FOOTNOTES:
[1] In the following pages I shall describe these several ordeals; for although they may not be considered as coming within the legitimate sphere of duelling, yet both practices were equally barbarous in their origin and absurd in their application. Duels actually formed part of the system of ordeals, in which the judgment of God was appealed to in behalf of the innocent.
[2] By other accounts it appears that in this same battle only five knights were killed,—four English and one Breton. Sir Robert Knolles and Sir Hugh Calverley were of the party.
[3] As Robertson has observed, “Force of mind, a sense of personal dignity, gallantry in enterprise, invincible perseverance in execution, contempt of danger and of deaths are the characteristic virtues of all uncivilized nations.”
[4] Strangers to the arts which embellish a polished age, these people as they progressed in civilization, however slowly and rudely, gradually lost all the virtues which are found among savages. They looked upon literature with sovereign contempt:
“When we would brand an enemy,” says Liutprandus, “with the most disgraceful and contumelious appellation, we call him a Roman.” Instruction, they maintained, tends to corrupt, enervate, and depress the mind; and he who has been accustomed to tremble under a rod, will never look upon a spear or sword with an undaunted eye.
[5] While public wars were to decide the feuds of nations and of tribes, a private war was considered right to settle individual disputes. In this private hostility, however, the kindred of both parties were obliged to espouse the quarrel, or forfeit all the rights and privileges of relationship; and it may be easily believed, from the inveteracy that marks all intestine discord, that these wars were waged with every possible refinement of ferocious revenge.
[6] A remarkable instance of this influence of brute force, that set at defiance all power and subordination, occurs in the history of Clovis, whose soldiers having plundered a church, and borne away various sacred utensils of great value, the bishop sent a deputation to the prince to solicit the restoration of a certain precious and sanctified vase. Clovis replied that when the booty was divided, if this vase fell to his lot, it should be immediately returned. Arrived at Soissons, the prince requested as a favour that this vessel should be allowed him as the only share of booty he would claim. All appeared willing to comply with this request; when a fierce soldier, striking the holy vessel with his battle-axe, exclaimed in a thundering voice, “You shall secure nothing here but that which the lot shall give you.” And there is but little doubt, that, had Clovis persisted, the battle-axe would have lighted upon his head.
[7] The accused was also sometimes obliged to walk barefoot and blindfold over nine red-hot ploughshares, laid lengthwise at unequal distances.
[8] This cut of the sabre is to this day called coup de Jarnac.
[9] The expressions quoted by the chronicler were affecting beyond translation. Sire je vous le donne—prenez-le pour Dieu! et l’amour que vous l’avez nourri; but the romantic monarch was deaf to the entreaty!
[10] This accident was strangely commented on by the theologic writers of the time, as appears by the following extract from Cockburn:—
“There was another observation made of this (accident), not only by the Protestants, but some of the moderate Roman Catholics, and which disposed some to turn Protestants. For this King Henry, by the persuasion of Cardinal Lorrain, had begun a severe persecution of the Protestants; and said, as was reported of him, that he would raise a mountain out of the ashes of Protestants that should be burned, higher than any in France: and, a day or two before, the Count Montmorency, by an order brought him by Oliver the Chancellor, seized and committed to the Bastile eleven eminent councillors and members of the Parliament of Paris, who lay under suspicion of favouring the Protestant doctrine: wherefore it was concluded and believed a visible and just judgment of God for avenging the blood of some of his servants, and the intended cruelty against others, that the King should receive his death by the same hand which seized these innocent men, in the very face of the Bastile where they were imprisoned, and that he should die too between twelve and one, the same hour in which he signed the order for seizing them. Thuanus reports that it was given out that King Henry said to those who came to take him up, that ‘he was afraid he had been injurious to those innocent persons,’ pointing to the Bastile; which Cardinal Lorrain checked in great wrath, telling him that these thoughts proceeded from an evil spirit. It is also remarkable how that the same Count Montgomery had afterwards his head struck off publicly at Paris, being condemned for treason because he joined the Prince of Condé’s party against the Queen and the Regency.”
[11] A still more ingenious mode of fighting was adopted by a young soldier, of a diminutive stature, who had been insulted by a tall sturdy Gascon: he insisted that they should both wear a steel collar round their necks, bristled with pointed blades as sharp as razors; and, wearing no armour, their bodies and limbs were exposed to the swords of each other. By this invention the little man could look up at his antagonist without any danger; while the tall fellow could not look down at his adversary without cutting his chin with the acerated points of his collar, in consequence of which he was soon run through the body.
