Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 27 - CHI-ELD.pdf/591

 DUELLING making sympathy the foundation of morality. In political philosophy he teaches an ethical communism, and attacks the Darwinian principle of struggle for existence. In economics he is best known by his vindication of the American writer H. C. Carey, who attracts him both by his theory of value, which suggests an ultimate harmony of the interests of capitalist and labourer, and also by his doctrine of “ national ” political economy, which advocates protection on the ground that the morals and culture of a people are promoted by having its whole system of industry complete within its own borders. His patriotism is fervent, but narrow and exclusive. He idolizes Frederick the Great, and denounces Jews, Greeks, and the cosmopolitan Goethe. Duehring’s clear, incisive writing is disfigured by arrogance and ill-temper, failings which may be extenuated on the ground of his physical affliction. Duelling'. — While in England the law against duelling has, supported by public opinion, sufficed to condemn the practice and entirely to suppress it, a recrudescence of the custom in foreign countries, and especially in France and Germany, was observable towards the close of the 19th century. Although most penal codes make duelling an offence punishable by pains and penalties of more or less severity, no country has as yet gone so far in this direction as England, where the slayer in a duel is held to be guilty of the capital offence, and the principals and accessories, even where no fatal issue supervenes, of a misdemeanour. This survival of the trial by battle flourishes, as would be expected, in countries in which militarism reigns supreme, and where, as a corollary, the civil tribunals are supposed to furnish but inadequate guarantees for personal liberty in cases where the delicate sense of honour of the military caste is concerned. The antagonism subsisting between the combatant class and the civil population is further intensified in the “nations in arms,” and notably in Germany, by the fact that an officer on retiring from the army still preserves in civil life his character as officer, and cannot seek satisfaction for personal affronts before the civil tribunals without forfeiting his position as a “ man of honour.” The spirit of medievalism, which still in tradition is strong enough to support an anomaly which sober public opinion has been unable to abolish, is further fostered by the prerogative of pardon, which, except in very flagrant cases, is almost always exercised by the ruling powers in favour of the offenders. Although French writers on the subject, notably Chateauvillard, claim for the duel a French origin, there appears to be little doubt that it was in Germany that, about the middle of the 16 th century, it became established as an institution. No other country has clung to the duel with such tenacity. Academically it has found many staunch advocates among jurists in that country, and recent attempts to deal with the evil have been rather in the nature of palliatives than of measures directed towards eradicating it. Since 1896, when a tragic duel between two officers of the reserve, von Schrader and von Kotze, at Potsdam, resulting in the death of the former, more than ordinarily aroused public opinion, attempts have on various occasions been made to enlist the sympathies of the Reichstag with a view to fresh legislative enactment on the subject—but unsuccessfully. The German Emperor, in a Cabinet Order of 1897, confirmed in 1901, issued directions to the military courts of honour, insisting upon the causes of the alleged affront being in each case properly sifted, the blame brought home to the proper party, the illegality of the duel pointed out to the parties by the president of the court, and every attempt made to effect a reconciliation. It is only fair to say that where these instructions have been dis-

541

regarded, rigorous punishment has not failed to be meted out to the responsible persons. The German penal code (Reichsstrafgesetzbuch, pars. 101-110) only punishes a duel when it is fought with lethal weapons; and much controversy has raged round the question of the Mensuren or students’ duels {vide infra), which, as being conducted with sharpened rapiers, have, despite the precautions taken, in the way of bandaging the vital parts of the body which a cut could reach, to reduce the risk of a fatal issue to a minimum, been declared by the Supreme Court of the Empire to fall under the head of duels, and as such to be punishable. The so-called American duel, where the two parties draw lots, and the loser is under a moral obligation to kill himself within a specified time, is not recognized as a duel (not being a battle) by any foreign code except that of Austria {Strafgesetzentwurf, 1889), which makes it a penal offence “ where predetermined chance shall determine which of two persons shall kill himself.” The French claim for their writer Chateauvillard that he first formulated the rules of affairs of honour, and his treatise is, in effect, the accepted authority in all civilized countries. The recognized weapons are pistol, fleuret, and broadsword; and it seems to be an established rule that a civilian may, though a military man may not, refuse to fight with the sword. In July 1889 M. Freycinet (French Minister for War), in an Order addressed to the Generals commanding Army Corps, after stating that his attention had been drawn to the risk to life resulting from the use of the fleuret in military duels, communicated his decision that in the rare cases where an armed encounter was not perhaps prescribed, but authorized, by the chief of the corps, the combatants should make use, not of the fleuret, but of service swords. The German Emperor William I. also declared in favour of the broadsword;, but the pistol is in Germany almost always the weapon selected. In France, unlike Germany, in which latter country military duels largely preponderate, it is parliamentarians and pressmen who mostly seek satisfaction in affaires d’honneur, which are often merely nominal; the weapon employed is generally the fleuret. The Roman Catholic Church does not admit any reason justifying the duel; and it is generally understood that both Roman Catholics and Jews may, without detriment to their social position, refuse one, as being expressly prohibited by the canons of their religion. Moreover, the practice is visited by ecclesiastical censures, by excommunication, denial of the last rites of sacrament and, in the Protestant Church also, of burial by the Church. The Mensuren (German students’ duels) above referred to are frequently misunderstood. They bear little resemblance, save in form, to the duel a outrance, and should rather be considered in the light of athletic games, in which the overflow of high animal spirits in young Germany finds its outlet. These combats are indulged in principally by picked representatives of the “corps” (recognized clubs), and according to the position and value of the Schmisse (cuts which have landed) points are awarded to either side. Formerly these so-called duels could be openly indulged in at most universities without let or hindrance. Gradually, however, the academic authorities took cognizance of the illegality of the practice, and in many cases inflicted punishment for the offence. Nowadays, owing to the decision of the Supreme Court reserving to the common law tribunals the power to deal with such cases, the governing bodies at the universities have only a disciplinary control, which is exercised at the various seats of learning in various degrees: in some the practice is silently tolerated, or at most visited by reprimand ; in others, again, by relegation or career—with the result that the students of one university