CHAPTER III.

THE ORIGIN OF DUELLING.

Since no traces of this practice can be found inthe records of antiquity, we must seek for itsorigin in more modern times, and we shall findthat it arose from an association of brute couragewith superstition of the most credulous and degradingnature. In those rude ages when personalvalour and prowess were considered thegreatest qualifications for public and privateestimation, the strongest was sure to rule. Religionand love, two of the most mighty leversof mankind, were soon associated to warrant thecommission of the most ruthless excesses, and thepalm of victory was supposed to be suspendedover the head of each combatant by the Deityand woman: a just cause could be maintainedby the sword alone, and true love only provedby the lance.

The barbarous courage of the northern nationshas been fully illustrated by their historianTacitus, and it was their firm belief that bothpublic and private quarrels could only be decided22by single combat; when we consider thatthese savage and superstitious hordes afterwardsoverran the whole of Europe, the practice of apersonal appeal to arms may be easily traced totheir irruption in the fifth century, when theirinnumerable masses poured forth from their ancientand gloomy forests, to seek a more congenialclime, and a more profitable field for thedisplay of their overwhelming power. TheAnglo-Saxons inundated the British isles; whilethe Lombards, the Suevi, the Vandals, the Visigothsand Ostrogoths, established their iron swayin Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Sarmatia.3

Thus did these barbarians establish an universalmilitarism, the parent of feudality—its first-bornoffspring, when only two classes were recognisedin society—the powerful and the weak—the lordand the villain. The soldier and the militantpriest reigned with despotic rule; all learningand intellectual improvement were consideredhostile to their mighty power, and every institutionthat they framed was consistent with ignoranceand barbarity.423

To give their decrees a greater moral weight,they were clothed with the sanctity of a divinelaw. The sword was considered the only modeof arbitrating between right and wrong. Whateverthe priest had stigmatized by bell, book,and candle, was considered detestable in the eyesof God, and therefore doomed to worldly destruction:plunged in an abyss of apathetic stupidityin all matters where judgment shouldhave decided, or hurried headlong by a vortexof superstitious fears, man had no light to guidehim but the ignis fatuus of bigotry.

All these barbarous races knew no other modeof deciding differences but that of brute force.Tacitus informs us that, when a tribe of Germanscontemplated a war with any neighbouring race,they endeavoured to take one of them prisoner,and, by setting the captive to fight one of theirown people, formed an idea of their chances ofsuccess. Plutarch informs us that Alexandertried the same expedient ere he commenced hisattack on Darius.524

In vain had the Romans endeavoured to civilizethe Cimbri and the Teutones. In vain didVarus seek to arbitrate amongst them, and terminatetheir bloody feuds; if, for a moment theyseemed to yield to his suggestions, it was thebetter to conceal their preparations for the destructiveinsurrection they meditated.

A speedy recourse to arms must have been thenatural result of any difference that arose amongstmen who never assembled but in warlike array,whether the object of the meeting was publicor private: and, superstition inducing them tobelieve that the gods would shield the innocent,an “ordeal” was established, by which the accuserwas to make good his assertions, and theaccused defend his innocence; and these combatswere thence called judicial.6

The first legal establishment of these ordealsis to be found in the laws of Gundebald, King ofthe Burgundians, A. D. 501. This law enactedthat Gundebald, being fully convinced that manyof his “subjects suffered themselves to be corruptedby their avarice, or hurried on by their25obstinacy, so as to attest by oath what they knewnot, or what they knew to be false: in orderto put a stop to such scandalous practices, whenevertwo Burgundians are at variance, if the defendantshall swear that he owes not what is demandedof him, or that he is not guilty of thecrime laid to his charge; and the plaintiff, onthe other hand, not satisfied therewith, shall declarethat he is ready to maintain, sword in hand,the truth of what he advances; if the defendantdoes not then acquiesce, it shall be lawful forthem to decide the controversy by dint of sword.This is likewise understood of the witnesses ofeither party; it being just that every man shouldbe ready to defend with his sword the truthwhich he attests, and to submit himself to thejudgment of Heaven.”

To a certain extent, to the shame of the civilizedworld be it said, this savage and absurddecree is acted upon in the present age!

The manner in which these judicial combats26were carried on was equally ferocious and disgusting.“The accuser was with the peril of hisown body to prove the accused guilty; and, byoffering his glove, to challenge him to this trial,which the other must either accept, or else acknowledgehimself culpable of the crime whereofhe was accused. If it were a crime deservingdeath, then was the combat for life and deatheither on horseback or on foot. If the offenceonly deserved imprisonment, then was the combataccomplished when the one had subdued theother, by forcing him to yield, or disabling himfrom defending himself. The accused had theliberty to choose a champion in his stead; butthe accuser must appear in his own person, andwith equality of weapons. No women were allowedto behold the contest, nor male childrenunder the age of thirteen. The priests and thepeople did silently pray that the victory mightfall on the guiltless; and, if the fight were forlife or death, a bier stood ready to carry awaythe dead body of him who should be slain.None of the people might cry out, shriek, makeany noise, or give any sign whatever; and hereunto,at Hall in Suevia, (a place appointed fora camp-fight,) was so great a regard taken, thatthe executioner stood beside the judges, readywith his axe to cut off the right hand and leftfoot of any party so offending. He that, beingwounded, did yield himself, was at the mercy of27the other, to be killed or allowed to live: if hewere slain, he was buried honourably, and hethat slew him reputed more honourable than before;but if, being overcome, he was left alive,then was he declared by the judges void of allhonest report, and never after allowed to ride onhorseback or to carry arms.”

In later days, the Burgundians, faithful to theirearly institutions, and the Flemish citizens governedby the Duke of Burgundy, used to settle theirdisputes in a manner somewhat similar. In imitationof the ancient athletæ, who anointed theirbodies with oil, these worthies smeared themselvesover with tallow or hog’s lard, and then,with a buckler and club, fell to; having first dippedtheir hands in ashes, and filled their mouthswith honey or sugar. They then contended untilone of the parties was killed,—and the survivorwas hanged for his trouble.

As civilization improved, the ladies were allowedto witness these exhibitions; and a curious duelis related by Brantôme. At the coronation ofHenry II, a dispute arose between a Baron desGuerres and a certain Seigneur de Faudilles, andthey applied for a “field” to settle the quarrel:the sovereign, however, had made a vow not tosanction any duel since the death of his favouriteDe la Chasteneraye; and they therefore metat Sedan, which was under the sovereignty ofMonsieur de Bouillon. The combatants appeared28after all due preparation; Le Sieur de Faudilleshaving lighted a fire and set up a gallows, to thewhich he intended to suspend the corpse of hisantagonist. They were both attended by theirparrains; the baron being armed with a peculiarsort of sword, called épée bâtarde, the dexteroususe of which had been taught him by a cunningpriest. The action commenced, when Faudillesran his sword through the baron’s thigh, andinflicted a large wound that bled most profusely;then, throwing away the sword, a wrestlingmatch ensued, the baron being very expert inthis exercise, which had been taught him by apriest of Brittany, a chaplain of Cardinal deLennicourt. Both parties now belaboured eachother furiously, although from loss of blood thebaron was every moment becoming more weak;until a scaffolding, upon which were collected avast throng of ladies and elderly gentlemen assembledto see the fight, broke down with atremendous crash. The outcries and shrieks ofthe ladies, with limbs bruised and fractured, addedto the general uproar, the bystanders not knowingwhom they should first assist,—the combatants,who, sprawling on the ground, werestill pummelling each other; or the affrightedladies: while the relations and friends of thebaron, perceiving that he was becoming moreenfeebled, roared out, “Throw sand in his eyesand mouth—sand—sand in his eyes and mouth!”29which advice they dared not have given butfor the interruption of the fall of the scaffolding;for the bystanders were not allowed to speak,move, or even blow their noses: the baron tookthe hint, and lost no time in seizing a handfulof sand, and cramming it into the eyes andmouth of his opponent, who gave in, amidst theloud shouts of the spectators, some approving andothers blaming the stratagem; the baron’s friendsasserted that his opponent had yielded, whichhis party as firmly denied; and had it not beenfor M. de Bouillon, the judge of the “field,”both parties would have come to blows.

These barbarous ordeals and judicial combatswere managed with great solemnity: the groundbeing selected, as we have seen in the last duel,a large fire was kindled, and a gallows erected forthe accommodation of the vanquished; two seats,covered with black, were also prepared for thecombatants, on which they received certain admonitions,and were made to enter into variousobligations, such as to swear on the Holy Evangeliststhat they had not had recourse to anysorcery, witchcraft, or incantation. Each combatantselected his seconds, who were styled parrains,or godfathers, and who at first had no otherduties to perform than to guard with vigilancethe rights and privileges of their principals, butwho were afterwards obliged either to support orto avenge their champion. This practice arose in30France, amongst the “mignons” of Henry III, in1578, having been introduced from Italy.

These preliminaries settled, the championswere to take God, the Virgin Mary, and allthe saints, more especially Monsieur St. George,chevalier, to witness that their cause was a justone, and that they would maintain it; havingpreviously attended the celebration of mass, theforms of which are still to be found in certain oldmissals, where it is called Missa pro duello. Theadvantages of ground, wind, and sun, were thenfairly divided; and, not unfrequently, sweetmeatsand sugar-plums were distributed at thesame time. The arms of the combatants werenext measured; and, when they had taken theirground, the marshal of the “field” exclaimed“Let go the good champions!” During the fightno one was allowed to speak, to cough, spit,sneeze, blow his nose, or, in short, do anythingthat could possibly disturb the combatants, orcommunicate a preconcerted signal or advice.

The weapons admitted in these meetings werea double-edged straight sword, a cuirass, a buckler,and a lance when the combatants were mounted.Villains were only allowed to decide their differenceswith cudgels.

In the reign of St. Louis (1283), these combatsnot only took place between the principals,but were allowed between one of the partiesand the witnesses of his opponent; and, in31the event of such witness being discomfited, hisevidence was considered perjury. The latitudeof impeaching an accusation went further; forthe accused, found guilty upon evidence, couldsometimes tell the judge that he had asserted afalsehood, in which case he was obliged to givehim satisfaction sword in hand.

The form of denial was most eloquent:—“Thouliest, and I am ready to defend my bodyagainst thine; and thou shalt either be a corpseor a recreant any hour of the day: and this is mygage.” So saying, the appellant knelt, and presenteda glove, or some other gage, to his accuser.

This privilege granted the accused, was, however,only allowed when the judge was not hislord or suzerain; in the which case, his presumingto doubt his judgment and hereditary wisdomwas not deemed a felony; for, in othercases, as Desfontaines has it, “Between thee, mylord, and thy villains, there is no other Judge thanGod.”

In certain cases of physical inability, and wherewomen and the clergy were concerned, a battleby proxy was allowed; and regular bravoes,called champions, were employed,—a trade ratherperilous, since their right hand was lopped offin the event of their being worsted, perhaps toencourage their companions to more zeal on thebehalf of their clients, or more dexterity. Thecase of the principals was not much pleasanter;32for, while their champions were discussing thepoint, they were kept out of the lists with arope round their necks, and the one who wasbeaten by proxy was forthwith hanged in person,although in certain cases they were indulged withdecapitation.

A gentleman could call out a villain, but thevillain had not the slightest right to demand satisfactionfrom his superior; therefore he had noother resource than an appeal to the trial of hotiron, and water boiling or cold, which was conductedin the following manner:

In the trial by hot iron, the defendant wasobliged to hold a heated plate of iron for acertain time in his hand; his hand was thenbandaged, and a seal affixed upon it. Whenthis dressing was raised three days after, if anyburn was apparent, his cause was lost. It appearsthat proxies with hands callous and fireproofwere often procured for this operation.7

In the trial by hot water, the accused was orderedto withdraw a consecrated ring from avessel filled with boiling water. In the ordeal ofcold water, the patient was thrown into a pondwith his hands and feet tied up. If he did notsink, his guilt was evident; inasmuch as, thewater having previously received a priest’s blessing33in Latin, its refusal to receive the patientwas a convincing proof of his unholiness andcriminality.

There was another test of guilt, called the ordealof the cross. The prisoner having declaredhis innocence upon oath, and appealed to the judgment,two sticks were prepared exactly like eachother, and the figure of the cross was cut uponone of them; each of them was then wrapped upin wool, and placed upon a relic on the altar.After proper prayers, a priest took up one of thesticks; and, if it was the one that bore the sign ofthe cross, the accused was proclaimed innocent.There was another ordeal of the cross, resorted toin civil cases. The judges, parties, and all concerned,being assembled in a church, each of theparties chose a priest, the youngest and stoutesthe could find, to be his representative in the trial.These representatives were then placed one oneach side of some famed crucifix, and, a signalgiven, they both at once stretched their arms atfull length, so as to form a cross with their bodies.In this painful posture they continued to standwhile divine service was performing; and theparty whose representative dropped his arm first,lost his cause. Under Charlemagne, this trialtook place to settle litigations on account of children;but, under Louis le Debonnaire, it was confinedto ecclesiastical disputes.

It is somewhat curious, that similar ordeals34have been practised by various nations in moderntimes, who, in all probability, never heard of theseancient absurdities. In the kingdom of Siam,both in criminal and in civil causes, the parties aremade to swallow certain pills; and the one thatis first affected is considered convicted. In Thibetthe plaintiff and defendant are made to takeout of a vessel filled with boiling water a blackand a white counter; the one who has the goodluck to draw the white prize is declared innocent,although both parties are generally so scalded asto be crippled for the remainder of their days.

It appears that the trial by ordeal was an ancientusage amongst the Hindoos, and continuesto this day to be practised in nine different ways:1, by the balance; 2, by fire; 3, by water; 4, bypoison; 5, by cosha, or water in which an idol hasbeen washed; 6, by rice; 7, by boiling oil; 8, byred-hot iron; and 9, by images.

1. The ordeal by balance is thus performed.The beams having been adjusted, the cord fixed,and both scales made perfectly even, the personaccused and a Pundit fast a whole day. Afterthe accused has been bathed in sacred water,the horna, or oblation, presented to the fire, andthe deities worshiped, he is carefully weighed;and, when he is taken out of the scale, the Punditsprostrate themselves before it, pronounce a certainmentra, or incantation, agreeably to the Sastra;and, having written the substance of the accusation35on a piece of paper, bind it on his head. Six minutesafter they place him again in the scale; and,if he weigh more than before, he is held guilty;if less, innocent; but, if exactly the same, he mustbe weighed a third time, when, as it is writtenin the mitacshera, there will certainly be a differencein his weight. Should the balance, thoughwell fixed, break down, this circ*mstance wouldbe considered as a damning proof of criminality.

2. In the fire ordeal, an excavation nine handslong, two spans broad, and one span deep, is madein the ground, and filled with a fire of pippalwood. Into this the person accused must walkbare-footed; and, if his foot be unhurt, they holdhim guiltless.

3. The water ordeal is performed by causingthe person accused to stand in a certain depth ofwater, either flowing or stagnant, sufficient toreach his middle; but care is taken that no ravenousanimal be in it, and that it be not moved bymuch air. A Brachman is then directed to gointo the water, holding a staff in his hand; and asoldier shoots three arrows on dry ground from abow of cane. A man is then despatched to bringthe arrow that has been shot the farthest; and,after he has taken it up, another is ordered to runfrom the edge of the water: at which instant,the person accused is told to grasp the foot,or the staff, of the Brachman, who stands nearhim in the water, and immediately to dive. He36must remain under water till the two men whowent to fetch the arrows are returned; for,if he raise his head or body above the surfacebefore the arrows are brought back, his guilt isconsidered as fully proved. A peculiar species ofwater ordeal prevails on the coast of Malabar:a person accused of any enormous crime is obligedto swim over a large river abounding withcrocodiles, and, if he escapes unhurt, he is esteemedinnocent.

4. The trials by poison are of two sorts. In thefirst, the Pundits having performed their horna,and the accused person his ablution, two rettisand a half, or seven barleycorns, of Vishanaga, apoisonous root, or of Sanc’hya, or white arsenic,are mixed in eight marhas of clarified butter,which the accused must eat from the hand of aBrachman. If the poison produce no effect, heis declared innocent.

In the second method, the hooded snake, callednaga, is thrown into a deep earthen pot, intowhich is dropped a ring, coin, or seal. This theaccused person is ordered to take out; and, if theserpent bite him, he is pronounced guilty.

5. In the trial by cosha, the accused is made todrink three draughts of the water in which theimages of the Sun, Devi, and other deities havebeen washed for that purpose; and if withinfourteen days he has any sickness or indisposition,his crime is considered as proved.37

6. In the trial by rice, which is resorted tounder accusation of theft, some dry rice isweighed with the sacred stone called salgram, orcertain slocas are read over it; after which thesuspected persons are severally ordered to chew aquantity of it. As soon as they have chewed it,they are to throw it on some leaves of the pippal,or, if none be at hand, on some B’hurja patra, orbark of a tree from Nipal or Cashmere. The manfrom whose mouth the rice comes dry, or stainedwith blood, is holden guilty.

7. In the ordeal by hot oil, the ground appointedfor the trial is cleared, and rubbed withcow-dung; the next day, at sun-rise, the Punditworships Ganesa, or the Hindoo Janus; presentshis oblations, and pays adoration to other deities,conformably to the Sastra. Then, having readthe incantations prescribed, he places a coveredpan of gold, silver, copper, iron, or clay, sixteenfingers broad, and four fingers deep, and throwsinto it one S’ér or eighty sicca weight of clarifiedbutter or oil of seramurz. After this a ring ofgold, silver, or iron, is cleaned, washed withwater, and cast into the oil, which they proceedto heat, and, when it is very hot, put into it afresh leaf of pippela or of bilna. When the leafis burned, the oil is known to be sufficiently hot.Then, having pronounced a metra over the oil,they order the accused to take out the ring;and if he withdraw it without being burnt, or38without a blister on his hand, his innocence isconsidered evident.

8. In the red-hot iron trial, an iron ball, or thehead of a spear red-hot, is placed on the hand ofthe accused.

9. To perform the ordeal by Dharm’anch, animage named Dharma, as the genius of justice, ismade of silver, and another called Adharma, ofclay or iron, both of which are thrown into a largeearthen jar; the accused, having thrust his handinto it, is acquitted if he draw forth the silverimage, but condemned if he bring out the iron.In another form of this trial, the figure of a deityis painted on white cloth, and another on black;the first of which is named Dharma, and thesecond Adharma. These are severally rolled upin cow-dung, and thrown into a large jar, withouthaving been shown to the accused, who must puthis hand into the jar, and is acquitted or convictedas he draws out the figure on the white orblack cloth.

A strange and poetical method of deciding aquarrel is said to be adopted in Greenland: eachof the parties is obliged to sing in public a satiricalattack against his opponent, and the productionwhich is considered the most virulent,or which excites the most mirth, is deemed conclusive.

The practice of ordeals may be traced to theremotest antiquity. In Sicily, near the temples39of the Palici, were two pools of sulphureouswater, supposed to have sprung from the earthwhen these deities were born; the most solemnoaths were taken near these springs by those whohad quarrels to decide. These oaths being inscribedwere thrown into the mystic waters; ifthey floated upon the surface, innocence wasproved, and the perjured was instantly punishedin some supernatural manner. When both theirtests remained buoyant, the oracle was to decide,and the altars of the Palici were constantly pollutedby human sacrifices.

Amongst the Jews, women accused of adulterywere obliged to drink water in which ashes hadbeen mixed. Grotius mentions many instancesof water ordeal in Bithynia, Sardinia, and othercountries.

These ordeals were distinguished into the JudiciumDei, or judgment of God, and the VulgarisPurgatio.

The first account we have of the appeal to thefire ordeal as a proof of innocence, is that of Simpliciusbishop of Autun, in the fourth century.This prelate, as the story is related, before hispromotion to the episcopal dignity, had marrieda wife, whom he fondly loved, but who, beingunwilling to leave him after his clerical preferment,continued to sleep in the same chamberwith him. The sanctity of Simplicius sufferedmaterially, at least on the score of fame, by the40constancy of his wife’s affection; and it was rumouredthat the holy man, though a bishop, persisted,in opposition to the canonical laws, to tastethe sweets of matrimony. Upon which his wife,in the presence of a great concourse of people,took up a considerable quantity of burning coals,which she applied to her breast, without the leasthurt to her person or garments. It is needless toadd that this was a sufficient proof of her husband’sinnocence. In the fifth century, St. Bricewent through the same trial on a similar occasion.

The ordeal of hot water was resorted to byLothair the husband of Teutberge, daughter ofa duke of Burgundy, who was accused of incestwith her brother, a monk and deacon; for thewhich he sought a dissolution of his marriage,that he might wed his mistress Valrade. Thepoor Queen immediately justified herself byproxy, getting her attorney-general to draw out ablessed ring from a kettle of hot water; but theobdurate King swore that her champion had recourseto witchcraft or cunning, and was possessedof some secret that rendered him proof againsthot water. Others, however, were not so incredulous;and her innocence was proclaimed ashaving been confirmed by a Divine judgment,although it appears that the Queen had confessedher guilt to her confessor. To decidetherefore between a supposed Divine judgment41and an admission of her offence became a matterof such a ticklish nature, that it was very properlysubmitted to the consideration of two ecclesiasticalcouncils, who thereupon pronounced adivorce.

Howbeit, Pope Nicholas I, who of course musthave known more of the business than anyother earthly power, annulled the decision, andexcommunicated and anathematized Goutier, thearchbishop of Cologne, who had had the impudenceto advocate the divorce; but this refractoryprelate’s subsequent conduct showed his criminality,for he thus animadverts on the pontiff’sact: “Although our lord, Nicholas, whom peoplecall Pope, has thought proper to excommunicateus, we defy his nonsense.” Then, having the presumptionto address his holiness personally, headds: “And let me tell you, we will not receiveyour cursed sentence—we despise it; we flingyou from our communion, being perfectly satisfiedwith that of our bishops and our brethren,whom you affect to despise.”

This insolent message was carried to Rome bya brother of the archbishop, who, sword in hand,laid the protestation on the very sepulchre that,according to tradition, contains the remains ofSt. Peter. Nevertheless, the pontiff being succeededby Adrian II, the doughty archbishopthought it more prudent to submit to the powerof the Vatican; and therefore, despite his brother’s42gasconading over St. Peter’s sepulchre, addressedthe supreme head of the church in thefollowing highly decorous and respectful language:

“I declare before God and all the saints, moreespecially to you, my lord, Adrian, sovereignpontiff, and to all the bishops that are submittedto your authority, as well as to the Omnipresent,that I humbly submit myself to the excommunicationand dismissal canonically inflicted uponme by Pope Nicholas,” &c. &c.

Adrian, thus satisfied, forthwith excommunicatesLothair’s second wife, and orders thatprince immediately to take back his formerspouse. Of course, all Europe was in a stateof commotion. The Emperor, Louis II, uncleof Lothair, takes his part against Pope Adrian,whom he dares to threaten with an invasion;and all Italy is in a state of alarm. Queen Teutbergesets off for Rome, so does Valrade herrival, Lothair’s second wife and his ex-mistress;but her conscience did not allow her to pursueher journey, and her excommunicated husbandwas obliged to repair to Rome to ask the Pope’spardon, not from any apprehension of his holiness,but the fear of his uncle, surnamed theBald, who espoused the pontiff’s cause, put histhreat into execution, and stripped his Majestyof the kingdom of Lorraine.

It appears that Adrian II. was a very fastidious43and punctilious man, and he would notreceive Lothair back into the bosom of thechurch, despite his most abject excuses, untilhe swore to him that, since his predecessorNicholas had thought proper to order him notto keep up any further connexion with Valrade,he had in every sense of the injunction, both inletter and spirit, obeyed the order. To this, Lothairswore most religiously; and, having doneso, he was re-admitted into the pale, and shortlyafter died. Historians agree, and there can be nodoubt on the subject, that his death was the justpunishment of his perjury; what confirmed thefact was, the circ*mstance that all his followerswho had taken a similar oath (although it issomewhat curious to know how they could haveobtained any satisfactory information on so delicatea subject) died in the course of the sameyear.44

CHAPTER IV.

CELEBRATED JUDICIAL DUELS.

Ancient chronicles have transmitted to us severalcurious duels that have taken place, for thepurpose of deciding the justice of a cause by recourseto arms, and maintaining by the swordwhatever the lips had asserted.

The combat that took place in 1371 betweenMacaire and the dog of Montargis has been toofrequently related and dramatized to need a repetition.Charles V. was present at the meeting,which took place in the Isle Notre Dame, inParis; and Macaire, who was conquered by thefaithful companion of Aubry de Montdidier, wasduly hanged. Montfaucon, in his erudite work,has given an engraving of this event, taken froma painting preserved in the castle of Montargis.

In 590, Gontran, King of Burgundy, was huntingin the royal forest of the Vosges, when hefound the remains of a stag which had been killedby some poacher. The game-keeper accusedCherndon the king’s chamberlain, who, beingconfronted with his accuser, stoutly denied thecharge. Gontran immediately ordered a combat.45A nephew of the chamberlain was his champion;and in the conflict the game-keeper received awound from his lance, which pierced his foot:having fallen from the severity of the injury, hisantagonist rushed upon him to despatch him,when the prostrate man drew out a knife andripped up his antagonist’s belly. The two combatantsremained on the field, and Cherndon endeavouredto seek refuge in the church of St.Marcel; but Gontran ordered him to be seizedand stoned to death.

A curious trial by battle took place in 626.Queen Gundeberge, the consort of RharvaldKing of Lombardy, as much admired for herbeauty and talents as her unimpeachable virtue,had thought it expedient to drive from hercourt a certain gossiping slanderous fellow of thename of Adalulf, who, it appears, had presumedto make some base proposal to her majesty. Adalulfforthwith, in a fit of revenge, hastened tothe King, and informed him that the sharer of hisbed had entered into a plot to poison him, and tomarry the Duke Tason her paramour. The indignantRharvald, without further inquiry, banishesthe accused from his presence, and immuresher in a castle, although she was nearlyrelated to the Kings of the Francs. An emissaryof Clotaire, however, indignant at the usage theQueen had received, urged the monarch to ordera judicial contest; and Adalulf was therefore46commanded to prepare himself to meet a cousinof the unfortunate Queen, of the name of Pithon,who having cut Adalulf’s throat, the innocenceof Gundeberge was made manifest, to the entiresatisfaction not only of her royal husband, but ofall the gossips of the court of Burgundy. It wasin consequence of this favourable and satisfactoryresult, that Grunvalt, in 668, made some alterationin the laws, by which it was enacted thatladies placed in a similar situation should enjoythe faculty of selecting their own champions.

Brantôme relates a case somewhat similar. Ingelgerius,Count of Gastonois, having been founddead one morning by the side of his wife, a relationof his, named Gontran, not only accused herof murder, but of adultery, offering to substantiatethe accusation in person. No one comingforward to defend the afflicted lady, the youngCount of Anjou, Ingelgerius, her godson, to whomshe had very kindly given her husband’s name,presented himself. The youth, who was only inhis sixteenth year, was as anxious to defend hisgodmother as Cherubino could have been to defendthe Countess Almaviva; and having veryproperly and devoutly attended mass, recommendedhimself to the Divine protection, distributedalms, and secured himself by carrying with himthe symbol of the cross, he hastened to the lists,where he found his antagonist prepared to receive47him. The countess having duly sworn bothparties, the combatants rushed upon each other.The onset of Gontran was so fierce that his lancebent in the breast-plate of the youthful hero,who forthwith, no ways discouraged by the shock,ran his own through his antagonist’s body: theconqueror nimbly jumped off his horse, and mostdexterously severed the slanderer’s head from hisbase body, and laid it at the feet of his sovereign.It is needless to add, that, the countess’s innocencebeing thus made manifest, she fondly embracedher liberator, who, on the following day, was promotedto high titles and estates.

The rules and regulations were not only frequentlydrawn out by the clergy, but ecclesiasticsthemselves were not always exempted from liabilityto a trial by battle. Thus we see in thecharter of the abbey of St. Maur des Fossés,granted by Louis le Gros, that they possessedbellandi et certificandi licentiam.

It is recorded, in the annals of St. Bertin, thatthe superior of his abbey in the village of Caumontnear Hesdin had to defend certain rightsin the field: the abbot of St. Bertin did notmake his appearance; but two snow-white dovesappeared coming from the Saint himself, andwere seen hovering and fluttering over the field.The champion felt so emboldened by this miracle,that he rushed upon his antagonist, and substantiatedthe claim of the abbey by giving an unmerciful48cudgelling to his opponent. In likemanner, Geoffroi du Marne, bishop of Angers,ordered certain of his monks to determine theirright to tithes by a similar process.

The trials or ordeals by fire and water werenot always conclusive; for, in 1103, we find thatone Luitprant, a Milanese priest, having accusedhis archbishop of simony, offered to makegood his charge by walking through a fire;a feat which he performed to the amazementof all. However, as the accused was a prelateof distinction, the Pope absolved him, and veryproperly banished his impertinent accuser, whoindeed, if strict justice had been done, ought tohave been burnt alive as a wizard.

Our William of Normandy would not allowclerks to fight without due permission from theirdiocesan: “Si clericus duellum sine episcopi licentiâsusceperit,” &c.

We have abundant authority to show thatpriests were very frequently expert fencing-masters,and as chaplains of the army were especiallycelebrated for their skill.

A singular trial by battle took place at Toledo,in 1085, to decide whether the Roman or theMuzarabic ritual was to be observed in the celebrationof mass. Two champions were selected.Don Ruiz de Mastanza, the Muzarabic knight,unhorsed his adversary and killed him. But theQueen, who had a particular predilection for the49trial by fire, insisted that it should be resortedto: now, as it was contrary to the laws of chivalrythat the conquering knight should be sent tothe stake, a copy of each liturgy was thrown intothe fire; when, as it appears that both of themwere consumed, the King decided that in certainchurches and chapels prayers should be put upaccording to the Muzarabic ritual, and in othersin conformity with the Roman.—The Muzarabicchapel, a most curious monument, may to thisday be seen in the cathedral of Toledo.

Not only did the clergy order that these judicialbattles should take place, but many instancesare on record where they were institutedby several French parliaments. UnderPhilip de Valois, the parliament decreed thattwo knights, Dubon and Vernon, should endeavourto cut each other’s throats; the latterhaving asserted that the former had bewitchedhis sovereign. The same learned body ordereda man of the name of Carrouge to fight anotherman of the name of Legris, to prove tothe satisfaction of the public that he had committedan act of violence towards Carrouge’swife. Carrouge must have been right, for Legriswas killed; though, according to PresidentHenault, his innocence was afterwards fully substantiatedby his accuser’s confession upon hisdeath-bed. In another instance, a knight, byname Jean Picart, who was accused of an incestuous50intercourse with his daughter, was directedto fight her husband.

The frequency of these duels induced severalmonarchs to issue various edicts. In 1041 wasissued one called the Saviour’s truce, in whichduels were prohibited from Wednesdays to Mondays,these days having been consecrated by ourSaviour’s passion. In 1167, the King prohibitedall duels upon claims that did not exceed two-pencehalfpenny. In 1256, causes of adulterywere to be brought to this issue; while, in 1324,it was enjoined in cases of rape and poisoning.In 1145, the provost of Bourges was instructedto call out all persons who did not obey hisorders.

In the reign of Henry II. the celebrated judicialduel (for such it might be considered) betweenJarnac and De La Chasteneraye tookplace under very peculiar circ*mstances, carefullyextracted from ancient chronicles by co*ckburn,who gives us the following interesting account,most descriptive of the brutal manners of thosechivalrous days.—“The persons were the Lordsof Chasteneraye and of Jarnac, who were bothneighbours and kinsmen. The first had saidto Francis I. that the other was maintainedso plentifully by his mother-in-law, with whomhe had unlawful conversation. The King toldthis to Jarnac, for whom he had a great affection.Upon which Jarnac said to the King,51that Chasteneraye had lied to him; but he notonly maintaining what he had said, but addingthat Jarnac had divers times owned it to himself,Jarnac did earnestly supplicate the Kingthat the truth might be tried by combat; whichFrancis I. first granted, but afterwards recalled.

“Upon his death, an earnest supplication wasmade to his successor, Henry II. who, withthe advice of his council, not only allowed, butappointed it at St. Germain-en-Laye, on the 10thJuly 1547, when the King, the whole court, theconstable, admiral, and marshals of France beingpresent, the two parties were brought beforethe King, attended by their several friends andtrumpets, when each took the usual oaths. Afterthis they were led to their several pavilions,where they were dressed for the combat, eachhaving a friend and a confidant in the other’spavilion while this was doing. It is said thatJarnac was but newly recovered of a sickness,and that he whispered to a friend, if he did nottrust to the goodness of his cause, he shouldfear the acting of the part of a poltroon. Whenall the usual preamble of the ceremonies wasover, they were call out by the King’s trumpet,and by his herald commanded to end theirdifference by combat. Chasteneraye was observedto brave it with some insolence; but Jarnaccarried it modestly and humbly.

“Each attacked the other with great vigour;52and, after several strokes and trifling wounds onboth sides, while Chasteneraye was making a passat Jarnac, he fetched a stroke which cut the hamof Chasteneraye’s left leg, and presently redoublinghis stroke, cut also the ham on the right:8upon which Chasteneraye fell to the ground, andthe other ran up to him, telling him that nowhis life was at his discretion, yet he would spareit if he would restore him his honour, and acknowledgehis offence to God and the King. Chastenerayeanswering nothing, Jarnac turned to theKing, and, kneeling down, prayed that now hemight be so happy as to be esteemed by him a manof honour; and, seeing his honour was restored, hewould make his majesty a present of the other’s life,desiring his offence might be pardoned, and nevermore imputed to him or his, being the inconsiderateact of youth:9 to which the King made no answer.The former returned to his antagonist,and finding him still upon the ground, liftedup his face and hands to Heaven, and said, Lord,I am not worthy; not to me, but unto thy namebe thanks! having said this, he prayed Chastenerayeto confess his error: but, instead of this,the latter raised himself on his knee, and, havinga sword and buckler in his hand, offered a pass at53Jarnac, who told him that if he offered to resist anymore he would kill him, and the other bid himdo it; without, however, doing him any harm,Jarnac made a second humble address to theKing to accept of Chasteneraye’s life, to whichthe King made no manner of reply.

“Whereupon Jarnac coming back to his antagonist,who was lying stretched out upon the ground,his sword out of his hand, and his dagger outof its sheath, he accosted him with the fair wordsof old friend and companion, entreated him to rememberhis Creator, and to let them become friendsagain. But he attempting to turn himself withoutthe signs of repentance and submission,Jarnac took away his sword and dagger, and laidthem at the King’s feet, with repeated supplicationsto interpose for Chasteneraye’s life; whichthe King at last was advised to do, and orderedsome of the great officers to go to him, and surgeonsto take care of his life; but he would notsuffer his wounds to be dressed, being weariedof life because of his disgrace, and so died in alittle time through the loss of blood. It beingtold the King that, according to custom, Jarnacshould be carried in triumph, Jarnac protestedagainst it, saying that he affected no ostentationor vain-glory, that he had been only desirous tohave his honour restored, and was contented withthat; upon which the King made him thiscompliment, that he fought like Cæsar, and spoke54like Aristotle. Yet the King’s inclinations were towardsChasteneraye. The poor lady, Jarnac’smother-in-law, whose honour was at stake too,was all the while at St. Cloud, fasting and praying,and waiting impatiently the issue of this purgationof her innocency.”

Chasteneraye was considered the first swordsmanin France, and he certainly did display inthis transaction a singular mixture of vanity andbrutality. Brantôme, who was a nephew of Chasteneraye,endeavours to show that there was foulplay in this meeting, and that Jarnac wore abrassart without joint, by which means the bucklerwas held with greater security; at the sametime, he states that Chasteneraye’s right arm wasstill weak from a wound he had received atConys, in Piedmont. Howbeit, this unfortunateyoung man, who was only in his twenty-eighthyear, was considered such an expert fencer andwrestler, that several duels were fought when areport of this fatal duel had been spread abroad,as his partisans would not admit the possibilityof his succumbing before any other combatant:his dexterity in wrestling was so great, that Jarnac,to avoid the chances of a struggle, had insistedthat both parties should wear two daggers.

By way of retribution, the monarch expressedhis royal pleasure that no further duels shouldbe allowed: indeed, this duel may be consideredthe last judicial one that has been recorded55in France; although Charles IX. did authorizea combat between Albert de Luignes, who hadbeen accused of treasonable practices by Panier,a captain in the guards. The parties fought inpresence of the King and his court, in the woodof Vincennes: Panier inflicted a severe woundon the head of his opponent, who fell upon hisknee; his seconds ran to his rescue; but Luignes,recovering himself, gave him a mortal thrustthrough the body. Nor was this the only instancewhere this weak and savage prince had recourse tothe swords of others to rid himself of an enemy;he employed a famed bravo of the name of Maugerelto fight for him, who was therefore calledthe King’s Killer; and it is well known that heinstructed Villequen to seek a quarrel with Lignerolles,the favourite and confidant of the Duked’Anjou, while they were out hunting, on whichoccasion Lignerolles was killed.

While such was the practice in France, andother parts of the continent of Europe, Englandwas not exempt from similar scenes of cruelty andsuperstition, and it was only during the reign ofour Henry III. that the trial by ordeal, or ordaly,was abolished, in 1219: for, although severalhistorians have doubted the fact, there is greatreason to believe, from the barbarous customs ofthe times, that Edward the Confessor did actuallycompel Emma, the Queen Dowager, to the ordealof the heated ploughshares, on the charge of her56having participated in the murder of Alfred, besideshaving been guilty of a criminal intercoursewith the Bishop of Winchester; the prelate verywisely refused to submit himself to a similar trial,by producing a letter written by Pope StephenVI. to the Archbishop of Mayence in 887, inwhich he prohibited such practices.

The personal combat that is said to have takenplace between Edmund Ironside and Canute, nearGloucester, appears to be a fabulous tradition, althoughthe following account of it has been chronicled:“Edmund had the advantage of statureand of strength, but Canute possessed most addressand activity. The conflict which took place in thepresence of both their armies, was long and doubtful,until the Dane, beginning to lose ground,proposed an amicable settlement of their differences,thus addressing his adversary: ‘Valiantprince, have we not fought for a sufficient lengthof time to prove our courage? Let us thereforeshow proofs of our moderation; and, since we haveequally shared the sun and the honour of thisday, let us quit the field of battle and share thekingdom.’” This is evidently a fiction of romance,although there is some reason to believe that achallenge might have passed between them. Wemay view with similar hesitation of belief otherno less chivalric relations of that important battle,in which it is stated that Edwi having cut offthe head of one Osmer, whose countenance bore a57strong resemblance to that of Edmund, had itcarried on a spear, calling out to the English thattheir sovereign was no more; when Edmund,observing the consternation of his troops, took offhis helmet to prove the error under which theylaboured. It appears more probable that boththese princes were compelled to enter into anamicable treaty by their own nobility and theirtroops, when Canute reserved to himself thenorthern division, and Edmund retained thesovereignty of the southern provinces.

Doubting the truth of this hostile personalmeeting, several writers, amongst others Selden,maintain that duels were not known in Englanduntil the Norman invasion, when it is recordedthat William sent a message by certain monksto Harold, requiring him either to resign thekingdom, submit their cause to the arbitrationof the Pope, or fight him in single combat, towhich Harold replied, that the God of battleswould soon be the arbiter of their differences.

It has been observed, that, had the practice ofduelling on such occasions been prevalent, theEnglish chief could not, consistently with thelaws of honour as then understood, have refusedthe challenge. It is, moreover, certain thatat this period single combats were common inNormandy and other provinces in France; andwhat renders it probable that duelling, to ascertainrights maintained by the trial of combat,58was introduced on the Norman accession, wasthe entrance of a champion in the ceremonialof the coronation, to this day preserved, who,casting down the gauntlet of defiance, declareshimself ready to meet any one who dares contestthe sovereign’s right to the throne, and originallyto the dukedom of Normandy.

Prior to the Norman conquest we have norecord of any duel or trial by battle, althoughthe Anglo-Saxon laws were framed to preventprivate quarrels and acts of vindictive violence.The law of Alfred enjoined, that if any oneknows that his aggressor, after doing him aninjury, is determined to keep within his ownhouse, or on his own lands, he shall not fighthim till he require compensation for the injury.If he be strong enough to besiege himin his house, he may do it for seven days; and,if the aggressor is willing during that time tosurrender himself and his arms, his adversarymay detain him thirty days, but is afterwardsobliged to restore him safe to his kindred, andbe contented with the compensation; but, if herefuses to deliver up his arms, it is then lawfulto fight him. A slave might fight in his master’squarrel; a father might fight in his son’s, withany one except with his master.

King Edmund, moreover, in the preamble tohis laws, alluded to the multiplicity of privatefeuds and battles, established various enactments59to check the evil; and regulated certain compensationsfor the loss of life, without any distinctionbetween murder and manslaughter: everyhead had its price, from the king’s, that wasvalued at 30,000 thrimsas, considered to be about1,300l. to that of a ceorle, or husbandman, 266;in this tariff, an archbishop’s head was rated at amuch higher value than a monarch’s.

The price all wounds and injuries was alsoregulated: a wound of an inch long under thehair, one shilling; one of a like size in the face,two shillings; the loss of an ear, thirty shillings;and, according to the rare code of Ethelbert,any one who committed adultery with anotherman’s wife was obliged to buy him a newone.

This commutation for crimes appears to havebeen universal in ancient times. Blackstoneinforms us that in Ireland, by the Brehon laws,a murderer was obliged to give the survivingrelatives of the slain a recompense, called Eviach.In Homer we have the same practice during theTrojan war; Nestor in his speech to Achillesthus addressing him:—If a brother bleed,
On just atonement we remit the deed:
A sire the slaughter of his son forgives:
The price of blood discharged, the murderer lives.
And again, in the 18th book of the Iliad, in thedescription of Achilles’s shield:—60There in the Forum swarms a numerous train,—
The subject of debate, a townsman slain;
One pleads the fine discharged, which one denied,
And bade the public and the law decide.

The most curious part of this law of compensationwas the weighing the value of a witness:—aman whose life was worth one hundred andtwenty shillings counterbalanced six labourers,the life of each being estimated at twenty shillings;his oath was therefore considered equivalentto that of all the six.

These laws descended from the Germans, who,with the exception of the Frisians, sought to checkthe natural propensity of the people to acts ofbloodthirsty revenge: thus we find, that if anyman called another pare, or accused him of havinglost his shield in battle, he had to pay a heavyfine; according to the laws of the Lombards, ifa man called another arga, or “good for nothing,”he had a right to demand immediate satisfactionby arms.

These compensations and fines were called afredum. For the proofs of guilt, ordeals similar tothose described as having existed in France andother countries on the continent of Europe, wereadopted in England: one of them, which wasabolished in France by Louis le Debonnaire asimpious, long prevailed amongst us,—the decisionof the cross.

The compurgators were to be freemen, and61relations or neighbours of the accused, who upontheir oath corroborated what he had asserted. Itappears that in some cases the concurrence ofno less than three hundred of these auxiliary witnesseswas required. As men who are capable ofdisregarding truth are not deterred by the solemnityof an oath, this system of compurgationwas found to be fraught with such flagrantiniquity, that appeals to Heaven were consideredmore effectual in ascertaining guilt or innocence.

The trials by hot iron and water were similarto those already described. In addition to these ordalieswas the trial by the consecrated bread andcheese, or Corsned, commonly appealed to by theclergy when they were accused of any crime, andadopted by them, since it was not attended withdanger or inconvenience. This ordeal was performedin the following manner:—A piece ofbarley-bread and a piece of cheese were consecrated;and prayers were then put up, to supplicatethat God would send his angel Gabriel to stopthe gullet of the priest, so that he might not beable to swallow the sacred bread and cheese, if hewere guilty. This ceremony being concluded,the accused approached the altar, and took up thetesting food: if he swallowed freely, he was declaredinnocent; if, on the contrary, it stuck in histhroat, (which we may presume was rarely thecase,) he was pronounced guilty. Our historiansassert that Godwin Earl of Kent, in the reign62of Edward the Confessor, abjuring the death ofthe King’s brother, at last appealed to the Corsned,“per buccellam deglutiendam abjuravit,” which stuckin his throat and killed him.

Whether, in the settlement of feuds, pecuniarycompensation was deemed more satisfactory thanthe adversary’s blood, it is not an easy matter todecide; but certain it is, that duels do not appear,until the period alluded to, to have been as frequentin England as upon the Continent. Goodcheer, and good horses, seem to have been consideredas equivalent to cash: we find in our historya woman giving two hundred fat hens to thesovereign for permission to spend one night in prisonwith her husband, and bringing the monarchone hundreds fowls on account; while another unluckywight gave five of his best palfreys to hissovereign lord the King to induce him to be silentregarding a faux pas of his wife. But, once established,it appears that trials by battle prevailedin England for a longer period than in any othercountry.

In 1096, William Count d’Eu, having beenaccused of a conspiracy against William Rufusby Godefroi Baynard, engaged him in single combatat Salisbury, in presence of the King and thewhole court: the unfortunate count, having beenworsted, was forthwith ordered to be emasculated,after both his eyes had been put out; hisesquire at the same time whipped, and then63hanged. Jussuque ideò Regis et concilii, ejiciunturilli oculi testiculique abscinduntur; dapifero suo Willielmode Aldori, filio amitæ ejus, sæviter flagellatoet suspenso.

On Henry II.’s invasion of Wales, Henry deEssex, the hereditary standard-bearer, having beenaccused of felony by Robert de Montfort, hisown relation, for dropping the standard on thefield of battle and taking to flight, exclaimingthat the King was killed, the parties met insingle combat near Reading Abbey, where Essexwas left for dead upon the field. However,upon his body being borne to the abbey, themonks perceived some traces of life; and, insteadof his being hanged according to custom, thebrethren of the monastery recovered him; but,as he was considered morally dead, he spent theremainder of his days in their holy cloisters.

From the time of William of Normandy, untilthat of Henry II, trial by single combat was theonly honourable mode of decision of battle ofright, until the alternative of the grand assizes,or the trial by jury, was instituted by the lattersovereign.

When the tenant in a writ of right pleadedthe general issue, and offered to decide thecause by the body of a champion, a piece ofground was selected sixty feet square, inclosedwith lists, and on one side a court was erectedfor the accommodation of the judges of the court64of Common Pleas, who attended there in theirscarlet robes: a bar was also prepared for thesergeants learned in law. When the court sat,which was before sun-rising, proclamation wasmade for both parties and their champions: thelatter were introduced by two knights, and weredressed in a coat of mail, with red sandals,bare-legged from the knee downwards, bare-headed,and with arms bare to the elbows. Theweapons allowed them were batons, or stavesof an ell long, and a four-cornered leathern target,so that death very seldom ensued from thesecivil combats. In the court military, however,they fought with sword and lance.

When the champions thus armed arrived withinthe lists, or place of combat, the championof the tenant took his adversary by the hand,and made oath that the tenement in disputewas not the right of the demandant; the championof the demandant of course took a contraryoath. Another oath was then taken againstsorcery and enchantment, in the following form:

“Hear this, ye justices, that I have neithereaten, drunk, nor have I upon me either bone,stone, or grass,—no enchantment, sorcery, orwitchcraft, whereby the law of God may beabased, or the law of the devil exalted; so helpme God and his saints!”

The battle then began, and the combatantswere bound to fight till the stars appeared in65the evening; and, if the champion of the tenantcould defend himself till the stars appeared, thetenant prevailed in his cause, and the vanquishedwas proclaimed a Craven: a degradation of thehighest importance; for when a champion hadonce admitted that he was “Craven,” or onewho craves for mercy, he ceased to be a freeman—liberet legalis hom*o, and, having been provedforsworn, was no longer eligible as a juryman,or in any manner entitled to belief or respect.

In appeals of felony, the parties were obligedto fight in their proper persons, unless the appellantwere a woman, a priest, or an infant,—ofthe age of sixty, lame, or blind; in either whichcases, he or she counter-pleaded, and threw themselvesupon the country. Peers of the realmcould not be challenged to wage battle; nor thecitizens of London, it being specified in theircharter that fighting was foreign to their educationand employment.

In regard to trial by battle in civil cases, themystic appeal to the judgment of God at thisperiod was abandoned, and the institution ofchivalry gave to personal combats a charactertotally different.66

CHAPTER V.

INSTITUTION OF CHIVALRY AND DUELS.

Mistaken views of religion no longer presidedover bloodshed, and priests found that they graduallylost the power of controlling the unrulyby their simple commands; it therefore becamenecessary that their influence over those whocould support their power by arms should be ofa more permanent and efficacious nature. Youth,upon whose future courage and energies theycould depend, were now enrolled in an institutedbody; and the assumption of arms, so soon as theywere able to wield them, became a solemn religiousrite: until they could don their armour,they were clad in white, like clerical neophytes;and, as Scott truly observes, “the investiture ofchivalry was brought to resemble, as near as possible,the administration of the sacraments of thechurch.”

Still this combination of religious and militaryzeal was not considered sufficient to lead a manto risk his life blindly, and the art and the all-powerfulaid of woman were invoked.67

Gallantry now presided over deeds of arms;which, to use the words of Montesquieu, wasnot love, but its light, delicate, and perpetualerrors.

An ingenious writer, C. Moore, has describedthe origin of chivalric laws and customs in thefollowing passage:—“War, and the single combat,were still the ruling passions of the soul; andwhatever improvement had militated against thesefavourite and ferocious ideas would have beentreated with the utmost contempt and indignation.Some, however, whose minds were moreenlightened, endeavoured to turn this torrent ofcourage and military violence upon itself, and tothe correction of its own abuses. They formedthemselves into martial societies for the reliefof injured innocence and distressed virtue; for theredress of all oppressions and grievances; for theprotection of the weak and defenceless, particularlyof the fair sex; for the correction of abuses,and the general promotion of the public utilityand safety. But, in compliance with the strongprejudices of the times, all was still to be determinedby the sword, and by feats of personalvalour. Such was the introduction of chivalryand knight-errantry.”

