Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/533

513 DUEL 513 longer witnesses, but must take part themselves unless they would be thought wanting in affection or courage ; and he goes on to complain that men are no longer contented with a single second, &quot; c e&quot;tait anciennement des duels, ce sont a cette heure rencontres et batailles.&quot; There is no more striking instance of Richelieu s firmness and power as a statesman than his conduct in the matter of duelling. In his Testament Politique he has assigned his reasons for disapproving it as a statesman and ecclesiastic. But this disapproval was turned to active detestation by a private cause. His elder brother, the head of the house, had fallen in a duel stabbed to the heart by an enemy of the cardinal. Already four edicts had been published under Louis XIII. with little or no effect, when in 1626 there was published a new edict condemning to death any one who had killed his adversary in a duel, or had been found guilty of sending a challenge a second time. Banishment and partial con fiscation of goods were awarded for lesser offences. But this edict differed from preceding ones not so much in its severity as in the fact that it was the first which was actually enforced. The cardinal began by imposing the penalties of banishment and fines, but, these proving ineffectual to stay the evil, he determined to make a terrible example. To quote his own words to the king, &quot; II s agit de couper la gorge aux duels ou aux edits de votre MajesteV The count de Boutteville, a renommist who had already been engaged in twenty-one affairs of honour, deter mined out of pure bravado to fight a twenty-second time. The duel took place at mid-day on the Place Royal. De Boutteville was arrested with his second, the count de Chapelles ; they were tried by Parliament, condemned, and, in spite of all the influence of the powerful house of Montmorenci, of which De Boutteville was a branch, they were both beheaded at Greve, June 21, 1627. For a short time the ardour of duellists was cooled. But the lesson soon lost its effect. Only five years later we read in the Mercure de France that two gentlemen who had killed one another in a duel were, by the cardinal s orders, hanged on a gallows, stripped, and with their heads downwards, in the sight of all the people. This was a move in the right direc tion, since, for fashionable vices, ridicule and ignominy is a more drastic remedy than death. It was on this principle that Caraccioli, prince of Melfi, when viceroy of Piedmont, finding that his officers were being decimated by duelling, proclaimed that all duels should be fought on the parapet of the Ponte Vecchio, and if one of the combatants chanced to fall into the river he should on no account be pulled out. Under the long reign of Louis XIV. many celebrated duels took place, of which the most remarkable were that between the duke of Guise and Count Coligny, the last fought on the Place Royal, and that between the dukes of Beaufort and Nemours, each attended by four friends. Of the ten combatants, Nemours and two others were killed on the spot, and none escaped without some wound. No less than eleven edicts against duelling were issued under le Grand Monarque. That of 1643 established a supreme court of honour composed of the marshals of France ; but the most famous was that of 1679, which confirmed the enactments of his predecessors, Henry IV. and Louis XII. At the same time a solemn agreement was entered into by the principal nobility that they would never engage in a duel on any pretence whatever. A medal was struck to commemorate the occasion, and the firmness of the king, in refusing pardon to all offenders, contributed more to restrain this scourge of society than all the efforts of his predecessors. The subsequent history of duelling in France may be more shortly treated. The two great Frenchmen whose writings preluded the French Revolution both set their faces against it. Voltaire had indeed, as a young man, in obedience to the dictates of society, once sought satisfaction from a nobleman for a brutal insult, and had reflected on his temerity in the solitude of the Bastille. 1 Henceforward he inveightd against the practice, not. only for its absurdity, but also for its aristocratic exclusiveness. Rousseau had said of duelling, &quot; It is not an institution of honour, but a horrible and barbarous custom, which a courageous man despises and a good man abhors.&quot; Then came the Revolu tion, which levelled at a blow the huge structure of feudalism, and with it the duel, its instrument and apanage. Pauca tamen suberunt priscce vestigia fraudis. With each reaction against the revolutionary spirit and return to feudal ideas the duel reappears. Under the Directory it again became fashionable among the upper classes. Napoleon was a sworn foe to it. &quot; Bon duelliste mauvais soldat &quot; is one of his best known sayings ; and, when the king of Sweden sent him a challenge, he replied that he would order a fencing-master to attend him. as plenipotentiary. After the battle of Waterloo duels such as Lever loves to depict were frequent between disbanded French officers and those of the allies in occupation. The restoration of the Bourbons brought with it a fresh crop of duels. Since then they have been chiefly confined to military circles, and a small section of Parisian journalists. Yet a list of duels fought within the last fifty years in France would occupy no inconsiderable space, and would include some of the most famous name:) in literature and politics, Emile de Girardin, Armand Carrel, Lamartine, Alexandre Dumas, Ledru Rollin, Edmond About, Sainte-Beuve, and M. Thiers. Even at the present hour men like Paul de Cassagnac exer cise a sinister power, and an editor of the Pays must be an adept with swords and pistols no less than a skilled writer. As a complete history of duelling would far exceed the limits of this article, we have preferred to trace in some detail its rise and fall in the country where it has most pre vailed. We are thus compelled to pass by other nations, and conclude with a brief epitome of its annals at home. Duelling did not begin in England till some hundred years after it had arisen in France. There is no instance of a private duel fought in this country before the 16th century, and they are rare before the reign of James I. A very fair notion of the comparative popularity of duelling, and of the feeling with which it was regarded at various periods, might be gathered by examining the part it plays in the novels and lighter literature of the times. The earliest duels we remember in fiction are that in the Monastery between Sir Piercie Shafton and Halbert Glendinning, and that in /ie;u7?cort/i between Tressilian and Varney. (That in Anne of Geierstein either is an anachronism or must reckon as a wager by battle.) Under James I. we have the encounter between Nigel and Lord Dalgarno. The greater evil of war, as we observed in French history, expels the lesser, and the literature of the Commonwealth is in this respect a blank. With the Restoration there came a reaction against Puritan morality, and a return to the gallantry and loose manners of French society, which is best represented by the theatre of the day. The drama of 1 Voltaire met the Chevalier Rohan-Chabot at the house of the Marquis of Sully. The Chevalier, offended by Voltaire s free speech, insolently asked the Marquis,&quot; Who is that young man? &quot;One,&quot; replied Voltaire, &quot;who, if he does not parade a great name, honours that he bears.&quot; The Chevalier said nothing at the time, but, seizing his opportunity, inveigled Voltaire into his coach, and had him beaten by six of his footmen. Voltaire set to work to learn fencing, and then sought the Chevalier in the theatre, and publicly challenged him. A bon-mot at the Chevalier s expense was the only satisfaction that the philosopher could obtain. Monsieur, si quelque affaire d interet ne vous a point fait oublier 1 outrage dont j ai a me plaindre, j espere que vous m en rendvez raison,&quot; The Cheralier was said to employ his capital in petty usury. VII. 65