DUEL. A prearranged encounter between two persons, with deadly weapons, in accordance with conventional rules, with the object of voiding a personal quarrel or of deciding a point of honour. The first recorded instance of the word occurs in Coryate's Crudities (I61 1), but Shakespeare has duello in this sense, and uses "duellist" of Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet. In its earlier meaning of a judicial combat we find the word latinized in the Statute of Wales (Edw. 1., Act 12), "Placita de terris in partibus istis non habent terminari per duellum." The word duel is from Ital. duello, Lat. duellum—old form of bellum—from duo, two.
Duels in the modern sense were unknown to the ancient world, and their origin must be sought in the feudal age of Europe. The single combats recorded in Greek and Roman history and legend, of Hector and Achilles, Aeneas and Turnus, the Horatii and Curiatii, were incidents in national wars and have nothing in common with the modern duel. It is, however, noteworthy that in Tacitus (Germania, cap. x.) we find the rudiments of the judicial duel (see WAGER, for the wager of battle). Domestic differences, he tells us, were sef,:led l y a legalized form of combat between the disputants, and when a war was impending a captive from the hostile tribe was armed and pitted against a national champion, and the issue of the duel was accepted as an omen. The judicial combat was a Teutonic institution, and it was in fact an appeal from human justice to the God of battles, partly a sanction of the current creed that might is right, that the brave not only will win but deserve to win. It was on these grounds that Gundobald justified against the complaints of a bishop, the famous edict passed at Lyons (A.D. 501) which established the wager of battle as a recognized form of trial. It is God, he argued, who directs the issue of national wars, and in private quarrels we may trust His providence to favour the juster cause. Thus, as Gibbon comments, the absurd and cruel practice of judicial duels, which had been peculiar to some tribes of Germany, was propagated and established in all the monarchies of Europe from Sicily to the Baltic. Yet in its defence it may be urged that it abolished a worse evil, the compurgation by oath which put a premium on perjury, and the ordeal, or judgment of God, when the cause was decided by blind chance, or more often by priest craf t.
Those who are curious to observe the formalities and legal rules of a judicial combat will find them described at length in the 28th book of Montesquieu's Esprit des lois. On these regulations he well remarks that, as there are an infinity of wise things conducted in a very foolish manner, so there are some foolish things conducted in a very wise manner. For our present purpose it is sufficient to observe the development of the idea of personal honour from which the modern duel directly sprang. In the ancient laws of the Swedes we find that if any man shall say to another, "You are not a man equal to other men," or "You have not the heart of a man," and the other shall reply, "I am a man as good as you," they shall meet on the highway, and then follow the regulations for the combat. What is this but the modern challenge? By the law of the Lombards if one man call another arga, the insulted party might defy the other to mortal combat. What is arga but the dummer I unger of the German student? Beaumanoir thus describes a legal process under Louis le Debonnaire : The appellant begins by a declaration before the judge that the appellee is guilty of a certain crime; if the appellee answers that his accuser lies, the judge then ordains the duel.
From Germany the judicial combat rapidly spread to France, where it flourished greatly from the loth to the 12th century, the period of customary law. By French kings it was welcomed as a limitation of the judicial powers of their half independent vassals. It was a form of trial open to all freemen and in certain cases, as under Louis VI., the privilege was extended to serfs. Even the Church resorted to it not unfrequently to settle dis putes concerning church property. Abbots and priors as ter ritorial lords and high justiciaries had their share in the con fiscated goods of the defeated combatant, and Pope Nicholas when applied to in 858 pronounced it "a just and legitimate corn bat." Yet only three years before the council of Valence had condemned the practice, imposing the severest penance on the victor and refusing the last rites of the church to the vanquished as to a suicide.
