{"id":949,"date":"2014-10-13T19:35:02","date_gmt":"2014-10-13T19:35:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/?page_id=949"},"modified":"2014-10-14T05:37:36","modified_gmt":"2014-10-14T05:37:36","slug":"dueling","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/dueling\/","title":{"rendered":"Dueling &#8211; &#8220;Mighty Fine Shindig&#8221;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a name=\"top\"><a href=\"http:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/firefly-shindig-duel.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-648\" alt=\"firefly-shindig-duel\" src=\"http:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/firefly-shindig-duel-300x168.jpg\" width=\"300\" height=\"168\" srcset=\"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/firefly-shindig-duel-300x168.jpg 300w, https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/firefly-shindig-duel.jpg 800w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><strong><em>Not to fret &#8211; we have safe &amp; fun dueling equipment!<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>From <em>The Romance of Duelling in all Times &amp; Countries<\/em> by Andrew Steinmetz (1868)<\/p>\n<p><i>In this short excerpt,\u00a0Steinmetz reviews the common protocols of the duel. The similarities\u00a0between them and the&nbsp;protocols of the fencing match are obvious.\u00a0Indeed, the&nbsp;principal distinction between the two is the difference\u00a0between blunt and sharp.<\/i><\/p>\n<p><b><span style=\"color: #660000;\">Duels\u00a0with Swords<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In duels with the sword, the\u00a0seconds mark the standing spot of each combatant, leaving a\u00a0distance of two feet between the points of their\u00a0weapons.<\/li>\n<li>The standing ground is drawn\u00a0for by lots.<\/li>\n<li>The swords are measured to\u00a0ascertain that they are of equal length, and in no case must a\u00a0sword with a sharp edge or a notch be allowed.<\/li>\n<li>The combatants are requested to\u00a0throw off their coats and to lay bare their breasts, to show that\u00a0they do not wear any defence or cuirass that could ward off a\u00a0thrust. A refusal to submit to this proposal is to be considered a\u00a0refusal to fight.<\/li>\n<li>If, on comparing weapons, the\u00a0swords are found to differ, the choice must be decided by chance,\u00a0unless the disproportion is of a material nature.<\/li>\n<li>The hand may be wrapped in a\u00a0handkerchief, but an end of it is not allowed to hang down, lest\u00a0the point of the opponent\u2019s sword might catch in it, and so\u00a0entrap him.<\/li>\n<li>At the word ALLEZ, &#8220;commence,&#8221;\u00a0they set to, the seconds holding a sword or a cane, with the point\u00a0downwards, and standing close to each combatant, and prepared to\u00a0stop the fight the moment the rules agreed upon are\u00a0transgressed.<\/li>\n<li>Unless previously stipulated,\u00a0neither of the combatants is allowed to turn off the sword of his\u00a0opponent with the left hand; should a combatant persist in thus\u00a0using his left hand, the seconds of his adversary may insist that\u00a0the hand shall be tied behind his back.<\/li>\n<li>Of course the combatants are\u00a0allowed to stoop, to rise, to vault to the right or to the left,\u00a0and turn round each other, as practised in the fencing lessons and\u00a0depicted in the various treatises on the art.<\/li>\n<li>When one of the parties\u00a0exclaims that he is wounded, or a wound is perceived by his\u00a0second, the combat is stopped; but with the consent of the wounded\u00a0man it may be renewed. If the wounded man, although the combat is\u00a0ordered to be stopped, continues to press upon his opponent, this\u00a0act is equivalent to his express desire to continue the conflict;\u00a0but he must be stopped and reprimanded. If, in the same<br \/> circumstances, the combatant that is not wounded continues to\u00a0press on his antagonist, although ordered to stop by the seconds,\u00a0he must be immediately checked by them, and considered to have<br \/>\ninfringed the rules.<\/li>\n<li>The signal to stop is given by\u00a0one second raising his sword or cane, when the other second cries\u00a0out &#8220;stop,&#8221; and then the combatants recede one step, still\u00a0remaining in guard.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b><span style=\"color: #660000;\">Duels\u00a0with Sabres<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>In these duels the short sabre\u00a0is preferred by the seconds, its wounds being less fatal than\u00a0those of long.<\/li>\n<li>The combatants are posted at\u00a0the distance of one foot from the sabre-points.<\/li>\n<li>In general, these duels are\u00a0fought with duff-gloves. But otherwise the parties may wrap a\u00a0handkerchief round their hand and wrist, provided that no end is\u00a0allowed to hang down.