and the combatants commenced the onset. Gontran rode so fiercely at his
antagonist, and hit him on the shield with such impetuosity, that he lost
his own balance and rolled to the ground. The young count, as Gontran
fell, passed his lance through his body, and then dismounting, cut off his
head, which, Brantôme says, "he presented to the king, who received it
most graciously, and was very joyful, as much so as if any one had made
him a present of a city." The innocence of the countess was then
proclaimed with great rejoicings; and she kissed her godson, and wept over
his neck with joy, in the presence of all the assembly.
When the Earl of Essex was accused, by Robert de Montfort, before King
Henry II., in 1162, of having traitorously suffered the royal standard of
England to fall from his hands in a skirmish with the Welsh at Coleshill,
five years previously, the latter offered to prove the truth of the charge
by single combat. The Earl of Essex accepted the challenge, and the lists
were prepared near Reading. An immense concourse of persons assembled to
witness the battle. Essex at first fought stoutly, but, losing his temper
and self-command, he gave an advantage to his opponent which soon decided
the struggle. He was unhorsed, and so severely wounded, that all present
thought he was dead. At the solicitation of his relatives, the monks of
the Abbey of Reading were allowed to remove the body for interment, and
Montfort was declared the victor. Essex, however, was not dead, but
stunned only, and, under the care of the monks, recovered in a few weeks
from his bodily injuries. The wounds of his mind were not so easily
healed. Though a loyal and brave subject, the whole realm believed him a
traitor and a coward because he had been vanquished. He could not brook to
return to the world deprived of the good opinion of his fellows; he
therefore made himself a monk, and passed the remainder of his days within
the walls of the abbey.
Du Chastelet relates a singular duel that was proposed in Spain.[57] A
Christian gentleman of Seville sent a challenge to a Moorish cavalier,
offering to prove against him, with whatever weapons he might choose, that
the religion of Jesus Christ was holy and divine, and that of Mahomet
impious and damnable. The Spanish prelates did not choose that
Christianity should be compromised within their jurisdiction by the result
of any such combat; the Moorish cavalier might, perchance, have proved to
be the stronger, and they commanded the knight, under pain of
excommunication, to withdraw the challenge.
[57] _Histoire de Messire Bertrand du Guesclin_, liv. i. ch. xix.
The same author relates that, under Otho I., a question arose among
jurisconsults, viz. whether grandchildren, who had lost their father,
should share equally with their uncles in the property of their
grandfather, at the death of the latter. The difficulty of this question
was found so insurmountable, that none of the lawyers of that day could
resolve it. It was at last decreed that it should be decided by single
combat. Two champions were accordingly chosen; one for, and the other
against, the claims of the little ones. After a long struggle, the
champion of the uncles was unhorsed and slain; and it was therefore
decided that the right of the grandchildren was established, and that they
should enjoy the same portion of their grandfather's possessions that
their father would have done had he been alive.
Upon pretexts just as strange, and often more frivolous that these, duels
continued to be fought in most of the countries of Europe during the whole
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. A memorable instance of the
slightness of the pretext on which a man could be forced to fight a duel
to the death, occurs in the Memoirs of the brave Constable, Du Guesclin.
The advantage he had obtained, in a skirmish before Rennes, against
William Brembre, an English captain, so preyed on the spirits of William
Troussel, the chosen friend and companion of the latter, that nothing
would satisfy him but a mortal combat with the Constable. The Duke of
Lancaster, to whom Troussel applied for permission to fight the great
Frenchman, forbade the battle, as not warranted by the circumstances.
Troussel nevertheless burned with a fierce desire to cross his weapon with
Du Guesclin, and sought every occasion to pick a quarrel with him. Having
so good a will for it, of course he found a way. A relative of his had
been taken prisoner by the Constable, in whose hands he remained till he
was able to pay his ransom. Troussel resolved to make a quarrel out of
this, and despatched a messenger to Du Guesclin, demanding the release of
his prisoner, and offering a bond, at a distant date, for the payment of
the ransom. Du Guesclin, who had received intimation of the hostile
purposes of the Englishman, sent back word that he would not accept his
bond, neither would he release his prisoner until the full amount of his
ransom was paid. As soon as this answer was received, Troussel sent a
challenge to the Constable, demanding reparation for the injury he had
done his honour, by refusing his bond, and offering a mortal combat, to be
fought three strokes with the lance, three with the sword, and three with
the dagger. Du Guesclin, although ill in bed with the ague, accepted the
challenge, and gave notice to the Marshal d'Andreghem, the king's
lieutenant-general in Lower Normandy, that he might fix the day and the
place of combat. The marshal made all necessary arrangements, upon
condition that he who was beaten should pay a hundred florins of gold to
feast the nobles and gentlemen who were witnesses of the encounter.