For the honour of mankind, desirable indeedwould it have been if chivalry had been carriedon upon such philanthropic grounds, howeverbarbarous might have been the means resorted68to in the furtherance of its ends: it ismore probable that it was the result of growingcivilization, with its concomitant pride, pomp,and circ*mstance. When love, being associatedwith religion, shed a halo over the knight’sproud helm, the spirit of chivalry withdrew itsadvocates from the trammels of judicial courts;and, although the hostile meetings of contendingknights, might not have been considered an ordealto obtain the judgment of God, the vanityarising from the renown of personal prowess andsuperiority in war and in love rendered its championsregardless of those fine and delicate feelingsto which their institution has been attributed.It is true that, the courtesy and rising polish ofsociety being added to religious zeal and blindsuperstition, this combination tended to softendown the rude relics of former ferocity, and tocombine courage with humanity, introducing asfar as was practicable the courtesies of peace intoscenes of strife; and such we may well imaginemay have been the results of such an institutionwhen woman became associated with all its bearings.Education became more gentle, and, erethe accolade of knighthood was conferred, thecandidate to the honour had passed through thegradation of page and squire; first the followerof woman, a blind adorer and slave, then the attendanton his leader in the chase or the battle-field.69

As civilization progressed, the rude customs ofbarbarous nations must have gradually sunk intodisrepute; and war, which had once been a necessityin defence of person and property, now becameonly an honourable profession.

While we admit, with Scott, that the tenets ofchivalry were exalted and enthusiastic, we cannotbut consider that many acts of exaltationand enthusiasm, among the most illustrious, werelittle short of mental aberration, qualifying theheroic champion for the lunatic asylum, ratherthan the courts of sovereigns; and I think thatwe may consider many of our modern honourableinstitutions, which are traced to chivalry, moreas the effect of gradual intellectual improvementthan of the frolics of knight-errantry, howeverhonourable they may have appeared in theory.No one can pretend to deny that Don Quixote’sideas of honour were as correct as they werepunctilious.

It is unfortunate that romance has so distortedhuman actions as to shed lustre upon deedswhich ought to have been veiled in everlastingobscurity for the honour of mankind. It isowing to these fatal illusions, that, to the presenthour, the chimerical word Honour leads theenthusiast or the slave of society’s prejudicedviews to the commission of criminal acts, andadapts its supposed laws and dictates to the Procrusteanstandard of the “world’s” opinion.70

Previous to the institution of chivalry, fightingbecame necessary for individual protection;but knighthood rendered it a fashionable accomplishment,and, as real injuries were not likelyto occur every day, artificial grievances werecreated, and tilts and tournaments became theconstant sports of the day. John, Duke ofBourbon, being overcome, no doubt, with ennui,offered to go over to England with sixteenknights, to avoid idleness, and further, to meritthe good graces of his mistress; and it is clearthat this noble institution, as it is called, greatlyincreased duelling instead of checking its barbarity,while, by rendering it a polite accomplishment,it has transmitted down to posteritya detestable heir-loom of barbarous times.

Not only were knights obliged to fight theirown battles, but they were bound to espouse thedisputes of others, and volunteer fighting whenevera “good quarrel” could be established.

It is to chivalry, introduced in the train of theNorman conquerors, that England owed its firstdegradation. Chivalry deluged Italy in blood,and rendered Spain a by-word of ferocity andmadness. The desperate pranks of the lunaticCrusaders were the deeds of monomaniacs letloose by popery: Scott has truly said, that “thegenius alike of the age and of the order tendedto render the zeal of the professors of chivalryfierce, burning, and intolerant.” “If an infidel,”71says a great authority, “impugn the doctrine ofthe Christian faith before a churchman, he shouldreply by argument; but a knight should renderno other reason to the infidel than six inches ofhis falchion thrust into his accursed bowels.” Themassacre of the Albigenses was one of the proudresults of this noble institution!

Debased by superstition and priestcraft, knighthoodbecame instrumental to every ambition,clerical or military: the hand of Heaven was seenguiding every gleaming falchion; the saints wereseen hovering over the battle-field; and Froissarttells us that a black cur, which was always barkingwhen the infidels approached the Christiancamp, was called by the whole army the dog ofOur Lady. If such were the public evils that arosefrom chivalric institutions, how much more fearfulwas their influence in society when we findFrancis I, who certainly respected the faith ofengagements as conveniently as expediency coulddictate, laid down as a principle of honour, whichprevails to this very day, That the lie was never tobe put up with without satisfaction, but by a base-bornfellow! For fear of any possible mistake, lieswere divided into thirty-two categories, withtheir corresponding degree of satisfaction. In asucceeding chapter I shall endeavour to showthat most edicts promulgated to check the practiceof duelling rather increased it, and its gradualapproach to desuetude can only be attributed72to the influence of reason: until this influenceobtains, all laws will be rendered nugatoryby the established code of honour.

Nothing can be more absurd than the regretfor the “glorious days of Chivalry!” It is verytrue, that nothing could be more beautiful andpraiseworthy than the theory on which it wasgrounded; but a legislature might just as wiselysit down and embody an Utopian code of lawsas to expect that a soldier will only draw hissword in the defence of innocence,—it is too absurda dream to be entertained even in romance.

The exact origin of chivalry is a matter ofdoubt. By some historians it is attributed toHenry I, King of Germany, in 936, called the“bird-catcher,” from his partiality to field pursuits.Others have traced it to Geoffrey dePreuilly, who died in 1066; but it appearsthat he was only celebrated from his havingcollected and published the laws of tournaments.History records a chivalric meeting that tookplace as early as 858, near Strasburgh, betweenCharles the Bald, and his brother, Louis of Germany.In France it was in general practice in1136; and in Spain and England in 1140.

The rules and regulations in the managementof these tournaments were curious, and showedthat the profession of arms was supposed to bethe proof of virtue as well as of courage. Bythese institutes it was ordered—73

I. Whosoever has done or said anything againstthe holy Christian faith shall be excluded; andif any such shall presume to intrude himself, onthe account of his family and ancient nobility, heshall be beaten and driven back.—This first articlewas proposed by the Emperor Henry I. himself.

II. If any, however nobly descended, havedone or said anything against the Roman empire,or the sacred majesty of the Emperor, he shall notbe admitted, but publicly punished before theassembly.—This article was proposed by Conrad,Prince of Palestine.

III. If any have betrayed or deserted his lordand master, or have been the occasion of anymutiny, disorder, or shameful flight in an army;or have oppressed and unjustly killed any ofhis subjects and vassals, or other innocent person,he shall be publicly punished.—Duke of Franconia.

IV. Whosoever has committed violence uponvirgins or oppressed widows, or has violated anddefamed any woman by word or deed, when heappears at the public tournament, shall be disgracedand punished.—Duke of Suevia.

V. Whosoever has been guilty of perjury, offorging hand or seal, or lies under any otherinfamy, shall be held unworthy of the honourof a tournament; and, if he enter, he shall notbe suffered to go away without some punishment.—Dukeof Bavaria.74

VI. Whosoever has secretly or openly madeaway with his wife, or has advised or assistedthe killing of his superior, whose vassal he was,let him be debarred, and let the law of tournamentbe executed upon him.

VII. Whoever have been guilty of sacrilege,by robbing churches or detaining what belongsto them, or have wronged widows and childrento whom they were left guardians, shall not beadmitted, but punished.

VIII. Whosoever keeps up an unreasonablefeud with another, and will not refer the differenceto law or to a fair battle, but invades his adversary’sland, burning and spoiling it, and carryingoff his goods, especially if he has destroyedcorn, which has caused a dearth or a famine,—ifhe appear at the tournament, let him be putto death.

IX. Whosoever has been the author of any newgabel or imposition in any province, city, or otherdominion, without the consent of the Emperor,by which means subjects are oppressed, and tradeand commerce with strangers are hindered anddiscouraged, let him be punished.

X. Whosoever is guilty of adultery, let himbe punished.

XI. Whosoever doth not live suitably uponhis lawful rents and income, but debaseth hisdignity by buying and selling, and using meanand sordid arts to the damage of his neighbours75and oppression of his tenants, let him bebeaten.

XII. Whosoever cannot prove his nobility forfour generations at least by both father andmother, shall not have the honour of being admittedinto the tournament.—The two last articleswere proposed by Philip, the secretary of the Emperor.

These ordinances are a strong illustration ofthe habits and practices of the nobles at thatperiod, and present a vivid picture of the times,when few indeed must have been the championswho could have qualified for the lists.

Although, on the commencement of these exercises,blunt weapons were used, fatal accidentswere nevertheless very frequent; and it is saidof a Turkish ambassador, who was present at atournament at the court of Charles VII, that, onbeholding several of the combatants killed andwounded, he exclaimed, “If they are in earnest,this is not enough; but, if it is only in jest, we havehad too much of it.”

It was the frequency of these playful accidentsthat induced the clergy to forbid tournaments;as appears in the canons of the council of Rheimsin 1148, by which Christian sepulture is refusedto those who fall on such occasions.

Howbeit, in 1274, our Edward I, on hispassage by Chalons, being challenged by theCount de Chalons, entered into a joust with the76French knights, which was so successful on thepart of the English, that their opponents, infuriatedby their inferiority, made a serious attackupon his retinue; and so much bloodwas idly shed on the occasion, that the tournamentwas ever after called “the petty battle ofChalons.”

In 1209 we find Philip Augustus obliginghis sons, Louis and Philip, to make a vowagainst entering into any such meetings. In1385 we find Francis I. in a tournament betweenArdres and Guines; and Henry II. in1559,—a fatal encounter in which he died froma wound in the eye-ball received from Montgomery,captain of his guards. This accidenttook place on the occasion of the marriage ofthe King’s eldest daughter to Philip, King ofSpain; in honour of which there were balls,masquerades, and tilting. His majesty, fancyingto enter the lists, had a lance sent to Montgomeryto encounter him: the captain at firstvery wisely declined the honour; but, upon theKing’s repeated requests, was reluctantly obligedto comply with his orders. The tilt-yard wasin the Rue St. Antoine, where the captain purposelyand politely broke his lance against hisroyal master’s breast-plate: unfortunately one ofthe splinters flew into his eye, and penetratedthe ball; the King lingered in great agony for77a month and died, after having forbidden allsimilar exercises.10

To form an idea of the ferocity that markedthese deadly meetings, and the absurdity ofwhat were called points of honour, we have onlyto recount the particulars of a combat that took78place between two Spanish captains at Ferrara.These two heroes had demanded a “field” of theViceroy, Monsieur de Nemours. The duch*essof Ferrara was, of course, most anxious to bepresent at the contest; she being, according toBrantôme, the most beautiful and accomplishedlady in Christendom, both as regarded corporealand mental qualities, speaking moreover forcebelles langues: therefore was it, (and very naturally,)that M. de Nemours was deeply enamouredof her, and wore her colours, (rather sombre,to be sure,) black and grey. The combatants beingengaged, one of the parties received a desperatewound, which occasioned such a loss ofblood that he sunk on the ground; when hisantagonist, according to the noble institutions ofchivalry, rushed on him with the point of hissword to his throat. The which beholding, theduch*ess, who was as kind as she was courteous,and as beauteous as she was virtuous, withclasped hands implored M. de Nemours to separatethe combatants; to which he replied,rather uncourteously for a knight, “You cannotdoubt, madam, that there is nothing in theworld that I would not do to convince you ofmy thorough devotion to your will; but in thisinstance I can do nothing, nor offend against thelaws of battle, nor can I honestly and againstreason deprive the conqueror of a prize whichhe has obtained at the hazard of his life.”79

Howbeit, the second of the fallen man steppedforward, and addressing the conqueror, whosename was Azevedo, declared that, knowing wellthe character of his friend, St. Croix, who wouldrather die a thousand deaths than admit that hewas vanquished, surrendered himself for him, andavowed himself conquered. Azevedo was perfectlysatisfied with this admission, and left thefield in great pomp and glory, with a flourishof trumpets; while St. Croix’s wounds were dressed,and he was borne off the ground with hisarms, which Azevedo had forgot to carry awayas trophies of the battle: but, upon his beingreminded of the circ*mstance, he forthwith senta messenger to demand them. This request,however, being refused, the case was referredto the decision of M. de Nemours, who immediatelyordered that the arms of St. Croix shouldbe carried to the conqueror; or that, if he declinedto send them, the dressings of his woundsshould be taken off, and he should be againcarried to the field, and laid in the situation inin which he was placed when his second interferedfor his life: however, the second was wiseenough to comply with the request. Brantômeobserves, that much might be argued on thismatter to decide how far Azevedo ought to havebeen satisfied with the second’s submission insteadof the principal’s; as the combat was tohave been mortal, the swords and daggers having80been placed in the hands of the combatants bythe Prior of Messina.

A beau combat is recorded of Monsieur de Bayardand another Spaniard, Don Alonzo de SotoMayor, who, having been taken prisoner by theformer, insulted him so grossly that he offeredhim the satisfaction of a meeting on foot or onhorseback. The day being appointed, Bayardmade his appearance, mounted upon a spiritedcharger and clad in white, a symbol of humility.The choice of arms having fallen upon theSpaniard, he preferred a combat on foot, on theplea that he was not so good a horseman as hisadversary, but in reality from his having heardthat the French knight was labouring under anintermittent fever, which he had experienced forupwards of two years. Bayard, on account of hisindisposition, was strongly urged by his second,Monsieur de la Palisse, and his friends, to insistupon a mounted combat. To this he objected, ashe did not wish that his opponent should accusehim of having thrown any difficulties in theway of a fair meeting. The ground was taken,and marked with several loose stones. Bayard,having received his arms, prostrated himself onthe ground to put up a fervent prayer, whileevery one around him joined in the orison upontheir knees; then, rising, he made the sign of thecross, and attacked his adversary as cheerfully asif he was stepping out in a ball-room to commence81a dance. The Spaniard advanced, andcalmly asked him, “Señor Bayardo, que me quereys?”To which he replied, “To defend myhonour;” and forthwith attacked him. The strugglewas fiercely kept up, and great skill displayedon both sides; until Bayard, by a feint, struckhim such a blow in the throat, that, despite hisgorget, the weapon penetrated four fingers deep.The wounded Spaniard grasped his adversary,and, struggling with him, they both rolled on theground; when Bayard, drawing his dagger andthrusting its point in the nostrils of the Spaniard,exclaimed, “Señor Alonzo, surrender—or you area dead man!” a speech which appeared quite useless,as Don Diego de Guignonnes, his second,exclaimed, “Señor Bayardo, es muerto; vincidohaveys!” Bayard, says the chronicler, would havegiven a hundred thousand crowns to have sparedhis life; but, as matters turned out, he fell uponhis knees, kissed the ground three times, andthen dragged his dead enemy out of the camp,saying to the deceased’s second, “Señor DonDiego, have I done enough?” to which the otherpiteously replied, “Too much, Señor, for the honourof Spain!” when Bayard very generouslymade him a present of the corpse, although hehad a right to do whatever he thought properwith it; an act highly praised by Brantôme,who says it is difficult to say which act didhim most honour,—the not having ignominiously82dragged the body like the carcase of a dog bya leg or an arm out of the field, or having condescendedto fight while labouring under anague; as an ague in those days (sturdy dogs!)was not considered a sufficient reason to decline acombat.

As fighting became a matter of fashion, andtherefore of necessity, it was impossible to be toopunctilious in taking offence. Any subject, howevertrivial, was considered sufficient to warrant acombat, and required blood to wipe off a supposedstain upon a factitious honour; and, when bloodcould not be obtained for this vital purpose by fairmeans, assassination was not deemed beneath thedignity of the offended, or incompatible withhonour’s laws. Thus we find a Franche-Comténobleman running another through the body inthe very porch of a church, while he was presentinghim some holy water; and two otherhigh-born worthies fighting it out before thealtar, to decide who had the best right to a seatof precedence, or the first use of the censer.

Tilts and tournaments were simply simulacra ofactual combats, training youth to deeds of armsunder the flattering auspices of the fair sex, thatthey might the more diligently and expertly commitmurder whenever it suited ambition, fanaticism,or love.

What the ladies expected from their championscannot be better expressed than in the83injunction of the Dame des Belles Cousines tolittle Jean de Saintré, a subject which Scott hasadmirably translated in the following quaint andappropriate language:—

“The Dame des Belles Cousines, having cast hereyes upon the little Jean de Saintré, then a pageof honour at court, demanded of him the nameof his mistress and his love, on whom his affectionswere fixed. The poor boy, thus pressed,replied that the first object of his love was thelady his mother, and the next his sister Jacqueline.‘Jouvencel,’ replied the inquisitive dame,who had her own reasons for not being contentedwith this simple answer, ‘we do not talkof the affection due to your mother and sister;I desire to know whom you love par amours.’

“‘In faith, madam,’ said the poor page, towhom the mysteries of chivalry, as well as oflove, were yet unknown, ‘I love no one paramours.’

“‘Ah, false gentleman, and traitor to the lawsof chivalry!’ returned the lady; ‘dare you saythat you love no lady? Well may we perceiveyour falsehood and craven spirit by such anavowal. Whence were derived the great valourand the high achievements of Lancelot, of Gawain,of Tristram, of Giron the Courteous, and of otherheroes of the round table?—whence those of Panthus,and of so many other valiant knights andsquires of this realm, whose names I could enumerate84had I time?—whence the exaltation ofmany whom I myself have known to rise to highdignity and renown?—except from their animatingdesire to maintain themselves in the graceand favours of their ladies, without which mainspringto exertion and valour they must haveremained unknown and insignificant. And doyou, coward page, now dare to aver that youhave no lady, and desire to have none? Hence,false heart that thou art!’

“To avoid these bitter reproaches, the simplepage named as his lady and love par amoursMatheline De Coucy, a child of ten years old.The answer of the Dame des Belles Cousines,after she had indulged in the mirth which hisanswers prompted, instructed him how to placehis affections more advantageously.

“‘Matheline,’ said the lady, ‘is indeed a prettygirl, and of high rank, and better lineage thanappertains to you. But what good, what profit,what honour, what advantage, what comfort,what aid, what counsel for advancing youin the ranks of chivalry, can you derive fromsuch a choice? Sir, you ought to choose a ladyof high and noble blood, who has the talent andmeans to counsel and aid you at your need; andher you ought to serve so truly, and love soloyally, that she must be compelled to acknowledgethe true and honourable affection whichyou bear to her. For, believe me, there is no85lady, however cruel and haughty, but throughlength of faithful service will be brought to acknowledgeand reward loyal affection with someportion of pity, compassion, or mercy. In thismanner you will attain the praise of a worthyknight; and, till you follow such a course, Iwould not give an apple for you or your achievements.’”

The lady then proceeds to lecture the acolyteof chivalry at considerable length on the sevenmortal sins, and the way in which the true amorousknight may eschew commission of them.Still, however, the saving grace inculcated in hersermon is fidelity and secrecy in the service ofthe mistress whom he should love par amours.She proves, by the aid of quotations from theScriptures, the fathers of the church, and theancient philosophers, that the true and faithfullover can never fall into the crimes of pride,anger, envy, sloth, or gluttony. From each ofthese his true faith is held to warrant and defendhim. Nay, so pure was the nature of the flamewhich she recommended, that she maintained it tobe inconsistent even with the seventh sin of chamberingand wantonness, to which it might seemtoo nearly allied. The least dishonest thought oraction was, according to her doctrine, sufficient toforfeit the chivalrous lover the favours of his lady.It seems, however, that the greatest part of hercharge concerning incontinence is levelled against86such as haunted the receptacles of open vice; andthat she reserved an exception (of which in thecourse of the history she made a most liberal use)in favour of the intercourse which, in all law,honour, and secrecy, might take place when thefavoured and faithful knight had obtained, bylong service, the boon of mercy from the ladywhom he loved.

The last encouragement which the Dame desBelles Cousines held out to Saintré in order to excitehis ambition, and induce him to fix his passionupon a lady of elevated birth, rank, and sentiment,is also worthy of being quoted; since itshows that it was the prerogative of chivalry toabrogate the distinctions of rank, and elevate thehopes of the knight, whose sole patrimony washis arms and his valour, to the high-born andprincely dame before whom he carved as a sewer.

“‘How is it possible for me,’ replied poor littleSaintré, after having heard out the unmercifullylong lecture of the Dame des Belles Cousines, ‘tofind a lady, such as you describe, who will acceptof my service, and requite the affection of such aone as I am?’

“‘And why should you not find her?’ answeredthe lady preceptress. ‘Are you not gently born?Are you not a fair and proper youth? Have younot eyes to look on her—ears to hear her—atongue to plead your cause to her—hands to serveher—feet to move at her bidding—body and heart87to accomplish loyally her commands?—and, havingall these, can you doubt to adventure yourselfin the service of any lady whatsoever?’”

In these extracts is painted the very spirit ofchivalry, and the manners of an age which somany modern ladies seem to regret most deeply.

As I have already stated, warlike youth hadto a certain degree emancipated themselves fromthe power of the priesthood, although theywere always prepared and willing to rush intobattle at their commands; but to the honour ofthe clergy it must be confessed, that althoughmany individuals of that body might have enjoyedfighting as much as any testy layman, yetthey did exert themselves to temper and modifyas much as lay in their power the ferocity ofthe times. Whether in these efforts they werechiefly influenced by motives of humanity, orby opposition to the rivalry of secular power,it is no easy matter to decide.

The secular power of the nobles was verygreat, and to a certain degree independent ofthat of the sovereign. President Henault informsus, that during the first, and a considerableperiod of the second race, dukes and counts, intheir quality of provincial governors, administeredall regal functions within their jurisdiction, bestowedall military preferments, and judged bysovereign judgment all appeals of the centenaries,or judges nominated by the monarch,—still, in88the name of the King. As at that period therecould exist no other justice but a royal one, thesesame dukes and counts, having from the weaknessof the government erected their offices intohereditary rights and patrimonies, continued topreserve their authority; and all traces of regalpower disappeared in the provinces, with theexception of the government of Hugues Capetas duke and count, and, when he ascended thethrone, his droit seigneural was added to his royalauthority.

Before such arbitrary tribunals, when the judgeswere themselves unruly soldiers, utterly ignorantof any kind of jurisprudence, and knowing noother method of deciding a difference than by anappeal to force, the most expeditious method ofdeciding a quarrel was to make the litigantsfight it out.

The only check upon the power of feudalitywas the influence of the clergy, then divided intosecular and regular. The secular clerks officiatedin the several sees and parishes, while the regularlived under monastic institutions and discipline.

Ecclesia abhorret sanguine was an old maxim ofthe church; and, when they condemned thousandsto the torture or to death, they considered thatthey conformed themselves to the letter of thishumane precept while handing their victims overto the secular arm to put their sentence into execution.Moreover, as the jurisprudence of the89sword interfered with that of the altar, many werethe prelates who powerfully declaimed againstduelling and its excesses. Such were Gregory ofTours, Avitus, and Agobard. Various councilsfulminated their anathemas on the barbarouspractice; that of Valence in 855, and of Limogesin 994, and Trent so late as 1563: whileseveral pontiffs, amongst whom we find NicholasI, Alexander III, Celestin III, and Julius II,excommunicated all sovereigns who permittedduels to take place within their realms; and wesee Charles IX. protesting against this papal interference,when, in his edict of 1564, he reservedto himself the power of authorizing duelswhen he thought it meet.

It is to this interference of the clergy thatEurope was indebted for that pacific act calledthe Truce of God, to which I have alreadyreferred. This ordonnance, called Treuga Dei,was promulgated by a council at Toulujes inRoussillon, in the year 1041, when it graduallyspread over Europe. In this celebrated act it wasspecified that upon all festivals, and from Wednesdayevening until Monday morning in eachweek, no disputes should lead to any issue. Thisregulation was most wise, as it gave three entiredays in each week to offended persons to reflectcalmly on the nature of their supposed injury, orthe benefits that might result from vindictiveproceedings.90

It appears, however, that the nobles paid butlittle attention to the Treuga Dei, or any othertruce that tended to check their unruly passions.A greater diversion from their private feudssoon drew their attention in another direction;preparing the great moral revolution that markedthe eleventh and the twelfth centuries: I of courseallude to the Crusades, when, in the words ofAnna Comnena, the whole of Europe seemed tohave been torn up from its foundations, and readyto precipitate itself upon Asia. Six millions ofenthusiasts, according to contemporary writers,rushed forward in this holy war; and in 1096,under the command of Godefroy de Bouillon, anarmy of about a hundred thousand, chiefly composedof men sufficiently distinguished in theirseveral countries by birth and education to cuteach other’s throats with propriety, were patrioticenough to rid their country of their presence, andwere soon after followed to Palestine by anotherdraft of pugnacious nobility and gentry from variousparts of Europe.

Nor can we be surprised at this ardour, when weconsider all the advantages held out to the crusadersboth in this world and in the next. Theywere exempted from all prosecution for debt,and from the payment of all interest thereon.They were freed from taxation; they were takenunder the immediate protection of St. Peter; andall who vexed, perplexed, or impeded them in91word, deed, or thought, were irrevocably damned.They obtained a plenary remission of allsins past and present, with immunity for futureones; and the gates of heaven were thrown opento them without any other claims on salvationthan their having engaged in this expedition.

The crusades moreover produced a great revolutionin property; many of these adventurersselling their lands and inheritances at the lowestprices to equip themselves, while many of thenobles, perishing in the expedition, left their fiefswithout heirs to increase the revenue and powerof the crown.

Thus was this glorious enterprise a fatal blowto feudality; and, when a few of these adventurersreturned to their homes, they were so reducedby misery and corrected by misfortunes,that their unfortunate vassals entertained somedawning hopes of better days. These wanderershad travelled over more civilized parts, andbrought back some faint notions of justice, humanity,and improvement.

Another circ*mstance in the twelfth century nota little added to the progress of the human mindin search of amelioration. In 1137, when theimperial troops were plundering and sacking thetown of Amalfi, a band of ruffians had found insome ruins an old book, the illuminated picturesof which attracted their notice. The Emperorclaimed this curiosity as his prize, having discovered92that it was no less than a copy of thePandects of Justinian; the which he presentedas a valuable trophy to the city of Pisa, whenceits contents were called “Pandectæ Pisanæ,” till,being borne away in turn by the Florentines,it was afterwards named “Pandectæ Florentinæ.”

This accidental discovery produced a new erain Europe: it showed the barbarians who wieldedthe brute power of force, that there did existother arguments than the sword’s point or thespear-head; and murder, which had usurped theseat of justice for upwards of six centuries, wasobliged to yield to the influence of reason andinterest. Schools of civil law were now opened,that superseded the exercises of the lists; and thestudy of Roman law succeeded the Lombardiancode, despite the endeavour of the clergy to protecttheir canonical institutions by fulminatinganathemas issued from the Vatican. The clergyof England, who, like their predecessors theDruids, had engrossed every branch of learning,lost no time in obtaining a proficiency in allthe ancient oral maxims and customs, calledcommon law, which had been handed downfrom former ages. Hence William of Malmsbury,soon after the Conquest asserted, Nullusclericus nisi causidicus. The judges were createdout of the sacred order, and all the inferior officesfilled up by the lower clergy, their successors tothis day being called Clerks.93

Thus we see two events, the crusades and theintroduction of civil law, checking the disastrousexcesses of duelling and arbitrating all differencesby the sword. The future was pregnantwith two events of still greater importancetowards humanizing Society,—the fall of theEastern empire, and the discovery of the art ofprinting: by the one, civilization was thrownback on the West; and by the other gift ofProvidence man began to learn to think forhimself.

We thus perceive the progress of duelling, andits less frequent occurrence, depending in a greatmeasure upon the state of society and the natureof government: by following this progress chronologicallyin the history of various countries,we shall attain much information, both as regardsthe prevalence of this barbarous custom, and thesuccess of different governments in their endeavoursto suppress, or, at least, restrain its excesses.When, after reading the details of many of theseduels, (some of them of perhaps a tedious nature,but all tending to illustrate the manners of theage,) we glance on the civil and religious conditionof the people amongst whom they tookplace, the deductions from these observations maybe found to be of more importance than may atfirst sight appear.94

CHAPTER VI.

DUELLING IN FRANCE.

France may be considered the classic groundof duelling, the field of single combat par excellence;whence, from the duchy of Normandy, aswe have already seen, it was introduced into theBritish isles.

If we are indebted to our neighbours for thispractice, it is also to them that we owe the variouscodes and regulations drawn out to equalize,as far as possible, the chances of victory, and toprevent any unfair advantages being obtained tothe prejudice of the opposite party. Of thesevarious documents, possibly the rules given byBrantôme may be considered the most curious.

In the first instance, he says:—“On no accountwhatever let an infidel be brought out as asecond or a witness: it is not proper that an unbelievershould witness the shedding of Christianblood, which would delight him; and it ismoreover abominable that such a wretch shouldbe allowed such an honourable pastime.95

“The combatants must be carefully examinedand felt, to ascertain that they have no particulardrugs, witchcraft, or charms about them.It is allowed to wear on such occasions somerelics of Our Lady of Loretto, and other holyobjects; yet it is not clearly decided what isto be done when both parties have not theserelics, as no advantage should be allowed to onecombatant more than to another.

“It is idle to dwell upon courtesies: the manwho steps into the field must have made uphis mind to conquer or die, but, above all things,never to surrender; for the conqueror may treatthe vanquished as he thinks proper,—drag himround the ground, hang him, burn him, keephim a prisoner, in short, do with him whateverhe pleases. The Danes and Lombards, in this,imitated Achilles, who, after his combat withHector, dragged him three times round the wallsat the tail of his triumphant car.

“Every gallant knight must maintain the honourof ladies, whether they may have forfeited it ornot,—if it can be said that a gentille dame can haveforfeited her honour by kindness to her servantand her lover. A soldier may fight his captain,provided he has been two years upon actual service,and he quits his company.

“If a father accuses a son of any crime thatmay tend to dishonour him, the son may demand96satisfaction of his father; since he has done himmore injury by dishonouring him, than he hadbestowed advantage by giving him life.”

Notwithstanding Brantôme’s authority, theright of a soldier to call out his captain has beena questionable point; and La Béraudière, andBasnage, and Alciat have discussed the pointvery minutely. The last author came to theconclusion that such a meeting could only betolerated when both parties were off duty,—postfunctionem secus. The same learned writer maintainsthat you can only refuse to fight a bastard;and he therefore strongly recommends all noblemento legitimatize their sons, that they may berendered worthy of the honour of knighthoodand of duelling: and he further declares, thatall challenges from a roturier, a mere citizen, ora man in business, must be considered as null andvoid.

There is a passage in Brantôme which singularlyapplies to modern France, as regardsthe multiplicity of decorations of honour andtheir various button-hole badges; distinctions,which, from the facility with which they areobtained, he does not consider as qualifying thewearer to fight a gentleman. “If these peoplewere attended to,” he says, “one could no longerfight a proper duel: such numbers of them pullulatein every direction, that we see nothing butknights of St. Michael and of the Saint Esprit;97to such an extent were these orders abused duringour civil wars, to win over and retain followersbeing no longer the meed of valour or of merit.”

To tear off a decoration, or even to touch it,was considered an unpardonable insult; and wehave seen in more modern times an example ofthe respect to which such attributes of distinctionare entitled. In August 1833, ColonelGallois, an officer in the service of Poland, felthimself offended by an article in the Figaro, apaper conducted by Nestor Roqueplan; and, havingmet him, tore off his riband of the Legionof Honour. The parties met in the wood ofMeudon, when Roqueplan received three wounds,and Gallois one in the knee: the two seconds ofGallois at the same time had thrown off theircoats, and challenged the seconds of Roqueplan,who very wisely declined any participation inthe fight; when one of Gallois’s party insistedupon satisfaction from Mr. Leon Pillet, a friendof Roqueplan, with whom he was on intimateterms, and, to urge his suit, requested that hemight be allowed to take the badge of the Legionoff his coat, to overcome his apparent repugnance;adding, that he entertained too muchfriendship and esteem towards him to offend himin any other manner. There was no refusing sopolite a request.

The colours of a lady, in a knot of ribands wornby her admirer, and called an emprise, were equally98sacred; and, when a brave of those chivalricdays was anxious for a combat, he exerted himselfto find some daring desperado who wouldput his finger on the badge of love. In Irelandto this day, in many of its wild districts, a pugnaciousruffian will drag his jacket after him, andfight unto death any spalpeen who ventures totouch it.

Choice of arms was a matter of great importancein these meetings, indeed of a vitalnature; since, if a weapon was broken in thehands of one of the parties, he was consideredvanquished, and at the discretion of his conqueror,—suchan accident being looked upon asa decision of Providence: a miss-fire at the presentday is considered a shot, although on aless religious principle. Pistols were introducedin the reign of Henry II; and, being consideredas affording a more equal chance to both combatants,this arm has been generally selectedin modern duels, more especially in England.On the Continent the small-sword and thesabre were more frequently resorted to; andwe shall shortly see the regulations regardingtheir employment, which in France form a regularcode.

Some of the ancient modes of fighting weremost singular and whimsical. Brantôme relates astory of two Corsicans who had fixed short sharp-pointeddaggers in the front of their helmets, being99covered with a suit of mail called a “jacque”over their shirts, although the weather was remarkablycold; such an arrangement having beenproposed by the offended, who had the right toselect and name the mode of combat, and whowas fearful of his antagonist’s renown for hispower and dexterity in wrestling. Both werearmed with swords, and they fought for sometime with such equality of skill that neitherwas wounded; at length they rushed upon eachother, and wrestling commenced. It was duringthis struggle that the daggers came into play,each butting in his antagonist’s face, and neck,and arms, until blood was streaming in everydirection, and in such profusion that they wereseparated: one of them only lived a month; inconsequence of which the survivor was well nighdying of tristesse and ennui, as they had becomefriends, and expected that they both should havedied.11

Notwithstanding this valorous disposition, it100appears that the choice of arms and appointmentswas frequently made a subterfuge to gain time,or cause much trouble and expense; and Brantômerelates, that, in the fatal duel betweenJarnac and Chasteneraye, the former proposedno less than thirty different weapons to beused both on horseback and on foot, and hadalso specified various horses, Spanish, Turkish,Barbs, with different kinds of saddles: in consequenceof which our chronicler adds, that ifhis uncle had not been a man of some independence,and moreover assisted by his royalmaster, he could not have maintained the challenge;and he very truly observed, when receivingit, “This man wants to fight both my valourand my purse.”

This privilege of the offended to choose theirarms and regulate the nature of the combat,however capriciously, afforded considerable advantages;since the art of fencing taught manysecret tricks, the knowledge of which gave greatreputation to professors. So secret, indeed, werethese instructions, that not only was the pupilsolemnly sworn never to reveal the mysteriouspractice, but instructions were given in private,after having examined every part of the room,the furniture, and the very walls, to ascertainthat no third person could have been concealedto witness the deadly lesson. To this day inFrance such cuts and thrusts are called coups101de maître, and by the lower classes coups demalins.

A curious case is recorded of a knight, who,having been taught invariably to strike theregion of the heart, insisted upon fighting in asuit of armour, with an opening in each cuirassof the breadth of the hand over the heart: theresult, of course, was immediately fatal to hisantagonist.

The “cunning” of armourers was also frequentlyresorted to, to obtain unfair advantages.A skilful workman in Milan had carried hismode of tempering steel to such a point ofperfection, that the solidity of the sword anddagger depended entirely on the manner in whichthey were handled: in the hands of the inexperiencedthe weapons flew into shivers; whereasin the grasp of a skilful combatant they were astrusty as the most approved Toledan blade.

Nor were these valiant knights very particularas to odds. It is related of two Frenchgentlemen, La Villatte and the Baron de Salligny,who fought a duel with two Gasconsof the name of Malecolom and Esparezat, thatMalecolom having speedily killed his antagonistSalligny, and perceiving that his companion Esparezatwas a long time despatching Villatte, wentto his assistance. When Villatte, thus unfairlypressed by two antagonists, remonstrated againstthe treachery, Malecolom very coolly replied,102“I have killed my adversary, and, if you killyours, there may be a chance that you mayalso kill me; therefore here goes!”

More punctilious, however, were some of theseheroes in points of honour. We read in Brantômeof two Piedmontese officers, intimate friends,who having gone out to fight, one of the partiesreceived a wound that was supposed to be mortal;when his opponent, instead of despatching him,assisted him off the ground, to conduct him to asurgeon. “Ah!” exclaimed the wounded man,“do not be generous by halves!—let it not besaid that I fell without inflicting a wound: so,pray wear your arm in a scarf, and say that I hityou ere I succumbed.” His friend generouslyacceded to the proposal; and, having smeared abandage in his blood, he wrapped it round hisarm, publishing abroad that he had been woundedere his brave companion received his mortalthrust. The wound however not proving fatal,an everlasting friendship, cemented by gratitude,ever after prevailed between them.

Many instances of these singular rencontresand fatal caprices in deeds of arms will be recordedin the course of this history; all of whichmay be referred to the character of the times,and the existing government’s weakness or tyrannicalinfluence.

In relating the progress of duelling in Franceduring the fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries, I103cannot better characterize the state of the countrythan by quoting a late intelligent writer, M. deCampigneulles:—

“I find between the fifteenth and the sixteenthcenturies the same difference that is observablebetween the seventeenth and the eighteenth;neither of these periods being in my opinion infavour of any progress. Louis XI. will be foundpreferable to Charles IX; and Charles VIII. willbe placed in a more distinguished rank thanHenry II. Francis I. will not make us forgetLouis XII; and the glorious exploits of theFrench under Charles VII. will console us for along time for the miseries of the civil wars underHenry III. I do not think it necessary, to justifythe second proposition, to draw a parallel betweenthe reigns of Henry IV. and Louis XIV. on oneside, with the regency and reign of Louis XV.on the other. What is not less remarkable is,that the first period of a century has frequentlybeen more worthy of estimation than the second;showing that there is an action and a reaction inthe progress of civilization, and that the torrentof ages seems to be subject to the same laws thatregulate the waters of the deep.

“Under Charles VII. the aristocracy was toodeeply engaged in their national contest withEngland to occupy themselves with personalfeuds; the aristocracy, in the enormous sacrificeswhich this struggle required, was drained both104of men and money. The people gained nothing,—theroyal authority alone reaped any advantagethat might have resulted from this state of affairs;for from this reign we may date the establishmentof standing armies and taxations,—the latter beingimposed illegally, and without the sanction ofthe states-general.

“The policy of Louis XI.’s government turnedto a profitable account the state of poverty anddepression to which the aristocracy had been reduced.The nobility of France was deterioratedby this cruel prince, who founded his despoticpower upon executions; and the blood which hadbeen spilled in the field of battle to defend thecountry, was now wantonly shed upon the scaffold.There was none left to irrigate a field ofprivate battle.

“These combined circ*mstances had struck afatal blow to duelling; and the prejudices whichhad justified the practice, and which at the sametime had advocated the cause of aristocracy, becameevery day more weak, attesting the hom*ogeneityof their character.

“France has always been considered as givingthe ton to Europe; but between us and othercountries the exchange has not always been toour advantage, and, for what we may have givento our neighbours of any value, we have receivedin return sad equivalents. It is to Germanythat we were first indebted for judicial combats.105It was in Italy that we sought the practice ofduelling, which succeeded them; and while thismoral contagion was widely spread during theexpeditions of Charles VII, Louis XII, andFrancis I, a sad physical contamination was transmittedto us through Spain. The practice ofduelling had scarcely crossed the Alps, when itgradually disappeared amongst the Italians; andthe stiletto became a substitute for the sword.

“It is to the reign of Charles VIII. that wemust refer these Italian campaigns, so fatal to ourarms and our manners. The ardour of our youthinspired this monarch with a desire of foreignexpeditions. In 1494 he overran the kingdomof Naples, losing his conquests as rapidly as hehad obtained them. Duelling was then in greatvogue over Italy,—a tradition of the Goths andLombards, modified, or rather exaggerated, by thechivalric fancies of the Spaniards.

“A wish to enforce the rights of Valentine onthe duchy of Milan induced Louis XII. to undertakefresh Italian expeditions, although hehad strenuously opposed similar projects on thepart of his predecessor during his latter days.It was during the reign of this monarch, from1499 to 1515, that incessant duels thinned theranks of his armies. They were sanctioned bythe Duke de Nemours their leader, and the illustriousBayard himself was obliged to yield to thetorrent of fashion.106

“The Italian wars continued to be waged underFrancis I. He himself, as we have seen, sent arodomontade challenge to the Emperor Charles;and although neither of the parties entertaineda serious intention of putting their boastedthreats into execution, yet he had shown anexample which was greedily followed by themost distinguished personages of the court.”

It was during his reign that pistols were introduced,and became the fit auxiliaries of thedagger amongst the bandits that infested therealm; and thus does Abbé Villy describe thecondition of the country—“Our intercourse withthe Italians, amongst whom our armies had livedfor more than fifty years, had altered our nationalcharacter in many respects. Men became lessdelicate in their means of glutting revenge. Assassinationsand premeditated murders becameeach day more frequent. Already it was notconsidered sufficient to await an enemy upon theroad, or attack him in his dwelling. It was atthe corner of a street or in an open square, andin the presence of their fellow-citizens, that publicfunctionaries fell under an assassin’s blow.Relays of horses were ready to enable the criminalto escape, and the crime to remain unpunished.”

“Charles IX. was the last French monarch whoallowed a duel, and was present when it tookplace. He was also the first to prohibit the practice;107and his ordonnance of 1566 in this respectwas admirable, wherein he commanded that alldifferences should be submitted to the decisionof the constables and marshals of France, moreespecially in such cases where the lie had beengiven.

“Henry III. was the last who appeared in atournament, with his brother Charles IX; andhe also issued severe orders concerning murderersand assassins, who, however, from his want ofenergy, applied with more audacity and impunitythan at any other period, converting thecountry into a cut-throat: and if this prince endedby discouraging duels, it was only when fromhis affections towards his unworthy favouriteshe felt their loss, and, without possessing sufficientenergy to avenge them, their tragic end onlygave rise to fresh scandal in the indecency of hisgrief. D’Audiguier, the duellist, called him thebest prince in the world; and Brantôme says thathe was so good, that he never could punishrigorously, he so loved his nobility.

“The fever of duelling was not mitigated duringthe long period of our religious wars. Civilwars differ widely from those that are carriedon to defend national honour against a foreignenemy. When these break forth, personal feudsare appeased, and one interest predominates; ourblood is reserved for our country, and duels willcease: but when in an impious conflict citizens108are armed against each other, every evil passion isunbridled; no law, no check, can restrain them;everything becomes a weapon; men no longerfight, but kill; and what the sword may havespared is doomed to the scaffold. Thus did murdersassume every possible form during the convulsionsof the sixteenth century; every instrumentof destruction was brought to bear; thedagger rivalled the sword; and, as we alreadywere indebted to Italy for duelling, an ItalianQueen, one of the Medici, brought in another gift—assassination.”109

CHAPTER VII.

DUELS IN FRANCE DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

As we have seen in the preceding chapter, itwas during the reign of Francis I. that duels becamemultiplied, both in the French dominions,and in their armies employed upon foreign service.The influence of the monarch upon hiscourt, and of that court upon the nation, hasever been all-powerful in that country, until thepeople knew that they were something. Wehave seen the potato, after being considered bythe whole country as only food fit for swine, introducedinto fashionable, and thence into generalconsumption, after Louis XIV. had appearedin court with a nosegay of its flowers at his button-hole.

The gasconading challenge sent by Francis toCharles, although it must have been fully appreciatedby reasoning people, acted with electricenthusiasm on the nation; and if a king thoughtit incumbent on his honour to seek satisfactionfor having been accused of asserting a falsehood,110how much more urgent did it become for subjectsto draw their swords upon the slightest contradictionthat could give umbrage to the phantomof chivalric honour? Moreover, it had beencurrently reported, and of course confirmed bythe courtiers, that this monarch, having consideredhimself offended by the Count of Saxony,then on a visit at his court, had taken him asidein a hunting excursion, without any witness beingpresent to compromise his future safety, andproposed a single combat, which the Count verywisely declined.

Francis, although he not only tolerated, butapproved of duelling, was jealous of the right ofgiving it his sanction, and was much displeasedif a challenge was sent without his knowledge.Thus De Cipsière was obliged to absent himselffrom the Louvre for a considerable time, for havingpresumed to send his compliments to D’Audoinby Vicomte Gourdon, and to inform himthat he was going to hear mass at the church ofSt. Paul, where if M. D’Audoin would attend atthe same time, they would afterwards take a walkinto the country by the Porte St. Antoine. Severalduels during this reign may almost be consideredas judicial combats, since they took placein the presence of the sovereign, who thus constitutedhimself an arbiter.

The reign of Francis might have been one ofgallantry and of pleasure; and there are not111wanting even ladies who, in the present day,look upon its profligacies and their ferociousresults as noble deeds,12 the effects of chivalricdevotion. I must confess that, in looking overits annals, I can find nothing remarkable, exceptan outrageous breach of all morality anddecorum, and a wanton waste of human blood.

The miserable successor of this prince, HenryII, whose reign was ushered in by the disgracefulduel between Jarnac and La Chasteneraye,which I have already related, encouraged duellingby his want of energy; the princes of theblood followed the general example: and we findthe Prince Charles, brother to the Duke de BourbonMontpensier, fighting with D’Andelot, brotherof the Admiral Coligny, at a hunting party.

It was during this reign that a singular duel112took place between a youth of the name of Châteauneuf,and his guardian Lachesnaye, an oldman of eighty. The champions met at the IsleLouviers, the subject of the dispute being alawsuit concerning the minor’s property. Châteauneufasked the old gentleman, if there wasany truth in the reports circulated, that he hadmade use of disrespectful language concerninghim; which the other positively denied on theword of a gentleman. This assertion satisfiedthe youth; but the old man would not let thematter rest. “You may be satisfied,” he replied,“but that is more than I am: and, sinceyou have given me the trouble of coming here,we must fight. What would all those folkssay, who have done us the honour of collectingto see us on both sides of the river, if theyfound that we came here to talk instead of acting?Our honour is concerned; let us thereforebegin.” Both were armed with swords and daggers;when Lachesnaye exclaimed, “Ah! paillard!tu es cuirassé!” which we might translateinto modern phraseology, “You varmint! youhave a cuirass on. “Ah! je t’aurai bien autrement!”—“Youshall catch it in another manner!”and forthwith made his cut and thrust at theface and throat; an attack which by no meansdisconcerted the young combatant, who veryquietly ran the old gentleman through the body.

The youth of those gallant times were not113very punctilious when they were less successfulthan Châteauneuf, as appears in the followingadventure:—

The King, being out at a stag-hunt in thewood of Vincennes, accompanied by the nephewof Marshal St. André, this youth sought aquarrel with an elderly gentleman of the nameof Matas, and they repaired to a lonely partof the wood, where Matas gave him a salutarylesson in fencing, by disarming him, whippinghis sword out of his hand as soon as he wason guard; adding, “For the future, young man,learn to hold your sword, and do not seek toencounter a man like me! Take up your sword;depart, and I forgive you.” So saying, he wasmounting his horse, when his adversary havingraised his sword from the ground, thoughtthe best use he could make of it was to ridhimself of so troublesome a witness of hisshame; he therefore stabbed him in the back,and left the corpse on the ground. The chronicleradds, “No notice of this transaction tookplace, for the young man was nephew of MarshalSt. André; whereas the other was only a relationof Madame de Valentinois (the famedDiana de Poitiers), who, after the death ofHenry II, had lost all her influence at court.”Nay, poor Matas was even blamed for havingrebuked a fiery and honourable youth! “It iswrong,” says the chronicler, “for old boasting114fencers to abuse their good fortune, and taunta youth who is only in the bud,—car Dieu s’enattriste!”—It grieves God!

Nothing could exceed the sang froid that thesedesperate men exhibited on such occasions. Brantômerelates the case of a duel between a Normangentleman and a little chevalier named De Refuge.They had taken a boat to go over to theIsle du Palais, to fight without witnesses; when,perceiving that several other boats were in pursuitof them, they jumped on shore, one ofthem exclaiming, “Pray, let us make haste, forthey are coming to separate us!” and, so saying,they attacked each other. After four lounges,they were both dead. The same writer mentionsa Seigneur de Gensac, who was eager to encountertwo champions at once; and, when theabsurdity of the attempt was alleged, merelyreplied, “Why, history is full of such deeds!and, mon Dieu! I am determined to have myname recorded.”

The following adventure of an illustrious murderer,called by Brantôme the Paragon of France,may give an idea of those glorious times:—

Duprat, Baron de Vitaux, was son of the ChancellorDuprat, and from early life had displayedsymptoms of undaunted “courage.” He commencedhis career in arms by killing the youngBaron de Soupez, with whom he had quarrelledat dinner, when Soupez threw a candlestick115at him and broke his head: he waylaid himon the road to Toulouse; and, having despatchedhim, effected his escape in female attire. Hisnext exploit was murdering a gentleman of thename of Gounelieu, to avenge the death of oneof his brothers, a lad of fifteen, whom Gounelieuhad killed; on this expedition he was accompaniedby a young nobleman named Boucicaut;their victim was travelling post near St.Denis, when they met with him: after thisachievement, he fled to Italy, Gounelieu beinga favourite of the King. Vitaux, however, couldnot remain long in exile and inactivity, but returnedto France for the express purpose of revengingthe death of another brother, killed by anear relation of his own, the Baron de Mittaud.