Under Louis XII. and Francis I. we find the beginnings of tribunals of honour. The last instance of a duel authorized by the magistrates, and conducted according to the forms of law, was the famous one between Francois de Vivonne de la Chataignerie and Guy Chabot de Jarnac. The duel was fought on July 10,
in the courtyard of the château of St. Germain-en-Laye, in the presence of the king and a large assembly of courtiers. It was memorable in two ways. It enriched the French language with a new phrase; a sly and unforeseen blow, such as that by which de Jarnac worsted La Chataignerie, has since been called a coup de larnac. And Henry, grieved at the death of his favourite, swore a solemn oath that he would never again permit a duel to be fought. This led to the first of the many royal edicts against duelling. By a decree of the council of Trent (cap. xix.) a ban was laid on "the detestable use of duels, an invention of the devil to compass the destruction of souls together with a bloody death of the body." Trial by Battle in England.—In England, it is now generally agreed, the wager of battle did not exist before the time of the Norman Conquest. Some previous examples have been adduced, but on examination they will be seen to belong rather to the class of single combats between the champions of two opposing armies. By the laws of William the Conqueror the trial by battle was only compulsory when the opposite parties were both Normans, in other cases it was optional. As the two nations were gradually merged into one, this form of trial spread, and until the reign of Henry II. it was the only mode for determining a suit for the re covery of land. The method of procedure is admirably described by Shakespeare in the opening scene in Richard II., where Henry of Bolingbroke, duke of Hereford, challenges Thomas, duke of Norfolk; in the mock-heroic battle between Horner the Armourer and his man Peter in Henry VI.; and by Sir W. Scott in the Fair ?Maid of Perth, where Henry Gow appears before the king as the champion of Magdalen Proudfute.
The judicial duel never took root in England as it did in France. In civil suits it was superseded by the grand assize of Henry II., and in the cases of felony by indictment at the prosecution of the crown. One of the latest instances occurred in the reign of Elizabeth, 1571, when the lists were actually prepared and the justices of the common pleas appeared at Tothill Fields as umpires of the combat. Fortunately the petitioner failed to put in an appearance, and was consequently non-suited (see Spelman, Glossary, s.v. "Campus"). As late as 1817 Lord Ellenborough, in the case of Thornton v. Ashford, pronounced that "the general law of the land is that there shall be a trial by battle in cases of appeal unless the party brings himself within some of the ex ceptions." Thornton was accused of murdering Mary Ashford, and claimed his right to challenge the appellant, the brother of the murdered girl, to wager of battle. His suit was allowed, and, the challenge being refused, the accused escaped. Next year the law was abolished (S9 Geo. III., c. 46).
We are justified, then, in dating the commencement of duelling from the abolition of the wager of battle. The causes which made it indigenous to France are sufficiently explained by the condition of society and the national character. As Buckle has pointed out, duelling is a special de velopment of chivalry, and chivalry is one of the phases of the protective spirit which was predominant in France up to the time of the Revolution. The third chapter of d'Audiguier's Ancien usage des duels is headed, "Pourquoi les seuls Francais se battent en duel." English literature abounds with allusions to this char acteristic of the French nation. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who was ambassador at the court of Louis XIII., says, "There is scarce a Frenchman worth looking on who has not killed his man in a duel." Duels were not common before the 16th century. Hallam attributes their prevalence to the barbarous custom of wearing swords as a part of domestic dress, a fashion which was not intro duced till the later part of the 15th century. In 156o the states general at Orleans supplicated Charles IX. to put a stop to duelling. Hence the famous ordinance of 1566, drawn up by the chancellor de l'Hopital, which served as the basis of the successive ordinances of the following kings. Under the frivolous and san guinary reign of Henry III., "who was as eager for excitement as a woman," the rage for duels spread till it became almost an epidemic. In 1602 the combined remonstrances of the church and the magistrates extorted from the king an edict condemning to death whoever should give or accept a challenge or act as second. But public opinion was revolted by such rigour, and the statute was a dead letter. Fontenay-Mareuil says, in his Me moires, that in the eight years between 16o1 and 1609, 2,000 men of noble birth fell in duels. In 1609 a more effective measure was taken at the instance of Sully by the establishment of a court of honour. The edict decrees that all aggrieved persons shall address themselves to the king, either directly or through the medium of the constables, marshals, etc. ; that the king shall decide, whether, if an accommodation could not be effected, permission to fight should be given ; and that anyone who kills his adversary in an unauthorized duel shall suffer death without burial. Henri Martin has declared this "the wisest decree of the old monarchy on a matter which involves so many delicate and profound questions of morals, politics, and religion touching civil rights" (Histoire de France, x. 466).
