effects man’s bravery, without any other qualifications to sweeten him, would have out of an army, we shall find that it would be very pernicious to civil society; for, if a man could conquer all his fears, you would hear of little else but rapine and violence of all sorts, and valiant men would be like giants in romance. Politics, therefore, discovered in men a mixed principle, which was a compound of justice, honesty, and all the moral virtues, joined to courage; and all that were possessed of it turned knights-errant, of course. They did abundance of good throughout the world, by taming monsters, delivering the distressed, and killing oppressors. But the wings of all the dragons being clipped, the giants destroyed, and the damsels everywhere set at liberty, (except some few in Spain and Italy, who remain still captivated by religious monsters,) the order of chivalry, to whom the standard of ancient honour belonged, has been laid aside for some time. It was like their armour, very massy and heavy; the many virtues about it served to make it very troublesome; and, as ages grew wiser and wiser, the principle of honour at the beginning of the last century (1600) was melted over and over again, and brought into a new standard. They put in the same weight of courage half the quantity of honesty, and a very little justice, but not a scruple of any other virtue; which has made it very easy and portable to what it was.”
Louis XIV, although the despotic chief of a monarchical government, was well aware that the point of honour should be held sacred amongst his armed followers, yet was he convinced of the necessity of tempering its brutality; while, as we have seen, he himself individually esteemed the illegal exhibition of personal courage, which his edicts condemned. When a courtier complained to one of the marshals that he had received a slap in the face, the general replied, “Then, sir, go and wash it off.” The slap in the face was the subject of an amusing passage in Molière’s play of the “Sicilian,” where a character says, “My lord, I have received a slap in the face—you know what a slap in the face is, when it is bestowed with open hand on the middle of the cheek; I have this slap on my heart, sir, and I am meditating which is the most advisable method to wipe off the affront, either to fight the fellow, or to get him assassinated.” Montesquieu has observed, that in monarchical governments, “there is nothing that honour more strongly recommends than to serve the prince in a military capacity; in fact, this is the favourite profession of honour, because its dangers, its success, and even its miscarriages, are the road to greatness: the honour of monarchies is favoured by the passions, and favours them in return; but virtue is a self-renunciation, which is always arduous and painful. This is the reason why we never meet with so strict a purity of morals in monarchies as in republican governments: in monarchies, the actions of men are not approved of as being good, but shining; not as being just, but great; not as being reasonable, but extraordinary; and honour allows of gallantry when united with the idea of sensual affection, or with that of conquest.” This enlightened writer further adds: “We have only to cast our eye on a nation (England) that may be justly called a republic disguised under the form of a monarchy, and we shall see how jealous they are of making a separate order of the profession of arms, and how the military state is continually allied to that of the citizen, and even of the magistrate, to the end that the latter may be a pledge to their country, which should never be forgotten. Military men in England are regarded as belonging to a profession which may be useful, but is often dangerous; civil qualities are therefore more highly esteemed than military.”
These sentiments are also those of one of the warmest advocates of duelling, Coustard de Massi, who thus expresses himself: “I own that in republican governments the practice of duelling may be prevented, because the courage of the people is sufficiently fostered by an enthusiastic love of their country; which powerful incentive alone can elevate their troops to superior boldness, and make them perform such astonishing acts of valour as are to be found in the Greek and Roman histories:” but in monarchical governments our author maintains that duelling is indispensable. What a flattering encomium bestowed on despotism, where the passions of a profligate monarch are to be considered more commanding than the love of country and independence! What a lesson does not this quotation give to British duellists!
Moore has made, on this subject, the following judicious observations: “Some have asserted that we should become a pusillanimous nation if a less stress were laid than is at present on that species of personal courage which is exhibited in the duel. But the annals of all ages afford us a sufficient proof and consolation, that in all cases of emergency the free-born subjects of a free nation, through that natural enthusiasm which a love of their country inspires, will strain every nerve of courage in defence of their liberty or warlike glory, without having been previously disciplined in the school of duelling and modern honour.”
The frequency of duels in the United States may be adduced in opposition to the foregoing opinions; but this objection by no means holds good. America is still a young country; and society, although it is making rapid strides towards a higher state of civilization, is still under the influence of rude and unpolished manners and prejudices, which a superior education and more enlightened times alone can remove: and I feel confident, from the daily progression of improvement in those regions, that in half a century duels will be there of as rare occurrence, if not rarer than in Great Britain; and this progress will be in the ratio of that of literature and the fine arts, for bloodshed and murder, however qualified, are incompatible with the pursuits and the gentler occupations of peace. The sun of science will gradually dispel the mists of ignorance and prejudice, open the mind to the conviction of reason and of truth, and show that a stem republican may display a courtly polish without derogating from the independence of a free man, since courtesy of behaviour may be considered the natural result of superior education.
I have deemed this digression from the plan of this work excusable, as the reign of Louis XIV. may be said to have constituted an epoch in civilization: we shall see how far his successors sought to cultivate the advantages which it held forth.
We may say that with this reign terminated the practice of duelling, as founded upon ancient usages; and, as I have quoted Montesquieu, a further passage from this illustrious writer may be considered as a recapitulation of the grounds upon which the erroneous views of the Point of Honour were based.
“We find many strange enigmas in the legal codes of barbarians. By the law of the Frisons, half a sol was granted as a compensation for a man who had been beaten with a stick. By the Salic law, an ingénu, who gave three blows of a stick, paid a fine of as many sols; and, if blood was drawn, he was punished as though the injury had been inflicted with an iron weapon, and had to pay fifteen sols. The law of the Lombards established various compositions for one, two, or three or four blows; but now-a-days one blow is worth a hundred thousand.
“The constitution of Charlemagne, inserted in the laws of the Lombards, enacts that those who are allowed a duel should fight with sticks: this regulation was partially in favour of the clergy; and it is also likely that it was intended to render duels less sanguinary. In the Capitularies of Louis le Débonnaire, the combatants had the choice of staves or arms; subsequently it was only serfs who fought with cudgels.
“Already I see arising the particular articles of our Point of Honour. The accuser commenced by declaring to a judge that a person had committed a certain action; the accused replied that he asserted a falsehood, and the judge ordered the battle. Thus was introduced the maxim, that the lie demanded a combat.
“When a man had once declared that he would fight, he could not avoid the necessity; and, if he withdrew from the obligation, he was subject to a penalty. Hence arose the rule, that, when a man had once pledged his word, he could not retract it without dishonour.
“Gentlemen fought with each other on horseback, and with their arms; while villains fought on foot, and with staves. Hence a stick was considered a weapon of degradation, since a man who had been struck with it had been treated like a villain.
“Moreover, it was only villains who fought with their faces uncovered, therefore they alone could receive a blow in the face: thus a slap in the face became an injury that could only be obliterated with blood, for the man whose face
