Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/532

512 512 DUEL on examination they will be seen to belong rather to the class of single combats between the champions of two opposing armies. One such instance is worth quoting as a curious illustration of the superstition of the time. It occurs in a rare tract printed in London, 1G10, The Duello, or Single Combat. &quot; Danish irruptions and the bad aspects of Mars having drencht the common mother earth with her sonnes blood streames, under the reigne of Edmund, a Saxon monarch, misso in compendium (so worthy Camden expresseth it) bello utriusquegentisfata Edmundo Anglorum et Ganuto Danorum regibus commissa fuerunt, qid singulars certamine de summa imperlj in hac insula (that is, the Eight in Glostershire) depugnarunt&quot; By the laws of William the Conqueror the trial by battle was only compulsory when the opposite parties were both Normans, in other iases it was optional. As the two nations were gradually merged into one, this form of trial spread, and until the reign of Henry II. it was the only mode for determining a suit for the recovery of land. The method of procedure is admirably described by Shakespeare in the opening scene in Richard II., where Henry of Bolingbroke, duke of Hereford, challenges Thomas duke of Norfolk, and in the mock-heroic battle between Homer the Armourer and his man Peter in Henry VI., and by Sir W. Scott in the Fair Maid of Perth, where Henry Gow appears before the king as the champion of Magdalen Proudfute. The judicial duel never took root in England as it did in France. In civil suits it was superseded by the grand assize of Henry II., and in cases of felony by indictment at the prosecution of the Crown. One of the latest instances occurred in the reign of Elizabeth, 1571, when the lists were actually pre pared and the justices of the common pleas appeared at To thill Fields as umpires of the combat. Fortunately the petitioner failed to put in an appearance, and was conse quently nonsuited (See Spelman, Glossary, s.v. &quot; Campus&quot;). As late as 1817 Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Thornton v. Ashford, pronounced that &quot; the general law of the land is that there shall be a trial by battle in cases of appeal un less the party brings himself within some of the exceptions.&quot; Thornton was accused of murdering Mary Ashford, and claimed his right to challenge the appellant, the brother of the murdered girl, to wager of battle. His suit was allowed, and, the challenge being refused, the accused escaped. Next year the law was abolished (59 Geo. III., c. 46). In sketching the history of the judicial combat we have traced the parentage of the modern duel. Strip the former of its legality, and divest it of its religious sanction, and the latter remains. We are justified, then, in dating the com mencement of duelling from the abolition of the wager of battle. To pursue its history we must return to France, the country where it first arose, and the soil on which it has most flourished. The causes which made it indigenous to France are sufficiently explained by the condition of society and the national character. As Buckle has pointed out, duelling is a special development of chivalry, and chivalry is one of the phases of the protective spirit which was predominant in France up to the time of the llevolu- tion. Add to this the keen sense of personal honour, the susceptibility, and the pugnacity which distinguish the French race. Montaigne, when touching on this subject in his essays, says, &quot; Put three Frenchmen together on the plains of Libya, and they will not be a month in company without scratching one another s eyes out.&quot; The third chapter of d Audiguier s Aiicien usage des duels is headed, &quot; Pourquoi les seuls Fran^aisse battent en duel.&quot; English literature abounds with allusions to this characteristic of the French nation. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who was ambassador at the court of Louis XIII., says, &quot; There is scarce a Frenchman worth looking on who has not killed his man in a duel.&quot; Ben Jonson, in his Magtietic Lady, makes Compass, the scholar and soldier, thus describe France, &quot; that garden of humanity&quot; : There every gentleman professing arms Thinks he is bound in honour to embrace The bearing of a challenge for another, Without or questioning the cause or asking Least colour of a reason. Duels were not common before the 16th century. Hallam attributes their prevalence to the barbarous custom of wearing swords as a part of domestic dress, a fashion which was not introduced till the later part of the 15th century. In 1560 the states-general at Orleans supplicated Charles IX. to put a stop to duelling. Hence the famous ordinance of 1566, drawn up by the Chancellor de 1 Hopital, which served as the basis of the successive ordinances of the following kings. Under the frivolous and sanguinary reign of Henry III., &quot; who was as eager for excitement as a woman,&quot; the rage for duels spread till it became almost an epidemic. In 1602 the combined remonstrances of the church and the magistrates extorted from the king an edict condemning to death whoever should give or accept a challenge or act as second. But public opinion was revolted by such rigour, and the statute remained a dead letter. A duel forms a fit conclusion to the reign. A hair-brained youth named L lsle Marivaux swore that he would not survive his beloved king, and threw his cartel into the air. It was at once picked up, and Marivaux soon obtained the death he had courted. Henry IV. began his reign by an edict against duels, but he was known in private to favour them ; and, when De Crequi asked leave to fight Don Philip of Savoy, he is reported to have said, &quot; Go, and if I were not a king I would be your second.&quot; Fontenay-Mareuil says, in his Memoir es, that in the eight years between 1601 and 1609, 2000 men of noble birth fell in duels. In 1609 a more effective measure was taken at the instance of Sully by the establishment of a court of honour. The edict decrees that all aggrieved persons shall address themselves to the king, either directly or through the medium of the constables, marshals, &c. ; that the king shall decide, whether, if an accommodation could not be effected, per mission to fight should be given ; that the aggressor, if pro nounced in the wrong, shall in any case be suspended from any public office or employment, and be mulcted of one- third of his revenue till he has satisfied the aggrieved party ; that any one giving or receiving a challenge shall forfeit all right of reparation and all his offices ; that any one who kills his adversary in an unauthorized duel shall suffer death without burial, and his children shall be reduced to villanage ; that seconds, if they take part in a duel, shall suffer death, if not, shall be degraded from the profession of arms. This edict has been pronounced by Henri Martin &quot; the wisest decree of the ancient monarchy on a matter which involves so many delicate and profound questions of morals, politics, and religion touching civil rights &quot; (llistoire de France, x. 466). In the succeeding reign the mania for duels revived. De Houssaye tells us that in Paris when friends met the first question was, &quot;Who fought yesterday 1 who is to fight to-day ? &quot; They fought by night and day, by moonlight and by torch-light, in the public streets and squares. A hasty word, a misconceived gesture, a question about the colour of a riband or an embroidered letter, such were the commonest pretexts for a duel. The slighter and more frivolous the dispute, the less were they inclined to submit them to the king for adjudication. Often, like gladiators or prize-fighters, they fought for the pure love of fighting. A misunderstanding is cleared up on the ground. &quot; N im- porte,&quot; cry the principals, &quot; puisque nous sommes ici, battons-nous.&quot; Seconds, as Montaigne tells us, are no