FRENCH VIEWS OF THE CHARACTER AND DUTIES OF A SECOND, AND THE
EXPEDIENCY OF DUELLING.
In the choice of a second, if physical courage be a requisite quality,
and experience is equally desirable, a moral courage is still more
precious; for, even after the meeting, seconds may find themselves
vested with the character of a judge, and the avenging jurors of a
victim, if one of the parties has transgressed the adopted rules which
were to regulate the combat.
A second may be considered as the confessor of his friend, who places
an implicit reliance on his advice; he therefore can never divulge the
communications thus made to him. There are instances where an offended
person will urge his second to insist upon a hostile meeting; and not
unfrequently the principal may express a wish to avoid the dangers of
the conflict, provided his honour is not at stake. If such proposals
do not coincide with the second’s ideas of honour, he should withdraw;
but never divulge the secrets of the friend who unbosomed himself
in confidence, and avowed sentiments of revenge, hatred, or perhaps
pusillanimity.
While the second has the right to differ in opinion with the friend who
consults him, the offended person has also the unquestionable right to
thank him for his advice, which his feelings prompt him to decline.
It is therefore obvious that it is the duty of a second to weigh most
maturely the nature of the case, and to advise his friend to adopt the
same mode of proceeding which he himself would follow under similar
circumstances.
Frequently an apology is offered by a second. If it is considered
of a satisfactory nature, no disinclination should be manifested in
accepting it. This, however, should not be considered a rule; since,
in many cases, troublesome persons will wantonly offend, under the
impression that an apology will be sufficient to exempt them from
further responsibility.
It should be an established rule amongst seconds, never to allow a
duel to be fought between a debtor and creditor when the former is the
aggressor; and, in a quarrel arising from pecuniary affairs, the debtor
must liquidate his obligations before he can be allowed to peril his
creditor’s life. On these occasions the seconds must state in writing
their objections to the duel, to protect the character of the parties;
the case is different if it is the creditor who challenges the debtor.
Seconds should never allow their friends to fight with a
fencing-master, unless the latter has been struck by the aggressor.
With fencing-masters the pistol must be the chosen weapon.
Instances are known where the principals have expressed a desire
to load their own pistols; in such cases, when both parties have
acceded to the request, they are to prime and load in the presence of
the seconds of their adversaries, and the charge of powder is to be
determined.
It has been stated in the regulations, that two seconds may be
considered sufficient in a sword duel, but that four should be present
at a duel with pistol or sabre. The reason of this distinction arises
from the following circumstances: in case of a slight wound, which is
frequently inflicted by the sword, it is more probable that two seconds
will come to an amicable arrangement than four; and that, where there
is no minority of opinion, the particulars of the meeting will more
probably be kept secret in the interests of all parties: moreover,
the rules of a sword meeting are generally known and recognised.
With pistol or sabre the case is different, and the mode of fighting
varies materially: it therefore requires that a greater number of
persons should be present, to bear witness as to the fairness of the
transaction.
In a sword duel it should be stipulated whether the parties have a
right to turn off the weapon with the left hand; if this permission is
not granted, most unquestionably the act must not be allowed: but as a
combatant may mechanically, nay instinctively, use his left arm without
any dishonourable intention, it would be advisable that this mode of
parrying a lounge were permitted to both combatants.
In the selection of arms, it has been said, that a cripple who has
struck another person should be obliged to use the weapon which the
offended party has thought proper to name. This is but just; the
advantage would be on the side of the cripple, who, unable to use a
sword, has perhaps studied pistol practice; and a man who is able to
strike another must be considered able to hold a sword.[31]
When one of the parties is wounded, it is the imperative duty of the
seconds to stop all further hostility; but a combat should only be
stopped at the command of the seconds. Instances are on record where
one of the parties has exclaimed to the other, “You are wounded;” thus
throwing him off his guard, and availing himself of his perturbation to
press upon him. In such cases, if the verbal command of the seconds is
not sufficient to check the dishonourable combatant, it is their duty,
at all risk and peril, to rush upon him and forcibly disarm him; and it
is therefore desirable that seconds should be armed.
Now-a-days, seconds rarely provoke each other. Justice and urbanity
should be their guides; and, in the event of seconds differing, it
is always advisable to call in an arbiter, who should in general be
selected from amongst experienced and elderly military men.
