DUELS DURING THE REIGN OF LOUIS XIV.
I cannot better commence the present chapter than by quoting the
following view of this epoch, entertained by a late writer on the
subject:--[13]
“The despotism of Richelieu gave birth to the autocracy of Louis XIV;
it became the energetic prologue of events naturally progressive.
Ministerial absolutism served as a transition to regal absolute power.
The ancient feudal liberty had been levelled by the monarchical scythe,
while democratic equality was not as yet sufficiently matured to supply
its place. The interregnum between these two influences left a wide
and fertile field for the uncontrolled and unlimited authority of the
_Grand Monarque_, whose name was of sufficient weight in the scale
of renown to fill up this lapse with the most brilliant _prestiges_.
It was during this invasion of one man on the ancient domains of our
rights and liberties that individualism arose: this principle was
more fully developed during the voluptuous lethargy of Louis XV, and
prepared the way for the final triumph of democracy under the feeble
sceptre of his successor.
“Richelieu dead, the aristocracy, which had ceased to be a rival power
of the throne, became its ornament, and only preserved so much of its
former glories as might have been shed around the captive sovereigns
who surrounded the triumphal cars of Roman conquerors. Yet did it
appear satisfied with this humiliation when reflecting on the miserable
crowd of slaves that followed it; the proud contempt of the victor not
foreseeing that these captives would, in their turn, burst forth from
their shackles to trample under foot the ruins both of aristocracy and
monarchy.
“Louis XIV, in the intervals of his warlike policy, fully understood
the advantages that he could reap from these elements of aristocracy,
dispersed so widely by his predecessors; and he lost no time in
collecting their bleeding remains. The nobility, in his hands, was
remodelled into an institution purely military, and he claimed
from them to restore France to her natural limits, the same means
that Charles VII. had pursued to liberate the kingdom. Thus was
re-established a patrician _militarism_, in imitation of that German
_militarism_ which dated from the conquest of the Gauls, and which
ultimately led to the plebeian militarism of modern times.”
The minority of this monarch had been marked by troubled times,
during which the spirit of duelling, that Richelieu had to a certain
extent repressed, broke forth afresh with renewed energies; and the
disturbances of the Fronde naturally increased these bloody feuds, by
giving a certain object and character to the hostile meetings that
daily took place. The monarch, anxious to preserve the blood of his
subjects for more noble enterprises, sought every means to check the
evil; and during his reign no less than ten edicts were promulgated to
restrain these excesses: the formulary of these enactments recommended
peace and concord, and fulminated destruction on the offenders. Such
was the prolixity of their legal _verbiage_, that one of the most
celebrated of these acts contained no less than forty clauses and
provisions. The spirit of these ordonnances can be easily judged of by
the terms of the following preamble, that preceded the edict of 1643:
“Having nothing dearer to our hearts than the preservation of our
nobility, whose valour, so justly celebrated and dreaded all over the
world, has only been tarnished by the irregularities of a monstrous
frenzy; after having put up our supplications to God, which we daily
continue to do with all our heart, that he may vouchsafe to open their
eyes, and dispel those hateful illusions which inspire them with a
thirst for a spurious honour; we resolve,” &c.
In this act it is clear that the monarch was most anxious to preserve
the lives and services of his most influential and distinguished
followers, and did not contemplate the shedding of their blood by
plebeian hands; but, as this did not appear to have always succeeded,
we find in the edict of 1661 the following clause:--
“Whereas it does appear that there are persons of ignoble birth,
and who have never borne arms, yet are insolent enough to call out
gentlemen who refuse to give them satisfaction, justly grounding their
refusal on the inequality of their conditions; in consequence of which
these persons excite and oppose to them other gentlemen of like degree,
whence arise not unfrequently murders, the more detestable since they
originate from abject sources; we do hereby will and ordain, that in
all such cases of challenge and combat, more especially if followed
by serious wounds or death, such ignoble and low-born citizens, duly
convicted of having caused or promoted such disorders, shall be
forthwith, and without any remission, hanged and strangled; all their
goods and chattels, &c. confiscated; and we, moreover, do allow our
judges to dispose of such part of this confiscated property as they
may deem meet, as a reward to all informers who may give due knowledge
of such offences; that, in the commission of a crime so deserving of
condign punishment, every one may be induced to make proper revelation.”