The Duke of Lancaster was very angry with his captain, and told him that
it would be a shame to his knighthood and his nation if he forced on a
combat with the brave Du Guesclin at a time when he was enfeebled by
disease and stretched on the couch of suffering. Upon these
representations, Troussel, ashamed of himself, sent notice to Du Guesclin
that he was willing to postpone the duel until such time as he should be
perfectly recovered. Du Guesclin replied, that he could not think of
postponing the combat after all the nobility had received notice of it;
that he had sufficient strength left not only to meet, but to conquer such
an opponent as he was; and that if he did not make his appearance in the
lists at the time appointed, he would publish him every where as a man
unworthy to be called a knight, or to wear an honourable sword by his
side. Troussel carried this haughty message to the Duke of Lancaster, who
immediately gave permission for the battle.
On the day appointed, the two combatants appeared in the lists, in the
presence of several thousand spectators. Du Guesclin was attended by the
flower of the French nobility, including the Marshal de Beaumanoir,
Olivier de Mauny, Bertrand de Saint Pern, and the Viscount de la Bellière;
while the Englishman appeared with no more than the customary retinue of
two seconds, two squires, two coutilliers or daggermen, and two
trumpeters. The first onset was unfavourable to the Constable. He received
so heavy a blow on his shield-arm, that he fell forward to the left upon
his horse's neck; and being weakened by his fever, was nearly thrown to
the ground. All his friends thought he could never recover himself, and
began to deplore his ill fortune; but Du Guesclin collected his energies
for a decisive effort, and at the second charge aimed a blow at the
shoulder of his enemy, which felled him to the earth, mortally wounded. He
then sprang from his horse, sword in hand, with the intention of cutting
off the head of his fallen foe, when the Marshal d'Andreghem threw a
golden wand into the arena as a signal that hostilities should cease. Du
Guesclin was proclaimed the victor amid the joyous acclamations of the
crowd, and retiring, left the field to the meaner combatants, who were
afterwards to make sport for the people. Four English and as many French
squires fought for some time with pointless lances, when the French
gaining the advantage, the sports were declared at an end.
In the time of Charles VI., about the beginning of the fifteenth century,
a famous duel was ordered by the parliament of Paris. The Sieur de
Carrouges being absent in the Holy Land, his lady was violated by the
Sieur Legris. Carrouges, on his return, challenged Legris to mortal combat
for the twofold crime of violation and slander, inasmuch as he had denied
his guilt by asserting that the lady was a willing party. The lady's
asseverations of innocence were held to be no evidence by the parliament,
and the duel was commanded, with all the ceremonies. "On the day
appointed," says Brantôme,[58] "the lady came to witness the spectacle in
her chariot; but the king made her descend, judging her unworthy, because
she was criminal in his eyes till her innocence was proved, and caused her
to stand upon a scaffold to await the mercy of God and this judgment by
the battle. After a short struggle, the Sieur de Carrouges overthrew his
enemy, and made him confess both the rape and the slander. He was then
taken to the gallows and hanged in the presence of the multitude; while
the innocence of the lady was proclaimed by the heralds, and recognised by
her husband, the king, and all the spectators."
[58] _Mémoires de Brantôme touchant les Duels_.
Numerous battles of a similar description constantly took place, until the
unfortunate issue of one encounter of the kind led the French king, Henry
II., to declare solemnly that he would never again permit any such
encounter, whether it related to a civil or criminal case, or the honour
of a gentleman.
This memorable combat was fought in the year 1547. François de Vivonne,
lord of La Chataigneraie, and Guy de Chabot, lord of Jarnac, had been
friends from their early youth, and were noted at the court of Francis I.
for the gallantry of their bearing and the magnificence of their retinue.