<\/li>\n<li>Of course the same\u00a0precautionary steps are taken to ascertain, as in a sword duel,\u00a0that no defence is worn by either party.<\/li>\n<li>At the word ALLEZ, the\u00a0combatants advance on each other, and either give point or cut,\u00a0vaulting, advancing or retreating at pleasure. To strike an\u00a0opponent when disarmed, to seize his arm, his body, or his weapon,\u00a0is a foul proceeding. A combatant is disarmed when his sabre is\u00a0either wrenched from him or dropped.<\/li>\n<li>Duels with the sabre may be\u00a0stipulated to take place without giving point, when blunt sabres\u00a0are used. In this case, to give point and kill an opponent is\u00a0considered an assassination.<\/li>\n<li>These duels are always\u00a0considered ended on the first loss of blood.<\/li>\n<li>When soldiers fight, the\u00a0<i>maitre d\u2019armes, <\/i>or fencing-master of the regiment,\u00a0stands by, ready to parry any very ugly cut or thrust, as the form\u00a0of the duel may be, and otherwise to see that everything is done\u00a0properly according to the regulations. A disabling wound in a\u00a0duel, with permission of his Colonel, is considered equivalent to\u00a0a wound in battle, and entitled to a like pension.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>It is evident from all these\u00a0details that the fancy of duellists must have run mad in devising\u00a0such a multiplicity of methods of fighting, &#8211;many of them calculated\u00a0to place a man in an extremely ridiculous situation, veritably making\u00a0the affair a monstrous tragicomedy. Such, however, were the various\u00a0modes of duelling sanctioned for the vindication of injured honour,\u00a0and we have now to inquire into the nature of the offences entailing\u00a0such tremendous retribution.<\/p>\n<p>According to the French code of\u00a0honour there are three sorts of offences:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>a simple\u00a0offence;<\/li>\n<li>an offence of an\u00a0insulting nature; and<\/li>\n<li>an offence with personal\u00a0violence.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>With regard to the first, if in the\u00a0course of a discussion an offence is offered, the person who has been\u00a0offended is the injured party.\u00a0If this injury is followed by a\u00a0blow, of course the party struck is the injured one.\u00a0To return one blow with another of\u00a0a more serious nature\u2014severely wounding, for instance, after a\u00a0slap in the face\u2014does not constitute the person who received the\u00a0second blow, however severe it may be, the party originally\u00a0insulted.<\/p>\n<p>If in the course of a discussion,\u00a0during which the rules of politeness have not been transgressed, but\u00a0in consequence of which expressions have been used which induce one\u00a0of the party to consider himself offended, the man who demands\u00a0satisfaction cannot be considered the aggressor, or the person who\u00a0gives it the offended; the case must be submitted to the trial of\u00a0chance.<\/p>\n<p>But if a man sends a message\u00a0without a sufficient cause, he becomes the aggressor; and the\u00a0seconds, before they allow a meeting to take place, must insist upon\u00a0a sufficient reason being manifestly shown.<\/p>\n<p>All these are insisted on because\u00a0the selection of the weapons and the kind of duel rests with the\u00a0offended party.<\/p>\n<p>A son may espouse the cause of his\u00a0father if he is too aged to resent an insult, or if the age of the\u00a0aggressor is of great disparity; but the son cannot espouse the\u00a0quarrel of his father if he has been the aggressor. As Dr. Millingen\u00a0observes, this is a very judicious rule. Some of your old men are\u00a0particular crusty and inconsiderate, and if this rule were not\u00a0enforced any old gentleman might grievously offend another, screening\u00a0himself by his age and infirmities, and sending some vigorous,\u00a0active, and practised &#8220;big boy&#8221; to do the brave for him. Consequently\u00a0he should be made personally responsible for his conduct, and obliged\u00a0to make a most humble apology, if he cannot give personal\u00a0satisfaction. Besides, the rule prevents the sacrifice of life to\u00a0which filial affection might expose a generous youth, who in his\u00a0conscience may condemn his father\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n<p>If the offence has been attended by\u00a0acts of violence, the offended party has the right to name, not only\u00a0his duel, his arms, the distance, but may also insist upon the\u00a0aggressor not using his own arms, to which he may have become\u00a0accustomed by practice; but in this case the offended party must also\u00a0use weapons with which he has not practised.