This Baron was a Seigneur from Auvergne,and had been summoned to court by Charles IX.to act as an interpreter to the ambassadors fromPoland, who came to offer the crown of thatkingdom to the King’s brother, the Duc d’Anjou.Mittaud, little suspecting that Vitaux wasin Paris, was not upon his guard; while Vitaux,who had allowed his beard to grow to a considerablelength, and was disguised as a lawyer, waswatching every opportunity to surprise him,—havingtaken an obscure lodging on the Quai desAugustins, in company with his old companionBoucicaut, and a brother of his, both of thembrave and valiant men, and called the Lions of116the Baron de Vitaux. These worthies, having metthe Baron de Mittaud, immediately despatchedhim; but it so happened, that, in defendinghimself, he had wounded one of the Boucicauts,who, not being able to keep pace with the twoother assassins in their flight, was obliged tostop at a barber’s shop to get his wound dressed:he had been tracked by the traces of the bloodhe had lost in his flight, and was taken up bythe Archers of the Provost twelve leagues fromParis; and, being confined in Fort l’Evêque,expected to have been executed, since both theKing and his brother decided that he should forfeithis life.

It so happened, that the Polish ambassadorslodged in the house of the prisoner’s brother,who was Provost of Paris, and who earnestlysupplicated them to apply to the King and hisbrother for the culprit’s pardon. The Polishenvoys, backed by President de Thou, made along harangue in Latin; which, whether themonarch understood them or not, succeeded inultimately attaining their demand, and Boucicautshortly after appeared at court as gay andas unconcerned as ever.

This event only encouraged our hero, whoshortly after returned to Paris, and killed with“incredible audacity,” says the chronicler, Louisde Guart, the King’s favourite, who had presumedto oppose the grant of his pardon. Vitaux,117with seven or eight companions, entered Guart’shouse, and killed him in his bed; using for thepurpose “a sword very short and very keen,which, upon such occasions, is considered preferableto a long one.” “This act,” adds thehistorian, “was considered one of great resolutionand assurance.” One might have expectedthat such a ruffian would have died on thegallows; but he sought the protection of theDuc d’Alençon, being under the patronage ofQueen Marguerite, of whom he was a specialfavourite.

At last, the Baron de Mittaud, brother ofthe one he had assassinated eight years previously,called him out: both parties were dulyexamined, although it was maintained that Mittaudwore a thin cuirass, painted flesh-colour,under his garments. Howbeit, the point of Vitaux’ssword was bent either upon this protection,or one of his ribs; finding that all hislounges and thrusts were of no avail, he hadrecourse to hacking and hewing, when in fourwell-applied cuts his adversary despatched him,without having had the “courtesy of offeringhim his life.” “Thus,” further says the historian,“died this brave Baron, the Paragon ofFrance, where he was as much esteemed as inSpain, Germany, Poland, and England; andevery foreigner who came to court was mostanxious to behold him: he was small in stature,118but lofty in courage: his enemies pretendedthat he did not kill people ‘properly’ (il netuait pas bien ses gens), but had recourse to variousstratagems; wherein,” says Brantôme, “itis the opinion of great captains, even Italians,who were always the best avengers in the world,—thatstratagem might be encountered by stratagem,without any breach of honour.” Brantômeadds, “I have spoken enough of him;although I should immortalize him were it inmy power, as much for his merits, as for thesincere friendship that existed between us!”

The duel that most grieved the heart of HenryIII. was that which occurred between his favouritemignons, Caylus and D’Entragues, whohad fallen out about some fair ladies of thecourt. Riberac and Schomberg, a young German,were seconds to D’Entragues; Maugerinand Livaret were the seconds of Caylus. Theparties met near the ramparts of the Porte St.Antoine, no one being present but three or four“poor persons, wretched witnesses of the valourof these worthy men.”

The moment the principals had commenced,Riberac addressed Maugerin, saying, “Methinksthat we had better endeavour to reconcile thesegentlemen, rather than allow them to kill eachother.” To which unworthy proposal the otherreplied, “Sir, I did not come here to stringbeads; I came here to fight!” “And with119whom?” innocently asked Riberac; “since youare not concerned in this quarrel,—with whom?”“With you, to be sure,” was the laconic replyof Maugerin. “If that be the case,” addedRiberac, “let us pray;” and, so saying, he drewhis sword and dagger, and placing the hilts cross-ways,fell upon his knees to put up proper orisons:but Maugerin thought his doxology tooprolix; and, swearing most irreligiously, toldhim “that he had prayed long enough.” Uponwhich they furiously attacked each other, untilboth fell dead.

Schomberg, the other second, beholding thisepisode, addressed Livaret very politely, saying,“These gentlemen are fighting; what shall wedo?” To which the other replied, “We cannotdo better than fight, to maintain our honour.”Schomberg, who was a German, forthwith cutopen the cheek of his adversary; a complimentwhich Livaret politely returned by a thrust inthe breast, which stretched him a corpse, to keepcompany with the body of Maugerin. Riberacwas borne from the field, and died of his woundsthe next day. D’Entragues, though severelywounded, effected his escape; while Caylus wascarried to his death-bed, where he bitterly complainedthat his adversary had a dagger in additionto his sword. In consequence of beingobliged to parry the thrusts of the former withhis hand, he had been stabbed in several places.120He further stated, that he had said to D’Entragues,“You have a dagger, and I have none!”To which the other replied, “So much the worsefor you; you ought not to have been such a foolas to have left it at home.” Brantôme observes,that he does not exactly know whether, from asense of gentillesse chivalaresque, he ought not tohave laid aside his dagger. Livaret, two yearsafter, was killed in a duel; when his servant,on seeing him fall, picked up his sword, andkilled his adversary, the son of the Marquis dePienne. The King was so afflicted at the deathof Caylus, that he gave orders to have him buriedby the side of another of his mignons, Sainct Megrin,who was assassinated by the Duke de Guiseat the Louvre gate.

The custom of the seconds fighting with eachother appears to have been introduced by theroyal mignons, who, no doubt, vied with eachother for the monarch’s favour. In these murderouscontests, one of the most celebrated bravoeswas Bussy d’Amboise, one of the principal actorsin the massacre of St. Barthelemi, during whichhe assassinated his own near relation, Antoine deClermont, with whom he was at law. This wasundoubtedly a more expedient motive than theone that induced him to call out a gentlemanof the name of St. Phal, who having an Xembroidered on some part of his apparel, Bussymaintained that it was a Y. A combat forthwith121took place, of six against six. One couldscarcely believe that the brave Crillon shouldhave risked his life with such a pernicious cut-throat.Yet it is recorded that, having met himone day in the Rue St. Honoré, Bussy askedhim the hour; when Crillon, drawing his sword,replied, “It is the hour of thy death!” Fortunatelythe combatants were separated. Theintrigues of Bussy with Marguerite de Valois arewell known; and at the same period he boastedof the favour of the Countess de Montsoreau,whose husband was master of the hunt of theDuke d’Alençon; and having written to thatprince, that he had caught a deer of the Count’sin his snares, the letter was shown to Henry III,who kindly put it into the husband’s hand.The master of the hunt did not deem it advisableto risk his life in seeking revenge, butcompelled his faithless spouse to give a rendez-vousto her paramour; when, instead of his mistress’sembraces, he was received by the daggers ofhired bravoes.

The assassination of this monarch himself(Henry III.) afforded a singular instance of themanners of the time, and the reckless characterof the courtiers. A young man in the royalhousehold, of the name of Isle Marivaux, determinednot to survive his royal master; andbegged to know if any one would do him thefavour of fighting with him, to give him a fair122chance of being killed. Fortunately for him,another courtier, of the name of Marolles, tookhim at his word; and, after a few lounges, gratifiedhis best wishes.

Such were what historians called “the good oldtimes,” when, as a late writer asserts, the lasciviousnessof Messalina was combined with theferocity of Nero and the gluttony of Heliogabalus;and when wit and ribaldry were the associatesof assassination. Thus, when Catherinede Medicis was informed upon her death-bedof the murder of the Duke and Cardinal deGuise, she replied, “’Tis well cut out, my son;but now your work must be stitched!”123

CHAPTER VIII.

FRANCE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

We now come to a reign which was consideredthe most glorious in the annals of Frenchhistory—that of Henry IV. Yet France showedthat the private character of a monarch canexert but little influence over the manners ofa people previously demoralized by capricioustyranny and by civil war. It has been trulysaid, that “Henry, surnamed the Great, did notillustrate the character of his times, but Ravaillac;”it is also a singular fact, that the name ofHenry seemed to be fatal to the French monarchy,and five assassins were found to raisetheir murderous hands against a sovereign saidto be beloved.

In vain did Henry IV. issue the most positiveedicts against duelling; his commands were unheeded,and his humane intentions invariablyset at nought. From his accession to the thronein 1589, until 1607, it was calculated that noless than four thousand gentlemen were killed in124affairs of honour; and we find that, in a journalof the 8th of August 1606, was to be read thefollowing paragraph:—“Last week we had inParis four assassinations and three duels, no noticehaving been taken of these events.” The desperatenature of these bloody feuds was such,that whole families were destroyed. This wasinstanced in the case of two persons of the nameof Joeilles and Devese, the former having seducedthe wife of the latter. Devese only acceptedthe challenge to draw his enemy intoan ambush, with the intention of murdering him;but he fortunately escaped with a wound in theback. Having joined the army in Savoy sometime after, he again sought his adversary, whofired a pistol at him, and ran away. The King,on hearing of this offence, dismissed Devesefrom his regiment, granting a permission toJoeilles “to attack him in whatever manner hethought proper, to seize upon his property andhouses, and his person wherever he found him.”However, a reconciliation was attempted to bebrought about, and the hand of a sister of Devesewas to be the pledge of peace; but Joeilles, bentupon revenge, so managed it, that he seducedthe young lady, and then refused to marry her.Her brother soon avenged her wrongs by waylayingand killing him, when a relation ofJoeilles got him shot with a musket by a personof the name of D’Aubignac, In fine, one125girl was the only survivor of the two families;illustrating, during the far-famed reign of thissovereign, the vendeta of the Corsicans.

This evil may have been justly attributed tothe chivalrous ideas of the monarch, who actedin defiance of his own wise decrees; since wefind him writing to his friend, Duplessis Mornay,who complained of having been insulted,“I feel much hurt upon hearing of the insultyou have received, and in which I sympathiseboth as your sovereign and your friend. In thefirst capacity, I shall see justice done, both foryour sake and mine; and if I only bore thesecond quality, you should find me most ready todraw my sword, and most cheerfully to exposemy life.” Can it be surprising that such a monarchshould have fallen under an assassin’s blow?In November 1594, the eldest son of the Ducde Guise, having sought a quarrel with theComte de St. Pol, ran him through the body inthe streets of Rheims; yet, two years after, theKing appointed that very person to the governmentof Provence.

Ruffians of the most sanguinary dispositionbecame noted and respected under this popularHenry IV. One of them named Lagarde Valois,was celebrated for his brutal deeds; anotherquarrelsome ruffian, named Bazanez, was determinedto have a trial of skill with him, andfor this purpose sent him a hat, ornamented126with feathers, and accompanied with a message,stating that he would wear it at the peril ofhis life. Lagarde immediately put the hatupon his head, and set out in quest of Bazanez,who was also looking for him in everydirection. Having at last met, after an exchangeof mutual civilities the combat began.Lagarde inflicted a wound on the forehead ofhis antagonist; but, the head being harder thanhis steel, his sword was bent on the skull:he was more fortunate in his next lounge,which penetrated his antagonist’s body, whenhe exclaimed, “This is for the hat!” Anotherthrust was equally successful, when headded, “And here is for the feathers!” Thispurchase he did not deem sufficient, and hetherefore gave him a third wound, exclaiming,“And this is for the loop!” During thispolite conversation, seeing the blood of his opponentstreaming from his several wounds, hecomplimented him on the elegant fit of hishat, when Bazanez infuriated, rushed upon him,breaking through his guard, and, throwing himdown, stabbed him in the throat with hisdagger, and repeated his desperate blows fourteentimes in his neck, chest, and stomach;while at each stab, as the wretched man roaredout for mercy, the other replied at every reiteratedthrust, “No! no! no!” However, duringthis conflict, the prostrate Lagarde was not altogether127idle; he bit off a portion of his adversary’schin, fractured his skull with the pommelof his sword, and “only lost his couragewith his life.” During this scene, the secondswere amusing themselves also in fencing, untilone of them was laid dead on the field of honour.This Lagarde, it appears, was as concise in hisepistolary style as in his colloquial eloquence duringa fight: the following is a copy of one of hisletters to a man whom he was determined to despatch.“I have reduced your home to ashes;I have dishonoured your wife, and hanged yourchildren; and I now have the honour to be yourmortal enemy,—Lagarde.”

It has already been stated, that during thereign of Henry IV. four thousand gentlemenlost their lives in single combat; and, by thestatement of Daudiguier, this monarch grantedfourteen thousand pardons for duelling. It wasin vain that the wise Sully exerted his influenceto check this execrable practice; the followingextract from his Memoirs affords a striking illustrationof the times:—

It was in consequence of the constant remonstranceof this minister that Henry issued variousprohibitory edicts, which criminated duellistsas guilty of lèse-majesté, and punished theoffence with death. The edict of Blois, in1602, not only condemned both the challengerand the challenged, with their seconds, to death,128and confiscation of their goods; but furtherordered that all offended parties should submittheir complaints to the governor of their province,to be laid before the constable and marshalsof France. This was the origin of thejurisdiction of the “point of honour,” which may,however, be partly referred to an edict of CharlesIX. of 1566, but which was only embodied asa code under Louis XIV.

Bellieme, then chancellor of France, maintainedthat duels would not cease until the Kingceased to intermeddle with them; but, if leftto him, he would soon put a stop to the practiceby refusing a pardon to all offenders; observing,that the most forward to fight woulddraw back, if, whatever were to be the issueof the duel, they saw that death was inevitable.Such was the course adopted by the Prince deMelfi, who commanded the army in Piedmont,and who obliged both the challengers and theoffenders to fight upon a narrow bridge withoutrails or parapet, and guarded at both extremities,so that there was no escaping fromdrowning, or being run through the body.

It appears that all these edicts, notwithstandingthe severity of their formulary, were unheeded,and seldom or never carried into execution;indeed, there were as many saving clausesand loop-holes in these decrees as in any ofour modern acts of parliament, through which129it has been truly observed, one could drive acoach and four: for instance, while duels weredenounced as impious and infamous, it wasprovided that the offended parties should havethe power of applying to the sovereign throughthe marshals of France for permission to fight;another clause specified that “a person whodemanded a battle without sufficient reason,should be dismissed with shame:” but there isnot a single instance of the application of thislaw upon record; and D’Audiguier observes,“that as the King never granted permissionto fight to any applicant, and had frequentlyrefused it, it was evident that there was nouse in making an application, therefore the partiescame to blows without any reference toauthority, and were, with very few exceptions,pardoned by the royal clemency.” Sully observeson this subject, “that the facility withwhich the King forgave duels tended to multiplythem, and hence these fatal examplespervaded the court, the town, and the kingdom.”

Montaigne says on this subject, that he verilybelieves, “if three Frenchmen were put intothe Libyan desert, they would not be a monththere without quarrelling and fighting;” andHardouin de Perefix, Bishop of Rhodes, observes,in his Life of Henry IV, “that the madnessof duels did seize the spirits of the nobility130and gentry so much, that they lost more bloodby each other’s hands in time of peace, than hadbeen shed by their enemies in battle.” Chevalier,in his work called “Les Ombres des Defunts,”asserts that, in the province of Limousin alone,in the space of six or seven months, there werekilled one hundred and twenty gentlemen.

But such is the empire of prejudice, and thecontagion of fashion, that Sully frankly avowsthat he was nigh quarrelling with his royalmaster for having had the imprudence to consentto be present at a duel, when Henry IV.briefly told him that he deserved to lose hishead for having dared to assume a regal powerin the precincts of his court; and most probablythe minister would have been disgraced,but for the interference of the ladies of thecourt.

In fact, these edicts, like many other criminallaws, defeated their own intention by their severity,which would have rendered their applicationas ferocious as the offences which they wereto punish; they were thus rendered illusive inpractice, however praiseworthy they might havebeen in theory,—the one neutralizing the operationof the other. Sully justly observed on thissubject, “that the excessive severity of the meanswould be the source whence would arise the principalobstacles to their execution; and frequentlythe penalties which produce the greatest impression131are such, that one cannot apply for forgiveness.”Sully, however, failed in his laudableexertions to check this practice; and weshall find that Richelieu, whose power was muchmore formidable, did not meet with much greatersuccess while endeavouring to crush the proudand unmanageable aristocracy of France.

In the midst of these scenes of blood, it affordssome relief to find that there were individualswho dared the prejudice of public opinion,and, respecting the laws both of God and man,firmly resisted the practice. History recordsthe instance of Monsieur de Reuly, a youngofficer, who could not be induced to fight aduel under any circ*mstances. Having oncebeen grievously offended, he submitted the caseto the decision of his generals, who determinedit in his favour; but his opponent insisted upona personal meeting, and sent him a challenge.De Reuly told the servant who brought it,that the person who had sent him was muchin the wrong, and that he had received all thesatisfaction which in justice or reason could bedemanded. But the other still pressing and repeatinghis challenge, and that too with someinsolent and provoking language, Reuly stated“that he could not accept the challenge, sinceGod and the King had forbidden it; that hehad no fear of the person who had insulted him,but feared God, and dreaded offending him; that132he would go every day abroad, as he was wont,wherever his affairs should call him; and that,if any attack was made upon him, he wouldmake his aggressor repent it.”

His adversary, unable to draw him into aduel, sought him with his second; and, havingmet him when only attended by his servant,attacked him, when both the principal andhis second were severely wounded by him; and,assisted by his servant, he carried them both tohis quarters, where he got their wounds dressed,and refreshed them with some wine: then, restoringto them their swords, he dismissed them,assuring them that no boasting of his should evercompromise their character; nor did he ever afterspeak of the transaction, even to the servant whohad been present at the affair.133

CHAPTER IX.

DUELS DURING THE REIGN OF LOUIS XIII.

During the reign of this monarch, or ratherthe sovereignty of his minister, private rencontreswere carried on with as much ferocity as ever,and some of these meetings were attended withcirc*mstances which rendered them as absurdas they were atrocious. In one instance wesee two champions getting into a puncheon andfighting with knives; and in another two noblemenfought with daggers, holding each otherby the left hand; while the 16th of January1613 was rendered remarkable by the tragic endof Baron de Luz and his son, who were killedby the Chevalier de Guise.

The baron had met De Guise in the RueSt. Honoré, and some words arose between themrelative to the death of the late De Guise,who had been assassinated at Blois by order ofHenry III. The baron was on foot, De Guiseon horseback; he immediately alighted, and requestedthe baron to draw: the old man couldscarcely believe that the chevalier was in earnest,134yet drew his sword in self-defence. He wasaged, and for years had been out of practice;whereas his antagonist was a young man, inthe prime of life, and famed for his swordsmanship.His first thrust proved fatal, hissword passing through the body of his adversary,who staggered to a shoemaker’s shop hardby, and fell down dead. His antagonist quietlyremounted his horse, and rode off in the mostunconcerned manner.

The deceased had a son about the same ageas the chevalier, who upon hearing of his father’sdeath, was determined to avenge him. Fromthe high rank and station of De Guise, hewell knew that, if he fell, no part of Europecould afford him an asylum from prosecution;yet was he determined in so just a cause torun every risk, and, as he did not dare approachthe hotel of the proud nobleman, he sent hima challenge by his squire, couched in the followingrespectful language.

“No one, my lord, can bear witness to thejust reason of my sorrow more forcibly thanyour lordship; I therefore entreat your lordshipto forgive my resentment when expressingmy desire that you will do me the honourof meeting me sword in hand, to give me satisfactionfor my father’s death. The esteem whichI entertain for your well-known courage inducesme to hope that your lordship will not135plead your high rank to avoid a meeting inwhich your honour is so deeply compromised,The gentleman who bears this, will conductyou to the place where I am waiting for yourlordship with a good horse and two swords,of which you will have the choice; or, shouldyour lordship prefer it, I shall attend you atany place you may command.”

The meeting took place on horseback; and,after a desperate conflict, the murderer of thefather gave the son the satisfaction of takinghis life also: while they were fighting, theirseconds wounded each other. D’Audiguier, whogives the particulars of this duel, adds, that“this victory would have been more gratifyingto God if he had fought for the same causethat led his ancestors into Palestine!”

This De Guise was grandson of Henri de Lorraine,Duc de Guise, surnamed the Great, and whowas killed at the siege of Orleans; his father,surnamed the Balafré, from a deep scar on theface, was assassinated at Blois: they were bothlooked upon as Doctors in the science of duelling,and their opinion and decision considered law.

This De Guise was banished to Italy byRichelieu, where he died in 1640. His son,Henri de Lorraine, was equally celebrated forhis amorous adventures and chivalric achievements,and was brought to trial by Richelieuas an accomplice in the conspiracy of the Count136de Soissons, and sentenced to death, par contumace,as he had fled to Italy; but he returnedafterwards to France, and we find him one ofthe champions in the celebrated carousel of 1662,having previously killed in a duel the Count deColigny, grandson of the admiral, who wasassassinated in the massacre of St. Barthelemi:with him ended the turbulent and bloodthirstyfamily of De Guise, as society was rid of himin 1664.

The Balafré had a third son, Louis, who wasa cardinal, and archbishop of Rheims. Thisprelate was a worthy scion of the desperate stock.He was often seen doffing his canonical vestmentsto don the cuirass and helm; he foughtin the ranks of his sovereign during his expeditionin Poitou, and died after the attack onSaint Jean d’Angely. This worthy memberof the church militant, having a lawsuit withthe Duke de Nevers, wanted to decide thecause at the point of the sword.

D’Audiguier, who has related many of theduels of his time, was a gentleman belongingto the court of Louis XIII, and made a supplicationto that monarch not only to cancel alledicts against duelling, but to allow the practice,in the following terms: “A great trial,Sire, is carried on between the nobility andthe law in your Majesty’s dominions, in whichyou alone can decide: your nobility maintain137that a gentleman whose honour is impeachedshould either vindicate it with his sword, orforfeit his life; whereas law asserts that a gentlemanwho draws his sword shall lose his life:and surely your Majesty, who is the chief ofthe most generous nobility in existence, cannotfeel it your interest thus to blunt their valour;or, under the vain pretence of preserving theirhonour, behold them reduced to the necessityof losing sight of its dictates, or seek to maintainit with their pen, like the low-bred, disputingthe right of arms before menial clerks.”Our advocate of the rights of honour concludesby imploring the King to render duels less frequentby permitting them to take place on certainoccasions when the King himself should bepresent; and when the public, he adds, “insteadof being involved in differences and lawsuits,which consume both blood and fortune,would be delivered of the two monsters, andwould feel proud of displaying their courage inyour service, and their valour in your royal presence.”

Despite these arguments, various prohibitoryedicts were issued during this reign: one inparticular, dated 1626, forbade all applicationsfor pardon or solicitation in favour of the criminals;and, like his predecessor Henri IV,Louis even denounced as criminal all such applicationsfrom the Queen, whom he called his138très chère et aymée compagne; he further protestedand declared before Heaven, that he wouldnever grant any exemption from this ordonnance.Notwithstanding the sanctity of theseprotestations, we find Louis XIII. granting afree pardon to duellists, “on account of theearnest entreaties made by his much-loved anddear sister, the Queen of Great Britain, uponthe occasion of her marriage.”

Duels must have been of frequent occurrenceduring this reign, since Lord Herbert of Cherbury,then our ambassador at the French court,asserts that there was scarcely a Frenchmandeemed worth looking on who had not killedhis man in a duel.

This chivalric nobleman, to show the prevalenceof duelling in France, and the respect inwhich duellists were held, relates the case of aM. Mennon, who being desirous to marry a nieceof M. Disancour, who it was thought would behis heiress, was thus answered by him; “Friend,it is not time yet to marry: I will tell you whatyou must do if you will be a brave man. Youmust first kill in single combat two or three men;then marry, and engender two or three children;and the world will neither have gained nor lostby you.” Of which strange counsel, Disancourwas no otherwise the author than inasmuch ashe had been an example, at least of the former139part, it being his fortune to have fought threeor four gallant duels in his time.

Another anecdote of Lord Herbert shows inwhat consideration duellists were held by the fairsex. “All things being ready for the ball, andevery one being in their place, and I myself nextto the Queen, expecting when the dancers wouldcome in, one knocked at the door somewhatlouder than became, I thought, a very civil person;when he came in, I remember there was asudden whisper amongst the ladies, saying, ‘C’estMonsieur Balaguy!’ Whereupon I also saw theladies and gentlemen, one after another, invitehim to sit near them; and, what is more, whenone lady had his company a while, another wouldsay, ‘You have enjoyed him long enough, Imust have him now.’ At which bold civilityof them, though I was astonished, yet it addedto my wonder that his person could not bethought at most but ordinary handsome; hishair, which was cut very short, half grey; hisdoublet, but of sackcloth, cut to his skin; andhis breeches only of plain grey cloth. Informingmyself by some standers-by who he was, Iwas told that he was one of the gallantest menin the world, as having killed eight or ninemen in single fight, and that for this reasonthe ladies made so much of him; it being themanner of all French women to cherish gallant140men, as thinking they could not make so muchof any else with the safety of their honour.”

It appears, however, that, notwithstanding thisreckless spirit of duelling that prevailed inFrance, Lord Herbert had found some difficultyin bringing various noblemen to the field; andthe following account gives a fair picture of thetimes.

“It happened one day that a daughter of theduch*ess de Ventadour, of about ten or elevenyears of age, going one evening from the castleto walk in the meadows, myself, with diversFrench gentlemen, attended her and some gentlewomenthat were with her. This young ladywearing a knot of riband on her head, a Frenchcavalier took it suddenly and fastened it to hishatband: the young lady, offended, herewith demandsher riband; but he refusing to restoreit, the young lady, addressing herself to me,said, ‘Monsieur, I pray, get my riband fromthat gentleman.’ Hereupon, going towards him,I courteously, with my hat in my hand, desiredhim to do me the honour that I might deliverthe lady her riband or bouquet again; but heroughly answering me, ‘Do you think I willgive it to you, when I have refused it to her?’I replied, ‘Nay, then, sir, I will make you restoreit by force!’ Whereupon, also, putting on myhat, and reaching at his, he to save himself ranaway; and after a long course in the meadow,141finding that I had almost overtook him, he turnedshort, and, running to the young lady, wasabout to put the riband in her hand, when I,seizing upon his arm, said to the young lady,‘It was I that gave it.’ ‘Pardon me,’ quoth she,‘it is he that gives it me.’ I said then, ‘Madam,I will not contradict you; but, if he dare say thatI did not constrain him to give it, I will fightwith him.’ The French gentleman answerednothing thereunto for the present, and we conductedthe lady again to the castle. The nextday I desired Mr. Aurelian Townshend to tellthe French cavalier that he must confess that Iconstrained him to restore the riband, or fightwith me. But the gentleman, seeing him unwillingto accept of this challenge, went outfrom the place; whereupon, I following him,some of the gentlemen that belonged to theConstable, taking notice hereof, acquainted himtherewith, who, sending for the French cavalier,checked him well for his sauciness in taking theriband away from his grandchild, and afterwardsbid him depart his house: and this was all I everheard of the gentleman, with whom I proceededin that manner, because I thought myself obligedthereunto by the oath taken when I was madeKnight of the Bath.”

It seems that our hero was a very pugnaciousdefender of ladies’ top-knots and ribands, forhe relates another quarrel of a similar nature,142in the case of a Scotch gentleman, “who, takinga riband in the like manner from Mrs. Middleton,a maid of honour, in a back-room behindQueen Anne’s lodging in Greenwich, she likewisedesired me to get her the said riband. I repaired,as formerly, to him in a courteous mannerto demand it; but he refusing, as the Frenchcavalier did, I caught him by the neck, and hadalmost thrown him down, when company camein and parted us. I offered, likewise, to fightwith this gentleman, and came to the place appointed,by Hyde Park; but this also was interrupted,by order of the Lords of the Council,and I never heard more of it.”

His lordship, notwithstanding his constantquarrels, which he most decidedly sought for,by his own account, asserts “that, although Ilived in the armies and courts of the greatestprinces in Christendom, yet I never had a quarrelwith man for mine own sake; so that, althoughin mine own nature I was ever cholericand hasty, yet I never, without occasion given,quarrelled with anybody: for my friends oftenhave I hazarded myself, but never yet drew mysword for my own sake singly.”

It is difficult to reconcile this assertion with aquarrel he picked with the same Balaguy, somuch renowned amongst the ladies, of whomhe had already spoken. “I remembered myself,”he says, “of the bravado of M. Balaguy, and,143coming to him, told him that I knew howbrave a man he was, and that, as he had putme to one trial of daring when I was last withhim in the trenches, I would put him to another;and saying that I had heard he hada fair mistress, and that the scarf he wore washer gift, I would maintain I had a worthiermistress than he, and that I would do as muchfor her sake as he, or any one else, durst do forhis.”

Balaguy very wisely declined the meeting, witha joke of somewhat an indelicate nature: towhich Lord Herbert replied, “that he spokemore like a paillard than a cavalier!” And here,strange to say, the matter ended. To doubt thecourage of Balaguy, is out of the question; andit is but reasonable to infer that Lord Herbertwas looked upon in the court of France as acrackbrained knight-errant. In the case of theyoung lady’s top-knot, there is little doubt butthat the French cavalier was her favourite, whomin a pettish moment she sought to embroil withour hero; and the Frenchman very wisely consideredthe whole business a childish joke.

The Quixotic character of Lord Herbert wasfully illustrated after the siege of Rees, whena trumpeter came from the Spanish army witha challenge from a Spanish cavalier, purporting,that if any cavalier would fight a single combatfor the sake of his mistress, the said Spaniard144would meet him upon the assurance of a field.His lordship was the only madman found to acceptthe defiance; and on this occasion receivedfrom the Prince of Orange a very salutary pieceof advice. “His Excellency thereupon,” he says,“looking earnestly upon me, told me he wasan old soldier, and that he had observed twosorts of men who used to send challenges ofthis kind: one of them, who, having lost perchancesome part of their honour in the fieldbefore the enemy, would recover it again bya single fight; the other was of those who sentit only to discover whether our army had in itmen affected to give trial of themselves in thiskind. Howbeit, if this man was a person withoutexception to be taken against him, he said,there was none he knew upon whom he wouldsooner venture the honour of his army than myself.Hereupon, by his Excellency’s permission,I sent a trumpet to the Spanish army, whenanother trumpet came to me from Spinola, saying,the challenge was made without his consent,and that therefore he would not permitit.” This did not satisfy our knight; but heforthwith repaired to the Spanish camp to seekout the challenger. There he was received withgreat cordiality by Spinola; and, instead of abattle, the visit ended in a festive dinner, duringwhich a conversation took place between hislordship and the Spanish general, descriptive of145the times. “Di che moriva Signor FrancescoVere?” To which Lord Herbert replied, “Peraver niente a fare.” When Spinola observed, “Ebasta per un generale.” Lord Herbert adds, “Indeed,that brave commander, Sir Francis Vere,died, not in time of war, but in peace.” Hethen parted from his noble host, with a particularrequest to be allowed to fight the infidels if everhe undertook a crusade, when he would be thefirst man who died in the quarrel.

It appears, however, that on one occasion aFrenchman, the favourite Luynes, showed less ofspirit than our countryman. Through some misrepresentationsLord Herbert was recalled, andLuynes procured his brother the Duke of Chaun,with a train of officers, “each of whom had killedhis man,” to go to England as ambassador extraordinaryto complain of the conduct of LordHerbert. The inquiry terminated in his favour,when he fell upon his knees before King James,in presence of the Duke of Buckingham, torequest that a trumpeter, if not a herald, mightbe sent to Luynes to tell him that he hadmade a false relation of the whole affair, andthat he demanded satisfaction sword in hand.The King answered, “that he would take itinto consideration.” But Luynes soon after died,and Herbert was again sent to France.

It may be easily imagined that Richelieuwould not allow these edicts, apparently humane,146to put an end to a practice which wasboth directly and indirectly of material serviceto his lofty ambition; and when he could notbring to the scaffold illustrious victims, suchas the Cinque-Mars, De Thous, and Montmorency,he sought for guilt, real or supposed,amongst those nobles who had infringed theseuseless laws. Thus we find, in 1626, the youngPrince de Chalais, of the house of Talleyrand,killing in a duel the Count of Pont Gibaut,grandson of Schomberg. He was immediatelyapprehended; but being a favourite of Gastond’Orleans the King’s brother, and moreoverthe lover of the famous duch*ess de Chevreuse,the cardinal was for the time deprived of hisvictim, until the year 1626, when he was accusedof a conspiracy against his sovereign, sentencedto death, and executed the same day.This judicial murder was attended with circ*mstancesof a most cruel nature. No executionercould be found to carry the sentence into effect,when two malefactors were pardoned on conditionthat they would perform the hateful duty;which they executed in so fearful a manner,that the unfortunate young nobleman receivedthirty blows of the axe ere his head was severedfrom the body.

The following year, history records anothermerciless act of the cardinal. François deMontmorency, better known under the name147of Boutteville, was one of the most renownedduellists of the day. This nobleman, wheneverhe heard that a person bore the reputation ofa courageous man, was in the practice of walkingup to him, and quietly saying, “I understand,sir, that you are courageous; I wish toenable you to prove it,—what are your weapons?”Every morning the hall of his hotelwas crowded with what was called the “goldenyouth of France,” where fencing and trials ofskill at all arms were practised, and a sumptuouscollation laid out for the company. Theexcesses of these desperadoes were so reckless,that a special edict appeared to keep them withinlimits. Such was the audacity of Boutteville,that he actually compelled the Count of PontGibaut on an Easter Sunday to quit his devotionsand fight him: he was also denouncedfor having killed the Marquis de Portes andthe Count de Thorigny. Shortly after, fightingthe Baron de la Frette, in which duel hissecond was killed, he was obliged to absent himselffrom Paris: he fixed upon Brussels to meetanother adversary, the Marquis de Beuvron, arelation of Thorigny, whose death he was anxiousto avenge. The King, upon hearing of thisdetermination, wrote immediately to the Archduch*ess,who then governed the Low Countries,to prevent this meeting; and directed the Marquisde Spinola to settle their differences. For148this purpose, this nobleman invited them bothto a splendid repast, and made them embraceeach other, with vows of everlasting friendship,and a total forgiveness of all past injuries, in thepresence of a numerous company. Notwithstandingthese solemn protestations, De Beuvron, onquitting the house, whispered to Boutteville, “thathe never would rest satisfied until he had methim sword in hand.” Boutteville however refusedto meet him, on the plea of the solemnpromise he had made the Archduch*ess to abstainfrom any hostile act while on her territory;but he entreated that princess to write toLouis XIII, to obtain the King’s permission toreturn to France: to which application the monarchreplied, “that all that he could do, for thelove he bore her, was to allow him to remainin France without further prosecution, but hecould not permit him to make his appearance atcourt.”

Beuvron returned to Paris, wrote no less thaneight letters to Boutteville to request him tomeet him there, and on his arrival proposeda duel without seconds: to which Bouttevillereplied, “that he would have had no objection tothis arrangement, had not two of his friendsexpressed a wish to join the party; and thathe should have to give them satisfaction if theywere, disappointed.” The following day, the 12thof May, was fixed for the meeting, at three in149the afternoon, on the Place Royale, one of themost public places in the capital; Bouttevilledeclaring that “he would fight under sunshine,”and following, in this remark, the example of thecelebrated duellist De Bussy, who, being challengedto fight by night, replied, “that hewould not condescend to display his valour tothe stars, or even to the moon, since they werenot able to contemplate him properly, or appreciatehis skill; the obscurity of night beingonly fit to screen deeds of darkness:” he furtheradvised the parties to bring two pioneerswith them to dig their graves. It appearsthat strange notions prevailed on such occasions;and Brantôme relates the case of a gentlemanwho invited another to fight him ona winter’s night in their shirts; to which hesent answer, “that he would not expose himselfto catch a cold, or a purging, which hedreaded more than his antagonist’s valour.”

Howbeit, our champions met, with their fourseconds; one of whom left his sick bed for thepurpose. The combat began with sword and dagger,when, casting the former weapon away, theprincipals collared each other, and fought withtheir daggers; which both holding at each other’sthroat, they mutually asked for quarter. In themean time, one of the seconds, the celebratedBussy D’Amboise, had been run through thethroat by a mortal thrust; and another second,150La Berthe, was also put hors de combat. Theprincipals very quietly went to lunch at a barber’sshop; and, after seeing La Berthe’s woundsdressed, rode out of Paris. Bussy had just timeto cross himself, and die in the arms of a worthyfriar.

The fugitives, who were quietly quitting thekingdom, were recognised by the emissaries ofthe sister of the deceased Bussy: Bouttevillewas arrested, after having eaten a hearty supper,and retired to rest; he was carried to theBastille. On the 21st, being condemned to death,he was executed the following day on the Placede Grève with great military pomp, attended bythe Bishop of Nantes: he was as anxious to preservehis mustachoes as Sir Thomas More wasto put his beard out of the way of the executioner’saxe; when the worthy prelate observed,“Oh! my son, you must no longer dwell onworldly matters! Do you still think of life?”“I only think of my mustachoes!—the veryfinest in France,” replied the penitent.151

CHAPTER X.

DUELS DURING THE REIGN OF LOUIS XIV.

I cannot better commence the present chapterthan by quoting the following view of this epoch,entertained by a late writer on the subject:—13

“The despotism of Richelieu gave birth to theautocracy of Louis XIV; it became the energeticprologue of events naturally progressive.Ministerial absolutism served as a transition toregal absolute power. The ancient feudal libertyhad been levelled by the monarchical scythe, whiledemocratic equality was not as yet sufficientlymatured to supply its place. The interregnumbetween these two influences left a wide andfertile field for the uncontrolled and unlimited authorityof the Grand Monarque, whose name wasof sufficient weight in the scale of renown to fillup this lapse with the most brilliant prestiges.It was during this invasion of one man on theancient domains of our rights and liberties thatindividualism arose: this principle was more fullydeveloped during the voluptuous lethargy ofLouis XV, and prepared the way for the final152triumph of democracy under the feeble sceptre ofhis successor.

“Richelieu dead, the aristocracy, which hadceased to be a rival power of the throne, becameits ornament, and only preserved so much of itsformer glories as might have been shed aroundthe captive sovereigns who surrounded the triumphalcars of Roman conquerors. Yet did itappear satisfied with this humiliation when reflectingon the miserable crowd of slaves thatfollowed it; the proud contempt of the victornot foreseeing that these captives would, in theirturn, burst forth from their shackles to trampleunder foot the ruins both of aristocracy and monarchy.

“Louis XIV, in the intervals of his warlikepolicy, fully understood the advantages that hecould reap from these elements of aristocracy,dispersed so widely by his predecessors; and helost no time in collecting their bleeding remains.The nobility, in his hands, was remodelled intoan institution purely military, and he claimedfrom them to restore France to her naturallimits, the same means that Charles VII. hadpursued to liberate the kingdom. Thus wasre-established a patrician militarism, in imitationof that German militarism which dated from theconquest of the Gauls, and which ultimately ledto the plebeian militarism of modern times.”153

The minority of this monarch had been markedby troubled times, during which the spirit ofduelling, that Richelieu had to a certain extentrepressed, broke forth afresh with renewed energies;and the disturbances of the Fronde naturallyincreased these bloody feuds, by givinga certain object and character to the hostilemeetings that daily took place. The monarch,anxious to preserve the blood of his subjectsfor more noble enterprises, sought every meansto check the evil; and during his reign noless than ten edicts were promulgated to restrainthese excesses: the formulary of these enactmentsrecommended peace and concord, andfulminated destruction on the offenders. Suchwas the prolixity of their legal verbiage, that oneof the most celebrated of these acts contained noless than forty clauses and provisions. The spiritof these ordonnances can be easily judged of bythe terms of the following preamble, that precededthe edict of 1643:

“Having nothing dearer to our hearts than thepreservation of our nobility, whose valour, sojustly celebrated and dreaded all over the world,has only been tarnished by the irregularities ofa monstrous frenzy; after having put up oursupplications to God, which we daily continueto do with all our heart, that he may vouchsafe toopen their eyes, and dispel those hateful illusions154which inspire them with a thirst for a spurioushonour; we resolve,” &c.

In this act it is clear that the monarch wasmost anxious to preserve the lives and servicesof his most influential and distinguished followers,and did not contemplate the shedding of theirblood by plebeian hands; but, as this did notappear to have always succeeded, we find in theedict of 1661 the following clause:—

“Whereas it does appear that there are personsof ignoble birth, and who have never borne arms,yet are insolent enough to call out gentlemen whor*fuse to give them satisfaction, justly groundingtheir refusal on the inequality of their conditions;in consequence of which these persons excite andoppose to them other gentlemen of like degree,whence arise not unfrequently murders, themore detestable since they originate from abjectsources; we do hereby will and ordain, that in allsuch cases of challenge and combat, more especiallyif followed by serious wounds or death,such ignoble and low-born citizens, duly convictedof having caused or promoted such disorders, shallbe forthwith, and without any remission, hangedand strangled; all their goods and chattels, &c.confiscated; and we, moreover, do allow our judgesto dispose of such part of this confiscated propertyas they may deem meet, as a reward toall informers who may give due knowledgeof such offences; that, in the commission of155a crime so deserving of condign punishment,every one may be induced to make proper revelation.”

It does not appear, however, that these interdictionsproduced the results that might havebeen expected from their severity; for in 1679came out the celebrated Edit des Duels, whichdenounces the penalty of death on all principals,seconds, and thirds, with greater or less confiscationof property as royal droits: gentlemen beingdeprived of their letters of nobility, and theircoats of arms defaced, blackened, and broken bythe public executioner; those who fell in duelbeing tried by Contumacy, and their bodies drawnon a hurdle, and cast into the common receptacleof nuisances, being thus deprived of Christianburial. A simple challenge was punished by banishment,and confiscation of one half of the offender’sproperty. In regard to all bearers ofmessages, or servants who had attended upontheir masters on such occasions, and who formerlywere to be hanged, this edict mercifullycondemned them to be only whipped, and brandedwith fleur de lis. Historians relate that thelaw was in general strictly put into executionin the latter case.

Other penalties were inflicted by a court ofsatisfaction and reprisal. A lawyer who insultedanother was subjected to very severe penalties;giving the lie, striking with hand or stick, were156acts that subjected the offender to imprisonment,with the obligation of making ample apologyto the offended when released from confinement;and not unfrequently the injured party was allowedto inflict a castigation similar to the onehe had received.

It was with this view that courts of honourwere instituted, in which the marshals of Francesat as supreme judges, and, after due investigation,ordered that such satisfaction should begiven as the case might require, in additionto the penalty of incarceration, fine, or banishment,according to the nature of the provocation;and in various instances guards were sentto the houses of the offenders guilty of a contemptof court, who were obliged to maintainthem for a considerable length of time.Although the institution of courts of honour,composed of the marshals of France, is attributedto Louis XIV, a similar enactment took placein 1566, in the reign of Charles IX.

In theory, nothing could be more plausiblethan these enactments. They were received bythe nation with that enthusiasm which usuallyattends upon any innovation; even the Academygranted a prize-medal to the author ofa successful poem on the abolition of duelling.In practice, however, the law was far fromattaining its desirable end. The prejudices andfalse views of honour had too long prevailed to157be easily eradicated, and human passions soughtevery possible expedient to elude these wise andhumane provisions; it might also have beeneasily foreseen, that, the novelty of the proceedingsof the court of honour once having ceasedto be popular, the judges themselves, beingsoldiers, punctilious on such points, which fromearly youth they had considered as demandingthe satisfaction of an appeal to arms, graduallyrelaxed. It must also be considered that thesovereign himself was a warlike prince, whohad imbibed similar ideas from his early days;and moreover, as has been very justly observed,that, while he thus fulminated his royal anathemaagainst duelling, he issued patents tofencing-masters to allow them to exercise theircraft. The courtier well knew, that, if hescreened himself from resenting an injury underthe sanction of the law of the land, thelaws of society would brand him as a coward,and the sovereign himself would withdraw hiscountenance in court and camp. Nor can webe surprised at the difficulty of checking theseexcesses, which were incessantly fomented bycivil and religious discord; such was the hostilitythat prevailed amongst churchmen andtheir followers, that processions of religious bodiesnot only frequently attacked each other in thestreets with the most virulent language, but actuallycame to blows, and fought with crucifixes,158banners, and censers in Notre Dame and the holychapel, pelting each other with prayer-books andmissals,—a combat that Boileau has ludicrouslydescribed in his “Lutrin;” it was observed thatthe most serious ecclesiastical fray of this naturetook place in the church of Notre Dame, on thevery day when Louis XIII. placed the kingdomunder the special protection of the VirginMary.

Private outrages, and breaches of commoncourtesy and decency, frequently arose amongstthe first persons in the realm. The great Condégave a slap in the face to the Comte des Rieuxin the presence of the Duke of Orleans, whenthe Count returned the blow with interest; forwhich retaliation he was sent for a few days tothe Bastille. This Comte des Rieux was the sonof the Duke d’Elbeuf; and it had been jocoselyobserved, “that the cheeks of that nobleman’sfamily had been selected as the field of battlein the wars of the Fronde.” On this occasionit is related, that the Duke de Beaufort, theson of a bastard of Henry IV, and who fromhis vulgarity and brutal excesses was nicknamedthe Roi des Halles, or what we might translatethe King of Billingsgate, asked the President deBelliévre, if he did not think that a slap onthe cheeks of the Duke d’Elbeuf might changethe face of affairs. The president replied, that159he apprehended the only change it might producewould be in the face of the duke.

Shortly after, in 1652, this same Duke ofBeaufort, having a quarrel with his brother-in-law,the Duke de Nemours, on a point of precedence,killed him in a pistol duel, at whichfour seconds were present, who, according to thelaudable practice of the times, kept companywith their principals; the Marquis de Villarsshooting his adversary D’Héricourt, whom hehad then the honour to meet for the first time.

Madame de Motteville, in her Memoirs, statesthat this said nobleman, his Grace of Beaufort,accompanied by six of his worthy companions,went to insult in the most brutal manner theDuc de Candalle, upsetting the table at whichhe was seated at dinner with several nobleguests; and when the Duke thus outrageouslyinsulted demanded satisfaction, declined meetinghim, on the plea of consanguinity, as hewas his cousin-german. Despite his unruly conduct,this worthy was soon after selected by hissovereign as chief of the admiralty.

De Beaufort was one of the principal leadersof “la Fronde,” and the most active partisanof Cardinal de Retz, who, although a dignitaryof the church, knew the use of his sword aswell, if not better, than his breviary; he foughttwo duels, alleging as a precedent his predecessor160the Cardinal de Guise, who was everready to wield either a sword or a crucifix.

It was during this reign that arose the celebratedquarrel between the beautiful duch*essde Longueville, sister of the great Condé, andthe duch*ess de Montbazon, the mother-in-law ofMadame de Chevreuse; these three ladies beingconcerned in all the intrigues of the busy courtof Anne of Austria, then Regent of the kingdom.

The subject of this dispute arose from a love-letter,in a woman’s hand-writing, having beenfound, which was supposed to have been droppedby the Comte de Coligny as he was leavingthe apartments of Madame de Longueville, andwhich contained various reports unfavourableto the reputation of Madame de Montbazon.This letter was attributed to Madame de Longueville,who insisted that Coligny, her acknowledgedlover, should call out De Guise, thefavourite of Madame de Montbazon. The partiesmet in open day in the Place Royale,where Coligny received a mortal wound; whilethe two seconds, D’Estrade and De Bridieu,were fighting, and the latter was severelywounded. This duel is worthy of record, fromthe singular fatality which attended it. Admiralde Coligny, the illustrious victim of the massacreof St. Barthelemi, was murdered by theorders of the Duke de Guise; and, seventy161years after, the grandson of the admiral was killedby the grandson of the duke!

Notwithstanding the severity of his differentedicts, Louis XIV. took no notice of this fatalrencontre: a circ*mstance which led to the observation,in a journal of the times, “that theKing, although jealous of his authority, was notsorry at heart when he saw his nobles punctiliouson matters of honour; therefore many of themwillingly exposed themselves to the severity ofthe law, to obtain the secret approbation of theirsovereign.” Mazarin, excepting in cases where hisauthority was questioned, and his influence concerned,seldom exerted himself to prevent theseevils. The Comte de Rochefort, who had enteredhis service after the decease of Richelieu,has given in his Memoirs strange illustrationsof the depravity and brutality of the times;and we find the following account in his diary.“Chance would have it that this day I foundmyself in company with the Comte d’Harcourt,and, having drunk to great excess, it was determinedthat we should all set out and robon the Pont Neuf; an amusem*nt brought intofashionable vogue by the Duc d’Orleans. TheChevalier de Rieux, one of the party, felt, likeme, much repugnance to this exploit; and by hisadvice, instead of joining the party, we climbedup on the neck of the bronze horse of HenryIV, where we might safely view this adventure.162Our companions were waylaying the passengers,and had already robbed them of several cloaks,when a party of archers appeared, and they tookto their heels. We endeavoured to follow theirexample; but, in coming down from the equestrianstatue, the bronze reins of the horse, onwhich De Rieux was supported, were brokenunder his weight, and he fell to the ground,when we were apprehended without any resistanceon our part; De Rieux complaining mostloudly of the pain he experienced from his fall,while we were both led to the Châtelet.”

