"There are only three contingencies that we need consider, which
naturally divide the discussion under three heads. The first arises,
when a man who has never touched a sword finds himself opposed to an
old hand. The second, when both antagonists are alike unskilled. The
third, when both are adepts.
"I may say at once with regard to this last case, that in a duel
between two skilful opponents the advantage of superior science which
one or the other of them may possess vanishes more often than not, and
is compensated for by difference of temperament. For I cannot remind
you too often, that in actual fighting it is not a question of hitting
your opponent often, or of placing your point artistically, but of
striking somehow and anyhow one blow and only one.
"Swords are not worn now, and swordsmanship as a necessary part
of polite education has gone out of fashion. Our more punctilious
ancestors prided themselves on never wounding their antagonist except
with some thrust ingeniously conceived and brilliantly executed.
Perhaps it was better so. It was certainly more picturesque, more
chivalrous and magnificent. To mistake your sword for a spit, though
you might succeed in running your antagonist through and through, would
have been voted a blackguardly proceeding, unworthy of a gentleman.
Molière's principle is good enough for us:--'_Hit the other man, and
don't be hit yourself._' Our object is to hit no matter where,--no
matter how. The art of fence is now so much neglected that it seldom
happens when two men go out to fight, that they have even a passable
knowledge of their weapon.