It does not appear, however, that these interdictions produced the
results that might have been expected from their severity; for in 1679
came out the celebrated _Edit des Duels_, which denounces the penalty
of death on all principals, seconds, and thirds, with greater or less
confiscation of property as royal droits: gentlemen being deprived of
their letters of nobility, and their coats of arms defaced, blackened,
and broken by the public executioner; those who fell in duel being
tried by _Contumacy_, and their bodies drawn on a hurdle, and cast into
the common receptacle of nuisances, being thus deprived of Christian
burial. A simple challenge was punished by banishment, and confiscation
of one half of the offender’s property. In regard to all bearers of
messages, or servants who had attended upon their masters on such
occasions, and who formerly were to be hanged, this edict mercifully
condemned them to be only whipped, and branded with _fleur de lis_.
Historians relate that the law was in general _strictly_ put into
execution in the latter case.
Other penalties were inflicted by a court of satisfaction and reprisal.
A lawyer who insulted another was subjected to very severe penalties;
giving the lie, striking with hand or stick, were acts that subjected
the offender to imprisonment, with the obligation of making ample
apology to the offended when released from confinement; and not
unfrequently the injured party was allowed to inflict a castigation
similar to the one he had received.
It was with this view that courts of honour were instituted, in
which the marshals of France sat as supreme judges, and, after due
investigation, ordered that such satisfaction should be given as the
case might require, in addition to the penalty of incarceration,
fine, or banishment, according to the nature of the provocation; and
in various instances guards were sent to the houses of the offenders
guilty of a contempt of court, who were obliged to maintain them for
a considerable length of time. Although the institution of courts of
honour, composed of the marshals of France, is attributed to Louis XIV,
a similar enactment took place in 1566, in the reign of Charles IX.
In theory, nothing could be more plausible than these enactments.
They were received by the nation with that enthusiasm which usually
attends upon any innovation; even the Academy granted a prize-medal
to the author of a successful poem on the abolition of duelling. In
practice, however, the law was far from attaining its desirable end.
The prejudices and false views of honour had too long prevailed to be
easily eradicated, and human passions sought every possible expedient
to elude these wise and humane provisions; it might also have been
easily foreseen, that, the novelty of the proceedings of the court
of honour once having ceased to be popular, the judges themselves,
being soldiers, punctilious on such points, which from early youth
they had considered as demanding the satisfaction of an appeal to
arms, gradually relaxed. It must also be considered that the sovereign
himself was a warlike prince, who had imbibed similar ideas from his
early days; and moreover, as has been very justly observed, that, while
he thus fulminated his royal anathema against duelling, he issued
patents to fencing-masters to allow them to exercise their craft. The
courtier well knew, that, if he screened himself from resenting an
injury under the sanction of the law of the land, the laws of society
would brand him as a coward, and the sovereign himself would withdraw
his countenance in court and camp. Nor can we be surprised at the
difficulty of checking these excesses, which were incessantly fomented
by civil and religious discord; such was the hostility that prevailed
amongst churchmen and their followers, that processions of religious
bodies not only frequently attacked each other in the streets with the
most virulent language, but actually came to blows, and fought with
crucifixes, banners, and censers in Notre Dame and the holy chapel,
pelting each other with prayer-books and missals,--a combat that
Boileau has ludicrously described in his “Lutrin;” it was observed
that the most serious ecclesiastical fray of this nature took place in
the church of Notre Dame, on the very day when Louis XIII. placed the
kingdom under the special protection of the Virgin Mary.
Private outrages, and breaches of common courtesy and decency,
frequently arose amongst the first persons in the realm. The great
Condé gave a slap in the face to the Comte des Rieux in the presence of
the Duke of Orleans, when the Count returned the blow with interest;
for which retaliation he was sent for a few days to the Bastille. This
Comte des Rieux was the son of the Duke d’Elbeuf; and it had been
jocosely observed, “that the cheeks of that nobleman’s family had
been selected as the field of battle in the wars of the Fronde.” On
this occasion it is related, that the Duke de Beaufort, the son of a
bastard of Henry IV, and who from his vulgarity and brutal excesses was
nicknamed the _Roi des Halles_, or what we might translate the _King of
Billingsgate_, asked the President de Belliévre, if he did not think
that a slap on the cheeks of the Duke d’Elbeuf might change the _face_
of affairs. The president replied, that he apprehended the only change
it might produce would be in the _face_ of the duke.