The parties were kept some time in prison,De Rieux endeavouring to exculpate himselfby throwing all the blame upon Rochefort, thenarrator of this anecdote, who forthwith calledhim out; but, having declined the meeting,Rochefort struck him with the flat of hissword. He then demanded satisfaction from theComte d’Harcourt, the leader of the unrulyparty; but the count declined the honour onthe plea of his rank. Rochefort then, disappointedin his anxiety to fight, assisted by aneighbour of Harcourt who owed him a grudge,cut down the finest trees on that nobleman’sestate, and destroyed his preserves; till, at last,a friend and partisan of the count, a desperadoof the name of Bréauté, sought him, and calledhim out on the behalf of Harcourt. Rochefortwas severely wounded; and Bréauté, who had163also received a wound in the thigh, bore off hissword as a trophy of his victory, carrying it tothe count, who celebrated his exploit in revelry.Rochefort had been severely wounded in thelungs; but his patron, the Cardinal Mazarin, publiclyespoused his cause, and sent him his ownsurgeon, with a purse of five hundred crowns.On his recovery he again set out to despoilthe property of his enemy, accompanied by afellow of the name of Des Planches; but theseworthies fell out upon the road while at supper,and, after throwing plates and dishes ateach other, commenced fighting with their fists.Rochefort having amused himself in poaching onthe count’s grounds, Des Planches with his followersplaced himself in ambuscade, and firedupon him and his party from behind a hedge;apologising after this outrage, on the plea ofhis having mistaken him for Harcourt and hisgamekeepers. Still Mazarin contrived to protectthese desperate ruffians: and, although thisDes Planches had been dismissed the servicein consequence of a dispute with his commandingofficer, he returned to Paris under the cardinal’spatronage, to marry a wealthy person;but, his wife being unable to check his desperatemode of living, he died after a drunkenparty a few years subsequent to his marriage.

This Rochefort, in his Memoirs, gives a curiousaccount of a challenge sent by a person of164the name of Madaillan to the Marquis deRivard, who had lost a leg at the siege ofPuy Cerda. As fighting upon an equal footingwas considered a point of honour, the marquissent to his opponent a surgeon with acase of instruments, proposing that he shouldsubmit to a similar amputation. The jokewas successful, and Madaillan’s wrath was appeased.

At various periods of the French monarchy,and despite the severity of the edicts to preventhostile meetings, the patronage of distinguishedpersonages was considered sufficient toshield the transgressors from punishment. Ananecdote is related of a person who, havingbeen introduced into society by a noble patron,was turned out of doors for cheating at cards,with a threat of being thrown out of the window.He complained of this insult to his protector,who very quietly replied, “What wouldyou have me do? All that I can advise you atpresent is, never to play at cards except on theground-floor.”

About this period a duel took place at Brusselsbetween Beauvais, an esquire of the Princede Condé, and a gentleman who had presumedto walk up stairs before him, in which theoffended esquire was mortally wounded. ThisBeauvais’ ideas of honour were most fastidious,for, although he perilled his life because another165gentleman had taken precedence of him, heresisted the earnest entreaties of the princehis master, who on his death-bed requestedhim to marry a young person whom he hadseduced, and so to legitimatize the children shehad borne him; one of whom, Uranie, was afterwardsmarried to the Prince of Savoy.

In 1663, a duel took place between La Fretteand De Chalais. They were coming out froma ball at the palace, when La Frette, whohad had some difference with De Chalais onaccount of certain ladies, pushed against him,and a meeting of three against three was arrangedfor the following morning. The King,being apprised of the circ*mstance, sent his ordersto La Frette, adding, that if he did notkeep the peace, he would have his throat cut.The bearer of the royal message was Monsieurde Saint Aignan, to whom La Frette replied,that, as he was his cousin, he was certain thathe would not break up a pleasant party andone so well arranged; adding, moreover, that,if he felt disposed to join it, he was convincedthat he could easily find him an opponent.To this proposal, although the bearer ofa royal mandate, Saint Aignan acceded; and,instead of a combat between threes, it wasfought by fours, one of the party being theMarquis d’Antin. The King was justly incensedat this act of disobedience, and especially166at the conduct of Saint Aignan, who hadjoined the combatants, instead of fulfilling hispacific mission: all the parties were obligedto quit the kingdom; the La Frettes, however,were soon after pardoned at the intercessionof Pope Clement X, who offered on thisoccasion to absolve the King from his vowagainst duelling.

The only instance in which the severe lawsagainst duelling were carried into execution wasat Toulouse, in the case of the Marquis de laDonze, who had treacherously killed his brother-in-law.Whatever effect this severity might haveproduced upon the public mind, it did not appearto affect the offender, for, when upon thescaffold his confessor exhorted him to pray forforgiveness for his crime, he replied with theusual Gascon ejacul*tion, “Sandis! do you callone of the cleverest thrusts in Gascony a crime?”

Another duel which created a great sensationwas the one fought between the Counts deBrionne and d’Hautefort; the latter havingcalled the former out for refusing to marry hissister, whom he had courted. Both combatantswere wounded, and were proceeded against bythe Grand Provost; but, after a short imprisonment,the affair was hushed up.

It is certain that, as Voltaire has justly observed,many disputes, which at other periodsmust have led to hostile meetings, were settled167during this reign without bloodshed. Such, forinstance, was the quarrel of the Dukes de Luxembourgand Richelieu about precedence; when,after a long and angry correspondence, Richelieu,meeting Luxembourg in the palace, where hewas captain of the guard, went up to him, andtold him that he dared him on foot and onhorseback, he or his followers, either at courtor in city, and even in the army, should heproceed to it, or, in short, in any part of theworld. Notwithstanding this provocation, anapology was deemed sufficient. An apology wasalso considered satisfactory in the dispute whicharose between the Prince de Conti and theGrand Prior of Vendôme, at the Dauphin’s,where the prince accused the latter of cheatingat play, and moreover called him a coward anda liar: the prior threw the cards in his face,and insisted upon immediate satisfaction. Theprince claimed the privilege of his birth; but atthe same time condescended to add, that, althoughhe could not infringe the laws by accedingto his challenge, it was an easy matterto meet him. These meetings, which were resortedto, to keep within the pale of the laws,were called rencontres instead of duels: henceoriginated the term. Howbeit, the Dauphin,hearing of the quarrel, jumped out of bed,and in his shirt, proceeded to terminate thedifference. Subsequently making his report to168the King, the next morning the Grand Priorwas sent to the Bastille, whence he was onlyliberated on the condition that he should makean humble apology to the Prince de Conti forhaving been called by him a cheat, a liar, anda poltroon.

Previous to this fracas, a rencontre had takenplace between the son of the Count de Latourd’Auvergne and a celebrated swordsman, theChevalier de Caylus; a quarrel having arisen ina brothel about cards and prostitutes. Cayluswas obliged to quit the kingdom, and his effigywas hanged on the Place de Grève.

A gambling duel, on a point of honour, isrecorded of a M. de Boisseuil, one of the King’sequerries; who, having detected his antagonistcheating at cards, exposed his conduct. Theinsulted gentleman demanded satisfaction, whenBoisseuil replied that he did not fight with aperson who was a rogue! “That may be,” saidthe other; “but I do not like to be called one!”They met on the ground, where Boisseuil receivedtwo desperate wounds.

It was during this reign that a curious meetingtook place between La Fontaine the fabulist,whose meekness and apathy had acquiredhim the name of “the Good,” and an officer.Although generally blind to the irregularities ofhis wife, he once took it into his head to becomejealous of a captain of dragoons, of the name of169Poignant. La Fontaine had not himself observedthe intimacy with his wife; but some kindfriends had drawn his attention to its impropriety,telling him that it was incumbent on him todemand satisfaction. La Fontaine reluctantlypersuaded, contrary to his usual habits, got upearly one morning, took his sword, and went outto meet his antagonist. When the parties werein presence, the worthy poet said, “My dearsir, I must fight you, since I am assured thatit is absolutely necessary.” He then proceededto acquaint him with the reasons that inducedhim to call him out, and drew his pacific sword.The dragoon, thus obliged to defend himself,whipped the weapon out of the inexperiencedhand of the fabulist, and, having disarmed him,proceeded quietly to point out to him the absurdityof the reports circulated in regard to hiswife, and the folly of his having thus exposedhis valuable life; adding, that since his visitshad been the occasion of scandal, he would fromthat hour cease to call at his house. Le BonLa Fontaine was so affected by this sincere explanation,that he not only insisted that thecaptain should pay more frequent visits thanever, but swore that he would fight him overagain if he discontinued them.

The inefficacy of the various edicts to restrainduels was at last acknowledged, and various meanswere adopted to enforce them. In the year 1651,170a clergyman of the name of Olier, founder ofthe congregation of St. Sulpice, conceived a planof supplying the inefficiency of the law, by puttinghonour in opposition to itself. With thisview he projected an association of gentlemenof tried valour, who, by subscribing an engagementto which the solemnity of an oath was to beadded, obliged themselves never to send or accepta challenge, and never to serve as seconds ina duel. In this project he engaged the Marquisde Fénélon, a nobleman respected for the franknessof his disposition and the austerity of hisprinciple, as well as for his well-known courage,when that quality had been called upon in theservice of his country; since it was of him thatthe great Condé had said, that he was equallyqualified for conversation, for the field, or for thecabinet. It was to this nobleman that the justlycelebrated Archbishop of Cambray owed his educationand his rise in the church.

The Marquis de Fénélon having placed himselfat the head of this association,—into whichno one was admitted unless he had distinguishedhimself in the service,—on the Sunday of thePentecost, the members assembled in the churchof St. Sulpice, and placed in the hands of M^rOlier a solemn instrument, expressing their firmand unalterable resolution never to be principalsor seconds in a duel, and moreover to discouragethe baneful practice to the utmost of171their power. The great Condé was so struckwith the proceeding, that he said to the marquis,that a person must have the opinion which hehimself entertained of his valour, not to bealarmed at seeing him the first to break the iceon such an occasion.

However, it appears that neither the King’sdetermination to forward the views of thispraiseworthy association, nor the exertions ofits respectable members, could totally eradicatethe prejudice that maintained the evil; and Madamede Crequi, in her Reminiscences, sadly errswhen she affirms that during seventeen yearsnot a duel had been fought. Voltaire was alsoincorrect when he attributed to this prince, surnamedthe Great, the abolition of these bloodyproceedings. Voltaire was such an enthusiasticadmirer of Louis XIV, that in this case, asin many others, where his partiality, his prejudices,or his scepticism prevailed, he lost sightof facts, or, at any rate, passed them over insilence to suit his purposes. The following extractfrom a recent work gives a much fairerview of this prince’s reign than is given by thegenerality of his historians:

“His reign, like that of most conquerors, wasequally divided between repeated successes andfailures. His arms were triumphant so long ashe fought to obtain the natural limits of France,which to this day enjoys the fruits of his conquests;172but Fortune forsook his banners as soonas he drew his sword to level the Pyrenees.His reign commenced in glory, and terminatedin humiliation; the prestige of authority tookwing with that of victory. When the GrandMonarque died, the monarchy may be said tohave descended into its sepulchre, and the people,who had once trembled in his presence, insultedhis ashes; while the parliament, into whosehalls he was wont to enter booted and spurred,avenged themselves by trampling on his will.It was, in truth, the protection he afforded toliterature, and the patronage with which hehonoured distinguished men and letters, thatacquired for him the surname of Great. TheMæcenas of his age, he was entitled to the distinction;and it has been truly said of himthat France owed to him her knowledge ofliterature, as Asia owed her acquaintance withGrecian superiority to Alexander.”

The efforts of Louis to civilize the country,and encourage science and the fine arts, wereindefatigable; and what is still more estimablein this monarch was, his attending to the improvementof the nation during the turmoilof war. He established the most extensivemanufactures; formed the East India Company;built an observatory, and a printing-office inhis palace for the publication of the best translationsof ancient writers; sent out navigators173on voyages of discovery; and, while he receivedat his court Cassini, Huygens, and the most distinguishedforeigners who could adorn it, heencouraged native genius with liberality. Hepersonally defended Boileau, Racine, and Molièreagainst their enemies, provided for thefamily of Corneille, directed the studio of LeBrun and his contemporary artists, while heattached Lulli to his court, and gave Quinaultthe subjects of his operas; pensions too weregranted to all those who had contributed bytheir courage or their talents to the grandeur ofthe empire. He felt and knew that no sovereigncan become popular unless national genius andtalent meet with encouragement at court; andthat, thus fostered, national taste will improvemore rapidly than by the degrading importationof foreign perfections. The greatest error of thisprince was his neglect of the future, while engrossedby the glorious schemes of the present;and his never thinking on the means that hissuccessor might require to replenish the exhaustedexchequer. His ambition had been to revivethe Augustan age: his position, in reality, wasnot unlike that of the Roman Emperor; Cæsarhad become the master of the empire, and HenryIV. had consolidated his kingdom. Both princesascended the throne surrounded by a warlikepeople that required civilization, and Colbert wasto Louis what Mæcenas had been to his imperial174master; what is more singular is, the circ*mstanceof their both being born in the samemonth, and dying nearly at the same age. Itis to be lamented that, while the great mindof Louis encouraged the fine arts and literature,it should have been warped by superstition andbigotry; and the persecution of Protestantism,with the odious Dragonades, will ever be a blotupon his memory. We can only account forthese atrocities by considering them as the termsupon which he obtained priestly absolution forhis many vices.

It must certainly be acknowledged that duellingwas discountenanced during the reign ofthis prince, and was much less frequent thanunder his predecessors; but I apprehend thatthis circ*mstance was more to be attributedto the rapid progress of civilization and polishedmanners, to which I have alluded, than tothe severity of legal enactments. The refinementof manners that accompanied the quickadvance of intellectual attainments materiallytended to humanize society, and to make thosewho could reflect on the horrors of the past,blush at the fashionable countenance bestowedupon a practice which should have sunk intothe grave with Gothic ignorance and barbarism.War was the sole occupation in savagetimes; and amongst barbarians, strangersto all the blessings of civilized life and social175enjoyments, personal and brute courage was theonly claim to distinction and pre-eminence.Mandeville has fully illustrated such a conditionof society in his fable of the Bees: “If wewell mind what effects man’s bravery, withoutany other qualifications to sweeten him, wouldhave out of an army, we shall find that itwould be very pernicious to civil society; for,if a man could conquer all his fears, you wouldhear of little else but rapine and violence of allsorts, and valiant men would be like giants inromance. Politics, therefore, discovered in mena mixed principle, which was a compound ofjustice, honesty, and all the moral virtues,joined to courage; and all that were possessedof it turned knights-errant, of course. Theydid abundance of good throughout the world,by taming monsters, delivering the distressed,and killing oppressors. But the wings of allthe dragons being clipped, the giants destroyed,and the damsels everywhere set at liberty, (exceptsome few in Spain and Italy, who remainstill captivated by religious monsters,) the orderof chivalry, to whom the standard of ancienthonour belonged, has been laid aside for sometime. It was like their armour, very massyand heavy; the many virtues about it servedto make it very troublesome; and, as ages grewwiser and wiser, the principle of honour at thebeginning of the last century (1600) was melted176over and over again, and brought into a newstandard. They put in the same weight of couragehalf the quantity of honesty, and a verylittle justice, but not a scruple of any othervirtue; which has made it very easy and portableto what it was.”

Louis XIV, although the despotic chief of amonarchical government, was well aware thatthe point of honour should be held sacredamongst his armed followers, yet was he convincedof the necessity of tempering its brutality;while, as we have seen, he himself individuallyesteemed the illegal exhibition of personalcourage, which his edicts condemned.When a courtier complained to one of the marshalsthat he had received a slap in the face,the general replied, “Then, sir, go and wash itoff.” The slap in the face was the subject of anamusing passage in Molière’s play of the “Sicilian,”where a character says, “My lord, I havereceived a slap in the face,—you know what aslap in the face is, when it is bestowed with openhand on the middle of the cheek; I have thisslap on my heart, sir, and I am meditating whichis the most advisable method to wipe off theaffront, either to fight the fellow, or to get himassassinated.” Montesquieu has observed, that inmonarchical governments, “there is nothing thathonour more strongly recommends than to servethe prince in a military capacity; in fact, this is177the favourite profession of honour, because itsdangers, its success, and even its miscarriages, arethe road to greatness: the honour of monarchiesis favoured by the passions, and favours them inreturn; but virtue is a self-renunciation, whichis always arduous and painful. This is the reasonwhy we never meet with so strict a purity of moralsin monarchies as in republican governments:in monarchies, the actions of men are not approvedof as being good, but shining; not as being just,but great; not as being reasonable, but extraordinary;and honour allows of gallantry whenunited with the idea of sensual affection, or withthat of conquest.” This enlightened writer furtheradds: “We have only to cast our eye on anation (England) that may be justly called a republicdisguised under the form of a monarchy,and we shall see how jealous they are of making aseparate order of the profession of arms, and howthe military state is continually allied to that ofthe citizen, and even of the magistrate, to theend that the latter may be a pledge to theircountry, which should never be forgotten. Militarymen in England are regarded as belongingto a profession which may be useful, but is oftendangerous; civil qualities are therefore morehighly esteemed than military.”

These sentiments are also those of one ofthe warmest advocates of duelling, Coustard deMassi, who thus expresses himself: “I own that178in republican governments the practice of duellingmay be prevented, because the courage of thepeople is sufficiently fostered by an enthusiastic loveof their country; which powerful incentive alonecan elevate their troops to superior boldness,and make them perform such astonishing actsof valour as are to be found in the Greek andRoman histories:” but in monarchical governmentsour author maintains that duelling is indispensable.What a flattering encomium bestowedon despotism, where the passions of aprofligate monarch are to be considered morecommanding than the love of country and independence!What a lesson does not this quotationgive to British duellists!

Moore has made, on this subject, the followingjudicious observations: “Some have assertedthat we should become a pusillanimous nationif a less stress were laid than is at present onthat species of personal courage which is exhibitedin the duel. But the annals of all agesafford us a sufficient proof and consolation, thatin all cases of emergency the free-born subjectsof a free nation, through that natural enthusiasmwhich a love of their country inspires, will strainevery nerve of courage in defence of their libertyor warlike glory, without having been previouslydisciplined in the school of duelling and modernhonour.”

The frequency of duels in the United States179may be adduced in opposition to the foregoingopinions; but this objection by no means holdsgood. America is still a young country; andsociety, although it is making rapid strides towardsa higher state of civilization, is still underthe influence of rude and unpolished mannersand prejudices, which a superior education andmore enlightened times alone can remove: andI feel confident, from the daily progression ofimprovement in those regions, that in half acentury duels will be there of as rare occurrence,if not rarer than in Great Britain; and this progresswill be in the ratio of that of literatureand the fine arts, for bloodshed and murder, howeverqualified, are incompatible with the pursuitsand the gentler occupations of peace. Thesun of science will gradually dispel the mistsof ignorance and prejudice, open the mind tothe conviction of reason and of truth, and showthat a stem republican may display a courtlypolish without derogating from the independenceof a free man, since courtesy of behaviourmay be considered the natural result of superioreducation.

I have deemed this digression from the planof this work excusable, as the reign of LouisXIV. may be said to have constituted an epochin civilization: we shall see how far his successorssought to cultivate the advantages whichit held forth.180

We may say that with this reign terminatedthe practice of duelling, as founded upon ancientusages; and, as I have quoted Montesquieu, afurther passage from this illustrious writer maybe considered as a recapitulation of the groundsupon which the erroneous views of the Point ofHonour were based.

“We find many strange enigmas in the legalcodes of barbarians. By the law of the Frisons,half a sol was granted as a compensation for aman who had been beaten with a stick. By theSalic law, an ingénu, who gave three blows of astick, paid a fine of as many sols; and, if bloodwas drawn, he was punished as though the injuryhad been inflicted with an iron weapon,and had to pay fifteen sols. The law of theLombards established various compositions forone, two, or three or four blows; but now-a-daysone blow is worth a hundred thousand.

“The constitution of Charlemagne, insertedin the laws of the Lombards, enacts that thosewho are allowed a duel should fight with sticks:this regulation was partially in favour of theclergy; and it is also likely that it was intendedto render duels less sanguinary. In theCapitularies of Louis le Débonnaire, the combatantshad the choice of staves or arms; subsequentlyit was only serfs who fought withcudgels.

“Already I see arising the particular articles181of our Point of Honour. The accuser commencedby declaring to a judge that a person had committeda certain action; the accused repliedthat he asserted a falsehood, and the judgeordered the battle. Thus was introduced themaxim, that the lie demanded a combat.

“When a man had once declared that he wouldfight, he could not avoid the necessity; and, ifhe withdrew from the obligation, he was subjectto a penalty. Hence arose the rule, that, whena man had once pledged his word, he could notretract it without dishonour.

“Gentlemen fought with each other on horseback,and with their arms; while villains foughton foot, and with staves. Hence a stick wasconsidered a weapon of degradation, since a manwho had been struck with it had been treatedlike a villain.

“Moreover, it was only villains who foughtwith their faces uncovered, therefore they alonecould receive a blow in the face: thus a slap inthe face became an injury that could only be obliteratedwith blood, for the man whose face hadbeen slapped had been treated like a low-bornperson.

“The German races were not less alive to thisview of the Point of Honour; they were, ifpossible, still more punctilious: the most distantrelations took part in disputes, and alltheir codes were founded on this principle. Accordingly,182the laws of the Lombards ordained,that if a man, accompanied by his followers, wentto assault another who was not upon his guard,to bring shame and ridicule upon him, he shouldpay one-half of the composition which he wouldhave had to give in the event of his havingkilled him. Thus do we see our ancestors keenlyalive to an affront; but they had no particularview of any affront of a specific nature as regardsthe weapon made use of, or the part ofthe body that was struck.”

It is to chivalry that this eloquent writerattributes the rise of gallantry, when sentimentsof love were associated with a sense of strength,valour, and protection; and this spirit was inherentin the practice of tournaments, which,uniting tender passions with noble deeds, gaveto gallantry a greater importance than it wouldotherwise have obtained, had they merely beentrials of skill and courage in a passage of arms;and to this day the term gallant is appliedto a man brave, high-spirited in his bearing,splendid and magnificent in his appearance, anddevoted to the service of the fair.183

CHAPTER XI.

DUELS DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

During this century the social body in Franceunderwent a total renovation and reform. Along despotism had brutalised the public mind,and rendered it unfit to receive any generousimpressions, or to be capable of any noble reactionagainst tyranny. The nation was sickof glory, and of a magnificence which haddrained its wealth: still, it murmured silentlyand moodily, until master-minds should appear,to bring these elements of discord into action.Apathy had succeeded energetic deeds, and indolenceushered in vice stripped of all its gaudyattractive fascination, and in all its natural basenessand turpitude. Philip d’Orleans, Regent ofthe kingdom during the minority of the fifteenthLouis, plunged the court into every possiblespecies of debauch; and the polished gallantryof former days was succeeded by the most degradingexcesses. Libertinism, in all its hideousdeformity, no longer sought the concealment ofa prudent mask; but profligacy was consideredfashionable, consequently the pride and boast of184its votaries. Vice had become the reignington; and, where a blush was raised, it was uponthe conviction of a virtuous action.

Abandoned to all the voluptuousness of aprofligate court, the Regent displayed neitherauthority nor energy in repressing evils, andonly considered the possession of power valuableas being the means of commanding freshpleasures. The former edicts on duelling werenow disregarded, since the laws were not enforced,and no punishment awaited their transgressors.Six weeks after the death of the King,two officers of the guards fought on the quayof the Tuileries in open day; but, as theseyoung men belonged to families of the long-robe,the Duke d’Orleans, out of respect to the parliament,which he dreaded, merely removed themfrom their corps, and sentenced them to a fortnight’simprisonment. This duel had beenfought about an Angola cat; and the duke, whenreprimanding the parties, told them that in sucha matter of dispute, it should have been settledwith claws instead of swords.

Courtly intrigues now became frequentlymixed up with duelling, and the jealousies andquarrels of fashionable women were the constantsources of disputes between their lovers.The court of honour, consisting of the marshalsof France, an institution which we have seenestablished in the reign of Louis XIV, would185decline interfering when any of the parties werenot of high birth or distinguished rank. Aninstance of this proud distinction occurred inthe following case: “An abbé of the name ofD’Aydie had fought with a clerk in the provincialdepartment, at an opera-dancer’s house, andwounded him. The duch*ess de Berry, daughterof the Regent, immediately ordered that the Abbéd’Aydie should be deprived of his preferment,and obliged to become a knight of Malta. Thescribe, on recovering from his wound, was constantlyseeking his antagonist, who was compelledto fight him four times, until the duch*essbrought the parties before the court of honour,presided over by Marshal de Chamilly; who,upon hearing of the condition of one of the parties,exclaimed, ‘What the deuce does he comehere for?—a fellow who calls himself Bouton—doyou presume to think that we can be your judges?do you take us for bishops or keepers of theseals?—and the fellow too dares to call us mylords!’”

To understand these punctilious feelings, itmust be remembered that the marshals of Francewere only called my lords by the nobility, beingconsidered the judges of the higher orders; andsuch an appellation from a roturier was deemedan affront.

This D’Aydie, it should also be known, wasthe lover of the duch*ess de Berry, who naturally186feared that the low-bred clerk might depriveher of her paramour by an untimely end.The tribunal recommended the Regent to imprisonthe lover of his daughter, as a punishmentfor having fought a low-born fellow, who,on account of his ignoble condition, was dischargedas beneath their notice. The duch*ess,however, did not approve of this finding of thecourt; but, after procuring the liberation of herfavourite, pursued the unfortunate clerk withsuch rancour that she at last got him hanged;thereby exciting, according to Madame de Crequi,“the horror and the animadversion of allParis.” Strange to say, this despicable princessdied a month after, on the very same day thatthe clerk was hanged: the execution took placeon the 19th of June, and she breathed her laston the 19th of July!

A duel took place between Contades andBrissac, when both were wounded, in the veryconservatories of the palace. After a few days’concealment, they appeared before the parliamentas a mere matter of form, and Contades was madea marshal of France. Another duel, foughtin open day on the quay of the Tuileries betweentwo noblemen, Jonzac and Villette, wasalso passed over with little or no animadversion;and Duclos, in his Secret Memoirs, asserts thatthe Regent openly insinuated that duelling hadgone too much out of fashion.187

Duelling was not only resorted to by menof the sword, but by men of finance; and thecelebrated Law of Lauriston, who was placedat the head of this department, had commencedhis famed career by several hostile meetings.Howbeit, he so managed matters as not tocompromise the security of his gambling-house,in the Rue Quincampoix, by quarrels, althoughan assassination ultimately exposed this hell toa serious investigation. One of the murdererswas a Count Horn, a Belgian nobleman ofdistinguished family; but who, notwithstandingthe powerful interest made in his behalf,was sentenced to be broken on the wheel. TheRegent in this case was inflexible, nor wouldhe even commute the punishment into a lessdegrading execution. This firmness was attributedto his partiality for his creature Law,whose bank was of great assistance to his constantdebaucheries. Madame de Crequi, who wasa relative of the criminal, and who exerted herbest endeavours to save him, attributes this murderof what she calls “the Jew who had robbedhim,” to other motives; and asserts that hisHighness’s implacable hostility arose from havingonce found him with one of his favourites, theCountess de Parabère; when the duke disdainfullysaid to him, “Sortez, Monsieur!” to whichthe other replied, “your ancestors, sir, wouldhave said Sortons!”188

Voltaire attributes a similar reply to Chalot,when placed in the same situation with thePrince de Conti. Madame de Crequi exoneratesherself from the suspicion of having misappliedthe repartee, by observing, “there oncelived an old Jew called Solomon, who maintainedthat there was nothing new under thesun.”

Madame de Crequi and other writers of thetimes affirm that duels had become so frequentthat nothing else was heard of, and desolationand dismay were spread in numerous families.Amongst the victims of this practice was anotherlover of Madame de Parabère, and rivalof the Regent, the handsome De Breteuil. Itappears that the countess was unfortunate inher attachments, as many others of her favouritesmet with a similar fate.

It has been truly said by historians, thatLouis XV. received from the hands of the Regenta sceptre stained by corruption, and acrown dimmed by depravity. He found a courtcomposed of libertines, and females of the mostabandoned character. His guides and counsellorswere steeped in vice; and it would haverequired, perhaps, more than mortal power tohave resisted the pestilential influence of suchan atmosphere of prostitution. The commencementof his reign, however, was marked by adisplay of good qualities that obtained for him189the flattering distinction of the Beloved, “theBien-aimé,” an appellation far more desirable thanthat of Great, which had been applied to hispredecessor. Little was it then thought thatere long he would show himself the Sardanapalusof his age.

In the first year of his reign he appliedhimself to check the practice of duelling, andissued an edict in which it was provided thatany gentleman who struck another should bedegraded from his rank and forfeit his arms;and he solemnly declared that he would keepmost religiously the coronation oath, by whichhe had bound himself to enforce these laws inall their rigour. But, alas for coronation oaths!they appear to have been in the annals of everynation but too often mere formal professions.

We find, however, that in pursuance of this resolution,the parliament of Grenoble condemnedto the wheel one of the counsellors for havingkilled a captain in the army; but, as the offenderhad made his escape, he was only executed ineffigy, and the arm of justice fell upon his unfortunateservant, who was branded and sent tothe galleys.

The prince of duellists in these despicabletimes was the celebrated Duke de Richelieu,who was certainly ever prompt to give satisfactionfor the injuries he inflicted on the peaceof families. During the regency, and when190only twenty years of age, he fought the Countde Gacé in the street under a lamp; in thisnight affray both parties were wounded. Parliamentinterfered; but the Regent, to screen hisfavourite, sent him for a few days to the Bastille.

This worthy, at one time being anxious tofight the Count de Bavière, set out fromParis with his followers to waylay him on theroad from Chantilly; and, for the furtheranceof his project, obstructed and barricaded theroad with his equipages. The parties met, andhigh words arose between the coachmen and theservants of both parties, when the masters steppedout of their carriages and drew their swords.However, they were separated by the Chevalierd’Auvray, who was lieutenant of the marshalsof France, and whose duties were to preventall duelling, and bring offenders before theirtribunal.

Such was the case in this instance. All thenoble youth of France was assembled, with theirheads uncovered and without their swords, in thehall of meeting of the Point of Honour; andRichelieu was ordered to make an ample apologyto the Count de Bavière.

This ceremony did not appear to affect theduke very sensibly, as appeared by his adventurewith the Count Albani, nephew of PopeClement XI, who was on a visit at the French191court, and was most anxious to become acquaintedwith the Marquise de Crequi-Blanchefort,a lady not easy of access. Foiled in variousattempts, he consulted Richelieu, who advisedhim to disguise himself as a servant, and towait upon the marquise in that capacity, withstrong letters of recommendation, which he gavehim. So far the scheme succeeded, that Albaniwas taken into her service; but soon after heundeceived his supposed mistress by an avowalof his passion, for which he was forthwith dismissedwith ignominy. Richelieu pretended tobe ignorant of the transaction; but, the share hehad had in the disgraceful business being proved,he was again sent to the Bastille. On his quittingthe fortress, the young Marquis d’Aumont,a relation of the marquise, called him out, andso severely wounded him in the hip, that atone period his recovery was despaired of, andit was thought that he would remain a cripple.

In 1734 he fought and killed the Prince deLixen, although one of his own relations, whilethey were both serving at the siege of Philipsbourg.The cause of this duel is too curious tobe omitted, as the prince had himself killed theMarquis de Ligneville, uncle of his wife.

The party were at supper at the Prince deConti’s. Richelieu, who had been exceedinglyfatigued during the day, was very much heated,and some drops of perspiration were observed on192his forehead. The Prince de Lixen, offended byseveral of the duke’s witticisms, observed, “that itwas surprising that he did not appear in a moresuitable state, after having been purified by anadmission into his family:” Richelieu havingallied himself with the house of Lorraine bymarrying the Princess Elizabeth Sophie, daughterof the Duke de Guise; whereas his (Richelieu’s)original name was simply Vignerod. Suchan insult could not be tolerated. At midnightthey met in the trenches, when De Lixen fell.

Amongst the other fashionable roués of the daywas Du Vighan, from Xaintonges, whose handsomeappearance was so fascinating, that hackney-coachmenare said to have driven him withouta fare, for the mere pleasure of serving sucha joli garçon. Another anecdote is related, of atailor’s wife, who called upon him for the paymentof four hundred francs, due to her husband;but his attractions were such, that she left behindher a bill for three hundred. Although of middlingbirth, he sought to attract the notice of theKing, who granted him letters of nobility onhis appearance. This fortunate youth was constantlyinvolved in law-suits, wherein he alwayscontrived to win his cause. So successful washe in all his undertakings, that the Archbishopof Paris called him “the serpent of the terrestrialParadise.” The name he was usually knownby was Le Charmant; and Madame de Crequi was193obliged to acknowledge that she only mentionshim qu’à son corps défendant.

It was of course of the utmost necessity thatsuch a charming gentleman should be constantlyengaged in some duel; and his fascinations seemedto operate as powerfully on the marshals ofFrance constituting the court of honour, as onthe hearts of the ladies of the court, for he wasinvariably acquitted.

His sword, however, was not always as successfulas his features and manners, for he receivedfrom the Comte de Meulan a severewound that endangered his precious life. Onhis recovery he had the presumption to payhis addresses to Mademoiselle de Soissons, ayoung princess of great beauty; who becameso enamoured of her admirer, that her auntwas obliged to shut her up in a convent atMontmartre, under the surveillance of one of theprovost’s officers. But bars and locks could notkeep out such a Lothario; and, a letter and arope-ladder having been discovered, the lady’sfamily applied to the Baron d’Ugeon, one oftheir relatives and an expert swordsman, tobring the youth to reason. The challenge wassent and accepted; but the meeting did nottake place, in consequence of the fatal maladyof the King, upon whom Du Vighan attendedto the last.

The monarch dead, Du Vighan lost no time in194seeking his adversary, who inflicted two dangerouswounds in his right side. Notwithstandingthe severity of the injury, he contrived to scalethe walls of the abbey of Montmartre to see hisbeloved princess; but he was obliged to spend thenight under the arches of the cloisters, the younglady having been shut up. During this painfulvigil his wounds broke out afresh; and the hemorrhagewas so profuse, that he was found therea corpse the following morning. The body wascarried home, and a report spread abroad that hehad died of the small-pox, caught from the Kingduring his attendance on the royal sufferer. Althoughthe princess grieved pretty nearly untodeath, yet she at length consoled herself bymarrying the Prince de Cobourg.

St. Evremont was another celebrated duellistof this period: he had discovered a particularthrust, which was honoured with his name, andcalled la botte14 de St. Evremont. This brave waswitty and capricious, and would accept or refusea challenge according to the fancy of themoment. St. Foix was his rival in this pursuitof an honourable name. Some of his duelswere remarkable. One day, at the Café Procope,at dinner-time, he saw a gentleman seatedat a bavaroise,15 and he exclaimed, “Thatis a confounded bad dinner for a gentleman!”195The stranger, thus insulted, insisted upon satisfaction;which was granted, when St. Foixwas wounded. Notwithstanding this injury, hecoolly said to his antagonist, “If you had killedme, sir, I still should have persisted in maintainingthat a bavaroise is a confounded baddinner.”

Another time he asked a gentleman, whosearoma was not of the most pleasant nature,“why the devil he smelt so confoundedly?”The offended party sent him a challenge, whichSt. Foix refused in the following terms: “Wereyou to kill me, you would not smell the less;and were I to kill you, you would smell a greatdeal more!” One day, meeting a lawyer whosecountenance did not please him, he walked upto him, and whispered in his ear, “Sir, I havesome business with you.” The attorney, not understandingthe drift of his speech, quietly namedan hour when he would find him in his office.The meeting was of course most amusing; theexpression of St Foix being, “that he wantedto have an affaire with him,” a term which isequally applicable to a duel and a legal transaction.

About this period a curious quarrel arose betweentwo gentlemen of the names of Bricquevilleand La Maugerie, about the sale of a house:the affair commenced with kicks and cuffs, andwas terminated with sword and pistol. The196finding of the Constabular court was remarkable:declaring Bricqueville guilty of having excédéLa Maugerie with various sword-wounds, fininghim in the sum of one hundred francs, and fixingthe costs at thirty-six thousand; condemninghim, moreover, to live at a distance of not lessthan thirty leagues from the town of St. Lo fora period of twenty years. This law-suit lastedfour years!

Such was the state of duelling during thisdisgusting reign and its preceding regency: onemight fancy that the putrid malady that terminatedthe inglorious existence of the monarchwas typical of the corruption of his governmentand his degraded minions; his putrescent remains,which repelled the courtier from the regalbier, were emblematic of his court. It was thisreign that in a great measure paved the fearfulhigh-road to the French revolution. It hasbeen truly observed by a late writer, that, inFrance, glory alone can reconcile the nationto tyranny. This has been fully proved duringthe reigns of the fourteenth Louis andNapoleon: the yoke of the great French monarchhad been oppressive and galling, but ithad been padded with laurel leaves; the yokeof his successor was comparatively light, yetit seemed of iron, and the people winced underits fretting sway. The nation forgave theirwarlike sovereign when he said, “I am the197state;” nay, the insulting expression flatteredtheir crouching vanity: but when a despicabletutor told his grandson, “Sire, this people isyour property!” the Bastille was undermined,and the Louvre doomed to be overthrown. Avoluptuous prince, who sleeps confidingly on hisdowny couch, may be convinced that the peopleare awake on their bed of straw; the luxuriouscomfort of the eider-down should never makehim forget that thousands are sleepless on amiserable pallet: sooner or later the crown mustbe abdicated when a court becomes the typeof corruption, and the diadem will be pickedup by the iron hand of a soldier, after havingbeen borne for a short while in triumph by themob.

Such were the destinies of France, destinieswhich still influence the world. If corruptiondestroys, it will also create; and it is in generalduring the effervescence of a nation thatindividuals of gigantic powers arise upon thesurface from the fermenting mass. I cannot betterdescribe the rise of some of the most extraordinarycharacters of the period alluded to, thanin the words of a late writer.

“The first figure that appears, and dominatesover the century, was Voltaire. He was theliterary monarch of his times, and held at Ferneyan European court: he corresponded withvarious sovereigns, and exchanged with them198the incense of flattery in return for more solidgifts; for there is no doubt that Voltaire receivedfrom crowned heads a more substantialreward of his services than their fulsome praise.

“The weapons of Rousseau, his rival, weremore logical; his were sarcastic,—an arm lessdignified, but the most powerful in France.Rousseau was admired, Voltaire produced enthusiasm:the one addressed the understanding,the other spoke to the passions. The one fenceddexterously with a sword, the other stabbed thesocial body with his dagger. The GeneveseHeracl*tus, although far more eloquent, wasmuch less popular than the Democritus ofFerney. Vain, frivolous, vicious, and immoral;cynical in his countenance, essentially a mockerand a scoffer, faithless in controversy, violent inpolemical discussion, vindictive and implacable,yet the flatterer of power, abject and crouchingat the footstool of kings, their favourites,and their mistresses, and ever courting aristocraticdistinction and drawing-room favours:Voltaire was, in short, the personification of histime.

“Rousseau, more austere, was gathered up inthe dignity of the man and the philosopher. Hislogic was inflexible, and he carried it to itsutmost limits. Rigorous and absolute in principle,he not unfrequently wandered in the exaggerationof results, and boldly laid down theories199without duly considering how far theymight prove practicable. In politics be appearedrarely to have contemplated the present; buthis eagle-eye sought to pierce into futurity, andgaze upon the splendour of a republican democracy.

“Rousseau prepared a political reform. Voltaireoperated a revolution in religion, attackingits influence with insult and mockery.Philosophy, handled by him, became sophisticaland narrow; but nevertheless, as Chateaubriandobserves, it disengaged Christianity from itstrammels, to restore it ultimately to all itspurity.”

While thus endeavouring to accelerate a reformin the social order, Rousseau was mostenergetic in denouncing the practice of duelling;and the following are his memorable remarkson the subject:

“Beware how you confound the sacred nameof honour with that ferocious prejudice whichplaces virtue on the sword’s point, and whichis only calculated to make brave ruffians.

“And what constitutes this prejudice?—themost extravagant and barbarous idea that everentered the human mind; fancying that allsocial duties will find a substitute in valour;that a man ceases to be a rogue, a cheat, aslanderer, and becomes civilized, humane, andpolite, when he knows how to fight! that falsehood200becomes truth, theft legitimate, treacheryand perfidiousness praiseworthy, so soon as hecan maintain these qualities sword in hand! thatan insult is wiped away by the wound of asword, and that you can never be in the wrongwhen you have killed your adversary! Theredoes exist, I admit, a sort of affair in whichpoliteness is combined with cruelty, and wherepeople only kill each other by chance; and thisis when men fight for the first blood. The firstblood! good God! And what dost thou wantwith this blood, ferocious beast? dost thou wantto drink it?

“The bravest men of antiquity never thoughtof avenging injuries by single combat. DidCæsar send a challenge to Cato, or Pompey toCæsar, after the repeated affronts that theyboth had received? Was the greatest captainof Greece dishonoured when struck with astaff?

“The upright man, whose life has been spotless,and who never betrayed any symptoms ofcowardice, will ever refuse to soil his handby homicide, and will not be the less honoured.Ever prompt to serve his country, and to affordprotection to the weak; to fulfill the most perilousduties, and to defend at the price of hisblood everything that is just, honest, and dearto him; he will display in every act of his lifethat unshaken fortitude which is ever the attribute201of true courage. Secure in the consciousnessof his integrity, he will step outwith head erect, and neither seek nor shun anenemy: he fears death much less than a fouldeed, and dreads a crime more than danger.If vile prejudices assail him for a time, everyday of his honourable life is a witness to defendhim, when all his actions are judged byeach other.

“Those captious persons who are so ready toprovoke others are in general dishonest men,who, under the apprehension that they willmeet with the contempt they deserve, endeavourto shield by an affair of honour the infamy oftheir entire life.

“Such a man will make a single effort, andface the world once, that he may remain concealedfor the remainder of his days. True couragepossesses more constancy and less anxiety.It is ever what it should be, and requires neitherexcitement nor restraint. The upright man nevermoves without it,—in battle with the enemy, insociety, in advocating the cause of the absentand of truth; on his couch, in bearing withfortitude the attacks of pain and of death. Thestrength of mind that inspires this quality belongsto every age; and, ever placing virtue aboveworldly wants, it seeks not the combat, but itdreads no danger.”

In this moral revolution the strangest event202was, to behold those whom it was most likelyto affect becoming powerful auxiliaries to thecontemplated reforms, reforms in which theywere doomed to perish. Still they rushed likemen stricken with blindness into a new orderof things,—a new state of society; tired of theold one, and, from having been sceptical in theirsensuality, became sceptical in ideas and in doctrines,until the ruinous ancient social fabriccrumbled over their devoted heads.

The emancipation from slavery and oppressionshould be gradual. A sudden freedom maddens,as a sudden restoration of sight will dazzle andblind again. Liberty thus conferred has beenjustly compared to weapons that recoil uponthose who wield them. In the mouth of someof these innovators, sophistry extenuated crimes;and Helvetius maintained “that every act waslegitimate to ensure public safety.” To whichRousseau replied, “that public safety was notworth considering, when individual security couldnot be obtained.”

While such opinions were promulgated by philosophers,what were the ideas of honour thatprevailed at Versailles and the Tuileries? Inabject submission to an abject master, they werecomformable to those entertained by the royalcook Vatel, who destroyed himself because thefish had not arrived in time for his sovereign’s203dinner; a catastrophe which was admirably describedby Berchoux in the following lines:Tout le soin des festins fût remis à Vatel,
Du vainqueur de Rocroy fameux maitre d’hôtel.
Il mit à ses travaux une ardeur infinie,
Mais, avec des talents, il manquait de génie.
Accablé d’embarras, Vatel est averti
Que deux tables en vain réclamaient leur rôti;
Il prend pour en trouver une peine inutile.
“Ah!” dit-il, s’adressant à son ami Gourville,
De larmes, de sanglots, de douleur suffoqué,
“Je suis perdu d’honneur, deux rôtis ont manqués!
Un seul jour détruira toute ma renommée.
Mes lauriers sont flétris; et la cour, alarmée,
Ne peut plus désormais se reposer sur moi:
J’ai trahi mon devoir, avili mon emploi!”
* * * * *
O vous, qui par état présidez aux repas,
Donnez lui des regrets, mais ne l’imitez pas.

Can we indeed be surprised at the indignationwhich must have fired every liberal bosom whenbeholding, not only the insolence of the aristocracy,but the vices of sovereigns and thecrimes of ministers, becoming subjects of generaladmiration, and even eulogised in the pulpit?—whena prelate like Fléchier declared in hisfuneral oration on Cardinal Richelieu, that Godhad bestowed upon his soul those excellent giftsthat fitted him to rule the world, and bringinto action those secret springs which he ordainedto elevate or overthrow, in his eternal decrees,the power of kings and kingdoms! The same204eloquent declaimer, in quoting the virtues of Mazarin,tells his congregation that he had taughtthe art of governing, and the secrets of royalty,to the first monarch in the world! Can wewonder then, that, living under such a celestialsway, a cook should commit suicide when unable“to set a dainty dish” before his King?205

CHAPTER XII.

DUELS DURING THE REIGN OF LOUIS XVI.

It has been truly said, that the virtues of theunfortunate Louis XVI. were an anachronism inthe dissolute court that surrounded him. Themost short-sighted observer could behold thegathering storm, and foresee that a nationalconvulsion was drawing nigh. In taking a retrospectiveview of the past, no confidence couldbe placed in the present, and futurity was involvedin a fearful gloom. Despotism had beenconcentrated under the sway of Louis XI. andLouis XIV; but, during the reign of LouisXV, the parliament had recovered the powerusurped by his predecessor, who let no opportunityescape of showing for that assembly, hissovereign contempt. A struggle for power nowcommenced between the parliament, the clergy,and the court; and the people, exhausted bywar and taxation, calmly looked on, until theywere roused by the contending factions to throwthe weight of brute force into the scale of thedoubtful preponderance. At this period, pregnant206with future events of vital moment, theparliament persecuted the clergy, which in turnopposed their vexations; and both parties setat defiance the authority of the court, whichappeared to be sunk into a state of luxuriousapathy, and calmly looked on the approachingstorm, without having recourse to any prudentialmeasures to meet its impetuosity.

While the country was thus torn by discord,no harmony prevailed in the palace. The monarchhad selected a minister who could notagree with his consort, and opposed all his measures,until Turgot succeeded him. Turgot, avirtuous upright man, endeavoured to operatea reform, but all parties who had thriven oncorruption soon drove him from the helm ofpublic affairs. Necker sought to pursue the reformthat his predecessor had planned, and fora moment seemed to inspire confidence, untilthe upper classes, uniting their efforts againsthim, compelled the unwelcome speculator to resignhis post; and, finally, the active enterprisingCalonne, failed in re-organizing the wreck of theempire.

To use the language of a French writer,“Louis XVI. was not sufficiently understood bythe nation, but was too well understood by thecourt.” Thus he was exposed at the same timeto popular prejudices against him and to patricianhostility, and rendered answerable for the errors207of his predecessors. An apparent calm reigned inthe nation, but it was that gloomy sultry tranquillitythat precedes a storm. The mind of everyclass of the community was too deeply absorbedin reflection to admit of the influence of privatedifferences. The practice of duelling, meanwhile,seemed to be confined to the soldiery. Thesword was no longer worn as a mark of distinctionin society; and this weapon of a gentleman,which in former times was always at hand, anddrawn on the spur of the moment, was now laidaside, and only sought for with premeditation.

This pacific period was of short duration.The pales which had divided society into casteswere gradually overthrown, and rank no longerbecame an excuse for refusing satisfaction to aninferior.

One of the first affairs of honour under thismonarch was the celebrated duel that took placebetween the Comte d’Artois16 and the Prince deCondé. At a ball given at the Opera on ShroveTuesday in the year 1778, the Comte d’Artoisappeared, giving his arm to Madame de Carrillac,—bothmasked. The duch*esse de Bourbon(Princess of Orleans) recognised them, andfollowed them, addressing the parties in a sarcasticstyle, which, although warranted by theusages of a masquerade, were not the less offensive.The hostile feelings of the duch*ess were208attributed to two most powerful motives. Madamede Carrillac had been the mistress of herhusband, whom she had quitted for the Comted’Artois, to whom the duch*ess herself was notindifferent. Madame de Carrillac, thus annoyedby the duch*ess, contrived to effect her escapethrough the crowd; when the duch*ess with unbridledfury endeavoured to tear off the maskfrom the count, who, forgetting at the momenthis usual gallantry and the privileges of the fairsex, crushed the mask of the duch*ess on her face,and rushed out of the ball-room.

This adventure was hushed up for a few days,when the duch*ess stated to her numerous guestsat her supper-table that the conduct of the Comted’Artois had been that of a ruffian, and thatshe had felt disposed at the time to call in theguard to apprehend him. All the women atcourt whom the count had slighted, rose upin arms against him, the brutality of his conductbecame the subject of conversation in everycircle, and the general opinion was, that he couldnot avail himself of his rank to refuse the satisfactionthat such a public insult to a woman demanded.It was of course concluded that it becameindispensable on the part of the Dukede Bourbon to call out the offender.

Howbeit, the King ordered the Duke andduch*ess de Bourbon to attend him in his closet,where they met the Count d’Artois; when he209commanded that no notice should be taken byany of the parties of what had occurred. Theduke wished to enter into some explanation, butwas instantly silenced by the monarch.