[12] In Lady Blessington’s “Idler in Italy,” we find the following feminine remark, when speaking of Nice:—
“A marble cross marks the spot at Nice where an interview took place between Francis I, Charles V, and Pope Paul III. As I stood on the spot, I could call up to my mind’s eye these three remarkable men: but I found my fancy more disposed to dwell on the chivalrous sovereign of France than on the gloomy warrior of Spain, who exchanged a throne for a convent, or the churchman, who established the inquisition. I believe, all women take a stronger interest in the memory of two French monarchs of ancient days, than in that of any of their contemporaries. I refer to Henry IV. and Francis I; both were distinguished by great bravery and courtesy, which have a peculiar attraction for ladies; and the weaknesses of which they are accused, are such as women are most disposed to pardon, except in the persons of their suitors or their husbands.”
[13] Fougeroux de Campigneulles.
[14] Botte, in fencing, means a pass.
[15] A bavaroise is a mixture of orgeat and tea.
[16] The late Charles X.
[17] It appears, that in the destruction of everything the mob found in the house, they respected a portrait of the King.
[18] A Gascon term, meaning perverse and treacherous.
[19] Tâteurs.
[20] In one instance, the French officers went to the little Theâtre de la Gaieté, then on the Allées Tourny, when a furious fray took place between them and several British officers: although the latter had no swords, the French drew theirs; but the British breaking up chairs and tables, in a few minutes shivered their weapons, and knocked them down in every direction. It is somewhat strange, but I was, in a great measure, the means of terminating these differences. Coming out of the theatre, I was assailed by a group of French officers; I calmly replied, that if I had given offence to any of them, I was ready to afford them any satisfaction, and dilated on the absurdity of making a national war the subject of personal hostility, while I enlarged on the friendly feeling that had prevailed between our armies during the Peninsular war, and recalled to their recollection the many kind acts that we had shown each other when prisoners and wounded. The officers not only listened to me with the greatest attention, but one of them actually hugged me in his rude embrace, and I was obliged to accompany them to an hotel, and sup with the party. The next morning there was not a French officer remaining in the town.
[21] This is a very judicious rule. An aged man may grievously offend another, skreening himself by his age and infirmities; and he, therefore, should be made personally responsible for his conduct, and obliged to make a most humble apology, if he cannot afford what, unfortunately, is considered personal satisfaction. This rule will also prevent the sacrifice of life, to which filial affection might expose a generous youth, who in his conscience may condemn his father’s conduct.
[22] This is a point of such vital importance, that it is impossible to be too careful in ascertaining coolly and deliberately from which of the parties the insult originated.
[23] To name a duel, refers to time and place.
[24] This is a point of great importance. It sometimes happens, that a man who has insulted another, will select as his second some notorious ruffian, who will, to use the common expression, “fix a quarrel” on him, and endeavour to fight for his principal. Not long ago, a fellow advertised himself in the public papers, to fight for any person who might require his services.
[25] This rule is of importance. Forty-eight hours may be considered a fair time to reflect upon the painful necessity of a hostile meeting; and there is in general reason to suppose, that a challenge sent long after a provocation, has been the result of the interference of busy friends.
[26] Such an arrangement will frequently prevent fatal duels.
[27] Sword-knot.
[28] This is an important precaution, since a considerable advantage will be obtained over an adversary, if the point of his sword should be caught in the end of the handkerchief that hangs down.
[29] The trial by ramrod is an uncertain mode, as the depth of the charge will vary according to the wadding; a regular powder-measure is the only method that can ensure a fair proceeding; and, in loading by measure, great care must be taken that the measure is given from hand to hand. I have known a measure thrown upon the grass, (purposely or not, I cannot presume to say,) and it was taken up quite wet by the other party’s second, who, had he not perceived the circumstance, would have loaded his friend’s pistol with damp powder.
[30] There is much judicious consideration in thus allowing great advantage to the person who has received a blow, as it may tend to render hasty subjects more cautious, not only from the just apprehension of their affording considerable advantage to their opponent, but of rushing into a quarrel of a desperate character.
[31] I cannot agree with this conclusion; a swordsman may so provoke a cripple, that the latter, generally irascible, may so far forget himself as to strike his offender: in such cases, a pistol meeting, without taking aim, is the fairest mode of proceeding.
[32] Amongst these we may name Antonio Massa, Pomponio Torelli, Pigna, Dario Attendolo, Suzio de la Mirandole, Fausto de Longiano, Possevino, Rinaldo Corsa, Fabio Albergoti, Maffei.