Shortly after, in 1652, this same Duke of Beaufort, having a quarrel
with his brother-in-law, the Duke de Nemours, on a point of precedence,
killed him in a pistol duel, at which four seconds were present,
who, according to the laudable practice of the times, kept company
with their principals; the Marquis de Villars shooting his adversary
D’Héricourt, whom he had then the honour to meet for the first time.
Madame de Motteville, in her Memoirs, states that this said nobleman,
his Grace of Beaufort, accompanied by six of his worthy companions,
went to insult in the most brutal manner the Duc de Candalle, upsetting
the table at which he was seated at dinner with several noble guests;
and when the Duke thus outrageously insulted demanded satisfaction,
declined meeting him, on the plea of consanguinity, as he was his
cousin-german. Despite his unruly conduct, this worthy was soon after
selected by his sovereign as chief of the admiralty.
De Beaufort was one of the principal leaders of “la Fronde,” and the
most active partisan of Cardinal de Retz, who, although a dignitary of
the church, knew the use of his sword as well, if not better, than his
breviary; he fought two duels, alleging as a precedent his predecessor
the Cardinal de Guise, who was ever ready to wield either a sword or a
crucifix.
It was during this reign that arose the celebrated quarrel between the
beautiful Duchess de Longueville, sister of the great Condé, and the
Duchess de Montbazon, the mother-in-law of Madame de Chevreuse; these
three ladies being concerned in all the intrigues of the busy court of
Anne of Austria, then Regent of the kingdom.
The subject of this dispute arose from a love-letter, in a woman’s
hand-writing, having been found, which was supposed to have been
dropped by the Comte de Coligny as he was leaving the apartments of
Madame de Longueville, and which contained various reports unfavourable
to the reputation of Madame de Montbazon. This letter was attributed
to Madame de Longueville, who insisted that Coligny, her acknowledged
lover, should call out De Guise, the favourite of Madame de Montbazon.
The parties met in open day in the Place Royale, where Coligny received
a mortal wound; while the two seconds, D’Estrade and De Bridieu, were
fighting, and the latter was severely wounded. This duel is worthy
of record, from the singular fatality which attended it. Admiral de
Coligny, the illustrious victim of the massacre of St. Barthelemi, was
murdered by the orders of the Duke de Guise; and, seventy years after,
the grandson of the admiral was killed by the grandson of the duke!
Notwithstanding the severity of his different edicts, Louis XIV.
took no notice of this fatal rencontre: a circumstance which led to
the observation, in a journal of the times, “that the King, although
jealous of his authority, was not sorry at heart when he saw his nobles
punctilious on matters of honour; therefore many of them willingly
exposed themselves to the severity of the law, to obtain the secret
approbation of their sovereign.” Mazarin, excepting in cases where his
authority was questioned, and his influence concerned, seldom exerted
himself to prevent these evils. The Comte de Rochefort, who had entered
his service after the decease of Richelieu, has given in his Memoirs
strange illustrations of the depravity and brutality of the times; and
we find the following account in his diary. “Chance would have it that
this day I found myself in company with the Comte d’Harcourt, and,
having drunk to great excess, it was determined that we should all set
out and rob on the Pont Neuf; an amusement brought into fashionable
vogue by the Duc d’Orleans. The Chevalier de Rieux, one of the party,
felt, like me, much repugnance to this exploit; and by his advice,
instead of joining the party, we climbed up on the neck of the bronze
horse of Henry IV, where we might safely view this adventure. Our
companions were waylaying the passengers, and had already robbed them
of several cloaks, when a party of archers appeared, and they took to
their heels. We endeavoured to follow their example; but, in coming
down from the equestrian statue, the bronze reins of the horse, on
which De Rieux was supported, were broken under his weight, and he fell
to the ground, when we were apprehended without any resistance on our
part; De Rieux complaining most loudly of the pain he experienced from
his fall, while we were both led to the Châtelet.”
The parties were kept some time in prison, De Rieux endeavouring
to exculpate himself by throwing all the blame upon Rochefort, the
narrator of this anecdote, who forthwith called him out; but, having
declined the meeting, Rochefort struck him with the flat of his sword.
He then demanded satisfaction from the Comte d’Harcourt, the leader of
the unruly party; but the count declined the honour on the plea of his
rank. Rochefort then, disappointed in his anxiety to fight, assisted
by a neighbour of Harcourt who owed him a grudge, cut down the finest
trees on that nobleman’s estate, and destroyed his preserves; till,
at last, a friend and partisan of the count, a desperado of the name
of Bréauté, sought him, and called him out on the behalf of Harcourt.