This decision did not satisfy the duch*ess andthe ladies of the court. The Baron de Besenvalwas sent for by the Queen, who askedhim what her brother was to do under existingcirc*mstances: the baron replied that hesaw no other alternative than a duel; to whichMarie Antoinette replied, “I am of the sameopinion, and the King agrees with me; butdo you think that my brother will adopt thiscourse?” Besenval replied, “that the count wasignorant of all that was said on the subject;but that he should consider it his duty to makehim acquainted with the public opinion, as hewould rather see him dead than dishonoured;”adding, “that, as it was an affair of great moment,he would previously consult with De Crussel,captain of the prince’s guards.” “Do so,”replied the Queen, “and settle this affair betweenyou.”

Besenval having met De Crussel at the ComteJules de Polignac’s, it was decided that a meetingshould take place; it being at the same timeproposed, that, so soon as swords were drawnand crossed, De Crussel should produce an orderfrom the King to separate the combatants. Withthis suggestion Besenval would not comply,210justly observing, “Pray, gentlemen, are you goingto make the prince play in a farce? I neverwill consent to such an arrangement;” to whichDe Crussel replied, “that it was quite sufficientfor the prince to go to the ground, and that thesovereign had then the right to prevent bloodshed.”This opinion was also that of Polignacand Vaudreuil, who were present.

Besenval lost no time in seeking for theComte d’Artois, to acquaint him with all thathad taken place, when a meeting was decided.The following day the count went to the Boisde Boulogne, attended by De Crussel, who hadplaced the prince’s best sword in the carriage.Arrived at the wood, they perceived the Dukede Bourbon surrounded with several gentlemen:upon seeing him the count alighted, and steppingtowards him said, “I understand, sir, thatthe public say that we are seeking each other?”to which the duke replied, taking off his hat,“I am here, sir, to receive your commands:” towhich polite reply the count answered, “I amhere, sir, to fulfil yours.”

After this courteous preamble both partiesdrew their swords; when the duke observed,“You are not aware, sir, that the sun shinesfull upon you.” “You are right,” answeredthe count; “we had better proceed to that wall,where we shall find more shade than underthese leafless trees.”211

The parties then placed their drawn swordsunder their arms, and proceeded, conversing witheach other, to the appointed spot, followed bytheir two seconds, all other persons keeping ata distance. M. de Vibraye, second of the duke,observing that they had both kept on their spurs,which might prove inconvenient, the secondsimmediately proceeded to unbuckle them; and,while so doing, De Vibraye had an eye nearlyput out by the point of the duke’s sword.The spurs being off, the duke asked the prince’spermission to take off his coat; to which proposalthe Comte d’Artois not only acceded; butthrew off his own.

Several lounges had passed between the parties,and D’Artois was evidently becoming impatientand flushed, when the duke was observed tostagger; and the seconds, thinking that he hadbeen wounded, interfered, and begged the partiesto suspend all further hostility. The count replied,“It is not for me to offer any opinion;it is for M. le Duc de Bourbon to express hiswishes, I am here at his orders.” The dukeimmediately lowered his sword, and replied, “Ifeel penetrated with gratitude at your kindness,and shall never forget the honour that you haveconferred on me.” The Comte d’Artois thenopened his arms, and the duke flew into hisembrace.

After this harmless meeting, at the suggestion212of the Queen and the Baron de Besenval, thecount repaired to the Palais Bourbon, and madean ample apology to the insulted duch*ess. Thepunishment awarded to the combatants was anexile of a week; the count at Choisy, and theduke at Chantilly. Thus ended this celebratedduel, which has been much misrepresented bydifferent writers, influenced by party spirit.There is no doubt that, in the whole transaction,the Comte d’Artois behaved with becomingfirmness and gentlemanly feeling: and thereis not the least foundation for the story of abloodless meeting having been pre-arranged, althoughit is not improbable that the Duke deBourbon was satisfied in defending himself, withouta wish of injuring his antagonist; whichwas the more easy, as he remained cool, whilethe count was evidently excited.

This transaction affords a vivid picture of thecorruption and manners of the times. A womanof the highest rank insults another woman whohad been her husband’s mistress; not on thataccount, but for having become the mistress ofanother man, to whom she herself was attached:and the foolish husband is made to peril lifeand liberty by fighting the real object of thedispute, who had so far lost sight of all gentlemanlydeportment as to insult a female byactually inflicting a blow!

The Prince de Condé, father of this Duke de213Bourbon, had also had a hostile meeting withthe Vicomte d’Agout, a captain in the Guards.This officer had been paying court to a youngwidow of the household of the Princess deCondé, and had promised to marry her: having,however, discovered that she had bestowed herfavours on the prince, he bitterly reproached herwith her duplicity, and retracted his engagement.The lady complained to her protector,who directed that D’Agout should resign hissituation of captain in his Guards. That officerimmediately tendered his resignation into theprince’s hands, and at the same time requestedto know what part of his conduct had exposedhim to disgrace. To this request the princereplied, “that he would not keep in his serviceliars and calumniators:” to this severe observationD’Agout answered, “Your highness is awarethat, when I took the liberty of putting thisquestion, I was no longer in your highness’sservice, and will be pleased also to recollectthat I am a gentleman.” “I understand you,sir,” replied the prince; “and am ready to maintainwhat I have asserted, in whatever manneryou may think proper.”

“Then,” replied D’Agout, “I depend uponyour highness’s kindness;” and he lost no timein repairing to Versailles to secure some protectionin the event of a fatal result. Havingsucceeded, he presented himself at the carriage-window214of the prince, who was changing horsesat Sèvres, and said to him, “My lord, I cameto receive your highness’s orders.” “Then, sir,”answered the prince, “at nine o’clock to-morrowmorning I shall be at the entrance of theBois de Boulogne, near the Maillot gate.”

D’Agout, as might be expected, was punctualin his attendance, accompanied by his brother.The prince soon after made his appearance, andfirst placed in the hands of his adversary a declarationof his having been the aggressor, withletters of recommendation to foreign powers forprotection, in the event of a fatal issue of themeeting, which might render his quitting thekingdom advisable.

D’Agout, having returned his grateful thanksfor this courteous proceeding, then threw off hiscoat; on which the prince observed, “No doubt,sir, by taking off your coat, you expect that Ishould do the same.” To which D’Agout replied,“I have no right to demand anything from yourhighness, as I trust implicitly in your honour,and was only anxious to afford your highness aproof of mine.”

The prince immediately took off his coat, andswords were soon crossed. The offended captainfought with that desperate determinationwhich his critical position inspired, and theprince was slightly wounded; when the secondsinterfered, and parted the combatants. A short215time after this meeting, D’Agout was promotedby the prince to the rank of major in the Guards.The King, on this occasion, scarcely knew howto act: but the people viewed the duel, betweena prince of the blood and an individualof an humble rank, as a sign of the times, andthe sacrifice of olden prejudices to the novelinnovations in manners that gradually appearedto level all distinctions; while the chivalric portionof the nation compared the Prince de Condéto Francis I.

It was during this reign, and the latter partof the preceding one, that the singular personage,Le Chevalier d’Eon, made his appearance.He was born at Tonnerre in 1728; and hadbeen successively a lawyer, a censor, a politicalwriter, a captain of dragoons, a diplomatist, anda fencing-master. It was under the cloak of thelast profession, when giving lessons of fencingto the Grand Duke of Russia, that he was entrustedwith a secret and delicate mission; whichhe fulfilled with so much success, that he obtainedthe title of secretary of embassy, the rank ofcaptain, and the cross of St. Louis. He wassubsequently sent to England as minister plenipotentiary,to ratify the treaty of 1763.

This D’Eon was most expert in all deeds ofarms, and had fought several duels, in which healways came off successfully. When attached tothe French legation in London, he thought216proper to give his ambassador, the Count deGuerchy, a slap in the face; and, on complaintbeing made to the cabinet of Versailles of thisdesperate conduct, it was decided that he shouldbe seized, and carried over to France. D’Eon,however, being apprised of this project, soughtrefuge in the city; where he was taken up fora breach of the peace, having fought with anotherFrenchman of the name of Vergy, in theopen street and at noon-day.

The circ*mstance which gave rise to the reportthat he was a woman, was singular; andoriginated from a thrust he received in the breastfrom a foil while fencing: a mammary tumourarose, which required extirpation, and it was immediatelyreported that D’Eon was a female indisguise. This report gained credence from hisaffected indifference in removing the erroneousimpression, and his repeated refusal to give asatisfactory reply to questions put to him on thisdoubtful subject.

Various are the reported motives of his subsequentassumption of female sex and attire. Bysome it was attributed to an order from the Ducd’Aiguillon, minister of foreign affairs, prohibitinghis appearance in France except in a femaledress; while D’Eon pretended that he had assumedthis costume to preserve the honour ofDe Guerchy, whose face he had slapped. Othersasserted that he wore this disguise to enable217the cabinet of Versailles to throw the blame attachedto the treaty of 1763 on a woman. Howbeit,he only made his appearance in France afterthe deaths both of D’Aiguillon and Guerchy;and on his return to Paris presented a memorialto Maurepas the then minister, praying that theorder which enjoined him to wear female attiremight be revoked, and the following was thestrange tenor of this application:

“I am under the necessity of humbly submittingto your lordship that the period ofmy female noviciate is expired, and that it isimpossible that I should become as professed. Ihave been able, in obedience to the orders ofthe late King and his ministers, to remain inpetticoats during peace; but that is quite outof the question in time of war. It is necessaryfor the honour of the illustrious houseof De Guerchy that I should be allowed to continuemy military services; such, at least, isthe opinion of the whole army and the world.I have always thought and acted like Achilles;I never wage war with the dead, and I onlykill the living when they attack me.”

The Count de Guerchy, whom he had mortallyinsulted, was dead; but his only son wasliving, and anxious to wipe off in D’Eon’s bloodthe unavenged insult offered to his family; whenthe countess his mother, justly apprehensive ofthe issue of a meeting between the young count218and the most experienced swordsman in thecountry, supplicated the minister to exert hisinfluence and reject the application of the dubiousD’Eon. The injunction to wear a femalegarb was renewed; and the pension of five hundredpounds per annum, granted to him byLouis XV, was continued on this condition.This strange position exposed our disguised heroto many curious scenes and insults; and, havingone day involved himself in a serious quarrelat the play-house, he was sent a close prisonerto the citadel of Dijon.

At the revolution of 1789 D’Eon returnedto England, where he gave lessons in the swordexercise; and on several occasions fenced in public,and not unfrequently with the Prince ofWales. This extraordinary person died in Londonin 1810, at the advanced age of seventy-nine;when the celebrated medical friar and favouriteof Carlton House, Père Elysée, after a post-mortemexamination, put the mooted questionbeyond further doubt by the official assertionof the manhood of the defunct.

The rival of the Chevalier d’Eon, both inswordsmanship and fashionable popularity, wasthe Chevalier St. George, a man of colour,son of M. de Boulogne, a receiver-general ofGuadaloupe, and a negress; and who at anearly age was placed in the hands of La Boissière,the celebrated fencing-master. His skill219in arms and his numerous duels rendered himsuch a favourite amongst the ladies, that hisdark complexion and woolly head were forgotten.He was soon appointed equerry to Madame deMontesson, whom the Duke of Orleans hadprivately married; and then captain in the guardsof his son, the Duke de Chartres. In 1776 hewas anxious to become manager of the Opera;but the actresses and dancers, headed by MesdemoisellesArnould, Guimart, and Rosalie, supplicatedthe Queen not to degrade the dignityof the Royal Academy of Music by placingit under the direction of a mulatto. The Queenyielded to their supplication; and St. Georgefelt so much offended at this interference, thatit was to a vindictive feeling against that unfortunateprincess that his exertions in the revolutionagainst the royal family were attributed.He was foremost in the popular meetings of thatperiod, and was sent to the emigrants at Tournaion a secret mission by the Duke d’Orleans; aservice of considerable danger, and one in whichhe would have forfeited his life but for thegovernor of the town, who enabled him to effecthis escape. After this he raised a regiment oflight cavalry, which he commanded under Dumouriez,whom he afterwards denounced to theConvention. Notwithstanding his jacobinical exertions,he would have been sacrificed in his turn,but for the 9th Thermidor, which liberated him220from prison. St. George died in a state of povertyin 1799, at the age of fifty-four. He wasjustly considered the first swordsman and the bestshot of his time. One of his feats was throwingup two crown-pieces in the air, and hittingthem both with his pistols. He was an excellentmusician, amiable and polished in his manners,and of a most agreeable conversation;his humanity and charitable disposition wereuniversally acknowledged; and, although engagedin many duels, he had generally beenthe insulted party, and was never known toavail himself of his reputation to insult any oneless skilled in the science of destruction. Hewas often known, however, to give a salutarylesson to quarrelsome and troublesome youngmen; and an instance is recorded of his meetingat Dunkirk in the company of several ladiesa young officer of hussars, who, not knowinghim, was boasting of his skill as a swordsman,and asserting that no fencer in France was amatch for him. “Did you ever meet thefamous St. George?” asked one of the ladies.“St. George! many a time; he could not standa moment before me!” answered the hussar,twirling his mustachios. “That is strange,”observed St. George, “and I should much liketo have a trial of skill with you, young man.Possibly the ladies could procure us foils, andan assaut d’armes might entertain them.” The221young officer assented to the proposal with asmile of contempt: foils belonging to the brotherof the lady of the house were produced, andwithout hesitation the hussar was preparing toshame his aged antagonist, who, politely addressingthe ladies, asked them to name the buttonshe should touch on his adversary’s doliman.The delighted women, glad to see a coxcombcorrected, named the number of the buttons;which St. George touched one after the other,and then whipped the foil out of the inexperiencedhand of the boaster, who, infuriated byrage and shame, wanted immediate satisfaction;when St. George quietly observed, “Youngman, your time is not yet come, you may stilllive to serve your country; but recollect youhave met St. George, for I am that very personwho could not at any time prove a match foryou.” The lesson was a severe one: the youngofficer, confused and concealing his offendedvanity, withdrew, and never after visited at thehouse.

The efforts of the sovereign to reform thecourt, and maintain at least an appearance ofpropriety and good order, were more or lesssuccessful in repressing the ostentation of vicethat had but lately polluted it: but the dissatisfiedroués of the day sought in the orgiesof the Palais Royal another scene for their dissipationand excesses; where, to use the expression222of a modern writer, “vice became principle, andcorruption a system.”

As the crusades had shed their influence onEuropean society, operating a surprising changein its manners and ideas; so did the war of independencein the United States produce a materialalteration in the French court. Several noblemenhad honourably served in the armies of America,and returned home with enthusiastic notions ofliberty and independence. Such was the Duc deLauzun, a nobleman of elegant manners, and ascelebrated for his duels as his bonnes fortunes.

De Tilly, surnamed “Le beau De Tilly,” wasanother celebrated character of that period, andin his Memoirs we find the following observationson the practice of duelling:

“France is the birth-place of duelling. I haveroved over a great part of Europe, and travelledin the New World; I have lived with soldiersand courtiers; and nowhere else have I met withthis fatal susceptibility, which is incessantly creatingaffronts, injuries, and provocations. Whencearises this disposition, so peculiar to the French,whose character is too noble to become vindictive,and which induces them to fight a duel inmatters that are chiefly frivolous? It is education,and that only.

“You have had a discussion with an intimatefriend; although it may not have exceeded thelimits of an excusable warmth, women have observed223in it injurious shades; and you wouldrather expose yourself to kill your friend, or bekilled by him, than to the mere suspicion, on thepart of woman, of being deficient in courage.

“At a gambling-table a misunderstanding arises;a by-stander has smiled ironically; he has whisperedto his sister, who has whispered somethingto her cousin: get yourself killed by all means,for you may have been suspected of cheating atplay; and nothing can set such a question in aproper light but the thrust of a sword!

“Your wife is an acknowledged coquette;get yourself run through the body by her lover,and her honour will be restored. You yourselfmay have seduced the wife of an honest man,who dares to suspect you, and receives you withill-humour: kill him; for, having deprived himof happiness and peace, you need not be punctiliousin ridding him of life!”

This opinion of the character of the French andtheir notions of honour has been since amply illustratedby Chateaubriand in the following terms:224“The first-born of antiquity, the French, Romansin genius, are Greeks in their character. Restlessand volatile in prosperity, constant and invinciblein adversity. Created for the cultivation of everyart; civilised to excess during the calm days ofthe state, coarse and savage in political troubles.Tossed to and fro by their passions, like a vesselwithout ballast on the waves, now ascending tothe skies, and then sinking in an abyss. Equallyenthusiastic in good and in evil; kind withoutexpecting gratitude, cruel without experiencingremorse, and quickly forgetting both their vicesand their virtues. Attached to life in days ofpeace with pusillanimity, they are prodigal oftheir blood in the hour of battle. Vain, sarcastic,ambitious, they are at the same time mechanicalfollowers of routine and innovators; despisingeverything but themselves. Individually themost agreeable of men, collectively the most unpleasant.Delightful in their own country, insupportableabroad. At times, more mild andinnocent than the lamb they slaughter; at others,more pitiless and ferocious than the devouringtiger. Such were the Athenians of old, andsuch are now the French.”

Duels now sometimes assumed a humorouscharacter; and men fought for songs, puns, andconundrums. The poet Champeneti got woundedfor verses that he had not written; and Cagliostro,being called out by a physician whom hehad styled a quack, on the plea that a medicalquestion should be settled medicinally, proposedthat the parties should swallow two pills, the onepoisonous and the other innocuous.

An anecdote is related of a young man fromthe country, who was ridiculed for his awkwardmode of dancing, and who replied, “If I dancebadly, I know how to fight.” To which it was225coolly rejoined, “Then, for the future, you hadbetter fight, and never dance!”

Such were the reckless feelings of the time, thata certain Marquis de Tenteniac, from Britanny,actually challenged the pit of a theatre. Beingbehind the scenes, he had appeared so forwardin one of the wings, that the public rebukedhim; when he immediately stepped forward tothe footlights, and, addressing the audience, said,“Ladies and gentlemen, with your permission apiece will be performed to-morrow, called ‘TheInsolence of the Pit chastised,’ in as many acts asmay be desired, by the Marquis de Tenteniac!”This impudent address was received with greatapplause, and no one individual thought properto resent a general insult.

While duels were thus discountenanced amongstcivilians, it was also endeavoured to check themin the army. The ill-fated Marshal Ney, Dukeof Elchingen, judicially assassinated in Paris atthe period of the Restoration, was an example ofthe severe measures resorted to, to punish offenders.Ney, who was born at Sarrelouis in1769, enlisted, in the year 1787, in the regiment“de Colonel Général,” afterwards the FourthHussars. He was remarkable for his soldier-likeappearance, his dexterity in his exercises,and his skilful horsemanship, in which he frequentlybroke in horses that the rough-riderscould not manage. He was also considered the226best swordsman in the corps; and on him frequentlydevolved the perilous task of fightingthe regimental battles. The fencing-master ofthe Chasseurs de Vintimille, then in the samegarrison with his regiment,—a desperate duellist,who had wounded the fencing-master of Ney’sregiment,—having insulted the corps, it was decidedthat the bravest and the most dexterousdragoon should be selected to chastise him. Thechoice fell upon Ney. The parties met, sabreswere drawn, when Ney felt himself draggedback by the tail: it was his colonel who hadthus seized him, and had him immediatelythrown into the black-hole.

Duelling was at this period punished withdeath. Ney’s life was perilled, but, belovedboth by officers and men, the corps insisted uponhis liberation; and the times were such, thattheir application could not well have been rejected.Ney was liberated, but the first use hemade of his freedom was to seek his antagonistand renew the interrupted contest. The partiesmet secretly, and the bragging fencing-masterreceived a sabre-wound in the sword-arm thatcrippled him for life. When Ney subsequentlyrose in rank and fortune, he sought his formerantagonist, and settled on him a handsome annuity.

A most vindictive duel was fought at thisperiod by a colonel of the French Guards. This227gentleman was boasting of the good fortune ofnever having been obliged to fight a duel. Anotherofficer present expressed his surprise, withsome indirect allusions to his want of courage;observing, “How could you avoid fighting wheninsulted?” The colonel replied, “that he neverhad given offence, and that no one had everpresumed to insult him. Moreover, that on suchan occasion he would consider the character ofthe person who had wantonly insulted him, erehe demanded satisfaction.” Upon this statement,his interlocutor, in the most insolent manner,struck him in the face with his glove, adding,“Perhaps, sir, you will not consider this an insult!”The colonel calmly put on his hat, andwalked out of the room. The following morning,however, he sent a challenge to his aggressor.When they came to the ground, the colonel worea patch of court-plaister, of the size of a crown-piece,on the cheek which had received the blow.At the very first lounge he wounded his antagonistin the sword-arm; when, taking offthe plaister, he cut off an edge of it with apair of scissors, and, replacing it on his face, tookhis leave of his adversary, very politely requestinghe would do him the honour of letting himknow when he recovered from his wound. Sosoon as he heard that he was able to hold asword, he called him out and wounded him asecond time; cutting off another portion of the228patch. In a like manner he called him out,fought, and wounded him, until the plaister wasreduced to the size of a shilling; when he againchallenged him, and ran him through the body:then, calmly contemplating the corpse, he observed,“I now may take off my plaister!”This was a cruel, but a well-merited chastisem*ntinflicted on an insolent braggart, who littleknew, at the time he thus wantonly insultedthis officer, he was addressing one of the mostdexterous swordsmen in the land.

During the early part of the reign of LouisXVI. society continued under the sway of formerprejudices and a false notion of honour, whichmade it consist in upholding a character forcourage, gallantry, and successful intrigue. Itsoon assumed another feature; and patriotism,and self-devotion in the cause of liberty and independence,became the source of many quarrelsand bitter recriminations.

The last duel of any notoriety at this periodwas one fought by the Comte de Tilly, and forwhich he was apprehended by order of the connétablieand court of honour, presided over so lateas 1788 by the Duke de Richelieu; whichsentenced him to imprisonment in the Abbaye,whence he was liberated after a confinement ofthree months. This court no longer bore thereputation of a fair bench, capable of decidingthe knotty point of honour; but, like all other229institutions, had become inert, and corrupted tosuch a degree, that De Tilly gives the followingaccount of its nature:

“This court is a real inquisition, to whichthe nobility of France submitted under the speciousand proud pretext of being tried by theirpeers; an office essentially military, but whichhad degenerated into a judicial and civil court,where abuses were most notorious. Most ofthese nobles, debilitated by age and infirmities,sought to grasp, at the end of their career, adistinguished palm, which their feeble handswould soon be compelled to relinquish. Withoutany previous study of law or justice, theirinnate honour and chivalric loyalty were nota sufficient beacon to direct their course. Difficultpoints were elucidated by pedantic lawyers,—thenatural enemies of the nobility, andstrangers, from education and from principle, tothe nature of the duties assigned to them: thencame a host of subordinate agents, who effectuallyclosed the gates of this tribunal untilopened by a golden key. Favours and accusationswere bought and sold, as were the statementsthat exonerated, or the evidences thatcondemned: in short, they were a band of mercenaries,who throve upon gall, extorted presents,robbery, and rapine.”

Such was the corrupt state of the most nobletribunal in the land, presided over by the depraved230Richelieu,—a slur upon the nobility, anda disgrace to his king and country.

At the commencement of the Revolution duelswere not deemed necessary, and every oratorconsidered that his life belonged to the country.Mirabeau, who in his early days had shown frequentproofs of personal courage, no longer conceivedthat his honour was at stake when insultedby infuriate orators; and, although hehad fought several desperate duels, was accusedof cowardice by his enemies. When parliamentarydecorum was lost sight of in stormydebates, the offending speaker was committedto prison. A duel between Charles de Lamethand De Castries, although the subject of ithad not arisen in a public debate, was lookedupon as an uncommon occurrence, and thepopulace burnt down the house of De Castries;while numerous deputations waited upon hisadversary, to express their disapprobation ofduelling in the most energetic language. Atthis period single combats were considered adetestable relic of aristocracy and courtly corruption.This act of violence on the part ofthe mob was called “a sublime movement ofthe people;” and Mirabeau, in one of his mosteloquent speeches, thus alluded to the event:

“You must establish in the empire an implicitobedience to legitimate authorities, andrepress amongst us a handful of insolent conspirators.231Ah! gentlemen, it is for their ownsecurity that I invoke your severity. Are younot aware, that in this destruction, for you cannotcall it the dilapidation of a proscribed house,the people bowed religiously before the imageof their sovereign,—before the portrait of thechief magistrate of the nation, the executor ofthe laws, whom they venerated, although underthe influence of a generous fury?17 Are you notaware, that this people, in the midst of theirexcitement, showed their respect for age andfor misfortune, by their delicate attention toMadame de Castries? Are you not aware, thatthe people, in quitting these premises, which theyhad destroyed, it may be said with order andcalmness, insisted that the pockets of every individualshould be searched, that no base actionmight tarnish a just revenge? Such istrue honour, which the prejudices of gladiators,and their atrocious rites, can never display.”

It was after this event, that the ill-fatedBailly presented, as mayor of Paris, the followingresolution of the municipal body:

“The municipal body, alarmed at the frequencyof duels, and the disturbances whichthey create in the capital, have resolved, thata deputation of twelve of their members shallbe sent to the National Assembly, to request232that a law may be framed, as speedily as possible,against the practice of duelling, whichwould recall the citizens to a sense of theirmoral obligations, and warn them against thesuggestions of sentiments incompatible with thecharacter of a free and benevolent people.”

Another deputation solicited a decree whichwould render duelling a crime of lèse-nationality,and supplicated the assembly to wield thesword of justice in punishing the perverse individualwho had shed the blood of one of therepresentatives of the people, and whose crimethe capital had justly avenged. This addresswas received with tumultuous applause, both bythe audience and the members of the assembly,when the member for Angoulême, a M. Roy,exclaimed, “That none but ruffians could applaudsuch a proposal;” for which imprudencehe was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment.On this occasion Barnave made a most eloquentspeech against duelling, although three monthsafter, he fought and wounded Cazalés, anotherdeputy.

Not only were duels avoided in these fearfultimes, but any person who insulted one of therepresentatives of the people, or who acted withviolence towards him, was denounced as a conspiratorand an assassin. This was instanced inthe case of Grangeneuve, who had quarrelled with233Jonneau, whom he called a F—— Viédasse,18 towhich the other replied, “You have insultedme! are you a man of honour?” “I am,” repliedGrangeneuve. “Then meet me to-morrowat the Bois de Boulogne, with pistols.” “Iwill meet you to-morrow in the National Assembly,”replied his antagonist. “The world,then, will pronounce you a coward.”—“And youa Jean F——;” on which Jonneau slapped hisface; Grangeneuve retorted with a stone, whichhe picked up, and a caning, with kicks and cuffs,ensued.

Notwithstanding the unwarrantable conductof Grangeneuve, Guadet, a deputy from theGironde, insisted upon an impeachment againstJonneau as an assassin; and another orator, Larivière,who seconded the motion, expressed himselfin a bombastic style, illustrating the dementationof the epoch: “Jonneau,” he said, “hadbeen guilty of a cowardly action, by provokinga man physically weak for a trifling insult, andwas still more cowardly in striking him: heought to have imitated Turenne, who beingprovoked to fight a duel, replied, “To-morrowthere will be a battle, all our blood belongsto our country, and we shall see which of usshall the best defend her.” He therefore movedthat Jonneau should be committed, although,234after he had been separated from his antagonist,he had been unmercifully beaten by a ruffianof the name of Saint Huruge, and Barbaroux,another deputy from the Gironde.

All the eloquence of these desperate madmen,however, could not prevent occasional meetings,and the National Assembly at last abrogatedall former laws prohibiting single combat, andpassed an amnesty in favour of those transgressorswho had been prosecuted agreeably to their enactments.

Camille Desmoulins was another orator of thisfearful epoch, who launched forth against duellingin the following memorable language:

“One may brave death in the cause of libertyfor one’s country, and I feel that I could stretchmy neck out of my litter, and hold forth mythroat to the sword of Antony; I feel that Icould possess sufficient fortitude to ascend thescaffold with a mingled sentiment of pleasure.Such is the courage which I have received, notfrom nature, which shudders at the aspect ofdeath, but from philosophy; to be assassinatedby the bravo who provokes me, is to bestung by a tarantula, and I should have tospend my days in the Bois de Boulogne, wereI to give satisfaction to all those whom myfrankness offends. I may be accused of cowardice,but I apprehend that the times are notfar distant when we shall have ample opportunities235of dying in a more glorious and usefulmanner.”

The occasion of this speech was a disputewhich he had with Haudet and Désessarts ofthe French theatre, and the miserable man hadonly anticipated his impending fate, doomed soonafter to fall under the rival power of Robespierre.

Such were the morbid views of honour entertainedduring the atrocious phases of theFrench Revolution: the most noble and generoussentiments were professed by the mostimplacable monsters of the epoch; and whilethe murder of innocent men on the scaffoldwas called by Danton the justice of the people,a duel was denominated “the argument of anassassin,”—when Marat was called the Divine,and Robespierre the Incorruptible!—The Revolutionmight fairly be denominated a moral pestilencecaused by former corruption; the nationalatmosphere had been tainted by the putrescencyof the Court, and the fever that it producedwas marked by a homicidic delirium whichfrom its diffusion in every class of society mighthave been considered contagious.

The history of those momentous times presentsus a series of causes and effects so closely linkedin their fatal catenation, that the bloody annalsof that era should constitute the chief studyof every diplomatist. It is to be deeply lamentedthat these records do not become the236text-book of diplomatic tuition. When the nobilitydropped their swords and the people pickedthem up, the meanest comprehension could haveforeseen the sanguinary results. The apathy inwhich the possessors of power and wealth slumberedcould only be compared to the perfidious calmof gangrene that precedes dissolution. A blindconfidence in the prestige of authority hurled thenobility into a vortex which swept them downthe torrent of popular reaction. The hatred inwhich duels were held, simply arose from theirnot being the practice of fashionable men, andwas a strong illustration of the morbid temperof the nation, and the successful efforts of thephilosophic school. The history of the progressof liberal ideas gradually casting off the restraintsof rank and fortune might be studied in thededication of writers. Where could we find anauthor in the present day, who, like Dryden,would compare the pustules of small-pox onthe corpse of a deceased young nobleman, theson of his protector, to bright constellations inthe firmament? As men grow wise, the prejudicesof barbarism will gradually disappear; andcertainly, with very few exceptions, we cannottrace much sapience in those persons who havebeen engaged in personal conflicts of late years.237

CHAPTER XIII.

DUELS DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

It has been truly said that during the FrenchRevolution, the foot of Liberty slipped on blood,and she fell prostrate under a military despotism.Under the Directory an attempt was madeto restore society to its ancient prejudices, modifiedby the times, and duelling became fashionableamongst the upper classes of society, moreespecially in upstart circles, while in the armyit was constantly resorted to both by officersand soldiers. Scarcely a day passed without ameeting in the Bois de Boulogne, while garrisontowns were continually disturbed by desperateduellists; pistols were now adopted bycivilians, and the sabre, rarely the small sword,became the arm of the military.

That duels should prove of frequent occurrenceamongst soldiers and officers of lower rankmight be expected, since general officers showedthe example. In 1802, Generals Destaing andReynier having quarrelled in a discussion relatingto the Egyptian campaign, Destaing was238killed by a pistol-shot in the breast. Napoleon,who was then First Consul, expressed hisdispleasure, and for some time the survivor wasobliged to absent himself from Paris.

A diplomatic duel took place at Naples underthe reign of Murat. At a levee of the kingand queen, Count Dolgoroucki, the Russianambassador, took precedence of the French envoy,Baron Durand de Mareuil, who as familyambassador had a claim to a prior introduction.The baron took no notice of this circ*mstanceat the time, but on quitting the palacesent a message to the Russian nobleman, whor*plied that he would submit the affair to hiscourt.

The French General, Excelmans, who waspresent at the time, immediately called upon theCount de Beckendorf, the first secretary of theRussian embassy, to demand satisfaction for theinsult offered to France in the person of herrepresentative. The challenge was accepted,and at the same time it was agreed that thetwo ambassadors should be present at the meeting.However, the Russian ambassador wouldnot allow his secretary to take up the quarrel,and he accepted the message sent by the envoyof France. The ambassadors becoming principals,the seconds resolved that, according to theancient Italian custom, they should follow theirexample, and the four combatants met. Both239ambassadors were slightly wounded, but Beckendorfwas run through the body by Excelmans,and recovered with great difficulty. Thewar with Russia broke out shortly after, and itis generally supposed that this insult offered toFrance by the Russian minister was one of thepretexts that accelerated the event.

Napoleon invariably objected to the practiceof duelling; and, although he knew from thecharacter of his officers and soldiers, that it wasimpossible to prevent it, yet he visited withhis displeasure all the superior officers who transgressedthe regulations on that subject. He wasfrequently heard to say, that he never couldplace any dependence upon a duellist in battle,and that Latour Maubourg, the bravest of thebrave, had never drawn his sword in a privatequarrel. Such was also the opinion of Follard,the commentator of Polybius, who observed,“that in his time, duellists were in great vogue,but he generally found them the very scumand dishonour of the army, and the first to fleein moments of danger.”

Gustavus IV, as has been already related, withmore chivalric feeling than wisdom, sent a messageto Napoleon, who replied, “that he wouldorder a fencing-master to attend him as a plenipotentiary.”

During the reign of Napoleon, it appears thatduels were not frequent; society was no longer240convulsed by party feelings and violent politicalrecriminations; discord had ceased to reign,and all France submitted quietly to the ironyoke of military despotism. Former disputeshad arisen in the intrigues of courts, in whichdepraved and ambitious females reigned paramount;and in the incessant altercations of theseprivileged and honoured courtesans, the fashionablemen of the age were constantly involved;political debates were also a common cause ofhostile feeling, and a subsequent meeting: butunder the empire, no one could express hisopinion, and political discussion became merelya matter of form; the press, being also underthe immediate control of government, could notgive offence, and when it did offend, as it wasthe organ of the state, the injured party couldobtain no public or private redress.

The restoration of the Bourbons operatedpowerfully upon society; all former animositiesthat had been kindled in silence, and smotheredby prudence, broke forth with an uncontrolledfury. The monarch was reluctantly obliged toallow the freedom of the press, and the publicjournals became the daily vehicle of slander andinsult. The French were unaccustomed to thislicentiousness, which, from ancient usage, is overlookedin general by British legislation,—lawyersand newspaper writers could not brookthese open insults, and literary duels marked241this period by their frequent occurrence. Thereturn of the emigrants was also the source ofmany duels; these unfortunate gentlemen, “whohad nothing learnt, and nothing forgotten” duringtheir exile, assumed a haughty bearing towardsthe officers of the republic and the empirewho were without birth or any name butthat which their valour had rendered noble,which could not be brooked by these soldiersof fortune. Few duels between the anciennenoblesse and the parvenus, it is true, took placeat court; but they were not unfrequent in thearmy, until the sons of the olden times began torespect the children of the revolution for theirglorious deeds of arms, the narration of whichformed a great part of their conversation. Yetmuch blood had been shed ere this reconciliationhad taken place: the noble youth of France whonow surrounded the restored throne, devoted theirtime to obtain some skill in swordsmanship, and inmany of their quarrels with the old officers, whohad been for years out of practice, they displayeda superiority which the former severely felt.

Ancient animosities and disappointed ambitionnow reigned paramount; one party seeking torecover by violence and power what they hadlost by flight; and the other, to preserve whatthey had acquired at the price of their blood andthat of their families. All the wisdom and prudenceof Louis XVIII. could not restrain this242impetuous torrent, to which no bounds could beassigned, since the want of solidity of the thronewas felt in the vacillating state of every partof the social edifice.

Parliamentary debates and studied imitationsof British extemporaneous eloquence, and paper-wars,led to constant disputes. St. Marcellin, adistinguished literary character, was killed byFayau, his bosom friend. St. Morys, Lieutenant-colonelof the Gardes du corps, was killedby Colonel Barbier Dufay, and Beaupoil de St.Aulaire paid with his life a paragraph in hisprinted oration on the Duke de Feltre. In consequenceof this offensive publication, St. Aulairewas first called out by the son of the deceasedduke; he then had to fight a cousin of theGeneral M. de Pierrebourg: the parties met,when St. Aulaire proposed the sabre, and Pierrebourgwished for the sword, but conceded thepoint to his adversary; both were perfectly cool,so much so indeed, that at the suggestion ofSt. Aulaire, they changed their ground, as thesun was shining on his antagonist. St. Aulairewounded Pierrebourg in the knee, but beinguncovered, the other gave point, and woundedhim between the ribs, when throwing away hissabre, he exclaimed, “I fear that the wound istoo deep;” to which the seconds replied, “It isunfortunate, but it was all fair play.” St. Aulaireexpired a few minutes after.243

Literary duels became frequent, especially onaccount of political and historical works. Philippede Ségur, author of the Campaign ofRussia, had to meet General Gourgaud, one ofNapoleon’s aide-de-camps, when the author waswounded. A Neapolitan colonel of the nameof Pépé challenged the author of a work, inwhich he had reproached Italy with its pusillanimity,and obtained the satisfaction of woundinghim, to prove the incorrectness of his statement.

Two enthusiastic novel writers fought in defenceof classical and romantic literature, firingat each other four times, and only separatedwhen the severity of their wounds preventedfurther hostilities. A desperate duel was foughtbetween M. Raynouard, commanding the Caravanne,and M. Garnerey, the artist, who hadbeen sent to paint the battle of Navarino. Itappears that frequent altercations had arisen betweenthe parties when on board, and Garnerey,labouring under fever, was landed by the captainat the Lazaret of Toulon. The incensedartist wrote a letter, in which he complainedthat he had been cruelly deprived of medicalaid; in consequence of which, Raynouard calledhim out as soon as they were released from quarantine,when Garnerey shot him in the hip.He only survived the wound nine days.

Notwithstanding the frequency of duels, the244survivors were, in several instances, prosecuted.An artillery officer of the name of Treins, havingcalled out a person of the name of Damarzil,it was decided that they should fight with pistols,at the distance of six paces. Having drawnlots for the first fire, it fell upon Treins; thewitnesses then requested that a greater distanceshould be taken. Treins would not consent tothis arrangement, which was contrary to the previousagreement; he fired, and mortally woundedhis adversary in the stomach. Notwithstandingthe severity of the wound, he had sufficientstrength to return the fire, wounding his antagonistin the arm. He died a few hours after.The court came to the decision, “that Treinshaving been the aggressor, and having firedcontrary to the wishes of the by-standers, atso short a distance, when he was certain of killinghis antagonist,—these circ*mstances did notallow that this case should be included in thosecases of duels which are not considered as criminaland punishable as such.” On this occasionthe duel was considered an assassination, becausethe party fired at too short a distance. Yet itmust be recollected, that had the survivor’s pistolmissed fire, his antagonist had an equalcertainty of shooting him.

The tribunal of Douai came to a similar conclusionin the case of a person who shot anotherafter taking a long and deliberate aim. The245court of Marseilles gave a similar judgment in thefollowing case:—A man, named Roqueplane hadcalled out another of the name of Durré. Theseconds wanted to place the parties at a distanceof twenty-five paces; Durré insisted upon fifteen.Lots were drawn for the first fire, which fellupon Roqueplane, who discharged his pistol inthe air. Durré insisted that he should fire athim; and, despite the interference of the seconds,his wish was acceded to: but the pistol missedfire; on which Durré fired, and shot his adversarydead.

A singular case, somewhat of a similar nature,occurred not long since at Bordeaux. A Spanish-Americangentleman had left his wife in thatcity, and during his absence her conduct, itappeared, had been anything but correct. Onhis return, the tongue of scandal and of friendshipsoon informed him of what was called hisdishonour; and he fixed upon a young man ofthe name of A——, as the person who was togive him satisfaction, on the plea that he hadintrigued with his wife. M. A—— refused tomeet him repeatedly, insisting upon his innocence;and adding, that even if proofs of anycriminality could be adduced, the conduct ofthe lady had been so improper with various persons,that he would not expose his life in sucha business. The husband persisted, and at lastmeeting him at ’Change, struck him repeatedly.246A meeting was now unavoidable. Forty paceswere measured, and eighteen paces told off betweenthe two extreme points, leaving a space ofonly four paces in the centre of the ground.It was decided that both parties should advancetowards this point, and fire whenever theythought proper. The adversaries moved on;but the Spaniard, in his vindictive impatience,fired at twelve paces, and missed his antagonist,who continued advancing towards the centralpoint of four paces, while the disappointedSpaniard halted where he had fired. Accordingto the pre-arranged agreement, he was orderedto proceed to the centre, where stood his antagonist;when only four paces divided them.M. A—— then stated, that he would not fire,if his adversary was satisfied; to which theother replied, that he would fire, as he wasdetermined that one of them should fall. A——fired; but the pistol missing, it was found thathis second had not put any cap to it: it wastherefore decided, that he was entitled to ashot. Again he expressed his earnest desirenot to fire. The Spaniard persisted, and wasshot dead. Although at the short distance offour paces, so uncertain is the fire of a pistol,that had the ball, which had struck the shoulderand entered the chest, deviated but a line ortwo, and been reflected from the bone, thewound would have been slight, and A—— undoubtedly247would have fallen. M. A——, withthe seconds of both parties, was imprisoned fora considerable time; and when brought to trial,acquitted. In this case, most undoubtedly, thefault rested with the seconds, who should nothave left to their principals the power of reservingtheir fire until they came in such a closesituation; an arrangement of which every coolperson would avail himself. The chances werealso rendered unequal by the precipitation of oneof the parties. He could have held back his fireuntil he came to the four-pace interval, if hethought proper; and his adversary was fully warrantedin availing himself of the circ*mstance,while he honourably offered him his life.

In this case, my opinion was asked, as anEnglish officer. M. A—— was a particular friendof mine; and I gave it as my decided opinion,that he had behaved most honourably. Hehad been fired at, and continued to move forwardaccording to agreement. The Spaniardshould have done the same; it was therefore butjust, that he should not be allowed to receiveA——’s fire where he had halted; since, ifA—— had missed him, the Spaniard’s next firewould have taken place at the central point, onwhich he most undoubtedly would have advanced,to claim the advantage which he himselfhad given to his antagonist. In regard tothe missing of A——’s fire, had the pistol been248capped, most unquestionably he would have hadno claim to a second fire; but the unpardonableneglect had not been his, it was the fault ofhis second; for which, most assuredly, he shouldnot have perilled his life. It is true, that amiss-fire is considered as equivalent to a shot,in primed pistols, but this rule cannot hold goodin percussion arms. A priming may be damp,may be shaken out; but the pistol had beenproperly loaded. A percussion pistol, without acap, is to all purposes the same as an unloadedweapon; and if such a neglect on the part ofa second, was to expose the life of a principal,it might lead to the most treacherous acts andpremeditated murders. This case strongly provesthe necessity of pistols being loaded in the presenceof both seconds; and perhaps so long asthis barbarous practice prevails, it might be moreprudent not to use percussion arms. I shall returnto this most important subject in anotherpart of this work.

In regiments, the strictest discipline could notprevent duelling. It became the boast of particularcorps; and before the French Revolution, noofficer was admitted into the society of his comrades,until he had given proofs of his courage,and fought without any motive. For this purpose,expert fencers were selected, who werecalled “feelers;”19 and it must be admitted, that249in general they merely sought to inflict a triflingwound. Another custom prevailed in severalregiments, which was called the calotte, and consistedin insulting persons who passed by thecoffee-houses which these madcaps frequented.On such occasions they exacted a pecuniary tributefrom the offended party, if he declinedfighting. It was on an occasion of this kind,that an officer of artillery, named De Paris, wasattacked at Verdun. In the first instance hepaid the exacted tribute, and then addressinghimself to the officer, who was considered thechief of the calotte, he insisted upon an immediatesatisfaction, which was of course granted. Theparties met; the chief of this murderous associationwas killed; and two of his brother officerswho succeeded him shared the same fate.

Colonels of regiments not unfrequently showeda pernicious example in sanctioning duels. TheViscount de Noailles, colonel of the King’s dragoons,had said at table, that although he wouldbreak, without any hesitation, any officer whowould call him out while with the regiment,yet, that when at Paris, and in plain clothes, hewould always be ready to attend any officer tothe Bois de Boulogne. A Captain de Bray, ofhis regiment, who considered that he had beeninsulted by him, availed himself of this declaration,and severely wounded him. His commandingofficer most honourably recommended him250to the first vacant majority in the corps. Thissame De Noailles was in the habit of announcingthe day of his departure from every place hehad been quartered in, in the public papers, forthe purpose, he said, of affording an opportunityfor settling affairs of every description.

The restoration of the Bourbons had graduallycalmed the excitement between hostile parties,or rather they were tired of useless conflicts,until the Revolution of the Barricades once moregave a free vent to the rage of political animosities,and all classes seemed to consider bloodshedas the only means of asserting their rights. Anabsurd chivalrous character had been given tothe heroes of July, and every violent demagoguefancied that he was called upon to display asimilar contempt of life.

A paragraph having appeared in the papercalled La Tribune, containing some reflection onthe duch*esse de Berry, the editors of Le Revenant,a legitimist publication, demanded satisfactionfrom those of La Tribune. The partiesdecided that no individual duel should take place,but that a collective meeting should be fixedupon between any two of the editors whosenames appeared in the lists, as other newspapershad taken part in the quarrel. At last it wasdecided that a meeting should take place betweenArmand Carrel, editor of Le National, and RouxLaborie, editor of Le Revenant. The duel took251place; when Laborie, who was by no means sodexterous as his adversary, was run through thearm. The parties were then separated, whenCarrel stated that he believed he was wounded;and upon examination it was found that he hadreceived a dangerous injury in the belly. Theseconds were about crossing swords in their turn,when the interference of the police put an endto the contest.

Challenges were now mutually exchanged betweenthe writers in favour of legitimacy andtheir republican brethren, until the populaceespoused the cause of the latter: publishers andthe offices of the Royalist papers were besiegedfor several days by the mob. Had Carrel died,it is difficult to say to what excesses this exasperationmight have led.

Brian, editor of La Quotidienne, had to fighta duel with one of his colleagues; and hostilemeetings between newspaper writers took place,not only in Paris, but the principal cities inFrance. The following extract from a paperof the time (February 1834) will show to whatan extent duelling was carried at this period.

“A deplorable mania for duelling has prevailedduring the last week. On the same day on whichM. Dulong was wounded by a pistol-shot byGeneral Bugeaud, two medical students werefighting at a few paces from them, and one ofthem was mortally wounded by a shot in the252breast. This morning, three more duels tookplace, one of them fatal, and all grounded onpolitical differences; and this day, the managerof one of our theatres has fought the editor ofa newspaper.”

While political disputes thus led numerouschampions into the field, their party warmly advocatedthe cause which they maintained at theperil of their lives. Thus, a duel having takenplace between a native of Toulouse and Marseilles,on electioneering questions, the Toulousian beingseriously wounded, was carried to the hospital,where he was immediately followed by hispartisans, wearing white pinks at their button-holes,and who suspended a crown of laurels andlilies over the patient’s head at Marseilles. Barthelemy,the editor of the Peuple Souverain, killedDavid, who conducted the Garde National;and soon after the editor of the Gazette de Perigord,fought his predecessor of different politicalopinions.

It would be endless to relate the numerousduels that took place at this period between literarymen, not only on account of political divergenceof opinion, but on literary claims. Thus,Alexander Dumas fought Gaillardet, on accountof the drama called the Tour de Nesle. It appearedthat the latter was the original authorof this drama, admirably constructed, but unfortunatelyof a disgusting character, every vice that253can disfigure humanity having been brought intoaction. The manager of the theatre (La PorteSt. Martin) conceived that the dialogue requiredcorrection, or that the incidents of the piece mightbe more powerfully developed; and he, therefore,with the consent of the author, placed theMS. in the hands of Dumas. The latter claimedno authorship, until the piece was brought outwith great success, and became the rage of theParisians; when, to the amazement of Gaillardet,Dumas published the play as his sole production.The business was first brought beforethe tribunals; but the honour of the parties notbeing satisfied, a meeting took place, when pistol-shotswere exchanged at fifteen paces. The infuriateddramatists were resolved to fire untilone of them fell; but the seconds very wiselyprevented further proceedings. This exasperation,arising from galled vanity, is easily accountedfor, when we find that two other dramaticwriters, whose productions had been received withdoubtful success, and severely criticised in thepapers, shut themselves up with a pan of charcoal,and were suffocated in poetical despair.

Duels, having thus descended from the aristocracyof the country to inferior grades, becameat last common even amongst trades-people.In 1833, we find a silk-mercer fightinga wool-merchant with pistols, and desperatelywounding his antagonist; while a bath-keeper254called out and fought a crockery-ware seller, forhaving sold him a cracked stove. At Douai,a woollen-draper challenged a brazier to fighthim with swords; the parties met, and rushingat each other like two butting bulls, the brazierwas run through the throat, and the unfortunatewoollen-draper received a mortal wound in thebowels.

Nor was difference of rank any protectionagainst the necessity of giving satisfaction. AtBordeaux, an officer of cavalry, wishing to disposeof a new uniform coat that did not fit him, calledin a Jew old-clothesman, who offered him fivefrancs for the coat. The officer, justly incensedat this impertinence, ordered him out of hisroom. Moses refused: the dragoon kicked himdown stairs. The exasperated Jew immediatelychallenged the officer, who refused to fight him;when the Jew, meeting him in the street, calledhim a coward, and struck him. The officer wouldhave cut down the Israelite on the spot, had henot been prevented, and was about bringing theman before the police, when it was decided bythe corps, that the officer, having placed himselfupon a level with the Jew by striking him, hewas called upon to give him the satisfaction hehad demanded. The meeting took place, andthe Israelite went to the ground with a hostof his nation. Swords being crossed, the Hebrew,notwithstanding the loud acclamations of255his tribe, could not be brought to stand, but retreatedand fell back, until his adversary broughthim against a ditch, which at last halted him.Here he would not show fight; and the officerwould have run him through the body, had notthe crowd of Jews rushed to his relief; and itwas with great difficulty that the dragoon andhis second could effect their escape to a carriagein attendance.

