Duels rested on a profound paradox. On the one hand they sharply differentiated between those who had honor to lose and were able to demand satisfaction and fight and those who did not and could not. On the other, they put everybody who had honor and was eligible on an equal footing. Both issuing a challenge and answering it was as much as saying, “You are my equal and I am yours.” Sixteenth-century pictures show duelists wearing armor and using all sorts of weapons, pikes and battleaxes included. Later, things changed. War and wargame were clearly growing apart. Another move towards separation was the introduction of the rapier shortly before 1600. A cut-and-thrust weapon whose use required both strength and skill, it made its first appearance in Italy from where it spread to other countries. Meanwhile, about the only kind of sword still used in real-life warfare was the cavalry saber. Fencing schools – the English term is derived from “defence” – where masters trained their students in the use of swords in case they should be involved in rencontres had long done a flourishing business in many European cities. While some were more attuned to the times than others, over time most of them were probably forced either to shift their expertise in such a way that it would serve the more stylized duel now coming into vogue or to close their doors.
Another interesting development was the appearance, around 1750, of the foil. A light thrusting weapon named after the “foil” fixed to the tip to prevent it from doing damage, its introduction marks the moment when fencing, a highly stylized combat sport, and dueling, a deadly serious wargame, finally separated. As if to emphasize that fact, during the last decades of the eighteenth century some duelers started using pistols. Since there could be no doubt that shooting at an opponent without going through the ceremony of giving fair warning first was simply murder, the change made it much easier to distinguish duels from ordinary rencontres. This probably contributed to making the former even more ritualized than they already were.
The pistols of the time were single-shooters. Hence the combatants sometimes used both weapons, firing first and then, in case no serious damage had been done and no agreement was reached, going after one another sword in hand. The more time passed the more frequent the use of pistols. They were manufactured in pairs and packed and sold in specially made cases that also contained all the necessary ancillary equipment. Often treated as family heirlooms, they were passed from one generation to the next, complete with the stories that surrounded them. Among the English aristocracy in Ireland towards the end of the eighteenth century, family heads who considered giving a daughter in marriage regularly asked whether the suitor had “blazed.” Guides to pistol duels began to be published and rules for them were laid down.109 Schools that taught the art of fighting with pistols also emerged. However, swords never completely disappeared and duelists often had the choice between the two weapons.
Here is a description of a fairly typical eighteenth-century duel, taken from an account by an early nineteenth-century English author.110 The year was 1772. The protagonists were a Mr. Sheridan, “the avowed suitor of Miss Linley, the celebrated vocal performer,” and a Mr. Matthews, “a gentleman” from Bath. The latter had “caused a paragraph to be inserted in a public paper at that place, which tended to prejudice the character of that young lady.” A duel was fought, with swords, at a tavern in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London. Mr. Sheridan’s second was none other than Charles Francis Sheridan, formerly Secretary at War in Ireland. “Great courage and skill were displayed on both sides; but Mr. Sheridan, having succeeded in disarming his adversary, compelled him to sign a formal retraction of the paragraph that had been published.”
That was not the end of the matter. Exulting in his triumph, Sheridan published the apology in a Bath paper. Thereupon Mr. Matthews sent him a message challenging him to a second duel. “The victory was desperately contested, and after a discharge of pistols they fought with swords. They were both wounded, and closing with each other, fell on the ground, where the fight was continued until they were separated. They received several cuts and contusions in this arduous struggle for life and honor, and a part of his opponent’s weapon was left in Mr. Sheridan’s ear.” Thus the fight ended inconclusively. Miss Linley on her part “did not suffer a long time to elapse before she rewarded Mr. Sheridan for the dangers he had braved in her defense, by accompanying him on a matrimonial excursion to the continent. The ceremony was again performed on their return to England, with the consent of the lady’s parents.”
The same author tells us that, “in one hundred and seventy-two combats (including three hundred and forty-four individuals), sixty-nine persons were killed; that in three of these neither of the combatants survived; that ninety-six were wounded, forty-eight of them desperately, and forty-eight slightly; that one hundred and eighty-eight escaped unhurt.”111 Still these 172 combats only led to eighteen trials; of those arraigned, six were acquitted, seven found guilty of manslaughter, and three of murder. Two were hanged, eight sentenced to various periods in prison. All this led our author to the conclusion that Parliament should not regard it beneath its dignity “to add to the multiplicity of benevolent plans which their predecessors have already achieved, some remedy which may tend to annihilate that most painful . . . remnant of gothic ignorance.”112 No fewer than four British prime ministers engaged in dueling − two of them, William Pitt the Younger and the Duke of Wellington, while in office. One of the four, George Canning (who at the time was no more than an aspiring politician) even received a pistol bullet in the thigh; however, the wound did not prove to be serious. Yet England at the time was already known as the “nation of shopkeepers.” In 1841 it became the first to abolish the duel altogether.
