“If a man of strict honour is reduced to beg his life of a mere pretender to honour, a scoundrel; what satisfaction can this be esteemed? Is not this a mortifying, a painful aggravation of a wrong already sustained? What consolation can honour afford for such a disgrace?”
Our author has some other very sensible animadversions on this first branch of the argument in defence of duelling; after which, he proceeds to the second plea, viz. “The obligation of resenting affronts in this manner, founded on the infamy of suspected courage”; and, in our opinion, he satisfactorily proves that this argument is by no means irrefragable: but for his reasoning on this delicate point, we must refer to his pamphlet, and proceed to take notice of his plan for putting a stop to the practice of duelling.
In the first place, he recommends that a law be passed, “declaring the act of sending a challenge, or the reducing a person to defend his life with sword or pistol, to be felony; and the killing a person in a duel, to be punished as murder, without benefit of clergy, unless sufficient proof is made that the party killed, really urged the combat.”
As this first part of his proposal relates rather to the mode of punishing, than the means of preventing duels, he proceeds:
“In every quarrel between two gentlemen where satisfaction is thought necessary, let the parties be empowered to summon a jury of honour from among their friends, six to be appointed by one gentleman, and six by the other, or in case of a refusal of either party, let the six chosen by the other complete the number by their own appointment, each nominating one; and finally, let all this be done, if possible, free from the embarrassing intervention of lawyers.
“Let this jury of honour, when duly assembled, discuss the merits of the dispute in question, and form their opinion by a majority of votes; but to guard against generating fresh quarrels by the discovery of the votes on either side, let the whole twelve be bound to secrecy upon their honour, and the whole twelve sign the verdict of the majority. Let a copy of this verdict be delivered to the gentleman whose conduct is condemned; and if he refuses to make the required concession or due satisfaction, let this opinion be published in such a manner as may be thought proper, and be understood to divest him of his character as a gentleman so long as he remains contumacious.
“By this single expedient, conveyed in few words, it is hoped the necessity of duels may be effectually superseded, the practice suppressed, and ample satisfaction enforced for all injuries of honour. In the examination of subjects of importance we are often tempted to overlook the thing we want, on a supposition that it cannot be near at hand. This plan may perhaps admit of amendment, but it is feared the more complicated it is rendered, the more difficult it may prove to carry into execution: and it is hoped, as it is, it will not be the worse thought of, for coming from an unknown pen.”
With respect to the practicability of this scheme, we apprehend that the great difficulty would lie in obliging the quarrelling parties, or either of them (who by the author’s plan are merely empowered), to refer the matter to a court of honour. But the writer does not give this as a finished plan: he barely suggests the hint; leaving others to improve upon it, if thought worthy of farther consideration.
As to the proposed act for punishing the survivor, where one of the parties has fallen in the conflict, it is, indeed, a melancholy truth, that our laws in being have been found inadequate to the purpose of preventing duels by the dread of legal consequences. The King of Sweden’s method was virtually the same which is here recommended; and it is said to have been effectual in that Kingdom.
The great Gustavus Adolphus, finding that the custom of duelling was becoming alarmingly prevalent among the officers in his army, was determined to suppress, if possible, those false notions of honour. Soon after the King had formed this resolution, and issued some very rigorous edicts against the practice, a quarrel arose between two of his generals; who agreed to crave His Majesty’s pardon to decide the quarrel by the laws of honour. The King consented, and said he would be a spectator of the combat; he went, accordingly, to the place appointed, attended by a body of guards, and the public executioner. He then told the combatants that “they must fight till one of them died”; and turning to the executioner, he added, “Do you immediately strike off the head of the survivor.” The monarch’s inflexibility had the desired effect: the difference between the two officers was adjusted; and no more challenges were heard of in the army of Gustavus Adolphus.
From the peculiar prevalence of this custom in countries where the religious system is established, which, of all others, most expressly prohibits the gratification of revenge, with every species of outrage and violence, we too plainly see, how little mankind are, in reality, influenced by the principles of the religion by which they profess to be guided, and in defence of which they will occasionally risk even their lives.
—Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was born in England but flourished in America, where he played a pivotal role in the launching and success of the American Revolution. His prolific writing career began when he was recruited by Benjamin Franklin to write and edit several American newspapers, often composing entire issues. Paine’s progressive politics were extremely radical for the time. He wrote often on subjects that were considered taboo. He was a proponent of ending slavery, advocated for women’s suffrage, and for government to serve the nation’s poor with social programs.
11 From the Pennsylvania Magazine, May, 1775.
12 Reign of Emperor Charles V by Dr. William Robertson (1721–1793).
Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton prepare to duel. The famed Hamilton-Burr duel resulted in the death of Alexander Hamilton, a favorite son of the revolution and a popular political figure. The loss of Hamilton was perceived as a devastating blow to the fledgling United States, and instantly called into question the irresponsibility and foolishness of dueling and its code of conduct, the duello. Preachers and politicians alike used this duel as a catalyst to begin a large and successful movement to ban dueling, as seen in the Lyman Beecher tracts in a previous section.
Two Sides of the Coin: A Duel of Words
The Lesser Evil
Certainly it is deplorable to see a young man, the hope of his father and mother—a ripe man, the head of a family—an eminent man necessary to his country—struck down in a duel, and should be prevented if possible. Still this deplorable practice is not so bad as the bowie knife and revolver, and their pretext of self-defense—thirsting for blood. In the duel there is at least consent on both sides, with a preliminary opportunity for settlement, with a chance for the law to arrest them, and room for the interposition of friends as the affair goes on. There is usually equality of terms; and it would not be called an affair of honor if honor was not to prevail all round; and if the satisfying a point of honor, and not vengeance, was not the end attained. Finally, in the regular duel, the principals are in the hands of the seconds (for no man can be made a second without his consent); and as both these are required by the dueling code (for the sake of fairness and humanity) to be free from ill will or grudge toward the adversary principal, they are expected to terminate the affair as soon as the point of honor is satisfied, and the less the injury so much the better.
—Reply by Senator Thomas Hart Benton (1782–1858) after congress condemned to death any persons involved in a duel, fought within the confines of Washington, D.C., that resulted in a fatality. Benton was nicknamed “Old Bullion,” and was a Senator from Missouri famous for his bombastic speeches, as well as his reputation as a duelist. He was an early proponent of the westward continental expansion eventually dubbed “Manifest Destiny.” When asked about whether he was quarrelsome, Benton supposedly replied, “I never quarrel, sir, but I do fight, sir, and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir.”
Duelists Are Hypocrites
But the average man who has made his money by ways that are dark and tricks that are vain or who has used deceit, dishonesty, hypocrisy, or oppression in gaining his ends, has no right to send or accept
a challenge to mortal combat. He must stand fair and square before the people if he expects their sympathy. If he fights of course it is out of respect to public opinion, for no two men would fight if they were on an island by themselves. And this proves the duelist a coward, the worst kind of a coward, for he has more regard for public opinion than he has for himself or his family or his friends or his Maker. He knows that a duel proves nothing and settles nothing and yet he deliberately lets public opinion outweigh his wife and his children and worse than all he puts his soul in reach of the devil. From every moral standpoint he is a fool and a coward and could be convicted of lunacy in any court, and ought to be. Lord, help us all—when will this foolishness stop? The law is against it. Public opinion is against it. Common sense is against it and so is humanity and morality. Public opinion says that every such case lowers our moral standard at home and belittles us abroad. Public opinion doesn’t care a snap for the duel or the duelist. Duels prove nothing. They establish no man’s character for truth or integrity. They give him no better credit in bank, no more friends in business. Among decent peaceable people he is looked upon as a partial outlaw, and they shrink from his society for fear of offending him. His code of morals and his peculiar sense of honor is a silent insult to them as though he had said: “I move in a higher plant than you common folks. I am a man of honor—a gentleman.” He has been engaged in a dishonorable business and he knows it, for he has had to skulk around in the night and hide and dodge like a thief. He does not dare to fight on the genial, loving soil of his own State, for that would disfranchise him and so he seeks some other. In fact, the whole thing would be as funny as a farce if nobody was concerned but the principals and their seconds. But there are parents and wives and children and friends and hence the deep concern. Then let us have more peace and less foolishness. Let a man take part in no show that he has to keep secret from his wife or his children. Let him undertake no peril that his preacher couldn’t approve with a parting prayer and benediction. In fact, I have always wondered why the preacher was not taken along as well as the surgeon, for where the devil is, the man of God ought to have an equal chance to capture an immortal soul.
