DUEL. 



DM* 



Opinion of 

 the German 



MUirtioned 

 by taw. 



Keudal ty- 

 tcm farour- 

 ble to its 

 progress. 



either for discovering the truth, or settling disputes 

 among public enemies. 



In seven! countries, too, to avoid the shedding of 

 blood, the accused were allowed to dear themselves by 

 oath. This oath, in important cases, was made to ex- 

 U-ml to a number of witnesses, who were all obliged to 

 swear to the innocence of the accused person. In this 

 way, considerable care was taken to arrive- at the truth. 

 But as the most turbulent and wicked are always least 

 restrained by the sanctions of religion, the guilty were 

 often led to vindicate themselves by swearing falsely. 

 ( hi which account, this mode of trial gradually went in- 

 to disuse, and the single combat gained ground. 



Tacitus informs us, that when one German nation in- 

 tended to declare war against another, they endeavour- 

 ed to take some person prisoner, whom they obliged to 

 fight with one ot their people ; and by the event of this 

 combat they judged of the success of the war. They 

 considered it, whatever it was, as a decree of heaven, 

 ever attentive to punish the guilty. 



This summary mode of obtaining justice accorded 

 with the character of the people among whom it pre- 

 vailed ; and having once gained ground, it was reduced 

 to regular form, and made part of the legal jurispru- 

 dence. Magistrates appointed the place where the com- 

 batants were to fight, the weapons they were to employ, 

 and all the circumstances connected with it. Both the 

 accuser and accused gave pledges to the judges that 

 they would abide by the issue of the trial. And so far 

 did the custom prevail among the Germans, Danes, and 

 Franks, that none were exempted from it but women, 

 sick people, cripples, and such as were under 21 years 

 of age, or above 60. Even ecclesiastics, priests, and 

 monks, were obliged to find champions to fight in their 

 stead. The punishment of the vanquished was either 

 death, or mutilation of members, according to the cir- 

 cumstances of the case. 



This practice, originally adopted for discovering 

 truth, and preventing perjury, gradually degenerated 

 into a species of self-avenging power, not only tacitly 

 permitted, but publicly authonsed ; and its laws and 

 regulations were accurately denned in most kingdoms 

 of Europe. 



Under the feudal system, the duel was warmly pa- 

 tronised. The haughty barons, regardless of the prin- 

 ciples of law and justice, considered their sword as the 

 avenger of their wrongs, and disdained to submit to any 

 thing but their own strength and prowess for obtaining 

 satisfaction. They were ignorant and untractable. They 

 were fierce, cruel, anil oppressive. The administration of 

 public justice was impeded by the force of private ani- 

 mosities, while every domineering chief not only made 

 himself the determiner of his own cause, but claimed 

 the sole power of judgment over his vassals. These he 

 protected and defended in all their depredations on 

 others, but held them himself in the most abject slave- 

 ry. A powerful baron seldom appeared abroad in those 

 times, but with the view of plunder or freebooty, or to 

 execute some purpose of revenge or lust And having 

 accomplished his purpose, he retired within the gloom 

 and entrenchment of his impregnable castle, which was 

 equally fortified against the admission of his rival ba- 

 ron, or his lawful sovereign. 



These evils gradually arose to an alarming height. 

 Every kingdom was distracted by the private quarrels 

 and|>etty wars of a lawless aristocracy. War and tin- 

 duel were the ruling passions to which all considera- 

 tions of religion, justice, and humanity, were made to 

 bend. In such a state of society, some possessed of 



more enlightened views and better principles, endea- Duct 

 voured to direct anil controul this torrent of unprinci- ^^ "("** 

 pled courage and military violence. With this view, Origin of 

 they formed theinscKe- into societies for the relief of in- iliirdry. 

 jured innocence and di.-tressed virtue, for the redresi of 

 opprcv-ions and grievance-., for the protection of the 

 weak and defencelos, for the correction of abuses, and 

 the promotion of the public good. 



Hence originated chivalry and knight-errantry, which 

 at the same time modified and increased the practice of 

 duelling. Chivalry certainly tended much to soften 

 the manners of die age in which it originated. It not 

 only taught mankind to carry the civilities of peace in- 

 to the oiH-rations of war, and to mingle politeness with 

 the use of the sword, itron.scd the soul from its lethar- 

 gy, invigorated the human character, and produced ex- 

 ploits which have been the admiration of Micceeding 

 ages. But while it produced these effects, it gave birth itgtre birth 

 to punctilious refinement, and sowed the first seeds of that i the mo- 

 fantastic honour, the bitterness of whose fruits are still "k *' ue ^ 

 felt in the modem duel. Every youth of distinction, 

 being trained in this school of honour, was taught to 

 consider military fame and personal valour as almost 

 the only sources of glory. 



But to preserve this valour from degenerating into 

 brutal force, a new code of punctilious and refined ob- 

 servances was introduced, on the principles of which 

 the laws of modern honour are founded. The grounds 

 also of the duel or single combat were widely extended. 

 Persons invested with the honours of knighthood did 

 not fight out of malice or revenge, but to signalize their 

 bravery in the protection of the defenceless, and in 

 maintaining the glory of their respective nations. At 

 all banquets of consequence, feats of personal valour 

 were exhibited. Tilts and tournaments were the com- The 

 mon sports and pastimes of the age; and those combats grounds of 

 were often countenanced by the presence of the prince **" d " e 

 and his whole court. When Edward III. and his gal- exteE 

 lant son invited knights of all nations to be present at 

 these tournaments, when the most distinguished females 

 graced them with their presence, and the champions 

 were eager to lay the trophies of their victory at the 

 feet of those they loved, no wonder that they were ur- 

 ged on to the most remarkable displays of valour. 



These tournaments continued long in high estima- 

 tion. But the death of Henry II. \\lnt was killed in 

 one of them, gave a death-blow to their progress ; and 

 the renown of chivalry fell with that monarch to rise ci,| V jj r , 

 no more, but in the tules of romance. The duel, how- d cc )ined. 

 ever, which had grown up along with it, was not so 

 easily stopped. It had arisen to such a height, as to 

 call loudly for the interference of public authority to 

 check its extravagance. The challenge of Francis I. to 

 his rival, the Emperor Charles V. countenanced this 

 practice. From that time, the single combat on private 

 and personal injuries increased with rapidity. An over- 

 refined sense of honour was ready to construe every 

 thing into an affront. An unguarded word, a haughty 

 look, and a disdainful carriage, were often productive 

 of the most fatal consequences. 



From this period we may date the origin of the mo- Origin of 

 dern duel. The subjects of Francis, fierce in their cou- the moU 

 rage, lofty in their sentiments, and punctilious in their duel. 

 manners, now indulged their native propensity to the 

 single combat, under the countenance and even injunc- 

 tion of their monarch, who left it to his successors to 

 feel the weight of the growing evil. 



As the practice of duelling nowhere rose to a greater Mni u. 

 height than in France, so ia no country were more ken ? * u ' 1 " 



rcM it* 