In the succeeding reign the mania for duels revived. Rostand's Cyrano is a life-like modern portraiture of French bloods in the first half of the 17th century. De Houssaye tells us that in Paris when friends met, the first question was, "Who fought yesterday? who is to fight today?" They fought by night and day, by moonlight and by torch-light, in the public streets and squares. A hasty word, a misconceived gesture, a question about the colour of a riband or an embroidered letter, such were the commonest pretexts for a duel. The slighter and more frivolous the dispute, the less were they inclined to submit them to the king for adjudication. Often, like gladiators or prize-fighters, they fought for the pure love of fighting. A misunderstanding is cleared up on the ground. "N'importe," cry the principals, "puisque nous sommes ici, battons-nous." Seconds, as Montaigne tells us, are no 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 con tented with a single second, "c'etait anciennement des duels, ce sont a cette heure rencontres et batailles." There is no more strik ing 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 confiscation 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, "I1 s'agit de couper la gorge aux duels ou aux edits de votre Majeste." The count de Boutteville, a renommist who had already been en gaged in 21 affairs of honour, determined out of pure bravado to fight a 22nd time. The duel took place at midday on the Place Royale. Boutteville was arrested with his second, the count de Chapelles ; they were tried by the parlement of Paris, condemned and, in spite of all the influence of the powerful house of Mont morenci, of which de Boutteville was a branch, they were both beheaded on June 21, 1627. For a short time the ardour of duellists was cooled.
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 Royale, 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 II edicts against duelling were issued under le Grand Monarque. That of 1643 established a supreme court of honour composed of the mar shals of France ; but the most famous was that of 1679, which con firmed the enactments of his predecessors, Henry IV. and Louis XII.
The subsequent history of duelling in France may be more shortly treated. In the preamble to the edict of 17o4 Louis XIV. records his satisfaction at seeing under his reign an almost entire cessation of those fatal combats which by the inveterate force of custom had so long prevailed. Addison (Spectator, 99) notes it as one of the most glorious exploits of his reign to have banished the false point of honour. Under the regency of Louis XV. there was a brief revival. The last legislative act for the suppression of duels was passed on April I 2, 1723. Then came the Revolution, which in abolishing the ancien regime fondly trusted that with it would go the duel, one of the privileges and abuses of an aristo cratic society. Dupleix, in his Military Law concerning the Duel (I 61 1), premises that these have no application to lawyers, mer chants, financiers or justices. This explains why in the legislation of the National Assembly there is no mention of duels. Camille Desmoulins when challenged shrugged his shoulders and replied to the charge of cowardice that he would prove his courage on other fields than the Bois de Boulogne. 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 noble man for a brutal insult, and had reflected on his temerity in the solitude of the Bastille. The story runs that 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, "Who is that young man?" "One," replied Voltaire, "who if he does not parade a great name, honours that he bears." The chevalier said nothing at the time, but, seizing his oppor tunity, 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 satis faction that the philosopher could obtain. "Monsieur, si quelque affaire d'interet ne vous a point fait oublier l'outrage dont j'ai a me plaindre, j'espere que vous m'en rendrez raison." The chevalier was said to employ his capital in petty usury. After this incident and its consequences, Voltaire inveighed against duelling, not only for its absurdity, but also for its aristocratic exclusiveness. Rous seau had said of duelling, "It is not an institution of honour, but a horrible and barbarous custom, which a courageous man despises and a good man abhors." Napoleon was a sworn foe to it. "Bon duelliste mauvais soldat" 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 duels have been frequent in France—more frequent, however, in novels than in real life— fought mainly between politicians and journalists, and with rare exceptions bloodless affairs. If fought with pistols, the distance and the weapons chosen render a hit improbable; and, if fought with rapiers, honour is generally satisfied with the first blood drawn. Among Frenchmen famous in politics or letters who have "gone out" may be mentioned Armand Carrel, who fell in an en counter with Emile Girardin ; Thiers, who thus atoned for a youthful indiscretion ; the elder Dumas; Lamartine; Ste. Beuve, who to show at once his sangfroid and his sense of humour, fought under an umbrella ; Ledru Rollin ; Edmond About ; Clement Thomas; Veuillot, the representative of the church militant; Rochef ort ; and Boulanger, the Bonapartist f an f aron, whose dis comfiture in a duel with Floquet resulted in a notable loss of popular respect.