Rochefort was severely wounded; and Bréauté, who had also received
a wound in the thigh, bore off his sword as a trophy of his victory,
carrying it to the count, who celebrated his exploit in revelry.
Rochefort had been severely wounded in the lungs; but his patron, the
Cardinal Mazarin, publicly espoused his cause, and sent him his own
surgeon, with a purse of five hundred crowns. On his recovery he again
set out to despoil the property of his enemy, accompanied by a fellow
of the name of Des Planches; but these worthies fell out upon the road
while at supper, and, after throwing plates and dishes at each other,
commenced fighting with their fists. Rochefort having amused himself
in poaching on the count’s grounds, Des Planches with his followers
placed himself in ambuscade, and fired upon him and his party from
behind a hedge; apologising after this outrage, on the plea of his
having mistaken him for Harcourt and his gamekeepers. Still Mazarin
contrived to protect these desperate ruffians: and, although this Des
Planches had been dismissed the service in consequence of a dispute
with his commanding officer, he returned to Paris under the cardinal’s
patronage, to marry a wealthy person; but, his wife being unable to
check his desperate mode of living, he died after a drunken party a few
years subsequent to his marriage.
This Rochefort, in his Memoirs, gives a curious account of a challenge
sent by a person of the name of Madaillan to the Marquis de Rivard,
who had lost a leg at the siege of Puy Cerda. As fighting upon an
equal _footing_ was considered a point of honour, the marquis sent to
his opponent a surgeon with a case of instruments, proposing that he
should submit to a similar amputation. The joke was successful, and
Madaillan’s wrath was appeased.
At various periods of the French monarchy, and despite the severity of
the edicts to prevent hostile meetings, the patronage of distinguished
personages was considered sufficient to shield the transgressors
from punishment. An anecdote is related of a person who, having been
introduced into society by a noble patron, was turned out of doors for
cheating at cards, with a threat of being thrown out of the window. He
complained of this insult to his protector, who very quietly replied,
“What would you have me do? All that I can advise you at present is,
never to play at cards except on the ground-floor.”
About this period a duel took place at Brussels between Beauvais, an
esquire of the Prince de Condé, and a gentleman who had presumed to
walk up stairs before him, in which the offended esquire was mortally
wounded. This Beauvais’ ideas of honour were most fastidious, for,
although he perilled his life because another gentleman had taken
precedence of him, he resisted the earnest entreaties of the prince his
master, who on his death-bed requested him to marry a young person whom
he had seduced, and so to legitimatize the children she had borne him;
one of whom, Uranie, was afterwards married to the Prince of Savoy.
In 1663, a duel took place between La Frette and De Chalais. They were
coming out from a ball at the palace, when La Frette, who had had
some difference with De Chalais on account of certain ladies, pushed
against him, and a meeting of three against three was arranged for the
following morning. The King, being apprised of the circumstance, sent
his orders to La Frette, adding, that if he did not keep the peace,
he would have his throat cut. The bearer of the royal message was
Monsieur de Saint Aignan, to whom La Frette replied, that, as he was
his cousin, he was certain that he would not break up a pleasant party
and one so well arranged; adding, moreover, that, if he felt disposed
to join it, he was convinced that he could easily find him an opponent.
To this proposal, although the bearer of a royal mandate, Saint Aignan
acceded; and, instead of a combat between threes, it was fought by
fours, one of the party being the Marquis d’Antin. The King was justly
incensed at this act of disobedience, and especially at the conduct of
Saint Aignan, who had joined the combatants, instead of fulfilling his
pacific mission: all the parties were obliged to quit the kingdom; the
La Frettes, however, were soon after pardoned at the intercession of
Pope Clement X, who offered on this occasion to absolve the King from
his vow against duelling.
The only instance in which the severe laws against duelling were
carried into execution was at Toulouse, in the case of the Marquis de
la Donze, who had treacherously killed his brother-in-law. Whatever
effect this severity might have produced upon the public mind, it
did not appear to affect the offender, for, when upon the scaffold
his confessor exhorted him to pray for forgiveness for his crime, he
replied with the usual Gascon ejaculation, “_Sandis!_ do you call one
of the cleverest thrusts in Gascony a crime?”
Another duel which created a great sensation was the one fought between
the Counts de Brionne and d’Hautefort; the latter having called the
former out for refusing to marry his sister, whom he had courted.
Both combatants were wounded, and were proceeded against by the Grand
Provost; but, after a short imprisonment, the affair was hushed up.