It was during these turbulent times, and afterthe Revolution of July, that my friend, ColonelTrobriant, shot Pélicier, of the Home Department,the dispute having arisen about a popularsong. Trobriant wanted to fire in the air; buthis adversary replied, “No cowardly condescension,if you please, sir. Aim at me, sir, for Ishall aim at you.” Trobriant fired, and the ballentered the forehead of his obstinate adversary.

Prefects, magistrates, editors, shopkeepers, hadnow descended into the camp; and no situationof life, age, or condition, seemed to be matters ofconsideration. Comte Leon, a supposed naturalson of Napoleon, fought several duels; one withthe colonel of the National Guard of St. Denis,and the other with an English officer of the 18thHussars, of the name of Hesse, who had lostto him eighteen thousand francs at play. Inthis last meeting, it was decided in writing, thatthe parties should be placed at thirty paces fromeach other, and advance to ten paces. They256both moved forward three paces, took aim, butdid not fire. Hesse made another step, andLeon did the same, when both firing, Hessereceived a wound in the left breast, and expiredafter three days’ acute suffering. The widowprosecuted the survivor; but after a short trialhe was acquitted, Mrs. Hesse not appearing onbehalf of the prosecution.

In the singular duel between two persons ofthe names of Lethuillier and Wattebaut, thesurvivor was condemned to ten years’ imprisonment.The circ*mstances were the following:—Lethuillierand his wife kept a maison de santéat Pantin, and Wattebaut, who called himselfa man of letters, lodged with them. Theywere both staunch republicans, and their uniformityin political opinions cemented a strictintimacy between them. However, politicalaffections did not prevent Wattebaut from payingmore than common attention to the fairwife of his host. A dispute arose, when itwas decided that they should fight with pistols,and at the same time it was also agreed thatno seconds should be present at the meeting,to avoid the possibility of any reconciliation,while at the same time the honour of MadameLethuillier would not be compromised by thecirc*mstance being confided to others. Theparties met in the wood of Romainville; Wattebautin vain sought to reconcile matters by257affirming his innocence in the most solemnmanner; the husband was inflexible. Wattebautfired, and his ball entering the right temple,grazed along the eye, passed through theroot of the nose, and came out by the left eye,Lethuillier being struck blind. Wattebaut seeinghim fall, fancied that he was dead, andfled; but the wounded man contrived to crawlas far as the cemetery of Pantin, where his groansattracted the notice of some persons passing by,who carried him home. Lethuillier pursuedhis adversary before the tribunals, maintainingthat he had been treacherously wounded beforehe had taken his ground, and after he hadproposed to his adversary to fight across a pockethandkerchief. Wattebaut, on the contrary, assertedthat he had fired according to the stipulatedpre-arrangement, contradicting the chargesbrought against him in every particular. Althoughno evidence appeared on behalf of theplaintiff or the defendant, the latter was condemnedto ten years’ imprisonment.

Such was the fury of duelling during thesetimes of excitement, that two brothers actuallyengaged in a conflict of this nature: one of themfired on his adversary, a dragoon in the 11th regiment,and having missed him, knocked him downwith a bludgeon, and only left him when heconsidered him a corpse.

A duel was fought between Cadet Gassicourt258the chemist, and one of the Mayors of Paris,and his assistant, Viguier, about some repairsthat were required in their parish church; andin 1834 the president of the Cour Royale foughta barrister, when the judge was wounded bythe pleader. About the same period the celebratedmeeting between General Bugeaud anda lawyer of the name of Dulong took place.Both of them were members of the Chamberof Deputies, and the quarrel arose in a debatein the house regarding the treatment of theduch*ess of Berry. As this was what was calleda parliamentary duel, the particulars of this transactionare curious. The discussion arose on thesubject of the imprisonment of the duch*ess underthe general’s custody, when a deputy of the nameof Larabit maintained that an officer was notobliged to fulfil an ignoble mission. Soult replied,“A soldier’s first duty is obedience;” onwhich Larabit observed, “The President of theCouncil says that a military man should obey:this I readily grant; but when a man is consciousof his rectitude, and is ordered to recedefrom his duty, he should cease to obeyhis superiors.” “Never, never!” exclaimed severalmembers; on which Dulong added, withmuch warmth, “What! is a man in obedienceto the command of his superiors to become agaoler and degrade himself?”

This hasty expression was not distinctly heard259by all the members present, nor did it reachthe ears of General Bugeaud until some friendrepeated the offensive language. The generalimmediately went over and sat near Dulong,who gave a satisfactory explanation, disclaimingany personal allusion. Here the matterwould have rested, had not one of the newspaperstaken up the subject, when the generaldemanded a written apology from Dulong, arequest to which he immediately acceded bytransmitting to the editor of the paper a statementin which he declared that he had meantnothing personal or offensive in his speech. Thisletter was sent to the general, who forwarded itby M. de Rumigny, one of the King’s aides-de-camp,to the editor of the Journal des Débats.Soon afterwards an evening paper published thefollowing paragraph:

“The Journal des Débats having reported yesterdaythat M. Dulong had made use of languagemost insulting to General Bugeaud, itwas this day affirmed in the Chamber that thehonourable general had insisted on an apologyon the part of M. Dulong, which will appearto-morrow in the Journal des Débats.”

On reading this report, M. Dulong immediatelyaddressed the editor of the Débats to requesthe would not publish his declaration, andthe general himself called at the office for theletter, and afterwards waited upon M. Dulong.260Seconds were appointed, and as matters couldnot be settled to the satisfaction of all parties,a duel with pistols was arranged to take place thefollowing morning.

General Bugeaud, who was considered oneof the most dexterous shots in the army, suggestedto M. Dulong the advantage that mightresult to him from the use of swords; butDulong, who as a lawyer knew nothing of theuse of arms, thought that the pistol wouldoffer him a greater security.

The parties met at the Bois de Boulogne atthe appointed hour, when it was decided thatthey should be placed at forty paces from eachother, and on a given signal advance and firewhenever they thought proper. General Bugeaudin the most honourable manner, and togive his adversary every possible chance thatthe greater distance could afford, fired at the secondstep, but unfortunately with too muchprecision, as the unfortunate Dulong droppedwounded by a ball that had entered the skullover the left eye, and he expired on the followingmorning. This fatal event was clearly thework of political writers, who fomented the hostilefeelings of both parties, and whose conductonly admitted of this extenuation, that they werealways ready to fight amongst themselves, or withany other political antagonist who wanted to decidea question by recourse to arms.261

This duel caused a considerable sensation inParis; the King was much censured for nothaving prevented it, as the chances were mostunequal between a skilful combatant and a literaryman, who had never handled sword or pistol.Moreover, the written apology of Dulong,instead of being returned to him when the hostilemeeting was decided upon, remained in thehands of the general’s second; a most unfairproceeding, since the ill-fated Dulong, whofought sooner than give publicity to a statementwhich was reported to have been obtained bythreats, had the unquestionable right to demandthe restoration of the document; and this letter,which it was affirmed had been burnt in the Palaceof the Tuileries, appeared a few days after Dulong’sdeath in several provincial papers.

In a former chapter, we have seen with whatferocity many duels were fought in more barbaroustimes, yet at the period of which we arenow speaking, similar acts of desperation werenot uncommon. Two officers mortally wounded,insisted on being laid upon mattresses, that theymight continue to fire at each other, until one ofthe party expired. Two other officers of highrank exchanged five shots, and the sixth onlytook effect, proving fatal to one of them.

Duels were also fought in public. A fatal duelof this nature took place between a M. de C——,an officer of light cavalry, and M. V——, of Carcassone.262It appeared, that while the regiment ofM. C—— was quartered in the latter town, hehad courted a sister of M. V——, and, under thepromise of marriage, deceived her. The routearrived, and the regiment marched to Hesdin,where V—— followed the seducer, and insistedupon his marriage with his sister; to which proposalC—— acceded, stating, that he only waitedfor the consent of his family. A suspicious delayhaving taken place, M. de V—— followedhim to Paris, and demanded a categorical explanationof his intentions; satisfaction was insistedupon, and C—— again renewed his promises,fixing a period. This period having expired,M. de V——, accompanied by his sister andmother, repaired to Hesdin, where the regimentwas in garrison. C—— continuing tohesitate, a meeting was fixed upon, near theglacis of the town; the commanding officerand the mayor being both apprised of a transactionwhich was considered unavoidable. Thegates of the town were closed after upwardsof eighteen hundred persons had assembled towitness the conflict.

On the ground, M. de V—— once more calledupon De C—— to fulfil his promise, and rescuehis unfortunate sister from ignominy, adding,that from his expertness in the use of the pistol,his life was at his disposal; and he evenproposed swords, to afford him a more equal263chance in the conflict. This remonstrance andgenerous conduct were of no avail. M. deC——, it appears, had practised pistol firing fora considerable length of time, and was equallycertain of a successful aim. Lots were drawnfor the first fire, which fell upon C——, whoseball grazed the head of his adversary, who firingin turn, shot his dishonourable adversary throughthe head.

All distinction of rank appeared to be levelled;and a general officer who was disappointed inhis expectation of promotion, actually sent a messageto Marshal Soult, then minister of war, demandingeither the advancement he had memorializedfor, or personal satisfaction. The ageand position of the marshal were sufficient motivesto decline this singular meeting; when thegeneral thought proper to call out the marshal’sson, the Marquis de Dalmatie, to fight for hisfather, a challenge which, of course, was also refused;when the pugnacious memorialist publishedan insulting letter addressed to the marquis,in the usual language of what is called“posting;” but this outrageous conduct wasvery properly treated with the contempt it deserved.

Such was the state of society in France afterthe restoration, and the second revolution. Thereexisted no authoritative power able to controlthe discordant elements that agitated society.264Disappointed ambition on one side, and insultingprosperity on the other, came into daily collision.There was no common enemy to fightbeyond the frontier, and intestine personal warfarehad succeeded foreign military operations.There existed a constant state of agitation anduncertainty which all parties were anxious tosubdue; and the editors of the public paperswere war-hounds, let loose to stir up universalcommotion. Batons of marshals and dukedomswere no longer to be obtained by the swordwielded against national enemies, and civil pre-eminencewas sought by drawing it on any competitorwho stood in the way of advancement.The country was in a febrile state, and loss ofblood seemed as necessary to the body politic,as it might have been considered advisable inthe case of a morbid individual. There existedno safety-valve from the high pressure of thetimes; and, fortunately for the country, the occasionalexplosions that took place were of littleimportance, and only served to improve themachinery, so ably conducted by its present engineer,the King of the French. Any endeavouron his part, or that of the Bourbons, aftertheir restoration, to prevent parties from cominginto hostile collision, would have been worse thanidle. It was a storm, to which a calm mightnaturally be expected to succeed; and, at the265present period, duels in France are scarcely everheard of; in fact, they are not in fashion.

The French are naturally disposed to fight;and we have had sad proofs of this sanguinarypropensity during the late war, when their prisonerson board the hulks, and in the severaldépôts, converted every tool or instrument intoa sword; and nails, knives, razors, sharpened ironhoops, were fixed at the end of sticks for thepurpose of fighting; fighting and gambling beingtheir only amusem*nts.

Many were the melancholy scenes that tookplace in 1814, when the allies were in Paris;duels between the officers of the foreign powersand those of the disbanded French army wereincessant, and they generally proved fatal to thestrangers. The French were spending theirwhole days and nights in fencing; and there isevery reason to believe, that, not satisfied withtheir own skill in fence, their prevosts, or fencing-masters,assumed the uniform of officers tomeet any imprudent youth who was foolhardyenough to accept their challenges. Thus didmany an Austrian and Prussian officer fall inthe Bois de Boulogne.

When the British army occupied the southof France, similar scenes were witnessed, butmore especially at Bordeaux, where the Frenchofficers came over the Garonne, for the sole266purpose of insulting and fighting the English,who were, in many instances, absurd enough tomeet their wishes. It is, however, gratifying tostate, that the fortune of arms was generallyin our favour; and, in many instances, whenour young officers had been so imprudent as toaccept a challenge with the sword, their superiorbodily strength and utter ignorance of thepolite rules of duelling turned to their advantage;in several instances, they rushed on theiradversaries, broke through their guard, and cutthem down. In vain the French expostulatedagainst this breach of les régles de l’escrime,and called out “foul play;” our seconds usuallycarried pistols in their pockets, and threatenedto shoot any one who interfered; and the Frenchat last were tired of the experiment.20

After the campaign of Waterloo, the Frenchwere equally anxious to recover by private deedsof courage their lost fame in battle; but pastexperience had taught the British the folly of267attending to their insults. An unfortunate occurrence,however, took place at Cambrai. LieutenantG—— of the Guards was proceeding tothe mess-room, when a French officer in plainclothes followed him, making use of the mostinsulting expressions; G—— turned round andasked him if his language was addressed to him,when the ruffian replied, “To you, or any Englishcoward.” Instead of treating this rodomontadewith sovereign contempt, the young managreed to meet him the following morning withpistols. The report of this intended meetingwas generally known in the garrison; and itis deeply to be lamented, that the commandingofficer did not place the ardent youth underclose arrest, but it appears that he was satisfiedwith the assurance on the part of the Frenchcommissaire de police, that the offending partyshould be apprehended and sent out of the town.This, however, was not done, and the meetingtook place on the following morning. Although268it had been clearly stipulated that the weaponsshould be pistols, the Frenchman came to theground with unbuttoned foils, alleging that hecould not procure pistols. G—— very imprudentlyoffered him one of his own, and fell, mortallywounded, at the first discharge. It wasobserved, that on their mutual fire, the Frenchmanstaggered a pace or two; when collectinghimself, he advanced to poor G——, who wasexpiring in the arms of his companions, and saidwith much sang-froid, “Poor young man! hadwe fought with swords, he would have beenspared all this agony.” What he meant bythis expression it is difficult to say, whether hewould have killed him outright, or slightlywounded him. The latter surmise, however, isnot probable.

When a party of men came from the gateto bear away G——’s body, the French officerexclaimed that “it would be treachery to apprehendhim;” but he was presently undeceived, andadvised in the most honourable manner to effecthis escape as speedily as possible. The fellow,however, seemed to confide in the protectionof his countrymen and the apathy of our commander,for he went publicly to the coffee-house,boasting that, after killing a Prussian, an Austrian,a Spaniard, and a Portuguese, he at lasthad been lucky enough to kill an Englishman.During this conversation he exhibited a silk269handkerchief pierced with several shot-holes, andwhich he said had been grazed by his adversary’sball. This circ*mstance, connected withhis having staggered on G——’s fire, gives everyreason to believe that he wore a cuirass, ourinexperienced officers not having insisted uponhis stripping, according to the established rulein French duels, when both parties are obligedto show that they wear no protection.270

CHAPTER XIV.

DUELS BETWEEN FRENCH WOMEN.

That women, who can mostly get silly peopleto fight for them, should not fight themselvesis natural, but there are instances on record inwhich ladies have shown their determination toavenge their own wrongs.

Madame de Villechen mentions a duel foughtwith swords by the Henriette Sylvie of Molièrewith another woman, both in male attire.In the letters of Madame Dunoyer, a case ismentioned of a lady of Beaucaire and a younglady of rank, who fought with swords in theirgarden, and would have killed each other hadthey not been separated; this meeting had beenpreceded by a regular challenge.

De la Colombière mentions a duel that tookplace on the Boulevard St. Antoine between twoladies of doubtful virtue, in which they inflictedon each other’s face and bosom several wounds,two points at which female jealousy would naturallyaim. St. Foix relates the case of MademoiselleDurieux, who in the open street fought271her lover of the name of Antinotti. But themost celebrated female duellist was the actress,Maupin, one of the performers at the opera.Serane, the famous fencing-master, was one of herlovers, and from him she received many valuablelessons. Being insulted one day by an actor of thename of Dumény, she called him out; but as herefused to give her satisfaction, she carried awayhis watch and his snuff-box as trophies of her victory.Another performer having presumed tooffend her, on his declining a meeting wasobliged to kneel down before her and imploreforgiveness. One evening at a ball, having behavedin a very rude manner to a lady, she wasrequested to leave the room, which she did onthe condition that those gentlemen who hadwarmly espoused the offended lady’s cause shouldaccompany her. To this proposal they agreed;when after a hard combat she killed them all,and quietly returned to the ball-room. LouisXIV. granted her a pardon, and she withdrewto Brussels, where she became the mistress ofthe Elector of Bavaria. However, she soon afterreturned to the Parisian opera, and died in 1707at the age of thirty-seven.

Under the regency a pistol meeting took placebetween the Marquise de Nesle and the CountessPolignac for the possession of the Ducde Richelieu; and in more modern times, solate, indeed, as 1827, a Madame B—— at St.272Rambert, received a challenge to fight with pistols;and about the same period a lady of Châteauroux,whose husband had received a slapin the face without resenting the insult, calledout the offender, and fighting him with swordsseverely wounded him.

In 1828 a duel took place between a younggirl and a garde du corps. She had been betrayedby the gallant soldier, and insisted upon satisfaction,selecting her own weapons by the right ofan offended party. Two shots were exchanged,but without any result, as the seconds very wiselyhad not loaded with ball. The young lady, however,ignorant of this precaution, fired first, andreceived the fire of her adversary with the utmostcoolness, when, to try her courage, after takinga long and deliberate aim, he fired in the air,and thus terminated the meeting, which no doubtled to many others of a less hostile nature.

In the same month, as a striking instance ofthe contagion of this practice, a duel was foughtnear Strasbourg between a French woman anda German lady, both of whom were in lovewith a painter. The parties met on the groundarmed with pistols, with seconds of their ownsex. The German damsel wanted to fire acrossa pocket handkerchief, but the French lady andher seconds insisted upon a distance of twenty-fivepaces, They both fired without effect, whenthe exasperated German insisted that they should273carry on the contest until one of the parties fell.This determination, however, was controlled bythe seconds, who put a stop to further proceedings,but were unable to bring about a reconciliation.

We shall shortly see that our English ladieshave shown as much determination under similarcirc*mstances; and when we consider the bitteranimosity that frequently exists between women,who are not in the habit of resenting theirreal or supposed wrongs by having recourse toa personal satisfaction, which may be consideredthe safety-valve of passions, and which not unfrequentlysupersedes assassination, one may besurprised that duels are not more frequent betweenthem. Their mode of living and habitsmust induce them to brood more deeply thanmen over the insults which their pride andvanity have received, and in both sexes thesesentiments, when ruffled, can rarely be smootheddown. The only reason which may be adducedto account for the circ*mstance is their naturaltimidity as regards personal danger, to which wemay add the greater certainty of avenging theirinjuries by intrigue and slander, “whose edge issharper than the sword.”274

CHAPTER XV.

CODE OF DUELLING ESTABLISHED IN FRANCE.

We have seen that France has ever held outan example in duelling; and the rules whichwere established in that country, at variousperiods, to regulate these hostile meetings, havegenerally been considered as precedents in othercountries; more especially on the continent ofEurope.

The French admit three sorts of offences:1st, a simple offence; 2nd, an offence of an insultingnature; and, 3rd, an offence with personalacts of violence. In these cases, they haveestablished the following rules; which, indeed,so long as duelling is tolerated, may be consideredmost judicious, and such as should regulate thearrangements of all quarrels.

1. If in the course of a discussion an offenceis offered, the person who has been offended isthe injured party. If this injury is followed bya blow, unquestionably the party that has beenstruck is the injured one. To return one blow275by another of a more serious nature,—severelywounding, for instance, after a slap in the face,—doesnot constitute the person who received thesecond blow, however severe it may have been,the party originally insulted. In this case, satisfactionmay be demanded by the party that wasfirst struck. Such a case must be referred to thechances of a meeting.

2. If an insult follows an unpolite expression,—ifthe aggressor considers himself offended, orif the person who has received the insult, considershimself insulted,—the case must also be referredto a meeting.

3. If in the course of a discussion, duringwhich the rules of politeness have not beentransgressed, but in consequence of which, expressionshave been made use of, which induceone of the party to consider himself offended,the man who demands satisfaction cannot beconsidered the aggressor, or the person who givesit the offender. This case must also be submittedto the trial of chance.

4. But if a man sends a message, without asufficient cause, in this case he becomes theaggressor; and the seconds, before they allowa meeting to take place, must insist upon asufficient reason being manifestly shown.

5. A son may espouse the cause of his father,if he is too aged to resent an insult, or if theage of the aggressor is of great disparity; but a276son cannot espouse the quarrel of his father ifhe has been the aggressor.21

6. There are offences of such a galling nature,that they may lead the insulted party to haverecourse to acts of violence. Such acts oughtinvariably to be avoided, as they can only tendto a mortal combat.

7. The offended party has the choice of arms.22

8. When the offence has been of a degradingnature, the offended has the right to name botharms and duel.23

9. When the offence has been attended by actsof violence, the offended party has the right toname his duel, his arms, the distance, and mayinsist upon the aggressor not using his own arms,to which he may have become accustomed bypractice; but in this case, the offended partymust also use weapons in which he is not practised.

10. There are only three legal arms: 1st, the277sword; 2nd, the sabre; 3rd, the pistol. Thesabre may be refused even by the aggressor,especially if he is a retired officer; but it maybe always objected to by a civilian.

11. When a challenge is sent, or a meetingdemanded, the parties have a mutual right tothe name and address of each other.

12. The parties should immediately after seektheir seconds, sending to each other the namesand addresses of their seconds.24

13. Honour can never be compromised by theoffending party admitting that they were in thewrong. If the apology of the offending partyis deemed sufficient by the seconds of the offended;if the seconds express their satisfaction andare ready to affirm this opinion in writing; orif the offender has tendered a written apology,considered of a satisfactory nature;—in such acase, the party that offers to apologise ceases tobe the offender; and if his adversary persists,the arms must be decided by drawing lots.However, no apology can be received after ablow. An amicable arrangement of a quarrelshould take place before the parties meet on the278ground, unless circ*mstances prevent a prior interview.Howbeit, if when upon the ground,and even when armed, one of the parties thinksproper to apologise, and the seconds of the offendedparty are satisfied, it is only the party thattenders the apology upon whom any future unfavourablereflections can be cast.

14. If the seconds of the offending party cometo the ground with an apology, instead of bringingforward their principal, it is only to themthat blame can be attached, as the honour of theirprincipal was placed in their hands.

15. No challenge can be sent by collectiveparties. If any body or society of men havereceived an insult, they can only send an individualbelonging to it to demand satisfaction.A message collectively sent, may be refused; butthe challenged party may select an antagonist, orleave the nomination to chance.

16. All duels should take place during theforty-eight hours that have succeeded the offence,unless it is otherwise stipulated by the seconds.25

17. In a duel with pistol or sabre, two secondsto each combatant are indispensable: one willsuffice when the sword is used.279

18. It is the duty of the seconds to decideupon the necessity of the duel, and to state theiropinions to their principals. After having consultedwith them in such a manner as not toallow any chance of avoiding a duel to escape,they must again meet, and exert their best endeavoursto settle the business amicably. If theyfail in this attempt, they must then decide uponarms, time, place, distance, and mode of fighting;and at the same time they must endeavour tocome to some arrangement regarding any difficultiesthat might arise, when the parties are onthe ground.

19. Seconds are not witnesses; and each secondshould have a witness.26

20. No second, or witness, shall become aprincipal on the spot. Any insult received bythem constitutes a fresh offence.

21. The seconds should not remain more thanten minutes on the ground without a combat.

22. The seconds in a duel with swords, mayrequest that the offended party shall be allowedto ward off a lounge with the left hand. This,however, may be refused by the seconds of theaggressor.

23. The seconds of the aggressor may, if theythink proper, refuse to fire by signal, if theaggressor had not struck his antagonist.280

24. The seconds must determine whether thecombatants in sword duels shall be allowed totake breath.

25. The seconds will also decide (without acquaintingtheir principals of this decision), whetherthe parties are to be separated after thefirst wound. In this arrangement, they will beguided by the nature of the quarrel.

26. They will also decide whether a fencing-glove,or any other article to wrap round thehand, is to be allowed; a string,27 or a commonglove, are always allowed.

27. The seconds are never to let their principalsknow that they are of opinion that thenature of the insult received is such as to rendera mortal combat necessary.

28. The seconds may refuse the sword if theprincipal is unable to use it from any infirmity,unless the offended party has received a personalinjury.

29. The seconds of a person blind of one eye,may object to the pistol, unless the aggressor hadstruck him.

30. The sword or sabre may be declined by theseconds of a person with only one leg or arm.

31. The seconds of a young man shall not allowhim to fight an adversary above sixty yearsof age, unless this adversary had struck him;and, in this case, his challenge must be accepted281in writing. His refusal to comply with thisrule is tantamount to a refusal to give satisfaction,and the young man’s honour is therebysatisfied.

32. If any unfair occurrence takes place in aduel, it is the duty of the seconds to committhe circ*mstance to paper, and follow it up beforethe competent tribunals, when they arebound in honour to give true evidence.

33. It is the duty of seconds to separate thecombatants the very moment that the stipulatedrules are transgressed.

34. A father, a brother, a son, or any relationin the first degree, cannot serve as second,for or against his relative.

35. In sword duels, the seconds will mark thestanding spot of each combatant, leaving a distanceof two feet between the points of theirweapons. The standing ground to be drawn forby lots.

36. The swords must be measured to ascertainthat they are of equal length. In no instancemust a sword with a sharp edge or anotch be allowed.

37. The combatants will be requested to throwoff their coats, and to lay bare their breasts, toshow that they do not wear any defence thatcould ward off a thrust. A refusal to submitto this proposal is to be considered a refusalto fight.282

38. The offended party can always use hisown weapons, if they are considered of a descriptionfitting the combat. If, on comparing arms,the swords should be found to differ, the choicemust be decided by chance, unless the disproportionis of a material nature.

39. When the hand is wrapped up in a handkerchief,an end of it is not to be allowed tohang down: should the party refuse to draw itup, the seconds may insist that he throws it offaltogether, and is only allowed a sword-knot.28If fencing-gloves are allowed, and one party declinestheir use, the other is not to be deprivedof them; but, if only one glove has been broughtto the ground, it cannot be used.

40. When the combatants are on the ground,the seconds are to explain to them all the stipulatedarrangements, that they may not deviatefrom them on the plea of ignorance. This beingdone, the signal of attack is given in the word“Go” (allez); but, if before this signal, the partieshave already crossed swords, the signal is notnecessary; but the first who advanced withoutit is liable to censure.

41. The seconds shall hold a sword or a cane,bearing the point downwards, and, standing closeto each combatant, be prepared to stop the combat283the moment that the rules agreed upon aretransgressed.

42. Unless previously stipulated, neither ofthe combatants shall be allowed to turn off thesword of his adversary with the left hand: shoulda combatant persist in thus using his left hand,the seconds of his adversary may insist that thehand shall be confined behind his back.

43. In a sword duel, the combatants are allowedto raise themselves, to stoop, to vault tothe right or to the left, and turn round eachother.

44. When one of the combatants exclaims thathe is wounded, or that a wound is perceived byhis second, the combat is to be stopped; withthe consent of the wounded man, the combatmay be renewed.

45. If the wounded man, although the combatis ordered to be stopped, shall continue topress upon his adversary with precipitation, thisact is tantamount to his desire to continue theconflict, but he must be stopped and reprimanded.If, under similar circ*mstances, the combatantthat is not wounded continues to press onhis antagonist, although ordered to stop by theseconds, he must immediately be checked bythem, and considered as having infringed thestipulated rules.

46. When a second raises his sword or cane,it must be considered as the signal to stop;284in such cases, the other second shall cry out“Stop,” when the parties must recede one step,still remaining in guard.

47. In pistol duels the nearest distance shouldbe fifteen paces. The sight of the pistol shouldbe fixed, and not more than fifteen lines differencebe allowed in the length the barrel:it is also desirable that the barrel should not berifled, and that the pistols should be of a similardescription.

48. The stand of each combatant to be decidedby lot.

49. It is desirable that the same pair of pistolsbe used by both parties.

50. The seconds shall load the pistols with themost scrupulous care, and in the presence ofeach other. If one pair of pistols is used, eachsecond will use a similar charge, by allowingthe other to try the charge with a ramrod, orby loading in the presence of four witnesses.29

51. The combatants must be placed on theground by their respective seconds; if thirty-five285paces have been fixed upon, the offended partyhas a right to the first fire; if only fifteen pacesare marked, the first fire must be decided bydrawing lots.

52. The seconds have a right to ascertain thatthe principals do not carry any defence abouttheir persons. A refusal to submit to this examinationis to be considered as a refusal tofight.

53. The seconds of both parties shall standtogether; having taken their ground, they firstcommand, “Make ready,” which is followed bythe word “Fire.”

54. A miss-fire is considered a shot, unlessstipulation to the contrary has been made.

55. If one of the party is wounded, he mayfire upon his antagonist, but not after the expirationof two minutes.

56. When both parties have fired withouteffect, the pistols are to be reloaded in the samemanner as before.

57. In the pistol duel à volonté, the secondsare to mark out the ground, at a distance ofthirty-five to forty paces; two lines are then tobe traced between these two distances, leaving aninterval of from twenty to fifteen paces. Thuseach combatant can advance ten paces.

58. The ground being taken, one of the seconds,drawn by lot, gives the word “March.”

59. The combatants then advance upon each286other, if they think proper, holding their pistolsvertically while advancing; but they may levelthe weapons and take aim on halting, althoughthey may not fire at the time, but continue tomarch on unto the line of separation marked witha cane or a handkerchief, where they must stop andfire. But, although one of the parties may thusadvance to the limits, his antagonist is not obligedto move on, whether he has received the fire ofhis antagonist, or reserved his own.

60. The moment one of the combatants hasfired, he must halt upon the spot, and standfirmly to receive the fire of his adversary, whois not, however, allowed more than one minuteto advance and fire, or to fire from the groundhe stands on.

61. The wounded party is allowed one minuteto fire upon his antagonist from the moment heis hit; but if he has fallen on the ground, hewill be allowed two minutes to recover.

62. In this form of duel, a pair of pistols maybe allowed each combatant; but this is only allowedwhen one of the parties has received ablow.30 In these cases, a pistol of a differentpair is to be given to each combatant. The affair287cannot be considered terminated, unless the fourpistols have been discharged.

63. When four pistols are used, if one of theparty is wounded, the contest must cease, andthe wounded man not be allowed to fire, as it isevident that his antagonist, who might remainwith a loaded pistol, would have an unfair advantageover him in a cool deliberate fire.

64. When one of the parties is wounded, theaffair must be considered ended, even thoughthe wounded party should express his wish toproceed, unless the seconds consider him in afit state to continue the combat.

65. In the pistol duel called à marche interrompue,a distance of forty-five or fifty paces ismeasured, and two lines are traced and markedbetween the distance of fifteen to twenty paces.Thus the combatants may advance fifteen paces.

66. On the word “March,” the combatantsmay advance in a zigzag step, not exceeding twopaces. They may take aim without firing; andwhile advancing stop when they choose, and advanceagain; but once having fired, both partiesmust halt on the spot.

67. The combatant who has not fired, maynow fire, but without advancing; and the partywho has fired, must firmly stand the fire of hisantagonist, who for that purpose is allowed halfa minute; if he allows a longer time to elapse,he must be disarmed by the seconds.288

68. In the pistol duel, called à ligne parallèle,two parallel lines are traced by the seconds fifteenpaces from each other, and from thirty-five totwenty-five paces in length.

69. The combatants are placed at the extremityof each line, fronting each other.

70. The seconds stand behind their principalsin a situation that may not expose them to thefire of the parties. The signal is given by theword “March.”

71. The combatants then advance, not uponeach other, but in the direction of the linethat has been traced for them; and, therefore,whether one of the adversaries has advanced ornot, he will, find himself placed at fifteen pacesfrom the other.

72. The champion who fires must stop; buthe may halt without firing, take aim, and continueto advance.

73. In the pistol duel called au signal, thesignal is to be given by the second of the offendedparty by three claps on the hand, three secondsbeing counted between each clap, whichwill take up nine seconds; or two seconds, whichwill take up six seconds. In other cases, theseconds draw lots for giving the signal.

74. The combatants, when they have receivedtheir arms, are to walk, but keep the muzzles ofthe pistols pointing to the ground; at the first289signal they will raise their arms, take aim atthe second signal, and fire simultaneously at thethird.

75. If one of the combatants fires before thethird signal, or half a second after it, he is to beconsidered as a dishonourable man, and, if hisantagonist is killed, an assassin; and if he firesbefore the signal without effect, his opponenthas a right to take as much time as he thinksproper to level at him and shoot him.

76. If one of the parties has fired agreeably tothe stipulated signal, and his antagonist has dishonourablyreserved his fire, it is the duty of theseconds, at all risk and peril, to rush upon himand disarm him. In this case, the party who hadobserved the rules has a right to demand anotherduel of a different form.

77. The second who is to give the signal,should warn the combatants of the nature ofthe signal, in a loud and audible voice, in thefollowing words: “Recollect, gentlemen, thathonour demands that you should only fire uponthe third signal being given; that you are notto raise your arm until the first signal, and notto fire until the third. I am now going to givethe signals, which will consist of three claps onthe hand.”

78. In the duel with sabres, the seconds shouldendeavour to have it fought with short sabres,these arms being less fatal than the long ones.290

79. The ground taken, the antagonists are tobe placed opposite each other, at the distanceof one foot from their sabre points.

80. In general these duels are fought withcuff-gloves; but, otherwise, the parties may wrapa handkerchief round their hand and wrist, providedthat no end is allowed to hang down.

81. In regiments, the regimental sabre is tobe the arm selected, provided that they are ofthe same length, and mounted in the same manner.The same precautionary steps are to beadopted as in a sword duel, to ascertain thatno defence is worn by either party.

82. The signal of “Allez” (Go) having beengiven, the combatants advance on each other,and either give point or cut, vaulting, advancing,or retreating at pleasure.

83. To strike an adversary when disarmed, toseize his arm, his body, or his weapon, is a foulproceeding. A combatant is disarmed when hissabre is either wrenched from him or dropped.

84. In sabre duels in which the point of thearm is not to be used, sabres without a pointare to be chosen. To give point and kill an adversaryby the infringement of this rule, is to beconsidered an assassination. These duels shouldalways be considered terminated on the first lossof blood.

In addition to these regular duels, the French291have what they call duels exceptionnels; in whichcases, which are of very rare occurrence, thecombat may take place either on foot or on horseback,with carbine, musket, or pistol; but noone is obliged in honour to accept such challenges,and the conditions of the combat are tobe specified in writing before it can take place.

In the combat on horseback the seconds arealso to be mounted, and the combatants placedat twenty-five paces’ distance from each other;with the carbine, at sixty paces; with the musketand on foot, at one hundred paces, and advanceto sixty: the parties fire and reload at will, untilthey reach the limits pointed out.

In many instances the French place the combatantsback to back, to face about and fire atthe given signal.

Duels are occasionally fought in which onlyone pistol is loaded; in which case it is no easymatter to procure a second. The following isthe murderous practice:—Arrived on the ground,the seconds of the parties withdraw at least toa distance of fifty paces from the spot fixed uponfor the assassination. They load one pistol, butprime them both; they then beckon the combatantsto come for their pistols. The second whois to load the weapons, and who has been selectedby lot, gives them to the other second, whoplaces them in the hands of the principals, thechoice having been also decided by chance; the292second holding both pistols behind his back, andthe parties crying right or left. This being done,the two seconds who had delivered the arms,and who are armed themselves, advance withinthree paces of the combatants; the other secondsstand at a distance of twenty paces.

The seconds then read to the combatants thestipulation of the meeting, and give to each ofthem the end of a handkerchief to hold, afterhaving made them strip off their coats, and ascertainedthat they wear no defence.

The signal is given by one clap of the hand:if the party having the unloaded pistol fires beforethe signal, or rather burns priming, his adversaryhas a right to blow out his brains; butif the lucky drawer of the loaded pistol fires beforethe signal, and kills his antagonist, he is anassassin, and the seconds are bound to prosecutehim before the competent tribunals.

The French practise another mode of duellingwith pistols, which may be considered as lesscalculated to cause a fatal result. This they callDuel à marche non interrompue et à ligne parallèle.

Arrived on the ground, two parallel lines ofthirty-five paces in length are traced at a distanceof twenty-five paces: the standing is drawnby lot, as well as the choice of arms, which mustbe unknown to the parties. The combatantsare then placed by their seconds at the extremityof each line, facing each other. At the word293“March,” the combatants advance on the tracedline; in following which they cannot approacheach other nearer than twenty-five paces. Theyare not allowed to halt, but must advance simultaneously:they are also to fire without stopping,and, after firing, to march on to the extremityof their line. If one of the parties is woundedbefore firing, he has only the time to fire whichhis opponent may take in reaching the limits prescribed.If neither of the parties are hit, theduel must terminate without further proceedings.

The preceding rules, which are founded uponlong experience in this fatal practice, have beensanctioned by twenty-five general officers, elevenpeers of France, and fifty officers of rank. Theminister of war, who could not consistently withhis public duties affix his signature to the document,gave his approbation in an official letter,and the majority of the prefects equally sanctionedthe regulation.294

CHAPTER XVI.

FRENCH VIEWS OF THE CHARACTER AND DUTIES OF ASECOND, AND THE EXPEDIENCY OF DUELLING.

In the choice of a second, if physical couragebe a requisite quality, and experience is equallydesirable, a moral courage is still more precious;for, even after the meeting, seconds may findthemselves vested with the character of a judge,and the avenging jurors of a victim, if one ofthe parties has transgressed the adopted ruleswhich were to regulate the combat.

A second may be considered as the confessorof his friend, who places an implicit reliance onhis advice; he therefore can never divulge thecommunications thus made to him. There areinstances where an offended person will urge hissecond to insist upon a hostile meeting; and notunfrequently the principal may express a wishto avoid the dangers of the conflict, providedhis honour is not at stake. If such proposalsdo not coincide with the second’s ideas of honour,he should withdraw; but never divulge the secrets295of the friend who unbosomed himself in confidence,and avowed sentiments of revenge, hatred,or perhaps pusillanimity.

While the second has the right to differ inopinion with the friend who consults him, theoffended person has also the unquestionable rightto thank him for his advice, which his feelingsprompt him to decline. It is therefore obviousthat it is the duty of a second to weigh mostmaturely the nature of the case, and to advisehis friend to adopt the same mode of proceedingwhich he himself would follow under similarcirc*mstances.

Frequently an apology is offered by a second.If it is considered of a satisfactory nature, nodisinclination should be manifested in acceptingit. This, however, should not be considered arule; since, in many cases, troublesome personswill wantonly offend, under the impression thatan apology will be sufficient to exempt them fromfurther responsibility.

It should be an established rule amongst seconds,never to allow a duel to be fought betweena debtor and creditor when the formeris the aggressor; and, in a quarrel arising frompecuniary affairs, the debtor must liquidate hisobligations before he can be allowed to peril hiscreditor’s life. On these occasions the secondsmust state in writing their objections to the duel,296to protect the character of the parties; the caseis different if it is the creditor who challengesthe debtor.

Seconds should never allow their friends tofight with a fencing-master, unless the latterhas been struck by the aggressor. With fencing-mastersthe pistol must be the chosen weapon.

Instances are known where the principals haveexpressed a desire to load their own pistols;in such cases, when both parties have accededto the request, they are to prime and loadin the presence of the seconds of their adversaries,and the charge of powder is to be determined.

It has been stated in the regulations, that twoseconds may be considered sufficient in a swordduel, but that four should be present at a duelwith pistol or sabre. The reason of this distinctionarises from the following circ*mstances: incase of a slight wound, which is frequently inflictedby the sword, it is more probable thattwo seconds will come to an amicable arrangementthan four; and that, where there is nominority of opinion, the particulars of the meetingwill more probably be kept secret in theinterests of all parties: moreover, the rules ofa sword meeting are generally known and recognised.With pistol or sabre the case is different,and the mode of fighting varies materially:297it therefore requires that a greater number ofpersons should be present, to bear witness as tothe fairness of the transaction.

In a sword duel it should be stipulated whetherthe parties have a right to turn off theweapon with the left hand; if this permissionis not granted, most unquestionably the actmust not be allowed: but as a combatant maymechanically, nay instinctively, use his left armwithout any dishonourable intention, it wouldbe advisable that this mode of parrying a loungewere permitted to both combatants.

In the selection of arms, it has been said, thata cripple who has struck another person shouldbe obliged to use the weapon which the offendedparty has thought proper to name. This isbut just; the advantage would be on the sideof the cripple, who, unable to use a sword, hasperhaps studied pistol practice; and a man whois able to strike another must be considered ableto hold a sword.31

When one of the parties is wounded, it is theimperative duty of the seconds to stop all furtherhostility; but a combat should only bestopped at the command of the seconds. Instancesare on record where one of the parties298has exclaimed to the other, “You are wounded;”thus throwing him off his guard, and availinghimself of his perturbation to press uponhim. In such cases, if the verbal command ofthe seconds is not sufficient to check the dishonourablecombatant, it is their duty, at all riskand peril, to rush upon him and forcibly disarmhim; and it is therefore desirable that secondsshould be armed.

Now-a-days, seconds rarely provoke each other.Justice and urbanity should be their guides; and,in the event of seconds differing, it is alwaysadvisable to call in an arbiter, who should ingeneral be selected from amongst experienced andelderly military men.

It is of great importance that seconds shouldinsist on a simultaneous fire. A duellist makesthe following calculation:—If I fire first, and killor severely wound my antagonist, I am rid ofhim: if I have been unfortunate in the selectionof arms, my antagonist very probably, frommotives of generosity, will not return the fire;for when a man knows that he is safe, and thathis fire, if it missed, would only expose him tofurther danger, he will frequently be inclined toterminate the affair; while, at the same time, agenerous and brave man feels a natural repugnancein firing at a defenceless person, and willtherefore feel disposed to fire in the air, or,what is more conclusive, give up his pistol to299his second, and he experiences a sense of gratificationin so doing, whether he is the aggressoror the offended party. But although these generoussentiments, or these prudential motives,may induce a principal not to return a fire if hisantagonist has fired before the signal, the latterbecomes a criminal, and the seconds are in dutybound to prosecute him; since it has been alreadystated, that, if one of the parties fire beforethe appointed signal, his adversary has theunquestionable right to take a deliberate aimand blow his brains out. In such cases of dishonourablebreach of the stipulated arrangements,it would be desirable that the jury should beguided by an established code, whether the treacherouscombatant was successful or not in theperfidious attempt to assassinate his opponent.

The duties of a second are of such vital importance,that a celebrated fencing-master usedfrequently to say, “It is not the sword or thepistol that kills, but the seconds.”

With the safeguard of these precautionaryregulations, although duelling is alike inconsistentwith humanity and reason, there are manyFrench writers who still advocate its necessity;such is Jules Janin, who speaks of it in the followingterms: “The man is lost in the worldof cravens, who has not the heart to risk hislife; for then, cowards, who are numberless,affect courage at his expense. The man is lost300in this world, in which opinion is everything,who will not seek to obtain a good opinion atthe sword’s point. The man is lost in this worldof hypocrites and calumniators, who will not demandreparation sword in hand for the calumniesand the malicious reports to which he hasbeen exposed. Slander stabs more keenly thansteel; it crushes with greater certainty than apistol bullet. I would not wish to live twenty-fourhours in society, constituted as it is atpresent, without the protection of the duel.

“A duel makes of every one of us a strongand an independent power, and constitutes outof each individual life the life of all; it graspsthe sword of justice, which the laws have dropped,punishing what no code can chastise,—contemptand insult. Those who have opposedduelling are either fools or cowards; and thosewho have both condemned and advocated thepractice, are on both sides sophists and mendacious.It is to duelling alone that we owethe remains of our civilization.”

The following are the opinions of Walsh onthe same subject: “In questions which appertainto our habits and customs, more wisdomwill be found in the drawing-room than inschools. The hand that can best hold a swordwill often be found to handle the pen with equalability when the terrible question of the point301of honour and the duel is discussed, a questionwhich has cost France as much ink as blood.

“The honour of a gentleman tells him thathe cannot expect from a martial race a patienceand endurance under insult which is foreignto its character. The French will ever referto the sword as to their origin. When theexecutioner stands behind their adversary, theyare excited instead of being restrained, and darea double death. If we maturely weigh thismatter, will it not be found that a duel is thelast vestige of that personal magistracy whichsocial magistracy gradually destroyed, but whichit is sometimes called upon to acknowledge?Duelling, so deplorable in many points of view,has however been useful to our epoch; sinceit has preserved civilization from the inroadsof brutal vulgarity with which it was threatenedduring our revolution, and the confusionof all grades. Let us appeal to our conscience;and can we affirm that pugilism would not havebeen introduced into our senate, had not duelling,as master of the ceremonies of civilization,protected it from brutality?”

Chatelain’s remarks on this subject are alsoworthy of quotation: “It is a long time sincethe controversy on duelling was exhausted: allthat has as yet resulted from the discussionis, that its adversaries have triumphantly demonstrated302the barbarity of the custom; nevertheless,duelling has not been discontinued, buthas, as in former times, exercised its fatal influence,and levied from society an annual tributeof blood and tears. Philosophy has exertedits best endeavours, and has triumphedin the presence of reason; but receded beforethe tyranny of prejudice, and the tenacity ofcustom. What resources, then, are left to thosewho would still strive in the cause of humanityto exert themselves further? The coercive influenceof the law has been found as ineffectualas the persuasive power of reason; how, then,shall we stem the tide of opinion? For threecenturies, legislation and philosophy have beenunsuccessful; therefore, since we must submitto an irresistible evil, let us seek to limit itssphere of action. Let us trace rules which shallnot be infringed, and define the exigences ofthe point of honour, by warning sensible menagainst an exaggeration of susceptibility, andby determining on invariable rules the dutiesof seconds, whose inexperience on these occasionsmay become so fatal, but whose wisdomand firmness may in many cases prevent themost calamitous results.”303

CHAPTER XVII.

DUELS IN ITALY.

In the commencement of this work I haveendeavoured to show that the practice of duellingwas unknown amongst the ancient Romans;for although, as I have observed, various combatshave been recorded between individuals who hadstepped out of the ranks of their army to sustainthe honour of their country, yet they cannot beconsidered in the light of duels, as no privateresentment or personal wrongs had to be gratifiedor revenged. Such were the combats ofManlius Torquatus and Valerius Corvinus.

It was after the irruption of the northernbarbarians that these savage hordes, after puttingto the sword as many victims as they could immolate,turned against each other their blood-stainedarms; and historians relate that, after thefailure of the Goths in their attack upon Romein 405, upwards of thirty thousand of thesebarbarians destroyed each other on their retreat.It was after the progress of Christianity amongstthese fierce invaders that these scenes of murder304gradually ceased to prevail, as appears by thefollowing letter of Theodoric to the rude tribes ofHungary.

“It is against the common enemy that youshould display your valour, and not against eachother. A slight difference between you shouldnot lead you to such an extremity; but confidein that justice which constitutes the joy and thetranquillity of the world. Why have recourse toduels, when public officers are not venal, and thejudges in my dominions are incorruptible? Laydown your arms, since you have no enemies tocontend with. You commit a crime in raisingyour weapons against relations for whom youshould be proud to perish. And why use anarmed hand, when you have a tongue to pleadyour cause? Imitate the Goths, who know howto conquer the foreigner, but who cultivate moderationand peace amongst themselves.”

That this injunction was rendered necessary bythe ferocity of the tribes to whom it was addressed,appears evident from a manuscript lately discoveredat Cassel in Westphalia, in which was afragment of a poem, describing a duel betweena father and a son under the reign of Theodoric.

Notwithstanding the wise enactments of thisprince, during the wars of extermination thatfollowed his reign these lamentable excesses wererenewed in all their horror; and in the annalsof the Lombards we find numerous traces of the305prevalence of duelling, both in Cisalpine Gauland in Germany. According to the laws ofRotharis, single combat was admitted as legalproof; and when a man had held the propertyof another for five years, the latter could onlyclaim its restitution by a duel; and in litigationamongst women, they had the privilege of naminga champion to dispute their rights.

One of the most celebrated duels of that countrytook place in 626, to maintain the innocenceof Queen Gundeberge, wife of Kharoald, Kingof Lombardy, which I have already related.

In 668, Grimoald made some alteration in thelaws of Rotharis; but confirmed the right ofwomen accused of an adulterous intercourse toappoint a champion to defend their fame. In713, Luitprand confirmed the laws, but abrogatedthat part of them which confiscated the propertyof the vanquished. The language of his edictshowed clearly that it was issued with repugnance:—“Weare not convinced of the justiceof what is called the judgement of God, sincewe have found that many innocent persons haveperished in defending a good cause; but thiscustom is of such antiquity amongst the Lombards,that we cannot abolish it, notwithstandingits impiety.”

Charlemagne, who succeeded to the crown ofLombardy in 774, exerted himself, both in Franceand Italy, to put an end to, or at least to check306the practice; and it was chiefly from the Italiannobility that he met with opposition. In manyinstances we find the chivalrous spirit of the daynobly exerted to repress depredations. In 807we read of a duel between a French knight-errant,De Medicis, and a bandit named Mugel,who had ravaged a district of the Florentinestate, which has ever since been called Mugello.

