Sometimes a widely-practised custom falls out of use in a way that, looked at with hindsight it seems amazing to us that humans could behave in the ways they did. Consider the Romans’ love of gladiatorial combat, for example. Perhaps in future our descendants will read with amazement about the habit of inhaling tobacco smoke or drinking intoxicating and health-affecting beverages known as wine and beer.
Well, one activity to have disappeared from Western life is the practice of duelling. I thought about this after watching a remarkable film, recently released on DVD, called The Duellists, a film set in Napoleonic France and starring Harvey Keitel and David Carradine. One of the earliest directional efforts of Ridley Scott (who later did stuff like Gladiator and Bladerunner), it is an excellent work. Keitel’s character obsessively pursues his vendetta against his opponent, although the affair ends not in the death of either, but the humiliation of one. Duelling reached its peak, as far as I can tell, in the first decade or so of the 19th Century. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of aristocratic young men and officers of the army and navy lost their lives or were badly injured from the practice. Even the most senior politicians duelled. The former American president, Andrew Jackson, was said to have killed a handful of people in duels, and did not suffer in terms of popularity as a result. Can you imagine Dubya or John Kerry fighting with swords outside the White House? The Tory politicians George Canning and Lord Castlereagh fought a duel. Sir Robert Peel, arguably the greatest Tory statesman of the 19th Century in my view, nearly fought a duel against the Irish political figure, Daniel O’Connell.
But duelling died out. The art of sword fighting lives on in England among the fencing clubs one finds in our universities, and interestingly, it is very popular with women. But the notion that defending one’s honour involves throwing a challenge for “pistols or swords at dawn” no longer exists. Instead, those who imagine themselves traduced by another take their stories to the Sun newspaper.
The lost practice of duelling also reminds us of how, although we may have become more “genteel” in some ways, our society takes “affairs of honour” perhaps less seriously than it once did. Has our sense of shame diminished? Does one’s standing in society any more depend upon notions of honour?
In any event, I probably am glad at the turn of events. With my co-ordination skills, I would probably have to say to a challenge — “AK 47s at dawn!”
The Duellists was Ridley Scott’s first film as director. He had been very successful (and had become quite rich) as a commercials director for many years before that, but it took him quite a while to get the funding to make a feature. (He was 40 when he made The Duellists). The film received a mixed reception at the time, but it was well enough noticed for him to get the chance to direct another film. This was Alien, which was of course a major hit (by far the biggest of his career until he made Gladiator more than 20 years later).
The custom of duelling in the Western tradition, near as anyone can tell has its origins as a judicial function. (Quotes below are the translations appearing in Robert Baldick’s “The Duel: A History,” which is not a very good book, so don’t bother with it.)
Back in 501 AD, Gundebald, King of the Burgundians, noted that taking evidence by oaths was inadequate, because witnesses “suffered themselves to be corrupted by their avarice, or impelled by their obstinacy, so to attest by oath what they knew not, or what they know to be false.” Realizing quite sensibly that taking evidence by oath naturally prefers whichever side is more willing to lie, which is worse than no law at all, Gudebald figured that witnesses “might as well risk their bodies as their souls”.
So the first dueling custom was instituted: “Whenever two Burgundians are at variance, if the defendant shall swear that he owes not what is demanded of him, or that he is not guilty of the crime laid at his charge; and the plaintiff, on the other hand, not satisfied therewith shall declare that he is ready to maintain, sword in had, the truth of what he advances; if the defendent does not then acquiesce, it shall be lawful for them to decide the controversy be dint of sword… this is likewise understood of the witnesses of either party, it being just that every man should be ready to defend with his sword the truth which he attests, and to submit himself to the judgement of Heaven.”
So, the Duel of Honor likely follows as a form of private law adopting the traditions of the public law.
–G
Johnathan,
One reason why Scott’s first film may have been greenlighted is because of Kubrick’s 1975 film, Barry Lyndon, which had several key dueling scenes. (Scott and Kubrick’s films share similar pacing, cinematography, and one or two of the same actors.) The climax of Barry Lyndon features a dramatic duel in a tithe barn, and is a really remarkable piece of editing by Kubrick.
Ed
As a multi-culti aside, I should point out that duelling was positively epidemic among the samurai in Japan, at least at some point(s) in their history. For example, the great swordsman Musashi engaged in dozens of fatal duels.
Don’t forget Burr and Hamilton:
(from the PBS site)
“Hamilton and Burr clashed for the first time when Burr’s charm and savvy stole a seat in the U.S. Senate from Hamilton’s father-in-law. It would not be their last clash; for the next twelve years, Hamilton would often attack Burr on grounds of character. “Mr. Burr is bold, enterprising, and intriguing,” he wrote, “and I feel it is a religious duty to oppose his career.” Years later, on July 11, 1804, Hamilton and Burr took up positions thirty feet apart, loaded pistols in hand. When the signal was given, they had three seconds to fire.