It is certain that, as Voltaire has justly observed, many disputes,
which at other periods must have led to hostile meetings, were settled
during this reign without bloodshed. Such, for instance, was the
quarrel of the Dukes de Luxembourg and Richelieu about precedence;
when, after a long and angry correspondence, Richelieu, meeting
Luxembourg in the palace, where he was captain of the guard, went up to
him, and told him that he dared him on foot and on horseback, he or his
followers, either at court or in city, and even in the army, should he
proceed to it, or, in short, in any part of the world. Notwithstanding
this provocation, an apology was deemed sufficient. An apology was also
considered satisfactory in the dispute which arose between the Prince
de Conti and the Grand Prior of Vendôme, at the Dauphin’s, where the
prince accused the latter of cheating at play, and moreover called
him a coward and a liar: the prior threw the cards in his face, and
insisted upon immediate satisfaction. The prince claimed the privilege
of his birth; but at the same time condescended to add, that, although
he could not infringe the laws by acceding to his challenge, it was an
easy matter to meet him. These meetings, which were resorted to, to
keep within the pale of the laws, were called _rencontres_ instead of
duels: hence originated the term. Howbeit, the Dauphin, hearing of the
quarrel, jumped out of bed, and in his shirt, proceeded to terminate
the difference. Subsequently making his report to the King, the next
morning the Grand Prior was sent to the Bastille, whence he was only
liberated on the condition that he should make an _humble apology_ to
the Prince de Conti for having been called by him a _cheat_, a _liar_,
and a _poltroon_.
Previous to this fracas, a _rencontre_ had taken place between the
son of the Count de Latour d’Auvergne and a celebrated swordsman, the
Chevalier de Caylus; a quarrel having arisen in a brothel about cards
and prostitutes. Caylus was obliged to quit the kingdom, and his effigy
was hanged on the Place de Grève.
A gambling duel, on a point of honour, is recorded of a M. de
Boisseuil, one of the King’s equerries; who, having detected his
antagonist cheating at cards, exposed his conduct. The insulted
gentleman demanded satisfaction, when Boisseuil replied that he did not
fight with a person who was a rogue! “That _may_ be,” said the other;
“but I do not like to be _called one_!” They met on the ground, where
Boisseuil received two desperate wounds.
It was during this reign that a curious meeting took place between
La Fontaine the fabulist, whose meekness and apathy had acquired him
the name of “the Good,” and an officer. Although generally blind to
the irregularities of his wife, he once took it into his head to
become jealous of a captain of dragoons, of the name of Poignant.
La Fontaine had not himself observed the intimacy with his wife; but
some kind friends had drawn his attention to its impropriety, telling
him that it was incumbent on him to demand satisfaction. La Fontaine
reluctantly persuaded, contrary to his usual habits, got up early one
morning, took his sword, and went out to meet his antagonist. When the
parties were in presence, the worthy poet said, “My dear sir, I must
fight you, since I am assured that it is absolutely necessary.” He
then proceeded to acquaint him with the reasons that induced him to
call him out, and drew his pacific sword. The dragoon, thus obliged to
defend himself, whipped the weapon out of the inexperienced hand of the
fabulist, and, having disarmed him, proceeded quietly to point out to
him the absurdity of the reports circulated in regard to his wife, and
the folly of his having thus exposed his valuable life; adding, that
since his visits had been the occasion of scandal, he would from that
hour cease to call at his house. _Le Bon La Fontaine_ was so affected
by this sincere explanation, that he not only insisted that the captain
should pay more frequent visits than ever, but swore that he would
fight him over again if he discontinued them.
The inefficacy of the various edicts to restrain duels was at last
acknowledged, and various means were adopted to enforce them. In
the year 1651, a clergyman of the name of Olier, founder of the
congregation of St. Sulpice, conceived a plan of supplying the
inefficiency of the law, by putting honour in opposition to itself.
With this view he projected an association of gentlemen of tried
valour, who, by subscribing an engagement to which the solemnity of
an oath was to be added, obliged themselves never to send or accept a
challenge, and never to serve as seconds in a duel. In this project he
engaged the Marquis de Fénélon, a nobleman respected for the frankness
of his disposition and the austerity of his principle, as well as for
his well-known courage, when that quality had been called upon in the
service of his country; since it was of him that the great Condé had
said, that he was equally qualified for conversation, for the field,
or for the cabinet. It was to this nobleman that the justly celebrated
Archbishop of Cambray owed his education and his rise in the church.