Duelling did not begin in England till some 1 oo years after it had arisen in France. There is no instance of a private duel fought in England 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 Shaf ton and Halbert Glen dinning, and that in Kenilworth between Tressilian and Varney. (That in Anne of Geierstein either is . an anachronism or must reckon as a wager of battle.) Under James I. we have the en counter 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 the Restoration abounds in duels. Passing on to the reign of Queen Anne, we find the subject frequently discussed in the Tatler and the Spectator, and Addison points in his happiest way the moral to a contemporary duel between Thornhill and Sir Cholmeley Dering. "I come not," says Spinomont to King Phara mond, "I come not to implore your pardon, I come to relate my sorrow, a sorrow too great for human life to support. Know that this morning I have killed in a duel the man whom of all men living I love best." No reader of Esmond can forget Thackeray's description of the doubly fatal duel between the duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun, which is historical, or the no less life-like though fictitious duel between Lord Mohun and Lord Castlewood. The dual between the two brothers in Stevenson's Master of Ballantrae is one of the best conceived in fiction. Throughout the reigns of the Georges they are frequent. Richardson expresses his opinion on the subject in six voluminous letters to the Literary Repositor. Sheridan, like Farquhar in a previous generation, not only dramatized a duel, but fought two himself. Byron thus com memorates the bloodless duel between Tom Moore and Lord Jeffrey : Can none remember that eventful day, That ever glorious almost fatal fray, When Little's leadless pistols met the eye, And Bow Street myrmidons stood laughing by ? There are no duels in Miss Austen's novels, but in those of Miss Edgeworth, her contemporary, there are three or four. As we approach the r 9th century they become rarer in fiction. Thackeray's novels, indeed, abound in duels. "His royal highness the late lamented commander-in-chief" had the greatest respect for Maj. Macmurdo, as a man who had conducted scores of affairs for his acquaintance with the greatest prudence and skill; and Rawdon Crawley's duelling pistols, "the same which I shot Cap tain Marker," have become a household word. Dickens, on the other hand, who depicts contemporary English life, and mostly in the middle classes, in all his numerous works has only three ; and George Eliot never once refers to a duel. Tennyson, using a poet's privilege, laid the scene of a duel in the year of the Crimean War, but he echoes the spirit of the times when he stigmatizes "the Christless code that must have life for a blow." Browning, who delights in cases of conscience, has given admirably the double moral aspect of the duel in his two lyrics entitled "Before" and "After." To pass from fiction to fact we will select the most memorable English duels of the last century and a half. Lord Byron killed Chaworth in 1765 ; Charles James Fox and Adams fought in r 7 79 ; duke of York and Colonel Lennox, 1789; William Pitt and George Tierney, 1796; George Canning and Lord Castlereagh, 1809 ; Christie killed John Scott, editor of the London Magazine, 182r; duke of Wellington and earl of Winchelsea, 1829; Roebuck and Black, editor of Morning Chronicle, 1835; Lord Alvanley and a son of Daniel O'Connell in the same year ; Earl Cardigan wounded Captain Tuckett, was tried by his peers, and acquitted on a legal quibble, 1840.
The year 18o8 is memorable in the annals of duelling in England. Major Campbell was sentenced to death and executed for killing Capt. Boyd in a duel. In this case it is true that there was a suspicion of foul play; but in the case of Lieut. Blundell, who was killed in a duel in 1813, though all had been conducted with perfect fairness, the surviving principal and the seconds were all convicted of murder and sen tenced to death, and, although the royal pardon was obtained, they were all cashiered. The next important date is the year
when public attention was painfully called to the subject by a duel in which Col. Fawcett was shot by his brother-in-law, Lieut. Monro. The survivor, whose career was thereby blasted, had, it was well known, gone out most reluctantly, in obedience to the then prevailing military code. A full account of the steps taken by the prince consort, and of the correspondence which passed between him and the duke of Wellington, will be found in the Life of the Prince by Sir T. Martin. Meanwhile there had been formed in London the association against duelling. It included leading members of both houses of parliament and distinguished officers of both services. The first report, issued in r844, gives a memorial of the association presented to Queen Victoria through Sir James Graham, and in a debate in the House of Commons (March 15, r 844) Sir H. Hardinge, the secretary of war, announced to the House that her majesty had expressed herself desirous of devising some expedient by which the bar barous practice of duelling should be as much as possible dis couraged. In the same debate Turner reckoned the number of duels fought during the reign of George III. at 172, of which 91 had been attended with fatal results; yet in only two of these cases had the punishment of death been inflicted. But though the proposal of the prince consort to establish courts of honour met with no favour, yet it led to an important amendment of the articles of war (April, 1844). The 98th article ordains that "every person who shall fight or promote a duel, or take any steps thereto, or who shall not do his best to prevent duel, shall, if an officer, be cashiered, or suffer such other penalty as a general court-martial may award." These articles, with a few verbal changes, were incorporated
consolidated Army Act of 1879 (section 38), which is still in force.