—from The Farm and The Fireside: Sketches of Domestic Life In War and In Peace by Bill Arp. Charles Henry Smith (1826–1903) wrote under the nom de plume of Bill Arp, and was widely read and published in his lifetime. Smith fought in the Civil War for the 8th Georgia Volunteer Infantry and later became Mayor or Rome, Georgia.
Illuminations
for
The Duel × 5
&
The Duelist’s Supplement
The Duel by Giacomo Casanova, with Illuminations for Casanova’s The Duel and a selection from The Duelist’s Supplement—Duels, Duelists and Dueling Grounds.
The Duel by Anton Chekhov, with Illuminations for Anton Chekhov’s The Duel and a selection from The Duelist’s Supplement—Against The Duel: Writing In Protest of Dueling.
The Duel by Joseph Conrad, with Illuminations for Joseph Conrad’s The Duel and a selection from The Duelist’s Supplement—The Code Duello: A Diverse Anthology for Personal Use
The Duel by Heinrich von Kleist, with Illuminations for Heinrich von Kleist’s The Duel and a selection from The Duelist’s Supplement—The Art of Dueling: How To Shoot and Slash Your Way To Satisfaction.
The Duel by Aleksandr Kuprin, with Illuminations for Aleksandr Kuprin’s The Duel and a selection from The Duelist’s Supplement—The Other Duel: Fiction and Poetry Concerning Duels.
OTHER TITLES IN
THE ART OF THE NOVELLA SERIES
BARTLEBY THE SCRIVENER
HERMAN MELVILLE
THE LESSON OF THE MASTER
HENRY JAMES
MY LIFE
ANTON CHEKHOV
THE DEVIL
LEO TOLSTOY
THE TOUCHSTONE
EDITH WHARTON
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES
ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
THE DEAD
JAMES JOYCE
FIRST LOVE
IVAN TURGENEV
A SIMPLE HEART
GUSTAVE FLAUBERT
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING
RUDYARD KIPLING
MICHAEL KOHLHAAS
HEINRICH VON KLEIST
THE BEACH OF FALESÁ
ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON
THE HORLA
GUY DE MAUPASSANT
THE ETERNAL HUSBAND
FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY
THE MAN THAT CORRUPTED HADLEYBURG
MARK TWAIN
THE LIFTED VEIL
GEORGE ELIOT
THE GIRL WITH THE GOLDEN EYES
HONORÉ DE BALZAC
A SLEEP AND A FORGETTING
WILLIAM DEAN HOWELLS
BENITO CERENO
HERMAN MELVILLE
MATHILDA
MARY SHELLEY
STEMPENYU: A JEWISH ROMANCE
SHOLEM ALEICHEM
FREYA OF THE SEVEN ISLES
JOSEPH CONRAD
HOW THE TWO IVANS QUARRELLED
NIKOLAI GOGOL
MAY DAY
F. SCOTT FITZGERALD
RASSELAS, PRINCE ABYSSINIA
SAMUEL JOHNSON
THE DIALOGUE OF THE DOGS
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES
THE LEMOINE AFFAIR
MARCEL PROUST
THE COXON FUND
HENRY JAMES
THE DEATH OF IVAN ILYICH
LEO TOLSTOY
TALES OF BELKIN
ALEXANDER PUSHKIN
THE AWAKENING
KATE CHOPIN
ADOLPHE
BENJAMIN CONSTANT
THE COUNTRY OF THE POINTED FIRS
SARAH ORNE JEWETT
PARNASSUS ON WHEELS
CHRISTOPHER MORLEY
THE NICE OLD MAN AND THE PRETTY GIRL
ITALO SVEVO
LADY SUSAN
JANE AUSTEN
JACOB’S ROOM
VIRGINIA WOOLF
THE DUEL
GIACOMO CASANOVA
THE DUEL
ANTON CHEKHOV
THE DUEL
JOSEPH CONRAD
THE DUEL
HEINRICH VON KLEIST
THE DUEL
ALEXANDER KUPRIN
Anton Chekhov, The Duel
Thank you for reading books on BookFrom.Net Share this book with friends