The Marquis de Fénélon having placed himself at the head of
this association,--into which no one was admitted unless he had
distinguished himself in the service,--on the Sunday of the Pentecost,
the members assembled in the church of St. Sulpice, and placed in the
hands of M^r Olier a solemn instrument, expressing their firm and
unalterable resolution never to be principals or seconds in a duel, and
moreover to discourage the baneful practice to the utmost of their
power. The great Condé was so struck with the proceeding, that he said
to the marquis, that a person must have the opinion which he himself
entertained of his valour, not to be alarmed at seeing him the first to
break the ice on such an occasion.
However, it appears that neither the King’s determination to forward
the views of this praiseworthy association, nor the exertions of
its respectable members, could totally eradicate the prejudice that
maintained the evil; and Madame de Crequi, in her Reminiscences, sadly
errs when she affirms that during seventeen years not a duel had been
fought. Voltaire was also incorrect when he attributed to this prince,
surnamed the Great, the abolition of these bloody proceedings. Voltaire
was such an enthusiastic admirer of Louis XIV, that in this case, as in
many others, where his partiality, his prejudices, or his scepticism
prevailed, he lost sight of facts, or, at any rate, passed them over in
silence to suit his purposes. The following extract from a recent work
gives a much fairer view of this prince’s reign than is given by the
generality of his historians:
“His reign, like that of most conquerors, was equally divided between
repeated successes and failures. His arms were triumphant so long as
he fought to obtain the natural limits of France, which to this day
enjoys the fruits of his conquests; but Fortune forsook his banners as
soon as he drew his sword to level the Pyrenees. His reign commenced
in glory, and terminated in humiliation; the prestige of authority
took wing with that of victory. When the _Grand Monarque_ died, the
monarchy may be said to have descended into its sepulchre, and the
people, who had once trembled in his presence, insulted his ashes;
while the parliament, into whose halls he was wont to enter booted and
spurred, avenged themselves by trampling on his will. It was, in truth,
the protection he afforded to literature, and the patronage with which
he honoured distinguished men and letters, that acquired for him the
surname of GREAT. The Mæcenas of his age, he was entitled to
the distinction; and it has been truly said of him that France owed to
him her knowledge of literature, as Asia owed her acquaintance with
Grecian superiority to Alexander.”
The efforts of Louis to civilize the country, and encourage science
and the fine arts, were indefatigable; and what is still more
estimable in this monarch was, his attending to the improvement of the
nation during the turmoil of war. He established the most extensive
manufactures; formed the East India Company; built an observatory,
and a printing-office in his palace for the publication of the best
translations of ancient writers; sent out navigators on voyages of
discovery; and, while he received at his court Cassini, Huygens, and
the most distinguished foreigners who could adorn it, he encouraged
native genius with liberality. He personally defended Boileau,
Racine, and Molière against their enemies, provided for the family
of Corneille, directed the _studio_ of Le Brun and his contemporary
artists, while he attached Lulli to his court, and gave Quinault the
subjects of his operas; pensions too were granted to all those who had
contributed by their courage or their talents to the grandeur of the
empire. He felt and knew that no sovereign can become popular unless
national genius and talent meet with encouragement at court; and that,
thus fostered, national taste will improve more rapidly than by the
degrading importation of foreign perfections. The greatest error of
this prince was his neglect of the future, while engrossed by the
glorious schemes of the present; and his never thinking on the means
that his successor might require to replenish the exhausted exchequer.
His ambition had been to revive the Augustan age: his position, in
reality, was not unlike that of the Roman Emperor; Cæsar had become
the master of the empire, and Henry IV. had consolidated his kingdom.
Both princes ascended the throne surrounded by a warlike people that
required civilization, and Colbert was to Louis what Mæcenas had been
to his imperial master; what is more singular is, the circumstance
of their both being born in the same month, and dying nearly at the
same age. It is to be lamented that, while the great mind of Louis
encouraged the fine arts and literature, it should have been warped by
superstition and bigotry; and the persecution of Protestantism, with
the odious _Dragonades_, will ever be a blot upon his memory. We can
only account for these atrocities by considering them as the terms upon
which he obtained priestly absolution for his many vices.
It must certainly be acknowledged that duelling was discountenanced
during the reign of this prince, and was much less frequent than under
his predecessors; but I apprehend that this circumstance was more to be
attributed to the rapid progress of civilization and polished manners,
to which I have alluded, than to the severity of legal enactments.