The two seconds gave different accounts of what happened. According to Hamilton’s second, Hamilton had decided that it would be morally wrong to aim at Burr. But according to Burr’s second, Hamilton shot at Burr and missed.
Fatally wounded, Hamilton lay on the ground bleeding. He died at 3pm the following day. ”
Might made right literally. God chose the more righteous.
The practice essentially lived on into the later part of the 19th century in the ‘Old West’. People settled their differences between themselves and didn’t appear to want the State to interfere, and the State considered itself essentially disinterested. We learn that innocent bystanders sometimes suffered from this approach, and that if not handled carefully, people’s life and property could have been at stake. The State either could have regulated the practice so as the preserve others rights, or outlaw it altogether. They chose the later.
People no longer need to use force to compel adherance to contracts. The State is sufficiently reliable in applying force to enforce private contracts. Its also less harmful to the body.
Essentially, the modern, efficient and more just Court systsm (compared to the King’s whim, for instance) is a superior source of law & order than private enforcement. Where the Courts cannot or will not reach private, violent enforcement still reigns – such as between gangs or in the drug ‘business.’
You could say that the prevalence of Court systems today, over dueling, is a manifestation of individual choices over time. Of Course, since our modern Courts have decided they don’t like competition from dueling we can’t know how many duels would occur given true freedom of choice.
toolkien – how on EARTH would you have “regulated” a practice that involves doing bodily harm and possible death to someone? It could be a sport I suppose, but it could never be a source of justice.
How would you handle young muggers v. old ladies, or scientists enforcing patents against russian gangs? This is not any source of justice. It is force and power, which are completely amoral forces. And bystanders were “sometimes” harmed, and life and property “could” be at stake? Can you hear yourself? Society would collapse.
Our moden economies are completely dependant on the ability to enforce contracts even against those much stronger than yourself. How else could a little start-up enforce its patents against the private armies that Mircrosoft or Intel could field? Do you really trust Bill Gates to do the ‘right thing?’ Of course not, he would do what was best for Bill Gates – and Silicon Valley would cease to produce and innovate at its current pace. (and he didn’t, Larry Elison sure would, and if not him, someone else. The point is the system would be unbearably vulnerable to abuse.)
I swear, there are benefits to privatising the BBC or energy production, but a lot of our modern system is absolutely essential to creating the modern world we live in.
Or would you rather live in a world where someone who’s better with a sword/pistol could simply break his contracts with you because he knows you’re too unskilled to face him? Or would you simply get Perry to back you up? But what if this fictional contract breaker had more friends than you, and better fighters to boot? You’d never make any contracts with him would you? Congratulations, the economy just became less efficient, GDP contracts and the whole world is poorer.
Bugger.
Duelling was not about breaking contracts, it was about defending honor. In 19th century America, in the South and the West in particular this practice usually came about because of a personal insult or a public injury of one’s character (which Hamilton certainly did to Burr, whether he was technically correct about his “character” is another story).
7th US President Andrew Jackson spent the last 30 years of his life with 2 bullets permanetly lodged in his lung and arm, both from duels resulting from public besmirching of his character.
In those days a reputation was worth dieing for. Duelling was an interesting self-regulating mechanism, because with pistols at 20 paces both parties had almost an equal chance of living or dieing.
Or as they used to say here back in fuckin’ olden times:
“Do you blaze, sir?”
Stylish.
DSpears – you’ve never heard of libel, I presume?
Barry Lyndon was indeed excellent in this respect.
This is a rather debatable assertion, which is commonly made in comments on Samizdata. It is usually met by referring the writer to The Machinery of Freedom(Link), in particular Chapter 29(Link), which describes how an entirely private system of law enforcement might work. (Perhaps the comments could be set up so that this response is printed automatically?)
Unfortunately, Chapter 30, which explains why it is unlikely that private law will descend into violence more often than state law, isn’t webbed, so you’ll need to get a copy of the book if you want to read that.
toolkien – how on EARTH would you have “regulated” a practice that involves doing bodily harm and possible death to someone?
Proscribe where, when, and how. Is it really that hard? Why pistols at dawn? Because there would be fewer people about. Where, usually in a field far from others. Could regulate that swords must be used instead of guns, but if the other two are met, guns likely wouldn’t matter. Think of any regulation. It doesn’t say you can’t, it just says how or when or where.
At least duelling caused the otherwise economically parasitic aristocracy to self-select for something useful: eyesight and nerves.
Isn’t the urge to enjoy watching gladiatorial combat the same urge we satisfy now with actors pretending to be violent to each other? The Romans had a way to fulfill similar desires. They just didn’t have a way to do it without people really being harmed and killed. To us, that makes all the difference as to whether it’s morally sound, but I think the people who first fought against gladiatorial sport would be shocked that we’ve turned fake gladiatorial sport into an even more popular entertaintment form.
I suppose the difference between gladiators and American football, boxing, or rugby (not to mention the more violent sports still around) is only a matter of degree anyway.