<\/p>\n<p>Honour can never be compromised by\u00a0the offending party admitting that he was in the wrong. If the\u00a0apology of the offending party is deemed sufficient by the seconds of\u00a0the offended, if the seconds express their satisfaction and are ready\u00a0to affirm this opinion in writing, or if the offender has tendered a\u00a0written apology considered of a satisfactory nature, &#8211;in such a case\u00a0the party that offers to apologize ceases to be the offender, and if\u00a0his adversary persists the arms must be decided by lot.<\/p>\n<p>However, <i>no apology can be\u00a0received after a blow.<\/i> Such an offence has often led to a mortal\u00a0combat.<\/p>\n<p>If the seconds of the offending\u00a0party come to the ground with an apology instead of bringing forward\u00a0their principal, it is only to them that blame can be attached, as\u00a0the honour of their principal was placed in their hands.<\/p>\n<p>No challenge can be sent by\u00a0collective parties. If any body or society of men have received an\u00a0insult, they can only send an individual belonging to it to demand\u00a0satisfaction. A message collectively sent may be refused, but the\u00a0challenged party may select an antagonist from the collection, or\u00a0leave the nomination to chance.<\/p>\n<p>All duels should take place during\u00a0the forty-eight hours that succeed the offence unless it is otherwise\u00a0stipulated by the seconds. As Dr. Millingen remarks, this rule is of\u00a0importance; forty-eight hours may be considered a fair time to\u00a0reflect upon the painful necessity of a hostile meeting, and there is\u00a0in general reason to suppose that a challenge sent long after a\u00a0provocation has been the result of the interference of <i>busy\u00a0friends<\/i>.<\/p>\n<p>It is the duty of the seconds to\u00a0decide upon the necessity of the duel and to state their opinions to\u00a0their principals. After having consulted with them in such a manner\u00a0as not to allow any chance of avoiding a duel to escape, they must\u00a0again meet, and exert their best endeavours to settle the business\u00a0amicably.<\/p>\n<p>The seconds of a young man shall\u00a0not allow him to fight an adversary above sixty years of age, unless\u00a0this adversary had struck him, and in this case his challenge must be\u00a0accepted <i>in writing<\/i>. His refusal to comply with this rule is\u00a0tantamount to giving satisfaction, and the young man\u2019s honour is\u00a0thereby satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>If any unfair occurrence takes\u00a0place in a duel, it is the duty of the seconds to commit the\u00a0circumstance to paper, and follow it up before the competent\u00a0tribunals, when they are bound to give evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Such are the chief rules and\u00a0regulations of the French code of honour. These new pandects were\u00a0authorized and signed by eleven peers, twenty-five general officers,\u00a0and fifty superior officers. Nearly all the maires and prefets gave\u00a0in their adhesion, and even the minister of war, being restrained by\u00a0a pardonable delicacy and the awkwardness of official position from\u00a0attaching his signature, took the trouble of writing a formal letter,\u00a0signifying his approval of the entire arrangement.<\/p>\n<p>Many of the regulations however,\u00a0are transparently borrowed from the Irish constitutions before\u00a0mentioned. The important axiom of a blow admitting of no verbal\u00a0apology whatever, and the almost casuistical theories as to what\u00a0constitutes &#8220;the insulted party,&#8221; are common to both.<\/p>\n<p>Strange as may appear such exalted\u00a0sanction according by the leading men of France to the practice of\u00a0duelling, we must not forget the very wise remark of\u00a0Bentham:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>&#8220;If the legislator had always\u00a0applied a proper system of satisfaction for offences, there would\u00a0have been no duelling, which has been, and is still, but a\u00a0supplement to the insufficiency of the laws.&#8221;<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong><span style=\"color: #660000;\">Duel\u00a0Between a Man and a Dog<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><i>Of all the accounts of\u00a0duels, ordinary and extraordinary, this is certainly one of my\u00a0favorites. If you know and love dogs as I do, it will not surprise\u00a0you in the least. Perhaps this is why dogs enjoy such liberty in\u00a0France. In any case, it\u2019s a tale with the wag of truth in it.\u00a0This account is taken from <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The Romance of Duelling in All Times\u00a0and Countries<\/span>, Vol. 1, by Andrew Steinmetz, 1868. Republished by\u00a0The Richmond Publishing Co., Ltd., Surrey, 1971.