The refinement of manners that accompanied the quick advance of
intellectual attainments materially tended to humanize society, and
to make those who could reflect on the horrors of the past, blush at
the fashionable countenance bestowed upon a practice which should have
sunk into the grave with Gothic ignorance and barbarism. War was the
sole occupation in savage times; and amongst barbarians, strangers to
all the blessings of civilized life and social enjoyments, personal
and brute courage was the only claim to distinction and pre-eminence.
Mandeville has fully illustrated such a condition of society in his
fable of the Bees: “If we well mind what effects man’s bravery, without
any other qualifications to sweeten him, would have out of an army,
we shall find that it would be very pernicious to civil society; for,
if a man could conquer all his fears, you would hear of little else
but rapine and violence of all sorts, and valiant men would be like
giants in romance. Politics, therefore, discovered in men a mixed
principle, which was a compound of justice, honesty, and all the moral
virtues, joined to courage; and all that were possessed of it turned
knights-errant, of course. They did abundance of good throughout the
world, by taming monsters, delivering the distressed, and killing
oppressors. But the wings of all the dragons being clipped, the giants
destroyed, and the damsels everywhere set at liberty, (except some few
in Spain and Italy, who remain still captivated by religious monsters,)
the order of chivalry, to whom the standard of ancient honour belonged,
has been laid aside for some time. It was like their armour, very
massy and heavy; the many virtues about it served to make it very
troublesome; and, as ages grew wiser and wiser, the principle of honour
at the beginning of the last century (1600) was melted over and over
again, and brought into a new standard. They put in the same weight
of courage half the quantity of honesty, and a very little justice,
but not a scruple of any other virtue; which has made it very easy and
portable to what it was.”
Louis XIV, although the despotic chief of a monarchical government, was
well aware that the point of honour should be held sacred amongst his
armed followers, yet was he convinced of the necessity of tempering its
brutality; while, as we have seen, he himself individually esteemed the
illegal exhibition of personal courage, which his edicts condemned.
When a courtier complained to one of the marshals that he had received
a slap in the face, the general replied, “Then, sir, go and wash it
off.” The slap in the face was the subject of an amusing passage in
Molière’s play of the “Sicilian,” where a character says, “My lord, I
have received a slap in the face,--you know what a slap in the face
is, when it is bestowed with open hand on the middle of the cheek;
I have this slap on my heart, sir, and I am meditating which is the
most advisable method to wipe off the affront, either to fight the
fellow, or to get him assassinated.” Montesquieu has observed, that in
monarchical governments, “there is nothing that _honour_ more strongly
recommends than to serve the prince in a military capacity; in fact,
this is the favourite profession of honour, because its dangers, its
success, and _even its miscarriages_, are the road to greatness: the
_honour_ of monarchies is favoured by the passions, and favours them in
return; but virtue is a self-renunciation, which is always arduous and
painful. This is the reason why we never meet with so strict a purity
of morals in monarchies as in republican governments: in monarchies,
the actions of men are not approved of as being good, but shining; not
as being just, but great; not as being reasonable, but extraordinary;
and honour allows of gallantry when united with the idea of sensual
affection, or with that of conquest.” This enlightened writer further
adds: “We have only to cast our eye on a nation (England) that may be
justly called a republic disguised under the form of a monarchy, and
we shall see how jealous they are of making a separate order of the
profession of arms, and how the military state is continually allied
to that of the citizen, and even of the magistrate, to the end that
the latter may be a pledge to their country, which should never be
forgotten. Military men in England are regarded as belonging to a
profession which may be useful, but is often dangerous; civil qualities
are therefore more highly esteemed than military.”
These sentiments are also those of one of the warmest advocates of
duelling, Coustard de Massi, who thus expresses himself: “I own that
in republican governments the practice of duelling may be prevented,
_because the courage of the people is sufficiently fostered by an
enthusiastic love of their country_; which powerful incentive alone
can elevate their troops to superior boldness, and make them perform
such astonishing acts of valour as are to be found in the Greek and
Roman histories:” but in monarchical governments our author maintains
that duelling is indispensable. What a flattering encomium bestowed
on despotism, where the passions of a profligate monarch are to be
considered more commanding than the love of country and independence!
What a lesson does not this quotation give to British duellists!
