Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/531

Rh 1em DUDLEY,. See.  DUEL, a deadly combat between two persons. The word is used in two distinct senses—(1) the judicial combat, a form of trial which prevailed in the Middle Ages, ordained by law as a proof of guilt or innocence ; and (2) the modern duel, a pre-arranged combat with deadly weapons between two private persons to settle some private quarrel. Though duelling is in England obsolete, and in other countries fast obsolescent, yet it must still command our attention as the latest survival of feudalism, and its history will always be studied as one of the most curious develop ments of mediaeval society. On the origin of the duel a vast amount of perverse ingenuity has been spent. Writers of the and commonly begin their treatises with an account of the combats between David and Goliath, Hector and Achilles, the Horatii and Curiatii, By etymology it is true that duellum is the same word as bellum, and in this sense the origin of the duel must be traced to the earliest condi tion of society, when every man s hand was against his neighbour. But, in the specialized sense which the word now bears, the duel was a peculiar institution of compara tively recent origin, a local custom which never spread beyond the limits of civilized Europe. It is easily distin guished both from the casual affrays of savages and the set battles of the champions of contending nations. An account of the judicial duel will clearly show that it is the direct parent of the modern duel. In  Gondebald, king of the Burgundians, passed a law authoriz ing the wager of battle, and in the preamble he gives his reason for introducing this new form of trial. It is that his subjects may no longer take oaths upon uncertain matters, or forswear themselves upon certain. Here is one proof among many that the judicial duel was introduced to correct the abuses of compurgation by oath. Like the other ordeals which it superseded, it was a direct appeal to Heaven to vindicate truth and punish falsehood. Like them it was founded on the superstitious spirit of the age, but unlike them it addressed itself to the martial temper and personal prowess of the nobles. Other ordeals, such as the cross, the corsned, and the oath on the gospels, were in the hands of the clergy, and were manipulated by them in the interest of the church or of themselves. In the wager of battle each man felt that his cause was in his own hands, and, though might was right, yet even this was better than the jugglery of priests. Nor, as Montesquieu has pointed out, was the trial so irrational as it would seem to modern eyes. Among a warlike people cowardice is a sign of other vices, vices which are most hateful and most prejudicial to a simple community, of meanness, lying, and fraud. It shows an indifference to public opinion, a neglect of the education of the day, which consisted mainly in the use of arms and warlike exercises. In a word, the law was neither better nor worse than the received morality of the time. From this jurisdiction none was exempt ; women, minors, and ecclesiastics were required to appear by proxy ; and adverse witnesses, and even the judge himself, were liable to be challenged to make good their words by force of arms. Those who are curious to observe the formalities and legal rules of a judicial combat will find them described at length in the 28th book of Montesquieu s Esprit des Lois. On these regulations he well remarks that, as there are an infinity of wise things conducted in a very foolish manner, so there are some foolish things conducted in a very wise manner. For our present purpose it is sufficient to observe the development of the idea of personal honour from which the modern duel directly sprang. In the ancient laws of the Swedes we find that if any man shall say to another, &quot; You are not a man equal to other men,&quot; or &quot;You have not the heart of a man,&quot; and the other shall reply, &quot; I am a man as good as you,&quot; they shall meet on the highway, and then follow the regulations for the combat. What is this but the modern challenge? By the Jaw of the Lombards if one man call another arga, the insulted party might defy the other to mortal combat. What is arga but the dummer Junger of the German student ? Beaumanoir thus describes a legal process under Louis le De&quot;bonnaire : The appellant begins by a declaration before the judge that the appellee is guilty of a certain crime ; if the appellee answers that his accuser lies, the judge then ordains the duel. Is not this the modern point of honour, by which to be given the lie is an insult which can only be wiped out by blood? From Germany the trial by judicial combat rapidly spread to every country of Europe. In France it was first confined to criminal causes, but this restriction was removed by Louis IX., who made it legal in civil matters as well, with the one proviso that in cases of debt the amount must exceed twelve deniers. By Philippe le Bel it was again confined in civil cases to questions of disputed inheritance, and forbidden altogether during the war between England and France. In a duel was fought, the result of which was so preposterous that even the most superstitious began to lose faith in the efficacy of such a judgment of God. A certain Jacques Legris was accused by the wife of Jean Carrouge of having introduced himself by night in the guise of her husband, and thus abused her. A duel was ordained by the Parliament, which was fought in the presence of Charles VI. Legris was defeated and hanged on the spot. Not long after a criminal arrested for some other offence confessed himself to be the author of the outrage. No institution could long survive so open a confutation. Henceforward the duel in France ceases to be an appeal to Heaven, and becomes merely a satisfaction of wounded honour. The last instance of a duel authorized by the magistrates, and conducted according to the forms of law, was the famous one between Francois de Vivonne de la Chataignerie and Guy Chabot de Jarnac. The duel was fought on the 10th of July in the court-yard of the chateau of St Germain-en-Laye, in the presence of the king and a large assembly of courtiers. It was memorable in two ways. It enriched the French language with a new phrase ; a sly and unforeseen blow, such as that by which De Jarnac worsted La Chataignerie has since been called a coup de Jarnac. And Henry, grieved at the death of his favourite, swore a solemn oath that he would never again permit a duel to be fought. This led to the first of the many royal edicts against duelling. In England, it is now generally agreed that the wager of battle did not exist before the time of the Norman Conquest. Some previous examples have been adduced, bat 