Under the late imperial regime, German army duels were authorized by the military code as a last resort in grave cases. A German officer who was involved in a difficulty with another was bound to notify the circumstance to a council of honour at the latest as soon as he had either given or received a challenge. A council of honour consisted of three officers of different ranks and was instructed, if possible, to bring about a reconciliation. If unsuccessful it had to see that the conditions of the duel were not out of proportion to the gravity of the quarrel. Public opinion was greatly aroused by a tragic duel fought by two officers of the reserve in 1896; and the German emperor in a cabinet order of 1897, confirmed in 1901, enforced the regulation of the military court of honour, and gave warning that any in fringement would be visited with full penalties of the law. It continued to be the fact that a German officer who was not pre pared to accept a challenge and to fight, if the opinion of his regiment demanded it, was compelled to leave the service.
Under the republic, the question is governed (1928) by articles 201 to 210 inclusive of the existing criminal code. It should be noted that the German cabinet have pledged themselves to revise this code. The existing provisions which refer to duelling may be summarized as follows : ( r) (Article 2or.) Any person challenging a second person to a duel or accepting such a challenge is liable to punishment by a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months.
(2) (Article 205.) Persons taking part in a duel are liable to sentences ranging from three months to five years.
(3) (Article 206.) Should anyone kill his opponent in a duel, he will be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years. Should it be shown, however, that the duel was entered into with mortal intent, the period of imprisonment shall not be less than three years.
(4) (Article 210.) Should any person intentionally encourage another person to fight a duel, he will, in the event of the duel taking place, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.
The celebrated Mensuren, or German students' duels, have survived the War changes, and although forbidden by the German criminal code it is probable that the new code will make it plain that they are to be regarded as a sport and therefore legalized'. They still form a regular element in German student life. In Berlin alone, there are in 1928 some 12 fighting corps which meet once a week in secret. These meetings continue from 8 o'clock in the morning onwards, and some 20 fights take place on each occasion. The police, as well as the university authorities, naturally know all about them. but are only too willing to close their eyes. These fighting corps or Verbindungen exist to-day in every German university.
The entry of a student into one of these clubs is held to be a considerable honour, and is only possible where a student has shown the necessary qualifications to permit of his admission. It moreover carries with it a number of advantages to the ex student in after life, and very often helps him to obtain a good position in a profession or industry. The primary qualification would seem to be having fought three "parties" or matches "successfully." To fight a students' duel, it would seem that a considerable amount of previous practice is necessary. In each fighting Ver bindung, a Fechtsaal forms part of the equipment of the club house, and daily practice is provided for fighting students under the supervision of the training instructor, who is one of the senior students of the Verbindung and named the Zweiter Cjiargierter. There are two categories of fighting students. First, the Fuchs or novice; secondly, the Bursch (fellow or accepted member) ; besides these, the "inactive," which means a student who has finished his time in the Verbindung, but still retains his member ship of the university.
The training practice consists of a number of short bouts fought under rather similar conditions to the actual duel. The student, however, is provided with a steel mask to accustom him to the art of fencing without the possibility of damage. The body and arms are also protected. The sword, moreover, is not sharpened. It is of interest in this connection to note that Roman Catholic members of the German universities are forbidden by their Church to enter fighting Verbindungen on penalty of expulsion.
Apparently the only point that is decided for or against a particular fighter is his bearing during the fight. No points are given for skill in attack or defence, and each fighter is judged by the witnessing Korpsbriider of his own fighting Verbindung only.