It is of great importance that seconds should insist on a simultaneous
fire. A duellist makes the following calculation:--If I fire first,
and kill or severely wound my antagonist, I am rid of him: if I have
been unfortunate in the selection of arms, my antagonist very probably,
from motives of generosity, will not return the fire; for when a
man knows that he is safe, and that his fire, if it missed, would
only expose him to further danger, he will frequently be inclined to
terminate the affair; while, at the same time, a generous and brave
man feels a natural repugnance in firing at a defenceless person, and
will therefore feel disposed to fire in the air, or, what is more
conclusive, give up his pistol to his second, and he experiences a
sense of gratification in so doing, whether he is the aggressor or
the offended party. But although these generous sentiments, or these
prudential motives, may induce a principal not to return a fire if his
antagonist has fired before the signal, the latter becomes a criminal,
and the seconds are in duty bound to prosecute him; since it has been
already stated, that, if one of the parties fire before the appointed
signal, his adversary has the unquestionable right to take a deliberate
aim and blow his brains out. In such cases of dishonourable breach of
the stipulated arrangements, it would be desirable that the jury should
be guided by an established code, whether the treacherous combatant was
successful or not in the perfidious attempt to assassinate his opponent.
The duties of a second are of such vital importance, that a celebrated
fencing-master used frequently to say, “It is not the sword or the
pistol that kills, but the seconds.”
With the safeguard of these precautionary regulations, although
duelling is alike inconsistent with humanity and reason, there are many
French writers who still advocate its necessity; such is Jules Janin,
who speaks of it in the following terms: “The man is lost in the world
of cravens, who has not the heart to risk his life; for then, cowards,
who are numberless, affect courage at his expense. The man is lost
in this world, in which opinion is everything, who will not seek to
obtain a good opinion at the sword’s point. The man is lost in this
world of hypocrites and calumniators, who will not demand reparation
sword in hand for the calumnies and the malicious reports to which he
has been exposed. Slander stabs more keenly than steel; it crushes
with greater certainty than a pistol bullet. I would not wish to live
twenty-four hours in society, constituted as it is at present, without
the protection of the duel.
“A duel makes of every one of us a strong and an independent power, and
constitutes out of each individual life the life of all; it grasps the
sword of justice, which the laws have dropped, punishing what no code
can chastise,--contempt and insult. Those who have opposed duelling
are either fools or cowards; and those who have both condemned and
advocated the practice, are on both sides sophists and mendacious. It
is to duelling alone that we owe the remains of our civilization.”
The following are the opinions of Walsh on the same subject: “In
questions which appertain to our habits and customs, more wisdom will
be found in the drawing-room than in schools. The hand that can best
hold a sword will often be found to handle the pen with equal ability
when the terrible question of the point of honour and the duel is
discussed, a question which has cost France as much ink as blood.
“The honour of a gentleman tells him that he cannot expect from a
martial race a patience and endurance under insult which is foreign
to its character. The French will ever refer to the sword as to
their origin. When the executioner stands behind their adversary,
they are excited instead of being restrained, and dare a double
death. If we maturely weigh this matter, will it not be found that
a duel is the last vestige of that personal magistracy which social
magistracy gradually destroyed, but which it is sometimes called upon
to acknowledge? Duelling, so deplorable in many points of view, has
however been useful to our epoch; since it has preserved civilization
from the inroads of brutal vulgarity with which it was threatened
during our revolution, and the confusion of all grades. Let us appeal
to our conscience; and can we affirm that pugilism would not have
been introduced into our senate, had not duelling, as master of the
ceremonies of civilization, protected it from brutality?”
Chatelain’s remarks on this subject are also worthy of quotation: “It
is a long time since the controversy on duelling was exhausted: all
that has as yet resulted from the discussion is, that its adversaries
have triumphantly demonstrated the barbarity of the custom;
nevertheless, duelling has not been discontinued, but has, as in former
times, exercised its fatal influence, and levied from society an annual
tribute of blood and tears. Philosophy has exerted its best endeavours,
and has triumphed in the presence of reason; but receded before the
tyranny of prejudice, and the tenacity of custom. What resources, then,
are left to those who would still strive in the cause of humanity to
exert themselves further? The coercive influence of the law has been
found as ineffectual as the persuasive power of reason; how, then,
shall we stem the tide of opinion? For three centuries, legislation and
philosophy have been unsuccessful; therefore, since we must submit to
an irresistible evil, let us seek to limit its sphere of action. Let us
trace rules which shall not be infringed, and define the exigences of
the point of honour, by warning sensible men against an exaggeration of
susceptibility, and by determining on invariable rules the duties of
seconds, whose inexperience on these occasions may become so fatal, but
whose wisdom and firmness may in many cases prevent the most calamitous
results.”