ADVOCATE OF PEACE. No. VI. JULY, 1838. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF DUELLING. OUR grand object is the abolition of war; but we cannot well avoid occasional notices of a custom so near akin as duelling. Its origin, its spirit, its motives, its means, its results, nearly all its moral elements, are essentially the same as those of war. It is equally absurd and ridiculous, a compound of pride, folly and guilt, a burlesque on human nature, and a foul stigma on the character of Christendom. The existence of such a practice in our country should make the nation blush at its own degradation; and we feel ourselves called upon by recent events to furnish our readers with a brief sketch of its history, its moral character, and its essential similarity to war. The custom of duelling, unknown to the ancients, is the offspring of a martial and barbarous superstition in modern times. It came, during the dark ages, from the half-converted barbarians of the north, and formed for centuries a part of their civil and criminal jurisprudence. "Revenge is sweet;" and the savage deems it not only his right, but his duty, to avenge his own wrongs, and thinks it cowardly to accept redress from any arm but his own, and infamous to let another determine with what terms he shall be satisfied. Our ancestors were born and bred to war as the great business of life, and used to decide by the sword those points which civilized nations settle by courts of law. "The Germans," says Montesquieu, "enjoyed an excessive independence. Different families waged war with each other to obtain satisfaction for murder, robberies, or affronts. This custom was moderated by subjecting these hostilities to rules; and it was ordained, that they should be VOL. II. NO. VI. 3 no longer committed but by the direction and under the the magistrate." * Such an introduction of ordeals and judicial combats was justly deemed an improvement on the practice of private revenge. Those trials were all regarded as appeals to God, and the result as his decision in favor of the party that passed the ordeal unhurt, or came off victorious from the combat. Thus superstition mingled with the spirit of martial pride and ambition. The right of private war, the origin of modern duelling, was regarded by the fierce, haughty chieftains of the middle ages as a privilege of their order, and a mark of their independence. Every offended baron buckled on his armor, and sought redress at the head of his vassals. His adversary met him in the same way; and neither of them would submit such points of pride and passion to the slow determination of a court. -Each made the sword the arbiter of his rights; and the kindred and dependants of both parties were involved in the quarrel, without even the liberty of remaining neutral. These contests came to be regulated by law, and to form a part of the system of jurisprudence, just as if the practice had been founded in the nature of man, or the constitution of society. The results of this practice were terrible. It kept all Europe in ceaseless bloodshed, commotion, or alarm. It increased to a fearful extent the disorders in government, and produced a most savage ferocity of manners. It opposed almost insuperable obstacles to the regular administration of justice, discouraged every department of industry, and retarded the progress of all the peaceful and salutary arts. Private hostilities were carried on with such destructive rage, that Robertson assures us, "the invasion of the most barbarous enemy could not be more desolating to a country, or more fatal to its inhabitants, than those intestine wars." Germany suffered most from this practice. The authority of the emperor was so much shaken, that not only the nobility, but the cities, acquired almost independent power, and scorned all subordination and obedience to the laws. The disorders multiplied so fast, and the evils became so enormous, that the Germans were driven, as their last resort, to an absolute prohibition of private wars. It is surprising to observe, how extensive and frequent were the trials by judicial combat. They prevailed in every part of Europe. The earliest writers on law speak of the practice at * Montesquieu, Sp. of Laws, B. 28, c. 17. great length as a very important article in jurisprudence, and describe its regulations with minute and solicitous accuracy. In England, such trials were so frequent, that the fines, collected on those occasions, formed no small part of the king's revenue. Even ecclesiastics, notwithstanding the prohibitions of the church, were obliged to authorize the practice by being present, and performing some of the usual ceremonies. Wittikindus, an abbot, considered combat as the best mode of determining points in law; and the emperor Henry I declares, that the law authorizing such combats, was "enacted with the consent and applause of many faithful bishops." All points in dispute were subject to this method of decision. In 961, the question whether the church of St. Medard belonged to the abbey of Beaulieu or not, was settled by judicial combat. In the same century, a dispute arose concerning the right of representation. "It was a matter of doubt," says the historian, "whether the sons of a son ought to be reckoned among the children of a family, and succeed equally with their uncles, if their father happened to die while their grandfather was alive. An assembly was called to deliberate on this point; and it was the general opinion, that it ought to be remitted to the examination and decision of judges. But the emperor, following a better course, and desirous of dealing honorably with his people and nobles, appointed the matter to be decided by battle between two champions. He who appeared in behalf of the right of children to represent their deceased father, was victorious; and it was established by a perpetual decree, that they should hereafter share in the inheritance together with their uncles." A case still more ridiculous occurred in Spain, during the eleventh century. A controversy of much warmth arose between the Spaniards and the popes, whether the Musarabic liturgy, so long in use there, or the one recommended by the see of Rome, contained the form of worship most acceptable to God. The contest waxed violent; the nobles proposed to settle the point by the sword; the king liked the proposal; and two knights in full armor entered the lists. The champion of the Musarabic liturgy came off victorious; but the other party, contrary to all previous usages, insisted on a new and different trial. Their request was granted. A great fire was kindled, and a copy of each liturgy was thrown into the flames, with the agreement, that the one which should remain unhurt, should be received in all the churches of Spain. The Musarabic liturgy was still triumphant; and, if we may |