Any formal discussion of the morality of duelling is, in England at least, happily superfluous. No fashionable vice has been so unanimously condemned both by moralists and divines. Some, however, of the problems, moral and social, which it suggests may be noticed briefly. That duel ling flourished so long in England the law is, perhaps, as much to blame as society. It was doubtless from the fact that duels were at first a form of legal procedure that English law has refused to take cognizance of private duels. A duel in the eye of the law differs nothing from an ordinary murder. The greatest English legal authorities, from the time of Elizabeth downwards, such as Coke, Bacon and Hale, have all distinctly affirmed this interpretation of the law. But here as elsewhere the severity of the penalty defeated its own object. The public conscience re volted against a Draconian code which made no distinction be tween wilful murder and a deadly combat wherein each party consented to his own death or submitted to the risk of it. No jury could be found to convict when conviction involved in the same penalty a Fox or a Pitt and a Turpin or a Brownrigg. Such, however, was the conservatism of English publicists that Bent ham was the first to point out clearly this defect of the law, and propose a remedy. In his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, published in i 789, Bentham discusses the subject with his usual boldness and logical precision. In his exposition of the absurdity of duelling considered as a branch of penal justice, and its inefficiency as a punishment, he only restates in a clearer form the arguments of Paley. So far there is nothing novel in his treatment of the subject. But he soon parts company with the Christian moralist, and proceeds to show that duelling does, however rudely and imperfectly, correct and repress a real social evil. "It entirely effaces a blot which an insult imprints upon the honour. Vulgar moralists, by condemn ing public opinion upon this point, only confirm the fact." He then points out the true remedy for the evil. It is to extend the same legal protection to offences against honour as to of fences against the person. The legal satisfactions which he suggests are some of them extremely grotesque. Thus for an insult to a woman, the man is to be dressed in woman's clothes, and the retort to be inflicted by the hand of a woman. But the principle indicated is a sound one, that in offences against honour the punishment must be analogous to the injury. Doubtless, if Bentham were now alive, he would allow that the necessity for such a scheme of legislation had in a great measure passed away. That duels have since become extinct is no doubt principally owing to social changes, but it may be in part ascribed to im provements in legal remedies in the sense which Bentham indi cated. A notable instance is Lord Campbell's Act of 1843, by which, in the case of a newspaper libel, a public apology coupled with a pecuniary payment is allowed to bar a plea. In the Indian code there are special enactments concerning duelling, which is punishable not as murder but as homicide.
The duel, which in a barbarous age may be excused as "a sort of wild justice," was condemned by Bacon as "a direct affront of law and tending to the dissolution of magistracy." It survived in more civilized times as a class distinction and as an ultimate court of appeal to punish violations of the social code. In a democratic age and under a settled government it is doomed to extinction. The military duels of the European continent, and the so-called American duel, where the lot decides which of the two parties shall end his life, are singular survivals. For real offences against reputation law will provide a sufficient remedy. The learned professions will have each its own tribunal to which its members are amenable. Social stigma is at once a surer and juster defence against conduct unworthy of a gentleman. BIBLIOGRAPHY.-Castillo, Tractatus de duello (Turin, 1525) ; J. P. Pigna, II Duello
; Muzio Girolamo, Traite du duel (Venice,
; Boyssat, Recherches sur les duels (Lyons, 161o) ; J. Savaron, Traite contre les duels (1610) ; Brantome, Memoire sur les duels rodomontades; F. Bacon, Charge concerning Duels, etc. (1614) ; d'Audiguier, Le Vray et ancien usage des duels (1617) ; His Majesties Edict and severe Censure against private combats (1618) ; Cockburn, History of Duels (172o) ; Brillat Savarin, Essai sur le duel (1819) ; Chateauvillard, Essai sur le duel (1836) ; Colombey, Histoire anec Llotique du duel; Fourgeroux de Champigneules, Histoire des duels anciens et modernes
; Millingen, History of Duelling (1841) ; L. Sabine, Notes on Duels (Boston, 1855) ; Steinmetz, Romance of Duelling (1868) . See also Eugene Cauchy, Du duel, etc. (1846) , a learned and philosophic treatise by a French lawyer; G. Letain turier-Fradin, Le Duel a travers les ages (1892) ; Mackay, History of Popular Delusions, Duels and Ordeals; and for a valuable list of authorities, Buckle, History of Civilization in England, ii. 137, note 71. For judicial combats see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xxxviii. For courts of honour see Armed Strength of the German Empire (1876) . For Mensur, see Paulsen, The German Universities (1906), ch. vi.
(F. S.; X.)