Moore has made, on this subject, the following judicious observations:
“Some have asserted that we should become a pusillanimous nation if a
less stress were laid than is at present on that species of personal
courage which is exhibited in the duel. But the annals of all ages
afford us a sufficient proof and consolation, that in all cases of
emergency the free-born subjects of a free nation, through that natural
enthusiasm which a love of their country inspires, will strain every
nerve of courage in defence of their liberty or warlike glory, without
having been previously disciplined in the school of duelling and modern
honour.”
The frequency of duels in the United States may be adduced in
opposition to the foregoing opinions; but this objection by no means
holds good. America is still a young country; and society, although
it is making rapid strides towards a higher state of civilization,
is still under the influence of rude and unpolished manners and
prejudices, which a superior education and more enlightened times
alone can remove: and I feel confident, from the daily progression of
improvement in those regions, that in half a century duels will be
there of as rare occurrence, if not rarer than in Great Britain; and
this progress will be in the ratio of that of literature and the fine
arts, for bloodshed and murder, however qualified, are incompatible
with the pursuits and the gentler occupations of peace. The sun of
science will gradually dispel the mists of ignorance and prejudice,
open the mind to the conviction of reason and of truth, and show that
a stem republican may display a courtly polish without derogating from
the independence of a free man, since courtesy of behaviour may be
considered the natural result of superior education.
I have deemed this digression from the plan of this work excusable, as
the reign of Louis XIV. may be said to have constituted an epoch in
civilization: we shall see how far his successors sought to cultivate
the advantages which it held forth.
We may say that with this reign terminated the practice of duelling,
as founded upon ancient usages; and, as I have quoted Montesquieu, a
further passage from this illustrious writer may be considered as a
recapitulation of the grounds upon which the erroneous views of the
_Point of Honour_ were based.
“We find many strange enigmas in the legal codes of barbarians. By the
law of the Frisons, half a sol was granted as a compensation for a man
who had been beaten with a stick. By the Salic law, an _ingénu_, who
gave three blows of a stick, paid a fine of as many sols; and, if blood
was drawn, he was punished as though the injury had been inflicted with
an iron weapon, and had to pay fifteen sols. The law of the Lombards
established various compositions for one, two, or three or four blows;
but now-a-days one blow is worth a hundred thousand.
“The constitution of Charlemagne, inserted in the laws of the Lombards,
enacts that those who are allowed a duel should fight with sticks:
this regulation was partially in favour of the clergy; and it is also
likely that it was intended to render duels less sanguinary. In the
Capitularies of Louis le Débonnaire, the combatants had the choice of
staves or arms; subsequently it was only serfs who fought with cudgels.
“Already I see arising the particular articles of our Point of
Honour. The accuser commenced by declaring to a judge that a person
had committed a certain action; the accused replied that he asserted a
falsehood, and the judge ordered the battle. Thus was introduced the
maxim, that the lie demanded a combat.
“When a man had once declared that he would fight, he could not avoid
the necessity; and, if he withdrew from the obligation, he was subject
to a penalty. Hence arose the rule, that, when a man had once pledged
his word, he could not retract it without dishonour.
“Gentlemen fought with each other on horseback, and with their arms;
while villains fought on foot, and with staves. Hence a stick was
considered a weapon of degradation, since a man who had been struck
with it had been treated like a villain.
“Moreover, it was only villains who fought with their faces uncovered,
therefore they alone could receive a blow in the face: thus a slap
in the face became an injury that could only be obliterated with
blood, for the man whose face had been slapped had been treated like a
low-born person.
“The German races were not less alive to this view of the Point of
Honour; they were, if possible, still more punctilious: the most
distant relations took part in disputes, and all their codes were
founded on this principle. Accordingly, the laws of the Lombards
ordained, that if a man, accompanied by his followers, went to assault
another who was not upon his guard, to bring shame and ridicule upon
him, he should pay one-half of the _composition_ which he would have
had to give in the event of his having killed him. Thus do we see our
ancestors keenly alive to an affront; but they had no particular view
of any affront of a specific nature as regards the weapon made use of,
or the part of the body that was struck.”
It is to chivalry that this eloquent writer attributes the rise of
gallantry, when sentiments of love were associated with a sense of
strength, valour, and protection; and this spirit was inherent in the
practice of tournaments, which, uniting tender passions with noble
deeds, gave to gallantry a greater importance than it would otherwise
have obtained, had they merely been trials of skill and courage in a
passage of arms; and to this day the term _gallant_ is applied to a man
brave, high-spirited in his bearing, splendid and magnificent in his
appearance, and devoted to the service of the fair.