Chataigneraie, who knew that his friend's means were not very ample, asked
him one day in confidence how it was that he contrived to be so well
provided? Jarnac replied, that his father had married a young and
beautiful woman, who, loving the son far better than the sire, supplied
him with as much money as he desired. La Chataigneraie betrayed the base
secret to the dauphin, the dauphin to the king, the king to his courtiers,
and the courtiers to all their acquaintance. In a short time it reached
the ears of the old Lord de Jarnac, who immediately sent for his son, and
demanded to know in what manner the report had originated, and whether he
had been vile enough not only to carry on such a connexion, but to boast
of it? De Jarnac indignantly denied that he had ever said so, or given
reason to the world to say so, and requested his father to accompany him
to court and confront him with his accuser, that he might see the manner
in which he would confound him. They went accordingly; and the younger De
Jarnac, entering a room where the dauphin, La Chataigneraie, and several
courtiers were present, exclaimed aloud, "That whoever had asserted that
he maintained a criminal connexion with his mother-in-law was a liar and a
coward!" Every eye was turned to the dauphin and La Chataigneraie, when
the latter stood forward and asserted, that De Jarnac had himself avowed
that such was the fact, and he would extort from his lips another
confession of it. A case like this could not be met or rebutted by any
legal proof, and the royal council ordered that it should be decided by
single combat. The king, however, set his face against the duel,[59] and
forbade them both, under pain of his high displeasure, to proceed any
further in the matter. But Francis died in the following year, and the
dauphin, now Henry II., who was himself compromised, resolved that the
combat should take place.
[59] Although Francis shewed himself in this case an enemy to
duelling, yet in his own case he had not the same objection.
Every reader of history must remember his answer to the
challenge of the Emperor Charles V. The Emperor wrote that he
had failed in his word, and that he would sustain their
quarrel single-handed against him. Francis replied, that he
lied--_qu'il en avait menti par la gorge_, and that he was
ready to meet him in single combat whenever and wherever he
pleased.
The lists were prepared in the court-yard of the chateau of St.
Germain-en-Laye, and the 10th of July, 1547, was appointed for the
encounter. The cartels of the combatants, which are preserved in the
_Mémoires de Castelnau_, were as follow:
"_Cartel of François de Vivonne, lord of la Chataigneraie_.
"SIRE,
"Having learned that Guy Chabot de Jarnac, being lately at Compiegne,
asserted that whoever had said that he boasted of having criminal
intercourse with his mother-in-law was wicked and a wretch, I, sire, with
your good will and pleasure, do answer that he has wickedly lied, and will
lie as many times as he denies having said that which I affirm he did say;
for I repeat, that he told me several times, and boasted of it, that he
had slept with his mother-in-law.
"FRANÇOIS DE VIVONNE."
To this cartel De Jarnac replied:
"SIRE,
"With your good will and permission, I say, that François de Vivonne has
lied in the imputation which he has cast upon me, and of which I spoke to
you at Compiegne. I therefore entreat you, sire, most humbly, that you be
pleased to grant us a fair field, that we may fight this battle to the
death.
"GUY CHABOT."
The preparations were conducted on a scale of the greatest magnificence,
the king having intimated his intention of being present. La Chataigneraie
made sure of the victory, and invited the king and a hundred and fifty of
the principal personages of the court to sup with him in the evening,
after the battle, in a splendid tent which he had prepared at the
extremity of the lists. De Jarnac was not so confident, though perhaps
more desperate. At noon, on the day appointed, the combatants met, and
each took the customary oath that he bore no charms or amulets about him,
or made use of any magic, to aid him against his antagonist. They then
attacked each other, sword in hand. La Chataigneraie was a strong robust
man, and over confident; De Jarnac was nimble, supple, and prepared for
the worst. The combat lasted for some time doubtful, until De Jarnac,
overpowered by the heavy blows of his opponent, covered his head with his
shield, and, stooping down, endeavoured to make amends by his agility for
his deficiency of strength. In this crouching posture he aimed two blows
at the left thigh of La Chataigneraie, who had left it uncovered, that the
motion of his leg might not be impeded. Each blow was successful, and,
amid the astonishment of all the spectators, and to the great regret of
the king, La Chataigneraie rolled over upon the sand. He seized his
dagger, and made a last effort to strike De Jarnac: but he was unable to
support himself, and fell powerless into the arms of the assistants. The
officers now interfered, and De Jarnac being declared the victor, fell
down upon his knees, uncovered his head, and, clasping his hands together,
exclaimed: "_O Domine, non sum dignus!_" La Chataigneraie was so mortified
by the result of the encounter, that he resolutely refused to have his
wounds dressed. He tore off the bandages which the surgeons applied, and
expired two days afterwards. Ever since that time, any sly and unforeseen
attack has been called by the French a _coup de Jarnac_. Henry was so
grieved at the loss of his favourite, that he made the solemn oath already
alluded to, that he would never again, so long as he lived, permit a duel.