While it is probably true that no nineteenth-century nation was without men (and women) who hoped to see duels abolished, in most of them things developed in a different way. A particularly interesting case is presented by the United States. In a country where social classes were less important than anywhere else, it was quite common for men of very different status to face one another. Perhaps that fact, as well as the penchant for self-help arising out of the frontier mentality, helps explain why, very often, the objective was not just to obtain “satisfaction” but to kill. So pronounced and widely known were the differences between the two sides of the Atlantic that each looked down on the other. At least one European expert contrasted the Americans’ “irregular and unfair mode of fighting” with the “strictly honorable, spirited, and manly conduct of the Englishman” in particular.113 An “American duel” referred to an especially unregulated and wild one. Americans in turn proclaimed their disgust at the small number of casualties European dueling produced.
The most prominent American known to have engaged in a duel – more than one, in fact – was president-to-be Andrew Jackson. Apparently even Lincoln was challenged, but used humor to wriggle out of it. Southerners in particular were known as roughnecks, always ready for a fight. Only the South had regular meeting places, the best known of which was “the Dueling Oaks” in New Orleans. Harriet Martineau, the famous writer and traveler, was told that more duels had been fought there in 1834 than there were days in the year, fifteen on one Sunday morning alone.114 So little did seconds trust the duelists’ “honor” – the very quality which had caused the quarrel – that they sometimes presented themselves fully armed, threatening to shoot whomever broke the rules.115 Officers apart, Americans rarely used swords. Instead they resorted to bowie knives, known after a certain early nineteenth-century Colonel James Bowie, which being much shorter than swords would almost certainly lead to unseemly fights in which practically everything was permitted.116 Americans were also said to have invented other interesting forms of dueling, such as when the parties, armed with dirks, went after each other in a darkened room or else threw sticks of dynamite at each other. To this day, out of fifty states, thirty still do not have a specific ordinance against dueling in their constitutions. That of course does not mean that it is permitted, but only that lawyers in their wisdom
have found other methods for dealing with it.
On the Old Continent, the most important nations that must be considered were Italy, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany. Italy, the land where dueling had been invented, was a special case, part European, part African (as adherents of the Lombard League argue to this day). Judging by the number that was mentioned in the press, Italy had far more duels than any other country. However, out of 2,795 fought between 1879 and 1889 just fifty, or 1.8 percent, ended with the death of one or more combatants.117 As one historian says, perhaps Italians preferred the show to the reality behind it.118 French dueling, instead of being limited to officers and aristocrats, resembled the American system in that it was comparatively democratic. Especially towards the end of the nineteenth century, many duelists were scandal-mongering journalists. Some papers, notably Le Figaro and Le Gaulois, maintained special facilities where their reporters could practice. Even Jean Jaurès, the socialist leader (1859–1914), fought a pistol duel against a nationalist adversary.119 After 1789 France never enacted a specific law against dueling. Instead, the matter was dealt with by way of general legislation against murder and assault. Provided no fatalities ensued, the courts were inclined to dismiss the matter. As a result, duels in France were conducted more publicly, even in front of the cameras, than anywhere else. Some were made the centerpieces of elaborate feasts, complete with ladies, waiters, and refreshments.
Most nineteenth-century French duels were fought sword in hand, a method considered a French specialty. The primary objective was to demonstrate one’s skill as a beau sabreur. To quote the novelist Guy de Maupassant, himself a redoubtable dueler: “they feinted and recovered with an elastic grace, with a measured vigor, with part sureness of strength, part sobriety of gesture, part impeccable demeanor, part moderation of technique that surprised and charmed the novice crowd.”120 When pistols were used they were often loaded with a reduced charge of gunpowder and quicksilver balls. Thus France resembled Italy in that few duels – between 1880 and 1889, just 16 out of 431, amounting to 3.7 percent – ended in somebody being killed.121 Another reason for this was that by French law seconds who helped arrange the fights were held co-responsible for any injuries or deaths. They might indeed be punished more harshly than the duelists themselves. To protect themselves the doctors sometimes turned around and refused to look; this enabled them to claim that their presence on the spot had been accidental. So low was the fatality rate that foreigners, Germans in particular, sometimes claimed that dueling in the Third Republic was really a joke.
Judging by newspaper reports, which of course only reported the most important cases, the European country with the largest number of deadly duels was Austria-Hungary. Out of 124 fought in 1884–5, nineteen, i.e. no fewer than 15 percent, ended with one of the combatants losing his life. Later, however, Austria became more civilized and the figure went down. In Russia, Peter the Great in his Military Code (Artikul voinskii) of 1716 threatened to hang anybody who engaged in a duel, or helped arrange it, regardless of whether there were dead or injured.122 The next ruler to legislate on the subject was Catherine the Great. More realistic than her predecessor, throughout her reign she opposed dueling without, however, taking firm steps to stop it.
Catherine’s own successor, Paul I, took a different line. Like many other European monarchs, he was torn between powerful government and honor. During much of his reign honor came out on top. In 1801 he opened himself up to ridicule by suggesting that a series of duels (in reality, combats of champions) between heads of state, each seconded by their prime minister, could resolve Europe’s political conflicts: he himself wanted to fight Napoleon in Hamburg. On the other hand, he often meted out harsh sentences to duelists, including loss of noble status and exile to Siberia, where they were to perform hard labor. Though some sentences were later revoked or reduced, it seems to have worked. The Russian State Military Historical Archive for the years 1797–1801 refers to just three cases of dueling, and of these only one actually took place; it must be remembered, though, that they only referred to officers.