When the Othos governed the Italian dominions,it was at the urgent request of theItalian nobility, that Otho II, in an assemblyat Verona in 988, re-established the practice ofduelling in all its vigour, not even exemptingfrom the obligation the clergy, or women; andwhile personal combat had to decide betweenthe guilty and the innocent, trials by ordeal,similar to those already detailed, were constantlyresorted to. George Acropolites relates the caseof an Italian archbishop, who recommended oneof his deacons to submit to the trial by fire; tothis the priest did not object, provided the red-hotiron was handed to him by his diocesan, whothen thought it advisable to decline the ordeal onthe plea that it was sinful to tempt God.

The progress of civilization in the rude mannersof the times, which resulted from the discoveryof the pandects at Amalfi, did not provesufficiently powerful to check this ancient practice;and we find Charles Tocco, a celebratedNeapolitan professor, maintaining that the practice307of duelling ought to be kept up, howevercondemnable in principle.

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries,the Italian press teemed with works onthe noble nature of the science of duelling,which was held out to the admiration of theworld in the most elegant language, althoughin the eleventh century the establishment ofmunicipal corporations materially checked thesechivalric excesses. It was in the thirteenthcentury that we see Mainfroi, natural son ofFrederic II, murdering the Emperor Conrad, andkilled in turn by Charles d’Anjou, who usurpedthe throne of Conradin, a young prince whomwe find casting his gauntlet to defy the usurper,who ordered his head to be struck off in a publicsquare at Naples. A knight had the boldness totake up the gauntlet, and carried it to Peter III,King of Arragon, who avenged the death ofConradin by the massacre of the Sicilian vespers,while he renewed the challenge of the ill-fatedprince, and defied Charles d’Anjou, although sixtyyears old, to single combat: a challenge whichwas accepted, notwithstanding the King of Arragonwas only forty years of age. The personalconflict, however, was avoided in the followingmanner:—Peter sent a message to Charles, tosettle the point with each other at the head of ahundred chosen knights. Charles, despite the injunctionsof the Pope, rashly accepted the proposal,308and our Edward I. appointed the field atBordeaux, the day being fixed on the 1st of July1282. Trusting to the faith of Peter, Charlesraised the siege of Messina. The Pope fulminatedhis anathema from the Vatican, and excommunicatedthe Arragonese prince, who, however,treated his wrath with sovereign contempt. Theday of the meeting, Charles, faithful to his engagement,entered the field at the head of hishundred knights, and remained there from sun-riseto sunset, awaiting his adversary, who did notmake his appearance until Charles had retired,when, with true Spanish rodomontade, he gallopedand curveted over the field, and declaredthat he had not found his craven antagonist.

It had been stipulated, that the defaulter inthis meeting should be branded with the nameof traitor, and declared perjured, cowardly, andeternally infamous, worthless of all regal title orhonour, and condemned for ever after to bemerely followed by a humble menial.

It appears that Charles came to the lists withhis uncle, Philippe le Hardi, King of France;and it is to this circ*mstance that the conductof the King of Arragon was attributed. A paperwar between the two princes followed; and, asboth treated their adversaries as cravens, the meritsof the cause were never fairly determined; whilethe learned Alciat declared, Dubitatum fuit utriuscausa esset justior.309

From that period arose the endless differencesbetween the houses of Anjou and Arragon, regardingthe succession to the Neapolitan crown.The Arragonese having carried their point, CharlesVIII. of France, towards the latter end of thefifteenth century, as heir to Louis XI, renewedthe contest, and involved his successors in ruinouswars.

Louis I, head of the second house of Anjou,was duped in 1382 in the same manner as hispredecessor Charles, by Charles III, a challengehaving been mutually accepted,—in which caseboth parties upbraided each other with falsehood.Louis appeared at the camp, when Charles attackedhis army by surprise, and Louis, severelywounded in the treacherous conflict, shortly afterdied.

Naples, at this period, was the theatre ofduelling; its practice became a science regularlyprofessed by celebrated teachers, as theScienza Cavalleresca, and Alberic Balbiano, constableof Naples, instituted a military order, underthe patronage of St. George, for the duemaintenance of this honourable pursuit. Theknights of this noble institution wandered aboutthe country plundering and pillaging, but everready to give satisfaction to all who consideredthemselves aggrieved. The accollade of knighthoodwas accompanied by the following injunction:—“Thestroke of this sword is the last that310you shall patiently submit to.” In the practiceof this science, dexterity and cunning cuts andthrusts became accomplishments, and disarmingan adversary a high feat of honour, since itafforded the right to kill the disarmed championwithout further resistance or trouble.

Soon after, the bloody disputes between theGuelphs and the Ghibelins afforded numerous opportunitiesfor personal rencontres, when the partiesdid not meet in battle array; but it is manifest,that at all times Italian duels were attendedwith circ*mstances of ferocity and treachery;and to avoid publicity, these meetings frequentlytook place behind hedges and ditches, and inwoods and solitary places; hence the practicewas called combatere à la mazza.

It appears that the practice bringing inseconds and witnesses, who were to share thedangers of the principals, originated in Italy.Brantôme relates the story of a Neapolitan gentlemanwho, being called out, killed his antagonist;he was about leaving the field, when thesecond of the deceased stopped him, and observedthat he could not allow him to departuntil he had avenged his fallen friend. To thisproposal the gentleman very politely acceded, andkilled him. Another witness then stepped forward,and with much courtesy said, that if hedid not feel himself tired, he would be delightedto have a share in the honour; and proposed, if311fatigued, to postpone the meeting until the followingday. The gentleman was too urbane todisappoint him, and replied, that he did not feelin the least tired; and as he was warm, and hishand in, they might as well lose no time ingratifying his fancy; in a few lounges the amateur’scorpse was stretched by the side of his twodeparted friends.

Brantôme makes the following remarks onthis practice:—“I have heard much talk on thismatter, and have been informed by great Italiancaptains, that they were the founders of thesefights and their punctilios, which were wellknown theoretically and practically. The Spaniardsresemble them, but are not so proficientin the art, which now-a-days our Frenchmenpractise in perfection. The Italians are a littlemore cool and advised in this business than weare, and somewhat more cruel. They have givenas an instruction to those who feel disposed togrant or to spare their adversary’s life, the gloriousopportunity of showing their generosity,by maiming their fallen foe, both in his legsand arms, and moreover giving him a desperatecut across the nose and face, to remind him oftheir condescension and humanity.”

Most of the celebrated fencing-masters wereItalians; and Brantôme states, that Jarnac, previousto his fatal duel with La Chastaigneraye,had taken lessons from an Italian captain, named312Caise, who had taught him the hamstring cut.These professors, it appears, were not very particularin regard to the means employed to killtheir man, which they recommended to be donein ogni modo. Our pugnacious historian fartherrelates that, when he was at Milan, he tookfencing lessons for a month, under a celebratedmaster, named Trappe; and during this periodnot a day passed but he witnessed at least twentyquadrilles of persons fighting in the streets, andleaving the dead bodies of their adversaries onthe pavement. There were numerous bravoeswho let themselves out to hire, to fight for thosewho did not feel disposed to risk their own lives.The same practice prevailed in Spain. This modeof fighting constituted the famed Vendetta; andthe hired combatants were called Bandeleri.

The practice of these scientific assassins appearsto have been singular; and we find Lampugnano,previous to his murdering Galeas Maria Sforza,getting a portrait of his victim painted, and exercisinghimself in stabbing it in various parts,until he found himself sufficiently dexterous tokill him in church with seven mortal stabs.

In 1528, four Florentines fought in presenceof the Prince of Orange, when one of the combatantssummoned his antagonist whom he hadoverthrown to surrender; but the prostrate championexclaimed, “I surrender to the Prince!”“There is no other prince here but myself,” replied313his adversary; and with a dagger at histhroat he compelled him to submit.

In the expedition of the Duke de Guise, in1557, under Henri II, a duel was fought atFerrara, in presence of the Duke Hercules d’Este,and his brother the cardinal, in a hall of thepalace, which was lighted up with torches onthe occasion.

The Prince of Melfe Caraccioli, who commandedthe forces of Francis I. from 1545 to1550, issued many orders to check the practiceof duelling: one of them was to compel duelliststo fight upon the parapet of the bridge of Turin,so that the combatant who lost his equilibrium,ran a fair chance of being drowned.

The Italian princes not unfrequently were engagedin murderous quarrels, although it is relatedof Humbert II, the dauphin of Viennois,that on receiving a challenge from Amédée,Count of Savoy, he sent the following replyto his herald:—“My friend, tell your master,that the virtues of a prince do not lie in corporealstrength; but that if he is desirous ofdisplaying his prowess, I have not a bull in mypossession that is not stronger than he is; if hewishes to ascertain the fact, I shall have greatpleasure in sending him one of the fiercest.”

The town of Ostuni, in 1664, was renderedremarkable by one of the most deadly familyfeuds recorded, and an extraordinary duel, in314which every principle of honour was violated.The Count de Conversano, called also Duke dele Noci, of the family of Aquaviva, and thePrince of Francavilla, of that of Imperiali, werethe two most powerful lords in Lower Apulia:the former boasted of his ancient descent and hisnumerous titles, and numbered among his predecessorsa succession of nobles, whose tyrannicaland violent disposition had designated them asa race dreaded by their inferiors, and hated bytheir equals. The Prince of Francavilla wasof Genoese extraction, but his family had beensettled in the kingdom from the time of CharlesV, and he emulated the count in pride, while hesurpassed him in wealth. Their territories joined,and the constant litigations arising out oftheir inordinate and ill-timed jurisdictions werethereby superadded to the long lists of mutualinjuries recorded by both families. Their animositybroke out at Naples, on some triflingoccasion, when they were both in their carriages;and, after a long contest of words, theCount de Conversano challenged the Prince ofFrancavilla to decide their differences by thesword: the latter declined this mode of combatas ill-suited to his age and infirmities, but consentedto a duel if the arms might be exchangedfor pistols. His antagonist, who wasesteemed the best swordsman in the kingdom,insisted on his first proposal, and excited the315prince to accede to it, by striking him repeatedlywith the flat of his sword. An insult sogrossly offered in the public streets, authorizedthe government to check the consequences likelyto arise, by ordering both parties to retire totheir respective estates. A short time after,the Prince of Francavilla, thirsting for a justrevenge, proposed a champion to espouse hiscause in the person of his nephew, the Dukede Martina, of the house of Caraccioli. Thisyoung man was but just returned from histravels, and his education had not been completed;it was therefore agreed, that a yearshould elapse previous to the final settlementof the dispute, and the field of battle was fixedat Ostuni, the jurisdiction of which had beenpreviously claimed and disputed by both noblemen.The eyes of the whole kingdom weredirected with anxious and fearful expectationtowards this spot; but the wishes of the majoritywere in favour of the Duke de Martina,whose youth, accomplishments, and amiabledisposition, called forth the interest of allranks. His uncle, actuated more by fear of theshame attendant on defeat, than by feelings ofaffection for his relative, endeavoured to ensuresuccess by the following stratagem:—A gentlemanwho had been for some time, as was thecustom in those days, a retainer in his family,left it abruptly one night, and repaired to the316Count de Conversano’s castle, into which hegained admission by a recital of injurious treatmentand fictitious wrongs heaped upon himby the tyrannical and arbitrary temper of thePrince de Francavilla. A complaint of thisnature was always a recommendation to thecount’s favour and good graces; and he notonly admitted the gentleman into the full enjoymentof his princely hospitality, but havingfound that he was an experienced and dexterousswordsman, passed most of his time in practisingwith him that art which he hoped wouldsoon ensure his triumph over his youthful adversary.

A few days previous to the one fixed for theduel, the guest, under pretence of paying a visitto his relatives, withdrew from the Count ofConversano’s castle, and secretly returned to hisformer lord, where he lost no time in communicatingto his nephew all the peculiarities andadvantages repeated experience had enabled himto remark in the count’s manner of fencing. TheDuke de Martina was thereby taught that theonly chance of success which he could look to,was by keeping on the defensive during the earlypart of the combat: he was instructed, thathis antagonist, though avowedly the most ableswordsman in the kingdom, was extremely violent;and that, if his first passes could be parried,his person, somewhat inclined to corpulency,317would speedily be exhausted from theeffects of his impetuosity. The Duke de Martina,furnished with this important advice, andstrong in the conviction of what he considereda just cause, waited in calm anxiety the day ofbattle; and the behaviour of the two combatantson the last morning strongly characterizedtheir different dispositions, as well as the mannersand habits of the age they lived in. Theduke made his will, confessed himself, and tookan affectionate leave of his mother, who retiredto her oratory to pass in prayer the time devotedto the conflict, while the Count Conversanoordered a sumptuous feast to be prepared,and invited his friends and retainers after thefight. He then carelessly bade his wife farewell;and, brutally alluding to his adversary’syouth and inexperience, remarked, “Vado a farun capretto,”—“I am going to kill a kid.”

The parties met at the place appointed. Itwas an open space, before a monastery of friars,at Ostuni; but these good fathers, by their intercessionsand prayers, prevailed upon the combatantsto remove to another similar spot ofground, in front of the Capuchin convent, inthe same town. Here the bishop and clergy,carrying the host in solemn procession, attemptedin vain to dissuade them from their bloody purpose;they were dismissed with scorn, and theduel began.318

The conflict was of long duration, and affordedthe duke an opportunity of availing himself ofthe counsels he had received: when he found thecount began to be out of breath, and off his guard,he assumed the offensive, and, having woundedhim, demanded if he was satisfied, and proposedto desist from any further hostility; but,stung to the soul by this unexpected reverse,he proudly rejected all offers of accommodation;actuated by blind revenge and redoubled animosityhe soon lost all command of himself, andreceived a second wound, which terminated thecontest together with his life.

It appeared afterwards that the Prince de Francavilla,whose principles were as little honourableas those of his adversary, and whose thirst of revengewas no less insatiable, had appointed aband of bravoes to waylay and murder him onhis way home, had he been victorious.

When Marshal de Crequi carried the Fort desBarreaux, commanded by Philippin, natural brotherof the Duke of Savoy, the latter escapedwith great difficulty, by exchanging his dressfor the uniform of a common soldier, with whomhe left a lady’s scarf which he had worn. Thefollowing day, a truce having been demandedto bury the dead, Crequi sent word by theofficer who bore it, to advise Philippin to bemore careful for the future of his lady’s gifts;upon which Philippin sent a challenge to the319French general, which he accepted, but his adversarywas prevented from attending the meetingby the duke his brother. The followingyear, Crequi having been made a prisoner, thechallenge was renewed, when Philippin waswounded in the thigh. The Duke of Savoy,offended at the thought that his brother shouldowe his life to Crequi’s forbearance, insistedupon another meeting, in which Philippin waskilled, or, to use the expressive language ofD’Audiguier, “Crequi ran him through thebody, and stitched him to the ground.” Crequi’sfriends exclaimed, “Kill him! kill him!” whilePhilippin’s second begged for his life, whichCrequi would only grant at his own supplication;this, however, was a difficult matter, as the unfortunateman was already dead.

Not only were the duels in Italy remarkablefor the treacherous acts of its combatants, butsimilar breaches of good faith and honour wereobserved in their tournaments and passages ofarms. In one instance a tournament took placebetween twelve Frenchmen and twelve Italians,in which many of the latter were dismounted,when they crept in between the other champions,and with their stilettoes stabbed the horses ofthe French knights. This perfidious conduct isrelated by Guicciardin.

Beccaria accounts for the frequency of duellingin Italy on the following grounds:—“It320was owing to the necessity of the good opinionof others, that single combat was resorted to duringa state of legal anarchy. It was in vain thatthis practice was forbidden under pain of death;it was found impossible to check a custom foundedupon sentiments which were considered dearerthan life. Why do not the lower classes of societyimitate the conduct of their superiors?Simply because they stand in less need of theesteem of others, than those who, from theirposition, are subject to more suspicion and distrust.”

Filangieri follows up the argument, by maintaining,that in a duel, it is a dolo (a ruse) onthe part of the aggressor, and a fault on the partof the offended, if he kills or injures his enemy,as very probably he might have avoided such acatastrophe; the offended party has only committeda fault, since he was compelled to fightby public opinion: it is, therefore, only thosewho have violated the established laws of duelling,who can be considered as guilty of assassination.The sophistry of this doctrine is worsethan absurd.

The history of Italy shows us, that Beccaria’sopinions on the subject were not exactly correct,for, while the upper classes challenged each other tosingle combat, we find other grades of society, evenartists, avenging their wrongs with the stiletto.From this charge, we must, however, exonerate321Michael Angelo Caravaggio, who, to avenge theinsult offered to him by Arpino, who had presumedto criticise some of his productions, senthim a challenge, which was rejected on the pleaof disparity of condition; when our artist, toqualify himself for future occasions of the kind,went over to Malta and got himself dubbed aknight. With this distinction, it appears thathe sought endless quarrels, was obliged to flyfrom Malta, and killed a critic in Rome, finallyending his days in abject poverty on the high-road.

It may be easily imagined that, from the constantrevolutions to which Italy was exposed,the clashing interests and consequent altercationsamongst its petty principalities, and thelong-protracted wars the country had to wageagainst France and Spain, disputes and sanguinaryfrays must have been very frequent,and that, from the want of power, treacherywas often resorted to. Convulsed by intestinediscord, exposed to foreign hostility, suspectingthe good faith of their allies, and oppressed bytheir various masters,—intrigue among the Italiansbecame indispensable, and assassination wassafer than open vengeance. We need not, therefore,be surprised that the policy of Machiavelshould have been considered a national code;and in these weak states, we find that the stilettowas the weapon of diplomacy, as well as322of popular animosity. In the cabinet, assassinationbecame a science, in the streets it was anart; and more elaborate works have been writtenon duels, satisfaction of wounded honour, and thevarious qualifications of murder, by Italians, thanby the natives of any other country.32 There doesnot exist a more consuming and ardent passion,than an impotent thirst of revenge for injuriesinflicted by those whose power we dread, andwhose position is such as to place them beyondthe reach of legal pursuit and of justice. Assassinationin such a state of society becomes anatural impulse, when the wrongs of power drivethe weak and the helpless to actual madness.It is therefore unfair to stigmatize a nationwith the brand of cowardice, from the prevalenceof this blood-thirsty practice. It is simplythe result of a bad government, corruptednobility, and a culpable or inefficient magistracy,when crimes may be considered as an unavoidablecatenation between causes and effects;and there can be no doubt that the prevalenceof duelling and gambling amongst the great,and of thieving amongst the lower orders, willlead to assassination.

In viewing the nature of the governments inthe various states of Italy, it may not be uninteresting323to discover in which of them thepractice of duelling was most general. In theRoman states they were rare; at Naples muchmore frequent. In Piedmont and Savoy personalmeetings were seldom heard of, more especiallysince the French occupation; previously towhich, the professors and students at the universitieswere in the habit of wearing swords.Yet hostile meetings occasionally take placeamongst the military, engendered by disputesat balls and by love matters. The same may besaid of Sardinia, where duelling is confined tothe troops, and an officer is placed in a situationsomewhat similar to that of our own army.If he is insulted, and does not demand satisfaction,he is expelled by his corps; and, if hefights, he is sentenced to an imprisonment ofthree or six months in a fort called the Fenestrellas.In Corsica a bloody spirit of vengeanceis generally prevalent, and gave rise to thatsystem of murder called the vendetta, which isfrequently resorted to amongst its savage mountaineers.In these desperate excesses whole familiesand clans indulged, and regular challengeswere interchanged. These hostile declarationswere followed by every kind of atrociousacts; and constant ambuscades, combats, burningof houses, destruction of property, andslaughter even of infants, were incessantly disturbingthe public peace. These intestine broils324were only terminated by treaties of peace betweenthe parties, regularly drawn out, and registeredin the archives of Ajaccio.

These excesses, at the present time, are lessfrequently committed; but private feuds arestill decided by assassination, when the murderergenerally escapes by taking to the woodsand mountains, and there proscribed, he is calleda bandetto. When taken and condemned, nationalprejudice absolves him from punishmentas an honorato. In such a ferocious state ofsociety duelling is a practice unknown; andthe man who would assassinate his enemy withoutremorse, would scorn to commit a theft. Itis in vain that courts of justice have endeavouredto check these barbarous deeds; in a late caseof vendetta, the murderer having been acquitted,the son of the deceased, who was a magistrate,exclaimed, “The jury have acquitted thee, butI condemn thee to death.” It is needless toadd, that the sentence was soon carried intoexecution.

Italian customs prevailed in the island of Malta,and duels were frequent amongst the knightsof that order, although prohibited by most ofthe grand masters. The Strada Stretta was thespot in which these meetings usually took place,and the friends of the combatants, stationed ateach end of the narrow lane, prevented themfrom being disturbed. Assassinations at one time325were so frequent in this quarter, that an edictwas issued, denouncing the penalty of death onevery person who was found in it armed withpistols or daggers. But, by a singular regulationof the order, every person was obliged toreturn his sword into the scabbard when orderedto do so by a woman, a priest, or a knight.A cross was usually painted on the wall, oppositethe spot where a knight had been killed,to commemorate his fall, and claim the prayersof those who passed by, to relieve his soul frompurgatory.

Although the statutes of the order of St. Johnof Jerusalem prohibited duels, yet a knight wasconsidered disgraced if he refused to accept achallenge. A case is recorded of two knights,who having had a dispute at a billiard-table,one of them, after much abusive language,struck a blow; but, to the surprise of all Malta,after so gross a provocation, refused to fight hisantagonist. The challenge was repeated, butstill he refused to enter the lists. He wastherefore condemned by the chapter to makean amende honorable in the church of St. Johnfor forty-five successive days, then to be confinedin a dungeon without light for five years;after which he was to remain a prisoner in thecastle for life.

A very curious duel took place at Valetta betweena Spanish commander, of the name of326Vasconcellos, and a French commander, M. deFoulquerre, the latter having had the insolenceto present some holy water to a young lady enteringa church, whom the Castilian was following.Foulquerre was one of the most noteddisturbers of the Strada Stretta; and, althoughhe had been engaged in many duels, on this occasionhe repaired to the rendezvous with somereluctance, as though he anticipated the result ofthe meeting. As soon as his adversary appeared,he said, “What, sir, do you draw your swordupon a Good Friday! Hear me:—it is now sixyears since I have confessed my manifold sins, andmy conscience reproaches me so keenly, that inthree days hence——.” But the Spaniard wouldnot attend to his request, and pressed upon him;when his opponent, mortally wounded, exclaimed,“What! on a Good Friday! May Heavenforgive you! Bear my sword to Tête Foulques,and let a hundred masses be said for the reposeof my soul, in the chapel of the castle.”

The Spaniard paid no attention to the dyingman’s request, and reported the circ*mstance tothe chapter of the order, according to the prescribedrules; nevertheless he was promoted tothe priory of Majorca. On the night of the followingFriday, he dreamt that he was in theStrada Stretta, where he again heard his enemyenjoin him to “bear his sword to Tête Foulques;”327and a similar vision disturbed his slumbers everysucceeding Friday night.

Vasconcellos did not know where this TêteFoulques was situated, until he learned fromsome French knights, that it was an old castlefour leagues from Poitiers, in the centre of aforest remarkable for strange events; the castlecontaining in its halls many curious collections,amongst which was the armour of the famedknight Foulques Taillefer, with the arms of allthe enemies he had slain in single combat; andfrom time immemorial, it appeared that all hissuccessors deposited in this armoury the weaponswhich they used either in war or in private contests.

Our worthy prior having received this information,determined to obey the injunction ofthe deceased, and set out for Poitiers with thesword of his antagonist. He repaired to thecastle, where he found no one but the porterand the chaplain, and communicated to the latterthe purport of his visit. He was introducedinto the armoury, and on each side of the chimneyhe beheld full-length, portraits of FoulquesTaillefer, and his wife, Isabella de Lusignan.The seneschal was armed cap-a-pié, and overhim were suspended the arms of his vanquishedfoes. The Spaniard, having laid down the sword,proceeded to tell his beads with great devotion328until nightfall, when he fancied that he sawthe eyes and mouths of the seneschal and hiswife in motion; and he distinctly heard theformer addressing his wife, saying, “What dostthou think, my dear, of the daring of this Castilian,who comes to dwell and eat in my castle,after having killed the commander without allowinghim time to confess his sins?”—to whichthe lady replied in a very shrill voice, “I think,Messir, that the Castilian acted with disloyaltyon that occasion, and should not be allowed todepart without the challenge of your glove.”The terrified Spaniard sought the door of thehall, but found it locked, when the seneschalthrew his heavy iron gauntlet at his face, andbrandished his sword. The Spaniard, thus compelledto defend himself, snatched up the swordthat he had deposited, and falling on his fantasticantagonist, fancied that he had run him throughthe body, when he felt a stab from a burningweapon under the heart, and fainted away.When he recovered from his swoon, he foundhimself in the porter’s lodge, to which he hadbeen carried, but free from any injury. Hereturned to Spain; but ever after, on everyFriday night, he received a similar burningwound from the visionary Taillefer; nor couldany act of devotion, or payment of money tofriars or priests, relieve him from this horriblephantom.329

CHAPTER XVIII.

ON DUELLING IN SPAIN.

Great events frequently arise from triflingcauses; and it is possible, that had Count Julianchallenged the Goth Roderic for having dishonouredhis daughter, instead of requesting theaid of the Moors, Spain would not have beenfor eight centuries under the yoke of the infidels.At this period of the peninsular historyduelling was unknown, although it is to theArabs that some writers have attributed the institutionof chivalry; and, most unquestionably,the poem of Antar may be considered a recitalof chivalric deeds and adventures, as romanticas any record of knight-errantry or tournament.This curious work was the production of Asmaïthe grammarian, reader to the famed Kalif Aroun-al-Raschid,and appears to have been writtenabout the year 800. The hero of this romancealways fights on horseback; his steed isnamed Abjer, his resistless sword Dhamy; andthe loves of Khaled and Djaïda are certainlyas whimsical and adventurous as those of any330couple in the palmy days of chivalry. It is morethan probable that many more chivalric taleswould have been found amongst the Moors, hadnot Cardinal Ximenes ordered all their religiousworks to be burnt, after the taking of Cordova,when the soldiery destroyed every MS. theycould find. Few of these valuable documentswere preserved; and those that are now in theEscurial relate chiefly to grammar, astrology,and theology. Florian has given the followingopinion of the Moors:—“A gallantry, delicateand refined, rendered the Moors of Grenada celebratedover Europe, and formed a strange contrastwith the natural ferocity of the Africanraces. These Mussulmans, who in the battleprided themselves on their dexterity in cuttingoff heads, which they suspended at their saddle-bows,to exhibit them afterwards at the gatesof their palaces, were the most tender, impassioned,and devoted lovers. Their wives, althoughin a servile condition, became absolutesovereigns when they were beloved. It wasto please them that they sought for glory, andexposed their lives, rivalling each other in themagnificence of their festivals and their deedsof valour. Was this strange anomaly of mildnessand ferocity, of delicate feelings and cruelty,transmitted from the Spaniards to the Moors,or did the former imbibe these mingled sentimentsfrom their infidel invaders? This is uncertain:331one can only remark, that such a mixedcharacter was unknown in Asia, the birth-placeof these Arabs, and is still less observed in Africa,where their conquests naturalized them. Fromthis circ*mstance I am disposed to think that itwas due to the Spaniards. In fact, subsequent tothe Moorish invasion, the court of the Kings ofthe Goths exhibited various instances of this disposition.After this period, we see the knightsof Leon, of Navarre, and of Castile, as renownedfor the ardour of their love, as for theirdeeds of arms; and the name of the Cid mustrecall vivid recollections of tenderness and ofvalour.”

The celebrated combat between four Spanishknights and four Arabs of the tribe of Zegris,the implacable foes of the Abencerrages, has beenthe subject both of poetical fiction and historicalrecord. This meeting was to vindicate thehonour of the Sultana Zoraide, accused by theZegris of an adulterous intercourse with AbenHamet. The indignant husband had decapitatedthe offender, and exiled the Abencerrages. Zoraidewas condemned to the stake, unless somechampion came forward to maintain her innocence.Juan Chacon, of Carthagena, answeredthe appeal of honour, and, accompanied by threeother knights, appeared in the square of Grenadain front of the Alhambra, and in presence of thewhole court. The beautiful princess was covered332with a black veil, and placed on a scaffold, roundwhich were heaped the fa*ggots that were toconsume her, in the event of her champions beingconquered; but they, fortunately for her,overthrew their infidel antagonists, and provedher innocence.

In 1491 a young Spaniard fought and killeda Moor, when Ferdinand, as a reward of hisvalour, authorised him to bear as his mottothe letters of the Ave Maria; and RodericTelles, grand master of Calatrava, was renownedfor his many combats with the infidels. Theannals of Spanish valour abound with instancesof duelling, which was sanctioned and even encouragedby various laws, more especially in Castileand Aragon.

It appears that in 1165 the King and councilof Aragon abolished the practice; yet, in1519, we find it to have been so frequent, thatCharles V. issued an edict to forbid it. Norcan we be surprised at the state of barbarismin which Spain was involved: the continued incursionsof the Moors, the undisciplined stateof the troops, without pay or provisions, andthe incessant feuds, not only between the noblesand their sovereigns, but amongst each otherand their vassals, must have occasioned constanttumult and discord. Society was not securedby any pact; and rude passions alone dictatedthe actions of these unruly barbarians, for such,333despite their affectation of gallantry, they mustbe called. The unfortunate inhabitants, exposedto these continued depredations, were obligedto incorporate themselves into military bodies,to protect life and property; and we find in1260 they had assembled in a brotherhood, underthe protection of their saints, forming whatwas called the Santa Hermandada, a corps whichgradually dwindled into a paid police force, resemblingthe maréchaussée and gendarmerie ofFrance. The immortal author of Don Quixoteoften refers to this military jurisdiction, whichin reality mainly contributed to put an endto the atrocities that were daily committed;and it was chiefly during the reign of Ferdinandthe Catholic that these excesses were restrained.

Not unfrequently was religion mixed up withthese ferocious broils; and we find the founder ofthe order of the Jesuits, Loyola, offering to fighta Moor who denied the Divinity of the Saviour.In the council of Pennafiel, in 1302, it had beenfound necessary to prohibit challenges being sentto bishops or canons; a prohibition renewed in1669. In Portugal duelling was punished bytransportation to Africa, with confiscation ofgoods and chattels; and in that country duelsto the present day are very rare, and considereda deadly sin. Subjects of dispute are carriedbefore a competent tribunal, and the complaint334is called querelar; when the parties are orderedto enter into security for keeping the peace,and are bound bene vivere. Not long since,when the Portuguese court was at Brazil, theCount Linhares had offended in a ball-roomthe Marquis de Lavradro, who sent him a message;but Linhares having fallen from his horse,the offended party felt satisfied and withdrewthe challenge. Gaston de Camara, since CountPaypa, had offended in a sonnet Castello Branco,son of the Marquis de Bellari: a meeting tookplace, and the poet was wounded; but suchmeetings, both in Spain and Portugal, are veryuncommon. In the late disastrous conflict betweenCarlists and Christinos, the challenge sentby General O’Donnel to the Christino BrigadierLopez was considered a singular event. Thechivalric bombast of this challenge is worthy ofrecord, and highly illustrative of the Spanishcharacter:—

“The cavalry of Don Carlos ardently desiresto measure itself with that of Donna Christina;but, as the results of battles are uncertain fromposition, or from the number of the combatants,let us, chiefs of party, imitate the knights of old,and select an equal number of warriors who, swordin hand, will decide the question by their sheervalour. On my side, I swear upon my honournot to bring into the field a greater number ofcombatants than shall be agreed upon. Trusting335that my enemy will follow my example, I saluteall my numerous friends and former companionswho now serve in the Christino ranks, wishingthem every prosperity, excepting in battle, forI know no enemy save those I meet in thefield.”

This challenge was accepted by the Christinogeneral, who issued the following order of theday:—“I merely wait to know the appointedground, to lead you into the conflict. Deathis a noble reward to all those who feel Spanishblood flowing in their veins; and you will findyour commander at the head of this romanticduel.” It is needless to add, that this gasconadingdid not even end in smoke.

Notwithstanding the barbarous nature of duels,they are rarely resorted to by ferocious nations,who prefer the more certain revenge that assassinationaffords. There is a civilization and anhonourable bearing in a duel, foreign to the Spanishcharacter; and it cannot be expected thatmen capable of murdering women can meet abrave adversary in single combat, governed bythe laws of honour. What can be thought of anation whose generals issued orders to put anysurgeon to death who had been known to dressthe wounds of an enemy? It is painful to reflect,that after the events of June in 1833,the French police issued an order nearly asbarbarous to all medical men, to send in the336names of the wounded they had been calledupon to dress. Frederic the Great had alsoissued an edict in which surgeons were prohibitedfrom attending any person wounded ina duel!337

CHAPTER XIX.

DUELS IN GERMANY AND THE NORTH OF EUROPE.

During the middle ages Germany was desolatedby feuds and hostile meetings, which hadsucceeded the barbarous excesses committed bythe savage hordes poured forth from the northernwoods and fastnesses that sheltered the descendantsof the ancient Scythians and Sarmatians.The Scandinavian traditions of the wonderfuldeeds of their champions may proveinteresting to the lovers of fiction, but theyare of little importance to the historian; for, althoughthe sages of Iceland abolished duellingafter the fatal meeting that took place betweenthe poets Gunnlang and Rafn for the beautifulHelga, in which both lovers fell, the annals ofthe north are fraught with the poetic detailsof numerous single combats and wondrous exploits.

By an ancient law of Sweden, if a man toldanother that he was inferior to any other man,or had not the heart of a man, and the otherreplied, “I am as good a man as yourself,”338a meeting was to follow. If the aggressor cameto the ground, but did not find the offended,the latter was to be considered dishonoured,and held unfit to give testimony in any cause,and deprived moreover of the power to makea will. But if, on the other hand, the insultedparty came forward, and the offending party didnot make his appearance, the former was to callhim aloud by name three times, and, if he didnot appear, make a mark upon the ground,when the offender would be held as infamousand false. When both parties met, and theoffended was killed, his antagonist had to paya half compensation for his death; but, if theaggressor succumbed, his fate was to be attributedto temerity and an unguarded expression,therefore his death called for no compensation.In Norway, any gentleman who refused satisfactionto another was said to have lost hislaw, and could not be admitted as evidence uponoath. According to the Danish laws, it washeld that force is a better arbiter in contestationsthan words; and in the judicial combats,which frequently arose on the slightest provocation,no champion was allowed to fight in thecause of another, however feeble or unskilled inarms he might be: women were not even alloweda proxy to defend them, but obliged todefend their honour personally. In such cases, toafford the woman a better chance, the man who339had offended her was obliged to get into a pit upto his waist, by which means his Amazonian opponentcould wheel round him and strike himon the head with a sling or a leather thong towhich was suspended a heavy stone; the malecombatant was armed with a club, and if hemissed her three times, or struck the ground insteadof her, he was declared to be vanquished.

The Scandinavian combatants frequently selectedsmall islands for their meetings, to preventeither of the parties from fleeing; theseislands were called Holms, and the duels Holms-gang.Sometimes a hide seven ells long wasspread upon the ground; at others, the listswere enclosed by circular stakes, or marked offwith stones, to circ*mscribe their limits: whoeverstepped beyond this barrier, or was beatenout of the circle, was considered conquered. Thekamping matches of our Norfolk and Suffolk peasantryare traces of these exercises, which werecalled kempfs.

In Sweden, gentlemen fighting a duel weresentenced to death, and the memory of thedeceased declared infamous. On other occasions,when the meeting had not proved fatal,the parties were condemned to two years’ imprisonmenton bread and water, and obliged topay a heavy fine.

Under the reign of Gustavus II, a contemporaryof Louis XIII. of France, the fashion340of duelling was at its height; and this monarchhad prohibited single combat by the most severeedicts, but to no purpose. It is related of thisprince, that, having heard that two officers ofhis army contemplated a meeting, he precededthem on the ground. On the arrival of theparties, they were not a little surprised to findthe King: they were about to withdraw, whenGustavus pointed to a gallows, at the foot ofwhich stood the hangman, and added, “Now,gentlemen, you may proceed.”

It is also related of Gustavus Adolphus, thathaving had a dispute at one of his reviews withColonel Seaton, an officer in his service, he gavehim a blow. As soon as the troops were dismissed,the officer waited upon the King anddemanded his discharge, which the sovereignsigned; and the colonel withdrew without aword being said on the subject of the quarrel.

Gustavus, however, on coolly considering thematter, reproached himself for his want of temper;and hearing that Seaton intended to setout for Denmark the next day, followed him,attended by an officer and two or three grooms.When his Majesty reached the Danish frontier,he left all his attendants, except one, and overtakingSeaton on a large plain, said to him,“Dismount, sir. That you have been injured, Iacknowledge, and I am now come to give youthe satisfaction of a gentleman; for, being now341out of my own dominions, Gustavus and you areequal. We have both, I see, swords and pistols;alight immediately, and receive the satisfactionwhich your wounded honour demands.”

Seaton, recovering from his surprise, dismounted,as the King had already done, and fallingon his knees, said “Sire, you have more thangiven me satisfaction, in condescending to makeyourself my equal. God forbid, that my swordshould do any mischief to so brave and graciousa prince. Permit me to return to Stockholm,and allow me the honour to live and die in yourservice.” The King raised him from the ground,embraced him, and they returned together to hiscapital.

The early annals of Germany afford manycurious instances of trials by ordeal; but, perhaps,one of the most romantic was in the caseof Maria of Aragon, consort of Otho III, andthe Messalina of her time. It is related of her,that she generally went abroad with a youthdisguised in female attire, who was afterwardsburied alive. Having become desperately enamouredof a count of Modena, who rejectedher addresses, she accused him with having attemptedto seduce her. The count was allowedto prove his innocence by the trial of battle;but, having been vanquished, was sentenced tolose his head. Prior to his execution he acquaintedhis wife with the particulars of his342unfortunate case, and enjoined her to avengehis death. She, faithful to his last request,took the bloody head, and, placing it under thecloak of one of her followers, proceeded to thecourt; then, presenting the gory head to thesovereign, she demanded justice. Otho, struckwith horror at the appalling sight, asked herwhat she wanted, and of whom she had tocomplain. “Of you, Cæsar,” was her reply;“you behold the result of a most iniquitousdeed, and I am ready to submit myself to theordeal of fire, to prove the innocence of my unfortunatehusband.” The Emperor consented,and a brazier with a red-hot iron bar wasbrought forward. The tradition states that thecountess seized the iron without dismay or injury;when, addressing the Emperor, she demandedhis head, since he had been found guilty ofthe death of an innocent man. The prince, however,as might be expected, demurred at thisproposal, but ordered his guilty wife to be burnedalive; a sentence that was carried into executionat Modena, in 998. The Empress of HenryII, the beautiful Cunegonde, was equally fortunatein handling red-hot bars of iron whenaccused of having been criminally connected withthe devil, who was seen coming out of her bed-chamberevery morning. Baronius, in his EcclesiasticAnnals, asserts that she handled the burningmetal like a nosegay. Gunehilde, wife of343Henry III, and daughter of our Canute, wasalso very lucky in the choice of a championwhen basely accused of infidelity. Her accuserwas a gigantic man of the name of Rodinger;but she selected for her defender a little boy,whom she had brought from England, and whomiraculously cut the hamstrings of his colossalantagonist.

Amongst the curious records of these barbarousand fabulous times, an edict of FrederickII. forbade his nobles from fighting, plunderingtravellers, and circulating base coin, which hadbeen considered a privilege of feodality; and inhis Sicilian and Neapolitan constitution he exemptedhis subjects from the necessity of acceptinga challenge.

In more modern times, various enactments,called duell mandates, have forbidden duels. In1779, one was issued in Bavaria, which punisheda challenge with the loss of office, if the partiesheld a public situation; if otherwise, witha confiscation of property, and an imprisonmentof three years: but, when a duel had actuallytaken place, the parties were condemned to death.

In the Austrian states, by an edict of 1803,a duel is punished by an imprisonment of fromone year to five: if one of the parties is wounded,the confinement is from five to ten years;and, when death ensues, from ten to twenty;and the remains of the deceased are not allowed344sepulture in consecrated ground. The secondsare also subject to an incarceration of from oneto five years. A penal code somewhat similarexists in Prussia.

An anecdote is related of Joseph II, who, havingbeen informed that one of his officers hadslapped the face of another, sent for both parties.The following day, on parade, the Emperor appearedon the balcony of his palace with theoffended person, whom he cordially embraced; atthe same time, a scaffold was erected, on whichthe public executioner slapped the face of the offender,who was afterwards conveyed to a fortress.

The following letter from this monarch, exhibitsthe sentiments he entertained on the practiceof duelling.

“General,

“I desire you to arrest Count K—— andCaptain W—— immediately. The count is ofan imperious character, proud of his birth, andfull of false ideas of honour. Captain W——,who is an old soldier, thinks of settling everythingby the sword or the pistol. He has donewrong in accepting a challenge from the count.I will not suffer the practice of duelling in myarmy; and I despise the arguments of those whoseek to justify it. I have a high esteem forofficers who expose themselves courageously tothe enemy, and who, on all occasions, show themselves345intrepid, valiant, and determined in attackas well as in defence. The indifference withwhich they face death is honourable to themselvesand useful to their country; but there aremen ready to sacrifice everything to a spirit ofrevenge and hatred. I despise them. Such men,in my opinion, are worse than the Roman gladiators.Let a council of war be summoned totry these two officers, with all the impartialitywhich I demand from every judge; and let themost culpable of the two be made an exampleby the rigour of the law. I am resolved thatthis barbarous custom, which is worthy of theage of Tamerlane and Bajazet, and which is sooften fatal to the peace of families, shall be punishedand suppressed, though it should cost mehalf my officers. There will be still left menwho can unite bravery with the duties of faithfulsubjects. I wish for none who do not respectthe laws of the country.

“Joseph.”

“Vienna, August 1771.”

It is related of Charles XII. of Sweden,that, riding out one day, he left his attendantsat some distance; and, coming to a gate,opened it, but neglected to shut it again, accordingto the laws of the country. Theowner of the land, who was an ensign in thearmy, came up, and, not knowing the King, inquiredwhy he did not shut the gate after him,346according to the royal decree; and, as he passed,made use of some uncivil expressions. “Whydo you not go and shut the gate yourself?”said the King. This so enraged the gentleman,that he seized the bridle and stopped thehorse. On this, Charles put his hand on hissword, but the other snatched it from him.The King then drew out a pistol, and threatenedto make him repent his conduct unlesshe immediately returned the sword. “Youwould not be so valiant,” said the officer, “ifI also was provided with a pistol.” “Then goand fetch one,” said the King. The gentlemanimmediately went for a pistol, while Charleswaited his return; but, as he was coming back,he saw the King’s attendants at a little distance,which giving him some suspicion, he made hisretreat.

The ensign acquainted his commanding officerwith the circ*mstance, requesting his interference.A review soon after took place; and, theKing observing that this officer was not present,asked the colonel where he was, when hewas told that he was upon guard. “Let himbe sent for,” said the King. The ensign wasbrought forward. Charles immediately gallopedup to him; then, looking him steadfastly in theface, named him a first lieutenant, and orderedthat a grant of money should be given to him.

The enactments against duelling in the German347armies place officers in as difficult a situationas in our service. If they allow themselvesto be insulted without resenting the injury, theyare expelled from their regiment; yet are theypunished if they demand satisfaction from theoffender: and Dr. Gans of Berlin very justlyobserves, “Duelling amongst officers is veryrare, for their position is most embarrassing. Ifan officer, whose honour has been impeached,does not fight, he is expelled; and, if he fights,he is shut up in a fortress.” Montesquieu, inhis Lettres Persannes, has the following judiciousremark: “If you follow the laws of honour,”writes Usbeck, “you die on a scaffold;and, if you follow the dictates of justice, youare banished from society. Thus you have noalternative but that of forfeiting life or being unworthyof living.”

If duels are rare among German officers, theyare most common amongst their students or Burschen,whose ridiculous meetings have often beendescribed by travellers. The parties who it isthought necessary should fight usually meet atan inn near their university; they are coveredwith a thick leather armour that protects them,and their face is the principal vulnerable part.The arm they use is the long German sword,and the shell of its hilt is an additional protectionto the combatants.

The students at Jena use a sword called Schlagen,348the blade of which is three feet and a halflong, and triangular like a bayonet; the handleis protected by a tin plate, ten inches in diameter,which has been jocosely called the soup-plate ofhonour: this handle, soup-plate, and blade, canall be unscrewed and concealed, the hilt andguard under a cloak, and the blade sheathed ina walking-stick.

By the rules of some universities, called theirComment, the nature of the offence requires acertain number of cuts; twenty-four for the appellationof dummer Junge, or stupid youth, andas many for the epithet infamous. The pistol isscarcely ever selected as a weapon. When perchancea student has killed another, he is advisedto quit the university, receiving from the senatewhat is called a consilium abeundi. This expulsionis called a relegatio, and is published inLatin. In these cases the offender enters anothercollege. At Gottingen the students werelong overawed by a ruffian of the name of Luderf,of great personal strength, and who not unfrequentlylopped off arms and hands with hisTeutonic glaive.

In 1833, the corpse of a Lieutenant-colonel deKeunaw was found in a forest near Dreisen, piercedwith a sword-wound and weltering in blood.It appeared, upon inquiry, that a councillor ofthe name of Von Zahn had asked in marriagethe daughter of a Baron Haller, who at the same349time was courted by a Baron Linsmar, a friendof Von Zahn, who, to rid himself of his rival, hadrecourse to the most diabolical stratagem. Hewas on terms of intimacy with De Keunaw,who was considered a most dexterous swordsman,whereas Linsmar was totally unacquainted withthe use of the weapon. Von Zahn, therefore,exerted himself to foment discord between them,until at last their constant dissensions led to aduel. Von Zahn insisting upon being the secondto his friend, a meeting took place; when, byone of those chances in arms, the inexperiencedcombatant killed his expert antagonist. VonZahn was brought to trial and condemned todeath, and Baron Linsmar to ten years’ imprisonment.The sentence of the former, however, wascommuted into twenty years’ confinement.

In 1834 the German papers gave an accountof a duel of a most romantic nature:—“A BaronTrautmansdorf was paying courtship to the widowof a Polish general, the young Countess LodoiskaR——; he only awaited an appointmentto an embassy to marry her. In the mean timea Baron de Ropp courted the lady, and in asonnet turned his more successful rival into ridicule.The baron immediately sent him a message,which Ropp accepted; but on the groundproposed a champion, who espoused his cause,when Trautmansdorf fell. His second, indignantat this act of treachery, insisted that Ropp350should give him satisfaction. The second wasalso mortally wounded, when it was found outthat Lodoiska herself had accompanied her betrothedin male attire. Ropp, having recognisedher when she fell, felt so deeply the turpitudeof his conduct, that he threw himselfon his own sword, and expired near the bodiesof Lodoiska and her lover.”

Duels are so very rare in Germany, that ahostile meeting that took place at Frankfortin 1834 between two officers, and which provedfatal to one of them, was considered a remarkableevent; and all Vienna was astonished when anoble German sent a challenge to Baron Rothschildfor having refused to lend him money.

Madame de Staël’s observations on duelling inGermany are worthy of remark:—“Germany,if we except some courts anxious to imitatethe manners of the French, was never assailedby that infatuation, immorality, and incredulity,which, since the regency, had changed the naturalcharacter of the French. Feudality stillmaintained in Germany some of its chivalricmaxims: duels occasionally took place, but theywere not so frequent as in France; for the Germansdo not possess the same vivacity and petulanceas the French nation, nor do they partakeof the same notions of courage, public opinionbeing much more severe on the want of probityand fair dealing. If a man had transgressed the351laws of morality, ten duels a day would not haveenabled him to recover the esteem he had forfeited.In France we constantly see persons of distinguishedrank, who, when accused of an improperaction, will say, “It may have been wrong,but no one will dare assert it to my face!” Suchan expression is an evident proof of confirmed depravity;for what would be the condition of society,if it was only requisite to kill one another,to commit with impunity every evil action,—tobreak one’s word and assert a falsehood, providedno one dared tell you that you had lied?

“The spirit of chivalry still reigns amongst theGermans,—but passively. They are incapable ofdeceit, and in every transaction act with loyalty;but that energy which exposed man to so manysacrifices, which exacted from woman so manyvirtues,—the chivalric spirit of olden times,—hasonly left feeble traces in Germany, where nobleactions will only be the result of that liberalimpulse which in Europe has succeeded chivalry.”

Chateaubriand pays a similar compliment tothe German people:—“I love Germany; I admireits domestic virtues and its hospitable manners;its poetic and religious sentiments, and itslove for science. Amongst the Germans we feelthat invincible power that conceals the positivenessof the world and the prosaism of life.”

In Russia duels very rarely took place, a circ*mstancewhich in a great measure may be352attributed to the ferocity of their princes, whonot only saw the penal laws executed, but notunfrequently acted themselves as executioners:a fact illustrated by Peter I, who gave the signalfor the judicial massacre of the revolted Strelitz,his Pretorian guards, by seizing an axe andstriking off the heads of a hundred of his victims.The gross and brutal conduct of the Russianautocrat towards women was imitated by hiscourt and the people; and it can scarcely beexpected that a nice sense of honour can prevailin the minds of men who only punished infidelityby a bastinade inflicted on both the offendingparties, and who usually testified their affectionby submitting the object of their love to theknout,—indeed, the fair sex of Muscovy consideredthis infliction as a gallantry on the partof their husbands; nor could their sense of delicacybe very acute, when we find their Empresskneeling at the shrine of the Virgin andSt. Nicholas, to ask from what company of herguards she was to select her favourite paramour.