Some writers have asserted, and among others, Mezerai, that he issued a
royal edict forbidding them. This has been doubted by others, and as there
appears no registry of the edict in any of the courts, it seems most
probable that it was never issued. This opinion is strengthened by the
fact, that, two years afterwards, the council ordered another duel to be
fought with similar forms, but with less magnificence, on account of the
inferior rank of the combatants. It is not anywhere stated that Henry
interfered to prevent it, notwithstanding his solemn oath; but that, on
the contrary, he encouraged it, and appointed the Marshal de la Marque to
see that it was conducted according to the rules of chivalry. The
disputants were Fendille and D'Aguerre, two gentlemen of the household,
who, quarrelling in the king's chamber, had proceeded from words to blows.
The council, being informed of the matter, decreed that it could only be
decided in the lists. Marshal de la Marque, with the king's permission,
appointed the city of Sedan as the place of combat. Fendille, who was a
bad swordsman, was anxious to avoid an encounter with D'Aguerre, who was
one of the most expert men of the age; but the council authoritatively
commanded that he should fight, or be degraded from all his honours.
D'Aguerre appeared in the field attended by François de Vendôme, Count de
Chartres, while Fendille was accompanied by the Duke of Nevers. Fendille
appears to have been not only an inexpert swordsman, but a thorough
coward; one who, like Cowley, might have heaped curses on the man,
"(Death's factor sure), who brought
Dire swords into this peaceful world."
On the very first encounter he was thrown from his horse, and, confessing
on the ground all that his victor required of him, slunk away
ignominiously from the arena.
One is tempted to look upon the death of Henry II. as a judgment upon him
for his perjury in the matter of duelling. In a grand tournament
instituted on the occasion of the marriage of his daughter, he broke
several lances in encounters with some of the bravest knights of the time.
Ambitious of still further renown, he would not rest satisfied until he
had also engaged the young Count de Montgommeri. He received a wound in
the eye from the lance of his antagonist, and died from its effects
shortly afterwards, in the forty-first year of his age.
In the succeeding reigns of Francis II., Charles IX., and Henry III., the
practice of duelling increased to an alarming extent. Duels were not rare
in the other countries of Europe at the same period; but in France they
were so frequent, that historians, in speaking of that age, designate it
as "l'époque de la fureur des duels." The parliament of Paris endeavoured,
as far as in its power lay, to discourage the practice. By a decree dated
the 26th of June 1559, it declared all persons who should be present at
duels, or aiding and abetting in them, to be rebels to the king,
transgressors of the law, and disturbers of the public peace.
When Henry III. was assassinated at St. Cloud in 1589, a young gentleman,
named L'Isle-Marivaut, who had been much beloved by him, took his death so
much to heart, that he resolved not to survive him. Not thinking suicide
an honourable death, and wishing, as he said, to die gloriously in
revenging his king and master, he publicly expressed his readiness to
fight any body to the death, who should assert that Henry's assassination
was not a great misfortune to the community. Another youth, of a fiery
temper and tried courage, named Marolles, took him at his word, and the
day and place of the combat were forthwith appointed. When the hour had
come, and all were ready, Marolles turned to his second, and asked whether
his opponent had a casque or helmet only, or whether he wore a _sallade_,
or headpiece. Being answered a helmet only, he said gaily, "So much the
better; for, sir my second, you shall repute me the wickedest man in all
the world, if I do not thrust my lance right through the middle of his
head and kill him." Truth to say, he did so at the very first onset, and
the unhappy L'Isle-Marivaut expired without a groan. Brantôme, who relates
this story, adds, that the victor might have done as he pleased with the
body, cut off the head, dragged it out of the camp, or exposed it upon an
ass; but that being a wise and very courteous gentleman, he left it to the
relatives of the deceased to be honourably buried, contenting himself with
the glory of his triumph, by which he gained no little renown and honour
among the ladies of Paris.