The accession of Alexander I led to more changes. Queen Louise of Prussia, who was infatuated with him, wrote that “such is the heavenly goodness of his character that with each look he makes people happy and contented.” Perhaps this heavenly goodness helps explain why the prohibitions were relaxed. Under his reign, which lasted from 1801 until 1825, duels proliferated. Another factor was the Napoleonic Wars, particularly the campaigns of 1812–14 which took the Russian Army to Paris. Probably the fact that many Russian officers spoke French helped them perform many heroic deeds both on the dueling ground and in the boudoir. Numerous duels were fought over trifling issues – on one occasion the subject of the quarrel, Avtot’ia Istomina, was described as “a mere dancer” – and ended with the death of one of the combatants. The Decembrists, a group of liberal (by Russian standards) officers who tried to overthrow Alexander’s successor Nicholas I in 1825, are said to have been particularly interested in dueling. Possibly this was because they saw themselves as representatives of a new generation seeking equality with older and more senior aristocrats.
Under Nicholas I and his successors dueling continued. As in France, journalists were particularly likely to become involved in “affairs of honor.” A Russian peculiarity, and one that begs an explanation, was the enthusiasm with which the literary classes took up dueling. Russia’s greatest poet Alexander Pushkin (1799–1837) was all but obsessed with the subject about which he wrote many a story. The same applies to his somewhat younger contemporary, Mikhail Lermontov (1814–41). Both men lost their lives while dueling. Perhaps their fate helped establish the convention whereby many other Russian writers felt obliged to present the duel as proof par excellence of human integrity, independence, and honor. Or else it is hard to see why it became the stock in trade of subsequent nineteenth-century writers such as Ivan Turgenev (1818–83), Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81) and Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910). Dostoyevsky in his private notebooks even blamed the government for the decline of the duel, real or alleged. He need not have worried: in 1894 a law, apparently modeled on German and Austria-Hungarian ones, was passed obliging officers to duel if challenged. Literary men also continued to challenge each other into the twentieth century. One young blood who did so was Boris Pasternak (1890–1960), albeit that the fight in question never took place. Another peculiarity of Russian duels was their emotional character. It was as if duelists felt obliged to laugh, weep, and, as one contemporary noted, go into convulsions “like a hysterical woman.”123 It was left to the Bolsheviks to abolish the “ludicrous, savage, foul and shameful” custom which, the newspaper Kommunist claimed, had made two red commissars fight over some Georgian princess.
The final country I want to touch upon in this context is Germany. There are two reasons why German dueling has attracted much attention. One was the student duel or Mensur, a unique custom with no real equivalent in any other country. The other was dueling between officers. The latter in particular was often seen both by contemporaries and by subsequent historians as an essential element in the conservative−feudal−imperialist−capitalist−authoritarian−reactionary− patriarchal (add as many derogatory adjectives as you please) complex that supposedly played such an important part in German public life and helped usher in National Socialism and two world wars.
In Germany, as in France, some considered the advent of the duel a step away from barbarism and toward civilization. Eighteenth-century German student duels were little different from ordinary civilian ones. As in other countries the authorities made some feeble attempts to prohibit them. Later, during the nineteenth century, they became an essential part of the culture, if that is the correct word, of the student associations or Burschenschaften which arranged them. Arrangement meant that there was no need for either an offender or an offended party. Dueling was considered both a privilege and a duty. It was a privilege because it enabled members of the associations to demonstrate their cou
rage. They did so first by fighting, then by walking around with a bandaged head, and finally, more permanently, by means of the famous scar or scars across the cheek. Socially speaking, so important was that privilege that those who were denied it, as Jews regularly were, keenly resented the fact. It was a duty because anybody who refused to fight was excluded from membership, a fact that could have important repercussions for one’s subsequent professional life.
As a traveler commented at the beginning of the twentieth century, in these duels the objective was neither to satisfy offended honor nor to injure or kill one’s opponent. Instead, the real victor was the one who emerged with the greatest number of wounds.124 By that time approximately 6,000 out of 8,000 student duels fought each year were of this kind.125 Originally students used the so-called Pariser, a foil from which the “foil” had been removed. Later it was replaced by the rapier. Every German university town, and there were more of them than in any other country, had a class of fencing masters who made their living by teaching its use. Combatants wore special “dueling dress” consisting of heavily padded leather pants, fencing gloves, silk neckerchiefs, and a felt hat. Pauken, to use the original term, was praised as an especially pure and chivalrous form of fighting.126 Wounds could be quite painful and regularly forced the recipient to be stitched up and spend a few days in bed. However, great precautions were taken to prevent more serious ones, let alone death. This caused outsiders to regard student duels with some contempt. Conversely, students with more serious scores to settle preferred the saber or the pistol and fought without protective clothing. The tendency of some students to go beyond the Mensur explains why, out of some fifty cases of dueling between civilians that reached the courts in Germany each year during the 1890s, about thirty were attributable to the student community.
Wargames Page 21