<\/i><\/p>\n<p>At the close of the thirteenth\u00a0century, Philip the Fair, having justly entertained at that early\u00a0period a refined sense of the evil attending the judicial combat,\u00a0used his best means to put a restraint on its practice. But the state\u00a0of the times militated so much against his good intention that all he\u00a0was able to effect was the publication of an edict of regulation,\u00a0whereby nothing was to be brought to that bloody issue which could be\u00a0determined by any other means. In consequence of this was adopted\u00a0that singular ordeal, for want of other evidence, which took place in\u00a0the Isle of Notre Dame, in the reign of Charles V. of\u00a0France.<\/p>\n<p>The Chevalier Maquer, in the sight\u00a0of all Paris, entered the lists, with a dog, in mortal combat. The\u00a0spot which was the scene of this singular encounter is still shown.\u00a0The following are the circumstances that gave rise to it.<\/p>\n<p>Aubry Mondidier, whilst taking a\u00a0solitary walk in the neighbourhood of Paris, was murdered and buried\u00a0under a tree. His dog, which he had left at home, went out at night\u00a0to search for his master, whom at length he traced to the forest, and\u00a0discovered his grave. Having remained some days on the spot, till\u00a0hunger compelled him to return to the city, he hastened to the\u00a0Chevalier Ardilliers, a friend of the deceased, and by his melancholy\u00a0howling gave him to understand that their common friend was no longer\u00a0in existence.<\/p>\n<p>Ardilliers offered the dog some\u00a0food, and endeavoured to quiet him by caresses; but the distressed\u00a0animal continued to howl pitiably, and, laying hold of his coat, led\u00a0him significantly towards the door.<\/p>\n<p>Ardilliers at length complied with\u00a0the dog\u2019s apparent request, and was led by the sagacious and\u00a0affectionate animal from street to street, and conducted from the\u00a0city to a large oak in the forest, where he began to howl louder, and\u00a0to scratch the earth with his feet. Aubry\u2019s friend could not\u00a0help surveying the sport with melancholy foreboding, and desired the\u00a0servant who accompanied him, to fetch a spade and dig up the earth,\u00a0&#8211;when, in a short time, he discovered the body of his murdered\u00a0friend.<\/p>\n<p>Some time after, the dog\u00a0accidentally met the murderer of his master, barked, rushed upon him,\u00a0and attacked him with such ferocity that the spectators could not,\u00a0without great difficulty, extricate him. The same circumstance\u00a0occurred several times. The faithful animal, which was in general as\u00a0quiet as a lamb, became like a raging tiger every time he saw the\u00a0person who had murdered his master.<\/p>\n<p>This circumstance excited great\u00a0astonishment; and strong suspicions having arisen, it was remembered\u00a0that Maquer, on several occasions, had betrayed symptoms of enmity\u00a0against Aubry; and various other circumstances being combined,\u00a0brought the matter almost to a certainty.<\/p>\n<p>The King, hearing of this affair,\u00a0was desirous of being convinced with his own eyes whether or not the\u00a0dog was in the right. The parties were brought before him; the dog\u00a0fawned upon everybody else, but attacked Maquer with the utmost\u00a0violence as soon as he saw him enter. The King, considering this to\u00a0be a fair occasion for the ordeal, &#8211;which was at the time customary\u00a0upon less important occasions, &#8211;ordered the fate of Maquer to be\u00a0determined by single combat with the dog. Charles instantly appointed\u00a0the time and place.<\/p>\n<p>Maquer entered the list armed with\u00a0his lance; the dog was let loose upon him, and a most dreadful\u00a0contest ensued. Maquer made a thrust, but the dog, springing aside,\u00a0seized him by throat, and threw him down. Thereupon the villain\u00a0confessed his crime, and Charles, in order that the remembrance of\u00a0the faithful animal might be handed down to posterity, caused to be\u00a0erected to him, in the forest where the murder was committed, a\u00a0marble monument, with a suitable inscription.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\">[ <a href=\"#top\">Return to Top<\/a> ]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Not to fret &#8211; we have safe &amp; fun dueling equipment! From The Romance of Duelling in all Times &amp; Countries by Andrew Steinmetz (1868) In this short excerpt,\u00a0Steinmetz reviews the common protocols of the duel. The similarities\u00a0between them and the&nbsp;protocols of the fencing match are obvious.\u00a0Indeed, the&nbsp;principal distinction between the two is the difference\u00a0between [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-949","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=949"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/949\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":969,"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/949\/revisions\/969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/browncoatball.com\/2014\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}