[Illustration: HENRY IV.]
On the accession of Henry IV. that monarch determined to set his face
against duelling; but such was the influence of early education and the
prejudices of society upon him, that he never could find it in his heart
to punish a man for this offence. He thought it tended to foster a warlike
spirit among his people. When the chivalrous Créqui demanded his
permission to fight Don Philippe de Savoire, he is reported to have said,
"Go, and if I were not a king, I would be your second." It is no wonder
that when such was known to be the king's disposition, his edicts
attracted but small attention. A calculation was made by M. de Lomenie, in
the year 1607, that since the accession of Henry, in 1589, no less than
four thousand French gentlemen had lost their lives in these conflicts;
which, for the eighteen years, would have been at the rate of four or five
in a week, or eighteen per month! Sully, who reports this fact in his
Memoirs, does not throw the slightest doubt upon its exactness; and adds,
that it was chiefly owing to the facility and ill-advised good-nature of
his royal master that the bad example had so empoisoned the court, the
city, and the whole country. This wise minister devoted much of his time
and attention to the subject; for the rage, he says, was such as to cause
him a thousand pangs, and the king also. There was hardly a man moving in
what was called good society, who had not been engaged in a duel either as
principal or second; and if there were such a man, his chief desire was to
free himself from the imputation of non-duelling, by picking a quarrel
with somebody. Sully constantly wrote letters to the king, in which he
prayed him to renew the edicts against this barbarous custom, to aggravate
the punishment against offenders, and never, in any instance, to grant a
pardon, even to a person who had wounded another in a duel, much less to
any one who had taken away life. He also advised, that some sort of
tribunal, or court of honour, should be established, to take cognisance of
injurious and slanderous language, and of all such matters as usually led
to duels; and that the justice to be administered by this court should be
sufficiently prompt and severe to appease the complainant, and make the
offender repent of his aggression.
[Illustration: GALLERY AT FONTAINEBLEAU.]
Henry, being so warmly pressed by his friend and minister, called together
an extraordinary council in the gallery of the palace of Fontainebleau, to
take the matter into consideration. When all the members were assembled,
his majesty requested that some person conversant with the subject would
make a report to him on the origin, progress, and different forms of the
duel. Sully complacently remarks, that none of the councillors gave the
king any great reason to felicitate them on their erudition. In fact, they
all remained silent. Sully held his peace with the rest; but he looked so
knowing, that the king turned towards him, and said:--"Great master! by
your face I conjecture that you know more of this matter than you would
have us believe. I pray you, and indeed I command, that you tell us what
you think and what you know." The coy minister refused, as he says, out of
mere politeness to his more ignorant colleagues; but, being again pressed
by the king, he entered into a history of duelling both in ancient and
modern times. He has not preserved this history in his Memoirs; and, as
none of the ministers or councillors present thought proper to do so, the
world is deprived of a discourse which was, no doubt, a learned and
remarkable one. The result was, that a royal edict was issued, which Sully
lost no time in transmitting to the most distant provinces, with a
distinct notification to all parties concerned that the king was in
earnest, and would exert the full rigour of the law in punishment of the
offenders. Sully himself does not inform us what were the provisions of
the new law; but Father Matthias has been more explicit, and from him we
learn, that the marshals of France were created judges of a court of
chivalry, for the hearing of all causes wherein the honour of a noble or
gentleman was concerned, and that such as resorted to duelling should be
punished by death and confiscation of property, and that the seconds and
assistants should lose their rank, dignity, or offices, and be banished
from the court of their sovereign.[60]
[60] _Le Père Matthias_, tome ii. livre iv.