The Russian laws against duelling were mostsevere. In the military penal code of Peter I.it was ordered, that whoever provoked another tofight a duel should be hanged, whether the dueltook place or not; that the seconds should sufferthe same punishment, unless they exerted themselvesto prevent the meeting. That in the caseof any dispute, or blow being given, the aggressor353was to ask pardon of the offended party in presenceof the military tribunal; and that whoevershould slap another’s face was to submit to apublic retaliation. In the code of Catherine wefind, in the 234th article, the following view ofthe subject:—“As to duelling, the best mode ofpreventing it is to punish the aggressor, and todeclare the innocence of the man who, withoutany fault of his own, has found himself under thenecessity of avenging his honour.” We also findin an ukase of Catherine the following enactment:—

“Whoever insults or strikes a citizen withan unarmed hand, shall forfeit the amount ofwhatever yearly tax the citizen pays to thestate. Whoever insults or injures the wife orthe daughter of a citizen, shall pay double theamount for the wife, and four times the amountfor the daughter, of the annual tax the fatheror husband pays to the state.”

It was, however, no uncommon practice on thepart of the Czars to strike their officers and attendants.Peter the Great would cane any person,whatever might have been his rank, whohad offended him. Indeed, a blow from an imperialhand was considered an honour: thoughthis was not the case with a French architect,of the name of Le Blond, who, after a caning,took it so much to heart, that he fell ill of afever and died.354

It appears that no prestige of rank couldscreen Russian ladies from the brutal treatmentof their husbands and lovers; and the EmpressCatherine herself was frequently horsewhippedby Gregory Orloff, the most favoured of thefive brothers of that name who shared her smiles.No duels arose among her numerous lovers.Potemkin, playing one day at billiards withAlexis Orloff, a brother-favourite, had some difference,when Orloff struck him on the eye witha cue: the parties were separated; but Alexiscomplained to his brother Gregory, then thegreater favourite, who insisted that Potemkinshould be immediately exiled, a request that theEmpress did not dare refuse; and Potemkin,who had lost an eye in the affray, was banishedto Smolensko. He was recalled, however, ayear afterwards, and he soon avenged himself bybanishing his former rival, whom he succeeded;and shortly after, he ceded her charms toanother lover of the name of Lanskoi. Orlofftravelled, married, and visited the court ofFrance, which he publicly insulted by going toa levee in a common undress suit of clothes; anoffence which was not resented by Choiseul, theFrench minister. Orloff’s wife soon after died,when he returned to St. Petersburgh on thevery night that the Empress was giving a ballin the palace of Tzarco-zelo. He repaired to thefestive hall in deep mourning, and made up to355Catherine, who was leaning on the arm of herfavourite Lanskoi, when he exclaimed with aferocious look, “So, Kalinga, you are still fond ofdancing;—will you waltz with me? You hesitate:does my dress alarm you? Do you know,”he added in a dismal tone of voice, “do youknow that my wife is dead? do you know it?and, if you knew it, how did you dare togive this entertainment?” and, thus saying, heseized a chair and dashed it to pieces. Lanskoiwanted to rush upon the ruffian, but Catherineforcibly held him back, and assured Orloff thatshe was not aware of his wife’s death; when hecontinued, “Yes, she is dead, and I am alive!I am miserable, Kalinga! for I loved my wifedearly!” and, so saying, he burst into tears; when,suddenly casting his eyes upon Lanskoi, he exclaimed,“So, this is the young new-comer! Ha!you are very young, my boy! poor blind buzzard,to be caught in such a snare!” AgainLanskoi wanted to have recourse to force toexpel the bold intruder, who threatened to throwhim out of the window if he stirred one step;while Catherine exclaimed in agony, “He is mad!he is mad!” “Yes, I am mad!” replied theruffian with a bitter laugh; “but who maddenedme?—was it not thou, Kalinga? was it not forthee that I became a regicide, an assassin? andnow, woman, you tell me I am mad!” So saying,he raised his hand to strike her; but Catherine356swooned on a sofa, and Orloff stalked out ofthe ball-room unmolested. No punishment wasinflicted on him for this audacious conduct; onthe contrary, he frequently attended the court,until he died of a brain-fever in 1785. Lanskoisoon followed him to the grave; when Potemkinsought to assuage the despair of Catherine byprivately marrying her, receiving as a marriageportion a palace worth 600,000 roubles, a coatembroidered with diamonds worth 200,000 roubles,and 200,000 peasants! Such was the wealthlavished on this favourite, that he died worth300,000,000 francs!—Could duels, or any feelingof honour, be known in such a court?

However, at a later period, under Alexander I,who entertained some chivalric notions and afaint idea of honour, duels came into fashion.A singular manner of settling a quarrel wasinstanced in the case of an old general officerof the name of Zass, who, having received fromPrince Dolgoroucki an order which would havedefeated his plan of operations, refused to obeyhim. High words ensued, and a challenge wasforwarded. At that moment the Swedish artillerywas heard, and intelligence was brought thatthe enemy were attacking a redoubt. “Prince,”said the general, “we cannot fight a duel whenour duty calls us to meet the enemy; but letus both stand in an embrasure of that battery,against which the enemy are directing their fire,357and let us remain there until one of us is struck.”Dolgoroucki accepted the proposal. They bothexposed themselves to the enemy’s fire, standingerect with one hand on the hip, and lookingfiercely at each other, until the prince was cutin two by a cannon-ball; this desperate resolvebeing witnessed by the whole army.

A conflict no less singular occurred in the caseof one of the most celebrated Russian duellists, aCount de Tolstoy, who, having quarrelled with anaval officer, sent him a message, which was declinedon the plea of the count’s dexterity in theuse of arms. Tolstoy then proposed that theyshould fight with pistols muzzle to muzzle; butthis also the sailor declined, and insisted uponfighting according to what he called a naval manner,which was, to seize each other and jumpinto the water, the victory being awarded to theparty that escaped drowning. The count inhis turn objected to the proposal, on the pleathat he could not swim, on which his adversaryaccused him of cowardice; when he rushed uponhim, seized him, and threw himself with himinto the sea. However, they were both drawnout of the water; but the naval officer wasso much injured, that he died a few days after.

In the annals of Poland judicial combats werenot unfrequent, and were similar to those resortedto in other countries; and we find thewife of a grand duke of Lithuania accused of358an adulterous intercourse, when twelve championspresented themselves to defend her cause.The proposal was objected to, and the law of theland, which was somewhat singular, prevailed.The accuser was condemned to place himself onall fours, like a quadruped, under a bench, andthen to unbark his assertion, by publicly declaringthat he had lied like a dog.

The jocularity of the Poles appears to havebeen occasionally of a very rough nature. It isrelated of an Italian nobleman, that, being invitedby Prince Zboruski to his castle, he was madethe butt of the company, who one day proceededto strip him; and, after smearing him all overwith honey, introduced him to some tame bears,who, licking off the honey with their roughtongues, did not produce a very agreeable sensation.The offended Italian wanted to depart,but the prince had ordered the wheels of hiscarriage to be taken off. He contrived, however,to effect his escape, and sent a challenge toZboruski, accompanied with a copy of hisgenealogy, to prove that he could not refuseto meet him on the plea of a disparity of rank.But the Pole thought otherwise, and declinedthe honour.

Since the misfortunes of the Poles, duellinghas frequently taken place amongst these exiles;and Lelewel observes on this subject, “thatemigrants fight from idleness, and that condition359of suffering and demoralization which rendersevery feeling susceptible of the slightestoffence.” During the generous struggle of thisunhappy people with their ferocious oppressors,a conflict of a most desperate nature took placebetween a Polish and a Russian officer near Warsaw;the following are the particulars:—A youngPolish officer, who had served under Napoleonin his Guards, had paid his addresses to a younglady of Warsaw, who was carried off by a Russianofficer; he offered his hand in vain to hisvictim, who scorned his proposal with indignation:the retreat of the Russian was discovered;a challenge was sent and accepted. The groundwas fixed in a wood four leagues from the city;and, after measuring eight paces, swords markedthe distance. The combatants were armed withpistols, and were to advance upon each other,and fire at will; the Russian fired first, andwounded his antagonist in the breast, when thePole exclaimed, “Come on, wretch, and receiveyour death,—I still possess sufficient strengthand life to deprive thee of thine;” but the Russianmounted his horse and galloped off. Hisseconds, indignant at such cowardly behaviour,bade the friends of the wounded Pole pursuehim, and give him up to them as a disloyaldastard. They rode after him, and cutting himdown, brought him to an inn where the Polehad been also borne: upon seeing his wounded360antagonist, the Pole collected the little strengththat remained in him, and, seizing his sword,staggered towards his rival, ran him throughthe body, and expired. The Russian officer recoveredfrom his wounds, and the young ladywas restored to her family.361

CHAPTER XX.

DUELS IN BELGIUM AND HOLLAND.

Although these two countries, both in a religiousand political point of view, may beconsidered most distinct, and nothing but theblindest policy could ever have entertained thenotion of uniting res dissociabiles, their closeand frequent connexion generally unites theirhistorical annals.

Belgium was the cradle of the monarchy ofthe Franks: Tournay was one of the first conquestsof Clodion over the Romans; in 1653, thetomb of Childeric was discovered; and Aix-la-Chapellewas the capital of Charlemagne. Thecustoms of the Franks were, therefore, prevalentin their several provinces, and trials bybattle, ordeals, and the many barbarous modesof settling differences and establishing rightswhich we have recorded of France and othercountries were resorted to in cases where thejudgement of God was appealed to. These appealsmust have been frequent amongst theseturbulent people, who were incessantly embroiled362in foreign or intestine wars to such an extent,that it is related of one of the sultans, who,hearing of their endless contests, asked to seethe map of the theatre of war; that, amazedat its narrow limits, he exclaimed, “Were Iconcerned in this affair, I should send my pioneersto cast this little corner of the world intothe sea.”

The inhabitants of the Low Countries wereever remarkable for their impatience of control,and their anxiety to preserve their rights and immunitiesuntouched; they were faithful to theirantique customs and prejudices, and zealous defendersof what they considered their independenceand liberties; and, to their credit, it mustbe said, that both the aristocracy and the democracyof the land united their efforts in the commoncause of their country; while the clergy,all powerful and influential, exercised a mightypower over a bigoted and superstitious people,who, even to the present day, are more imbuedwith religious prejudices than the inhabitants ofany other Roman Catholic realm.

To this hour, the Belgians firmly believe inthe traditionary legend of the Abbey of Cambrai,and the duel between Jean le Flamandand a Jew. The Virgin of Cambrai having appearedin a vision to Jean le Flamand, an oldcarpenter, and complained of the injury doneto her image by the impious Israelite, who had363falsely pretended to abjure his faith, our worthyimmediately repaired to the chapel, and beheldthe image of the Virgin with five wounds ofa lance, from each of which the blood was flowing.The Jew, named Wilhelm, was immediatelyapprehended and tortured, but no avowalcould be extorted from him by the most ingenioustorments. Jean le Flamand thereuponbegged to consult the Abbé of Cambrai, whotold him that the Virgin commanded him to callout the Hebrew to a single combat, to knockout his brains, and then cut off his empty head.The battle took place with shield and stave,when the Jew, who was a powerful youth, wasthoroughly thrashed,—Divinâ cooperante gratiâ;after which he was duly hanged between twodogs, according to custom. Why the poor dogswere hanged with the unbeliever, history doesnot state.

A celebrated combat that took place at Valenciennesin 1455 has been recorded by manyhistorians. This battle was fought in maintenanceof an ancient franchise, which providedthat any man who killed another in self-defence,might claim a franchise at Valenciennes,and maintain with staff and shield that the contesthad been fair. In this instance, a tailor,named Mahuot Cocquel, sought refuge in thistown, after having killed a citizen of Tournay,one Philippe du Gardin, who had had the impertinence364to refuse him his daughter. A relationof the deceased, Jacotin Plouvier, followedthe tailor, and accused him of having feloniouslykilled Du Gardin. The two championswere forthwith put in prison; and a Breton(Britanny being renowned for its skill in cudgelling)was attached to each of the parties, toteach them the use of the staff.

On the 20th of May, the field being appointed,the Duke of Burgundy, and his son the Dukede Charolais, attended by a numerous court,proceeded to the spot. A triple barrier had beenraised in the market-place, and the ground wasdeeply covered with sand; the space betweenthe second and third barrier was appropriatedto the accommodation of the prevost, the jury-men,and several of the nobility; and the thirdrow was for the reception of three hundredknights, their squires, and the wealthy burghers.

At nine o’clock in the morning, the championsappeared. Their heads had been shaved,and they wore tight leather doublets. Jacotin,the appellant, first appeared, accompanied by hisBreton, and followed by a man carrying his targetin a sack. After crossing himself severaltimes, he sat down on a chair covered with blackcloth; Mahuot Cocquel followed with a similartrain, and, falling on his knees, crossed himselfwith great devotion, kissed the ground, and365then seated himself on another stool coveredwith black.

The magistrates then proceeded to swear thechampions on the holy Evangelists. Jacotinkissed the book, and swore that his cause wasa just one; Mahuot did the same, and added,that Jacotin was a false and villanous liar; but,on kissing the book a second time, it was observedthat he turned pale.

The parties were then smeared with greasefrom head to foot, to prevent their being easilygrasped, and their hands were rubbed with ashes,that their staves might be more securely held.Food was then presented them on two silversalvers; and, to show them that it was notpoisonous, the bearers of the collation themselvestasted it. A lump of sugar was then putinto their mouths, that they might not becomeparched, and they were then armed with twoknotty cudgels of equal length, and bucklerspainted red; but they were obliged to bear theshield with its point uppermost, to show thatthey were not of noble birth.

The prevost of the town now exclaimed in aloud and audible voice, “Do your duty!” and thecombatants rushed upon each other. Mahuotcommenced the attack by throwing sand in hisadversary’s eyes, and then broke his head with hisstaff; but Jacotin attacked his antagonist in his366turn, knocked his buckler off, and then knockedhim down; Mahuot rose to be knocked downagain, while Jacotin was rubbing sand in hiseyes, biting his ears, and pommelling his face.The Duke of Burgundy, Philippe le Bon, feltcompassion for the battered Mahuot, and sentone of his officers to the magistrates, to knowif it were not possible to save the life of theunfortunate man; but they replied, that theprivileges of their town must be maintained.In the mean time, Jacotin was pursuing his delectableoccupation, cramming sand in his opponent’smouth, biting and scratching him, andthen turning him upon his face; in whichexploit, however, Mahuot contrived to bite offone of his fingers: a mutilation that so incensedthe conqueror, that, according to the chronicler,he broke his arm and his loins, and then jumpingupon him, roared out, “Surrender, traitor,and confess the fact, that thou didst murder mypoor relation!” to which Mahuot replied, “Iconfess it! I confess it!” “Speak louder, thatthou mayest be heard!” roared out Jacotin. “Idid it! I did it!” cried Mahuot; “and oh! myLord Duke of Burgundy,” he added, “I servedyou faithfully in your wars of Ghent,—oh! mygood lord, I pray for mercy!—for God’s sake,save my life!”

Again the duke sent to the burgomasters; butthey remained inflexible, sticking to their fueros.367They even maintained that the deceased shouldnot be allowed a Christian burial; and then Jacotindespatched his victim with four desperateblows on the head; after which, he dragged himoff the ground by the legs; but Mahuot wasnot quite dead, for he was able to recite hiscreed, confess his sins to a Carmelite, and drinkseveral glasses of wine, before he yielded up theghost.

The magistrates then ascended the bench, andordered that, according to their sacred municipalprivileges, the vanquished should be hanged andstrangled as a murderer, which was forthwithdone by the executioner. The conqueror thenwent up to the burgomaster, and asked him, ifhe had properly done his duty: to which itwas replied in the affirmative; and he was informed,that he was free to go wherever hethought proper. He of course proceeded to thechapel of Notre Dame la Grande, to present anoffering, and return thanksgivings for her protection.The staves, bucklers, and stools of thecombatants were then suspended as trophies inthe town-hall.

Amongst the many ferocious combats of thesebarbarous times may be noticed the duel betweenArnold d’Egmont and Adolphus, his son,who was encouraged in his unnatural conductby his mother, Catherine de Cleves.

Numerous edicts and placards were promulgated368at various periods to check the progressof duelling in the Low Countries, but with aslittle success as in France. Of late years, thesehostile meetings have become very rare, and arechiefly confined to the military; although, afterthe revolution of 1833, duels arose in consequenceof the stormy discussions that took placein the chambers. In June 1833, two deputies,Messrs. Rogier and Gendebien, fought with pistolsat a distance of forty paces, being allowedto advance ten paces on each other. Rogierfired first, but missed his opponent, who, firingin his turn, at a distance of thirty-five paces,shot his antagonist in the mouth. M. Gendebienwas afterwards called out by a French generalofficer, to apologise for his objection tothe employment of foreigners in the Belgianarmy; but the deputy very wisely refused tomeet him, on the score of parliamentary freedomof speech.

In 1834, when Brussels was in a state of greatanarchy and confusion, duels were not unfrequent;a man was assassinated in coming outof the playhouse for having declined a challenge;and the minister assured the chamber,that he would adopt the most energetic meansto repress these excesses. Notwithstanding theprohibitory laws, several fatal meetings tookplace without any judicial punishment. A captainof artillery, named Pariset, had reprimanded369a M. Vanderstraeten, one of his lieutenants, fornot having saluted him, observing, that “he wasbut a boy.” The lieutenant called out his captain,who declined the meeting; when anothercaptain, of the name of Eenens, took up thequarrel, and obliged Pariset to give him satisfaction,by calling him a coward. The meetingtook place in a pine-wood near Waterloo, whenPariset was killed at the first fire. The survivorwas tried by a court-martial, but acquitted onthe plea that there did not exist any law topunish duelling. More recently, at Luxemburg,a duel was fought between a Baron de Tornacoand a Dutch captain, when the latter was shotdead; but no judicial inquiry followed.

The government of Belgium are at this momentpreparing a law for the utter prohibitionof this practice, which hitherto has been rarelyvisited with severity. In the Belgian army, aswell as in that of France, duelling, even betweenofficers of great disparity of rank, is only punishedby cashiering the offender, as appears inthe following order of the day of the ministerof war, Count Maison, in 1835:—

“In breach of all subordination, a lieutenant-colonelhas presumed to challenge his superiorofficer. Such a serious transgression, which mightprove most injurious to the discipline of thecorps, demands a prompt and severe punishment.The minister, therefore, orders, that the lieutenant-colonel370shall be forthwith brought beforea court-martial. In regard to the superiorofficer, who might and ought to have exercisedthe authority which his rank conferred on him,but who condescended to accept the challenge,he is cashiered. The seconds and the other officerswho were present at, or who did not preventthe meeting, shall be placed under close arrestfor a fortnight.”371

CHAPTER XXI.

DUELS IN THE UNITED STATES.

To record the duels that have taken place inthe United States of America would requirea ponderous work. They not only have beenvery frequent, but in general marked with acharacter of reckless ferocity, that clearly showsthe very slow progress of civilization in thatrising country, where we have every reason toexpect and to hope that at some future periodthe practice of duelling will fall into as muchdisrepute as in more polished regions.

This young country, notwithstanding its constantcommercial and political relations with theEuropean powers and the mother-land, is butlittle known; indeed, a knowledge of the customs,habits, and ideas of its inhabitants, mustbe difficult to obtain, from their territorial divisions,the great extent of their provinces, and thedifference of the institutions that rule their severalstates: in the one, an offence is considered aheinous crime, which in another is deemed a meremisdemeanor, an anomaly in legislation which372must arise from the variety of their commercialand agricultural interests. It is, moreover, to bedeeply lamented that most travellers who havedescribed their manners, after a mere hasty glanceat the state of their society, started on the tour ofinquiry fully determined to find fault, and possiblyto speculate ultimately on national prejudices, astheir works have become more or less popular accordingto the ridicule they have attached to Americansociety, or the denunciation of its hostilitytowards England. On the other hand, other travellershave launched forth into lavish and enthusiasticpraise, even of their vices and errors;and France has not been backward in sendingto the States demagogues and visionaries, whoconsider them the seat of liberty and independence.

That duels should be frequent in a new settlementis naturally to be expected, more especiallywhen the settlers are rude and uneducated; thedistance between their dwellings, the wildnessof the forest, and the difficulty, if not the impossibility,of having recourse to legal and competentjudicial authorities to settle their endlessdifferences, must induce them to take the lawinto their own hands, and arrange matters withsword, pistol, rifle, or bowie-knife; or, if weaponswere not at hand, by the most ferociouspugilistic contests, partaking of the savage yethonourable boxing of their fathers, and the ferocious373refinement of their Indian neighbours.Thus, wherever a colonist squatted, he becamethe sole guardian and protector of his log-houseand property.

The influence of example, which the conductof the upper classes exercises on the lower orders,is sometimes reversed, and the false notions of rightand honour, entertained by the vulgar, are toofrequently adopted by their superiors, who frompolitical purposes are anxious to court that popularitywhich a display of what is misnamed courageis sure to obtain among a rude people, whoare unwilling, from false notions of pride, to raisethemselves to the level of the civilization of theirmother country. Fortunately, this absurd prejudiceis gradually losing ground, although, if wemay form an opinion by the public press, thebombastic style and the silly bragging of theirwriters will tend to retard most materially thisdesirable progress. The absurd fancy of seekingto alter the language of their ancestors, is aconvincing proof of the folly of such pretensionsto superiority, which a few accidental successesin war have carried to a pitch absolutely ridiculous.It is not easy for their legislators andtheir temporary rulers to oppose this bubblingand frothy torrent of popular vanity; nor indeeddare they stem its dangerous tide, which waftsthem to power: and thus are they often underthe painful necessity of appearing to sanction374excesses which they sincerely condemn, and touse a style of exaggeration suited to the morbidtemperament of their constituents. With usthe degradation of the hustings is an occasionaloccurrence; in America every public man ishourly polling. There is a state of feverishanxiety perpetually raging, and duelling mustbe the inevitable result of such a fermentation,and will continue to prevail so long as bruteforce is considered a qualification.

Several of the states, however, have endeavouredto check the practice: that of Massachusettsframed a law for that purpose in 1719,which was revived in 1784, and subsequently in1805; by this enactment, any person fightinga duel was deprived of his political rights, andrendered ineligible to any public situation fortwenty years, and the body of the deceased,when the meeting proved fatal, was appropriatedto anatomical demonstration. Similar lawshave been promulgated in Tennessee, New York,and other states. In Virginia public officers werecalled upon to take an oath never to fight a duelupon entering on their functions, and after thisresolution duels became very rare. In New Orleans,the papers of 1834, and several recent publications,proposed the establishment of a courtof honour, to decide upon any differences thatmight arise amongst its citizens; and in 1831Mr. Livingston published his views on this important375subject, relative to which a French writer,Dupont de Nemours, speaks in the followingterms:—

“The diversity of political opinion has renderedduelling very frequent in the United States,Some years ago, General Hamilton, a man ofthe most distinguished merit, and who had beenminister of finance, was slain in a duel by ColonelBurr, and two years before that fatal event,the eldest son of the general had lost his lifein a similar manner.

“Most of the states have denounced a sentenceof death against those duellists who have killedtheir adversaries. But this penalty is only comminatory,since it is eluded by the parties repairingto a neighbouring province, of which theyare not citizens, and which has not the powerto take cognizance of their offences; the laws onthis head not extending to the whole country,but being limited to each of the eighteen confederatestates.

“Moreover, European experience has evidentlyshown that death does not intimidate those whofight, because they either brave it, or wish toshow that they do not fear its terrors.

“The habits of the Virginians disposed themto duelling more than any other of the Americans,and the extent of the country rendered itmore difficult to seek the protection of a neighbouringstate; for when people are determined376to fight, they are in general impatient. Thelegislature of Virginia has therefore sought toobtain its object by a less severe penalty, whichfrom that very reason was more likely to proveefficacious. They considered that when in frivolousmatters, or in differences of opinion whichthe law tolerates and even authorizes, a man isinduced to expose himself to death or to slayanother, he is actually demented, and that, therefore,all principals and seconds in a duel should beconsidered labouring under an alienation of mind,and deprived of any public station that they mighthold; that their property, moreover, should bevested in the hands of trustees, and in fact be consideredas labouring under an interdiction. Sincethis enactment, duels in the state of Virginia havebeen rarely heard of.”

The first notorious duel that was fought inAmerica was in the year 1630, when a challengeto single combat with sword and dagger, passedbetween Edward Doty and Edward Leister, servantsof a Mr. Hopkins. Both were wounded,the one in the hand, and the other in the thigh.As it was deemed expedient to repress such affairs,the parties were condemned to have theirhands and feet tied together, and to lie in thatcondition for twenty-four hours, without eithermeat or drink. This punishment was begun tobe inflicted, but in an hour the pain they enduredwas so severe, that, at their own supplication377and their master’s request. Governor Bradfordliberated them on their promise of futuregood behaviour.

The correspondence that arose between GeneralWilkinson and Mr. Randolph, a senator, is somewhatcurious. The former had observed, that hehad learnt that Mr. Randolph had called him arogue: to this the Honourable John Randolphreplied, “In you, Sir, I can recognize no rightto hold me accountable for my public or privateopinion of your character, that would not subjectme to an equal claim from Colonel Burr and SergeantDunbaugh. I cannot descend to your level.This is my final answer.” Upon this concise reply,the General wrote the following letter to thesenator:—

“Sir,

“I have received your letter of the 25th instant,by mail, in which you violate truth andhonour, to indulge the inherent malignity andrancour of your soul. On what ‘level,’ praySir, shall we find the wretch who, to mark hiscowardice, fabricates falsehoods, and heaps unprovokedinsults upon unmerited injuries? You‘cannot descend to my level,’—vain, equivocalthing! And you believe this dastardly subterfugewill avail you, or that your lion’s skinwill longer conceal your true character? Embracethe alternative still within your reach, and378ascend to the ‘level’ of a gentleman, if possible;act like a man if you can, and spare me thepain of publishing you to the world for an insolent,slanderous, and prevaricating poltroon.

“James Wilkinson.”

There is a N.B. by way of postscript, to tellthe senator that “the sacred respect due to thestation he occupied in the councils of the nation,alone protected him from the chastisem*nt of hiscane.”

The General kept his word, and when Congresswas assembled, the following notice wasstuck up in the corners of the streets and in allthe taverns:—

“Hector unmasked.—In justice to my character,I denounce to the world John Randolph, Memberof Congress, a prevaricating, base, calumniatingscoundrel, poltroon, and coward.”

At the time of the French Revolution two celebratedFrench duellists were residing in Philadelphia,Louis de Noailles and Alexandre de Tilly.The Viscount de Noailles was admitted into thefamily of a Mr. Bingham, one of the wealthiestmerchants of Pennsylvania, and a senator. Hesoon after introduced the Count de Tilly, whowas much liked by Mrs. and Miss Maria MatildaBingham, an only daughter. The experiencedseducer soon persuaded the young lady, who wasnot yet of age, to marry him privately, and they379were secretly united in 1799, by a clergymanwhom they had bribed.

This marriage threw the family into a state ofconsternation. The mother died heart-broken,Mr. Bingham only survived her a few years;and a Mr. Barry thought it proper to chastise theFrenchman, who was, however, induced to leavethe United States on the following conditions:—Fivethousand pounds ready money to pay hisdebts,—an annual allowance of five hundredpounds,—and an acknowledgment on the partof Mr. Barry, either in writing or by a verbalcommunication through the Count de Noailles,that he merely pushed against him in a crowd!

In the year 1804, General Hamilton, who hadbeen just appointed ambassador from the UnitedStates to Paris, got involved in a political disputewith Colonel Aaron Burr, then vice-president.Dr. Cooper had published a pamphlet, inwhich he had said “Colonel Hamilton and Dr.Kent say, that they consider Colonel Burr a dangerousman, and one unfit to be trusted with thereins of government.” In another place the samewriter said, “General Hamilton has expressed ofColonel Burr opinions still more despicable.”

The last passage excited the resentment ofColonel Burr, who demanded from General Hamilton“a prompt and unqualified acknowledgmentor denial of the expressions which couldjustify this inference on the part of Dr. Cooper.”380General Hamilton admitted the first statement,which he contended was fairly within the boundsprescribed in cases of political animosity, but objectedto be called on to retrace every conversationwhich he had held either publicly or confidentiallyin the course of fifteen years’ opposition.This would not satisfy Burr, who insistedupon satisfaction and a meeting.

On the evening before the duel Hamiltonmade his will, in which he enclosed a paper,containing his opinion of duelling; and, expressiveof the reluctance with which he obeyed acustom so painful to his feelings, he says—

“On my expected interview with Colonel Burr,I think it proper to make some remarks explanatoryof my conduct, motives, and views. I wascertainly desirous of avoiding this interview, forthe most cogent reasons:—

“First.—My religious and moral principles arestrongly opposed to the practice of duelling, andit would ever give me pain to shed the blood ofa fellow creature in a private combat, forbiddenby the laws.

“Secondly.—My wife and children are extremelydear to me, and my life is of the utmost importanceto them, in various points of view.

“Thirdly.—I feel a sense of obligation towardsmy creditors, who, in case of accident to me, bythe forced sale of my property, may be in somedegree sufferers. I do not think myself at liberty,381as a man of probity, lightly to expose them tohazard.

“Fourthly.—I am conscious of no ill-will toColonel Burr, distinct from political opposition,which, as I trust, has proceeded from pure andupright motives.

“Lastly.—I shall hazard much and can possiblygain nothing by the issue of the interview.”

The parties met, and Colonel Burr’s shot tookfatal effect. General Hamilton had determinednot to return the fire, but, on receiving the shockof the mortal wound, his pistol went off involuntarilyin an opposite direction.

Few individuals died more lamented than GeneralHamilton, whose funeral at New York wasobserved with unusual respect and ceremony.All the public functionaries attended, and thebells, muffled, tolled during the day. All businesswas suspended, and the principal inhabitantswore mourning for six weeks. No death, savethat of Washington, had filled the republic withsuch deep and universal regret.

A singular and fatal duel was fought in NewYork by the late Stephen Price, well-known asthe former lessee of Drury Lane theatre. Thefollowing is an account of this affair, extractedfrom the American papers:—

“Benjamin Price was a grocer at Rhinebeck,and was considered the flower of the flock. Hewas at the theatre one evening with a beautiful382woman, when a British officer, in an adjoiningbox, took the liberty of turning round and staringher full in the face. She complained to BenPrice, and, on a repetition of the offence, heturned round and seized the nose of the officerfull between his finger and thumb, and wrungit most effectually.

“The officer left the box, and soon after a knockwas heard at the door of Ben Price’s box. Benopened it, and there stood the officer, whose namewas Green, and who asked Ben, what he meantby this behaviour? at the same time remarking,that he had not meant to insult the lady bywhat he had done. ‘Oh! very well,’ replied Ben,‘neither did I mean to insult you by what I did.’Upon this they shook hands as sworn brothers;and some time after Mr. Green went to Canadato join his regiment.

“The facts of this affair, however, reachedCanada as soon as Mr. Green did, and of coursewere bruited about. The officers of his regiment,one of whom had a pique against him, caused itto be brought under the notice of his brotherofficers, one of whom, a Captain Wilson, insistedthat Green should be sent to Coventry, unlesshe went back directly and fought Ben Price.Green, therefore, set to work, and practised forfive hours every day, until he could hit a dollarat ten paces nine times out of ten. He thencame to New York, and challenged Ben Price.383They fought at Hoboken, and Ben was killedon the first fire. The seconds ran off, and Greentook a small boat, crossed the river, and boardeda vessel in the bay just about to sail forEngland. The body of Ben was found at Hoboken,with a piece of paper attached to hisbreast, on which were inscribed the followingwords:—‘This is Benjamin Price, boarding inVeney Street, New York,—take care of him.’The body was brought to the city quietly, andhe was buried in New York.”

“Some years afterwards, Captain Wilson of theBritish army, whom we have mentioned above,arrived in this city, from England, on his way toCanada, and put up at the Washington Hotel.One day, at dinner, the conversation turned onthe death of Ben Price, and the manner thereof.Captain Wilson remarked that he had beenmainly instrumental in bringing about the duel,and detailed the circ*mstances connected therewith.This statement was carried immediatelyto Stephen Price, who was lying ill of the gout,at home: his friends say that he henceforth implicitlyobeyed the instructions of the physician,obtained thereby a short cessation of the gout,and was enabled to hobble out of doors, hislower extremities swaddled in flannel. His firstcourse was to seek the Washington Hotel, andhis first inquiry was, ‘Is Captain Wilson within?’—‘Heis,’ said the waiter.—‘Show me384to his room,’ said Stephen, and he was shownaccordingly. He hobbled up stairs with greatdifficulty, cursing at intervals the gout and thecaptain with equal vehemence. He at last enteredthe captain’s room, his feet cased in mocassins,and his hand grasping a stick. CaptainWilson rose to receive him, when he said, ‘Areyou Captain Wilson?’—‘That is my name,’ repliedthe gallant captain. ‘Then, Sir, my nameis Stephen Price. You see, Sir, I can scarcelyput one foot before the other; I am afflictedwith the gout. My object in coming here, isto insult you. Shall I have to knock you down,or will you consider what I have said a sufficientinsult, and act accordingly?’—‘No, Sir,’ repliedthe captain, smiling, ‘I shall consider what youhave said quite sufficient, and shall act accordingly.You shall hear from me.’”

“In due time there came a message fromthe captain to Stephen Price; time, place, andweapons were appointed, and early one morninga barge left New York, in which wereseated, face to face, Stephen Price and CaptainWilson and two friends: they all landedat Bedlaw’s Island, the principals took theirpositions, and Captain Wilson fell dead at thefirst shot. The captain was buried in the vaultthere, and Price and the two seconds returnedto New York; but his friends (Wilson’s) thoughtthat he had gone suddenly to Canada, and always385thought that he had died suddenly, or had beenkilled on his way to England to join his regiment.”

It is surprising that in a country where suchan event as the death of General Hamilton couldbe productive of such a general feeling of regret,duels of the most wanton and desperate natureso frequently occur. But a very few years sincea furious outbreak of temper was manifested inthe state of Louisiana, where a Mr. Labranch,president of the legislative assembly, as he wasabout taking the chair, was assaulted by a Mr.Grymes, who endeavoured to strike him with astick, when he drew a pocket pistol and firedat the aggressor, but missed him, and Grymes,in his turn, drew out a horse pistol loaded withball and slugs, and fired at him. The ball grazedthe head of a senator who was seated near thechairman, and who received two slugs in his armand hand. This occurred in 1835.

The same year a duel took place between alieutenant of the American Navy, and three passengersin a steam-boat, two of whom were brothers.The parties landed; the lieutenant receiveda ball in the hip, and one of the brothersfell dead on his fire. The surviving brothersought to avenge him, but also received amortal wound. The third survivor now insistedupon satisfaction from the lieutenant’s second,whom he shot in the breast; he then obliged thelieutenant, although exhausted from loss of blood,386to satisfy him still further, when he mortallywounded him.

Fighting with rifles and muskets, sometimesby beat of drum, is not an uncommon methodof settling an American dispute; and frequently,as in the case of their disputes with our officers atGibraltar, Americans have insisted upon fightingdouble-handed, or resting the pistol to level it on theleft arm: a proposal made to one of our officers, aCaptain G——, who had lost the use of his rightarm in the Pyrenees, but who contrived with hisleft to wound very severely the desperado whosought to take such an unfair advantage of anhonourable infirmity. These differences, to whichwe shall refer elsewhere, must have led to themost fatal consequences, had not the Americancommodore very wisely put out to sea.

It is to be lamented that this recklessness oflife, that prevails in the United States of America,should have extended its baneful influenceover our West India colonies. Both the Britishand French creoles are hasty in the expressionof their displeasure, and vindictive in seekingto avenge their real or supposed wrongs. Thiscirc*mstance is perhaps to be attributed to thegreat mortality which afflicts these unhealthyregions, as the constant sight of death, and theincessant tolling of the passing bell, must in agreat measure strip death of many of its terrors.It is also to be observed, that the creoles, who387enjoy a short but a merry life, are much addictedto the pleasures of the table, and balls generallysucceed the festival, when the passions, excitedby previous stimulants, predispose to a captiousand jealous susceptibility; and wine and womenreign paramount in the assembly. To this circ*mstancemay be superadded the constant dissensionsin colonial politics, where the representativesof the place are often in collision withthe government; and it is to be lamented, thattoo frequently the crown lawyers themselves, insteadof endeavouring to check the evils thatmust arise from such a want of concert and harmony,are the first to disturb the public peace;and attorney-general and solicitor-general are occasionallythe most troublesome and pugnaciousmembers of society.

A very severe lesson was given to a notedFrench duellist in Jamaica, by the captain ofa West Indiaman, which is worthy of record.Henri d’Egville was a creole of St. Domingo,and had obtained great notoriety from the frequentquarrels and fatal duels in which he hadbeen engaged. He was dining one day at Kingston,in company with several persons, amongstwhom was a Scotch captain, of the name ofStewart. The meeting was convivial, and varioussongs and toasts were called for and given.At last D’Egville requested Stewart to sing aGaëlic song, which the Scotchman declined on388the plea of his ignorance of that language. TheFrenchman insisted, when Stewart sang a Scotchdrinking song, which D’Egville, who understoodbut little English, took for a Gaëlic strain.Here the matter ended, the party broke up, andStewart repaired to his vessel, accompanied bya friend, when the conversation turned uponduelling, and the reputation that D’Egville hadobtained of being a dangerous man. Stewartexpressed his horror of duelling, and admittedthat it had been his misfortune to kill one ofhis intimate friends, of the name of Cameron, ina hostile meeting, occasioned by some differencebetween them concerning a lady, when Cameronhad struck him. The Scotchman expressed hisdeep sorrow for that melancholy event, whichhad ever since embittered his existence.

While the parties were thus conversing, theyperceived a boat pulling towards the ship, andStewart recognised in it a Captain Wilthorpe,an officer in the Columbian service, a professedduellist, and the constant and worthy companionof D’Egville. Stewart had strange forebodingsat this unexpected visit, which were soon realised.Wilthorpe came on board, and, after politelysaluting the captain and his friend, delivered amessage from Henri d’Egville, who had consideredhimself mystified by Stewart’s havingsought to impose upon him an English song for aGaëlic specimen.389

The Scotch captain expressed his surprise atthis communication, and at the same time declaredhis firm resolution not to fight a duel afterthe melancholy result of a former one in whichhe had been engaged. Wilthorpe withdrew andreturned to his boat. Stewart, shortly after havingoccasion to go on shore, met D’Egville onhorseback, when the latter rode up to him, struckhim with a horsewhip, and galloped off.

Stewart, greatly indignant at this outrageousconduct, formed the resolution of ridding theworld of such a pestilence; and at the same timeperilling his own life by compelling the Frenchmanto fight a duel which would render the fallof both of them certain. He sent him a message,and requested a meeting behind the Iguannarocks. He then, accompanied by two of his men,proceeded to the rendezvous, and directed themto dig a grave sufficiently deep to receive twobodies. D’Egville soon appeared, and Stewartproposed, as conditions of the duel, that they bothshould stand in the grave, holding their pistolsin one hand and the end of a pocket-handkerchiefin the other. The sun was shedding its partingrays on the wild spot he had selected. Stewartwas firm and calm: the Frenchman, despite hisefforts to appear undismayed, betrayed evidentsigns of perturbation.

The seconds, one of whom was Wilthorpe,drew lots for the word of command—the fatal390signal of death. The parties descended into thepit; Stewart with an undaunted step, D’Egvillewith much trepidation. The handkerchief wasplaced in their hands, firmly grasped by theScotchman, tremblingly held by the creole: theword “Fire” was about to be given, when theruffian swooned and fell at the feet of his adversary.Stewart spurned him with his foot,as a dastardly and contemptible coward, and lefthim to the care of his worthy companion andfriend.

In the same colony, a fatal duel of a mostsingular nature took place in 1830. Two planters,having made rather free at a merry dinner,quarrelled and determined to fight a duel withmuskets. Their boon companions consented tothe meeting; but, knowing the friendship thathad long existed between them, and the absurdityof the dispute, they determined to load the pieceswith powder and without ball. The parties met,fired by signal, when, to the utter dismay of theseconds and the party assembled to witness thesham fight, one of them was shot in the backand dropped a corpse. Recovered from theirsurprise, they carefully examined the surroundingbush, when at last they discovered a negroconcealed under a tree, and armed with a carbine.The man was seized, and confessed thathe was the assassin. The motives that had impelledhim to this deed were most singular.391It appeared that the preceding day, one of theplanters had passed by a gibbet on which a negrowas hanging, when he wantonly put a pipe inthe mouth of the culprit. It was a companionof the unfortunate man, who, on beholding theaction, resolved on punishing the planter as soonas a favourable opportunity might present itself.He was present when the duel was decided on,and he hastened to his cabin, loaded a carbine,and concealing himself behind a tree, near thescene of action, intended to fire upon his victim;but the darkness of the night led to thefatal mistake, which deprived the offender’s adversaryof life.

It is not only in the British colonies that lawofficers show the detestable example of duelling.In 1829 the attorney-general of Martinique shota French count, in consequence of some ill-timedjokes in a ball-room. Not long ago, the governorof one of our transatlantic possessions fought aduel with the chief-justice of the island. Norcan we be surprised at these disgraceful occurrences,when it is notorious that the judicial andlegal situations in the colonies are not alwaysconferred on merit, legal attainments, or properqualifications, but often upon persons who merelypossess patronage; and any tyro who is called tothe bar is considered fit for the judicial bench ofa colony, or the duties of a crown lawyer. Thesame abuse of power became the curse of the392Spanish American possessions; whenever a hidalgowas ruined, or too poor to live in the mothercountry, or unfit for any situation at home, hewas sent out to Las Indias to make a fortune.It seems to be the destiny of all colonies to besubject to misrule and oppression; and one mightimagine that to colonize, imports creating futureenemies.

Amongst people of colour duels are not uncommon:at Hayti, the greatest insult is to calla man a mulatto, an offence which induced oneof their generals of the name of Lapointe to orderthe legs of a negro to be sawed off.

The evils of colonization are every day becomingmore evident in Algeria, a possessionwhich will prove to France a drain of blood andtreasure, and the tranquillity of which is frequentlydisturbed by disputes and duels, bothamongst military men and civil officers. There,as in America, party spirit runs high; and thegreater the difficulties public functionaries haveto encounter in the discharge of their duty, andtheir care of personal interest, the more liablewill society be to a want of harmony and differenceof opinion. Colonies may be consideredas republics belonging to monarchical governments,and many anomalies must necessarilyprevail in their administration.

The subject of duelling in the United States,and the many causes of its frequency to which393we have alluded, cannot be better illustrated thanby the following extract from the works of ourpoet Moore:—

“The rude familiarity of the lower orders, andindeed the unpolished state of society in general,would neither surprise nor disgust, if they seemedto flow from that simplicity of character, thathonest ignorance of the glass of refinement, whichmay be looked for in a new and inexperiencedpeople. But when we find them arrived at maturityin most of the vices, and in all the pride ofcivilization, while they are still so remote fromits elegant characteristics, it is impossible not tofeel that this youthful decay, this crude anticipationof the natural period of corruption, repressesevery sanguine hope of the future energy andgreatness of America.”

Although we cannot agree with our authorin the latter part of his opinion, as America isdaily rising to power and eminence, yet there isno doubt that the rancorous hostility which willlong prevail between the democrats and thefederalists, the wealthy and the poor, the northernand the southern, will prove for a considerabletime an endless source of discord in a landwhere licentiousness is considered liberty.394

CHAPTER XXII.

DUELS IN THE EAST.

There appears but little doubt of the commonorigin of the Germans, the Chinese and Turcomans;some similarity of laws and customs maytherefore be considered as likely to be tracedamongst the latter people. Du Buat states thaton the shores of the Caspian Sea, ancient monumentshave been discovered, which clearly showthat those shores had once been the site of acountry called Li Ken, and subsequently Ta Tsin,and known to the Chinese under the denominationof Shem Han, a dynasty bearing date abouttwo hundred and seven years before our era.

This people he considers to have been a raceof Huns, afterwards Tartars, and of whom theChinese historians relate the most extraordinarytraditions. According to these writers, the capitalof the Ta Tsins was a hundred leagues incircumference, and was adorned by five palaces,situate ten leagues from each other. The peoplewere, moreover, according to these accounts,most comely and tall, like the Chinese: hence395were they called Ta, great, and Tsin, China.It appears, moreover, evident that the doctrinesand fables of the Boudha are similar to those ofWooden, or Odin.

Thus do we find the laws of retaliation andcompensation as pertinaciously observed by theChinese, as by the inhabitants of ancient Germania,although amongst the former duels areunknown. According to the magnitude of theoffence, the infliction of the bamboo is ordered:ten strokes for a verbal affront; twenty, for ablow, or a kick; fifty, for tearing off a certainquantity of hair; and eighty, for throwing dustin the face; while life atones for life.

According to the laws of Zoroaster, in a workattributed to him, called the Zend-Avesta, abridgedin a compendium entitled the Sad-er, or thegates,—intending to strike a blow constitutes theoffence called Agnerefte; to give it is the Eonvereschte.The first misdemeanor is punished withfive blows; the second, with ten; increased inaggravated cases, and on reiteration of the offence.To inflict a wound that requires more than twodays to heal, is an Aredosch; and to strike a manbehind, a Khor. The punishment of the first, isfifteen strokes; of the second, thirty lashes, inflictedwith a leather strap.

In Japan, instead of fighting duels, the partiesendeavour to display their valour by committingsuicide. It is related that two officers of the household396of the Emperor having met on the staircaseof the palace, their sabres happened to entangle:words arose; one of them imputed the affair toaccident, adding, that the quarrel was betweenthe two swords, and the one was as good as theother. “We shall see that presently,” repliedhis adversary, and with these words he drew hisweapon, and plunged it into his own breast. Theother, impatient to display similar courage, hurriedaway, in order to serve up a dish that hewas carrying to the Emperor’s table, which havingdone, he returned to his opponent, who wasat the point of death; but on finding that hewas still alive, he also plunged his sword into hisown body, adding, “You should not have hadthe start of me, had not my duties obliged meto attend the Emperor. I die, however, contented,since I have proved to you and to the world,that my sabre is as trusty as your own.”

Under such regulations it may be easily imaginedthat duels in Japan are rare, and quarrelsnot frequent. Each street has a resident policeofficer, called an Ottona. In the event ofany difference arising, he calls upon the partiesto come to some amicable arrangement, and hasthe power of incarcerating the persons whohesitate in following his advice. When a quarrelor an affray takes place, the inhabitants ofthe street are obliged to check it, and if oneof the party is killed, the survivor is put to397death, and three of the principal neighbouringfamilies are placed under interdict for severalmonths, while the other citizens in the vicinityare condemned to some hard labour. When aman dies, an inquest is invariably held on thebody, to ascertain that it bears no marks ofviolence, for a violent death must be avengedsomehow or other.

Amongst the Arabs we again have the Germanicvindictive retaliation: each family is consideredthe guardian and avenger of its own rights.Their susceptibility of an offence is most punctilious,and as Niebuhr observes, “the honour oftheir women, and their beards, is equally dearto them.” An expression of contempt can onlybe washed off by the blood of the offender, andtheir inveterate hate, and thirst of revenge, frequentlybrood and smoulder for years, until anopportunity offers to glut their revenge. Nocompensation can atone for the loss of life: theexistence of the murderer is placed in the handsof the relatives of the deceased; but it is notalways the life of the assassin alone that cangratify them,—they will fix upon some innocentmember of his family, whose existence may bethe most precious to his friends. When theirvictim is murdered, his family and his clan will,in their turn, meditate on the most refined meansof avenging his fall. Thus do these bloody feuds398exist for centuries, and revenge is transmitteddown as an honourable heir-loom.

Amongst the American Indians we observesimilar acts of vengeance. An Indian had aquarrel with one of his countrymen, who bithim severely in the hand; the latter declaredhimself maimed, and demanded a combat.The day is fixed; the tribe assembled. Thechampions advance: the offended is armed witha musket; the offender is without any weapon;both are painted of different colours. The partiesapproach each other running, but halt atfifteen paces distance. The man without armspresents his breast to his antagonist, who, quietlyresting on his piece, takes a draught out of hisgourd, and calmly looks around him. On asudden he utters a loud and wild shriek, fires,and brings down his foe. While the offenderis weltering in his blood, the other gives uphis musket to the son, or a near relation of thedying man; he then retreats some paces, takesa firm stand, points with his finger to the regionof the heart, and in turn receives his mortalwound. It appears that in all such cases it isnecessary that both parties should perish.

Such are the notions of honour amongst uncivilisednations and infidels! Can we, as Christians,boast of a higher sense of justice, and ofrespect to the laws of God and man? Alas!399might not the unbelievers whom we seek to reclaimby the mild doctrines of the Saviour,have too frequently reason to reply to us inthe words of the Inca to the murderous Castilian,“I should not wish to go to thy Heaven,if I am to meet thee there.” The followinganecdote will show that barbarians, as we arepleased to denominate them, can afford a brightexample to the most refined nations of Europe.

In 1690, a quarrel arose between two sons ofMuly Ismael, Emperor of Morocco: a combattook place, which was interrupted, and they wereboth brought in chains before their father, whothus addressed them:—“I am rejoiced to seeyou still amongst the living, although you bothshould have fallen in the combat. It appears thatyou imagined that you no longer possessed afather, or that you had forgotten that you weremy sons. Mild as lambs when I am with you,you are each more furious than a roaring lionwhen I am away. I still live, and you havedared to have recourse to arms.” So saying, heordered that staves should be put into theirhands, and that they should chastise each otherin his presence.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.400

LONDON:
PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,
Bangor House, Shoe Lane.