CHAPTER XXII.

DUELS IN THE EAST.

There appears but little doubt of the common origin of the Germans, the Chinese and Turcomans; some similarity of laws and customs may therefore be considered as likely to be traced amongst the latter people. Du Buat states that on the shores of the Caspian Sea, ancient monuments have been discovered, which clearly show that those shores had once been the site of a country called _Li Ken_, and subsequently _Ta Tsin_, and known to the Chinese under the denomination of _Shem Han_, a dynasty bearing date about two hundred and seven years before our era.

This people he considers to have been a race of Huns, afterwards Tartars, and of whom the Chinese historians relate the most extraordinary traditions. According to these writers, the capital of the _Ta Tsins_ was a hundred leagues in circumference, and was adorned by five palaces, situate ten leagues from each other. The people were, moreover, according to these accounts, most comely and tall, like the Chinese: hence were they called _Ta_, great, and _Tsin_, China. It appears, moreover, evident that the doctrines and fables of the _Boudha_ are similar to those of _Wooden_, or _Odin_.

Thus do we find the laws of retaliation and compensation as pertinaciously observed by the Chinese, as by the inhabitants of ancient Germania, although amongst the former duels are unknown. According to the magnitude of the offence, the infliction of the bamboo is ordered: ten strokes for a verbal affront; twenty, for a blow, or a kick; fifty, for tearing off a certain quantity of hair; and eighty, for throwing dust in the face; while life atones for life.

According to the laws of Zoroaster, in a work attributed to him, called the _Zend-Avesta_, abridged in a compendium entitled the _Sad-er_, or the _gates_,--intending to strike a blow constitutes the offence called _Agnerefte_; to give it is the _Eonvereschte_. The first misdemeanor is punished with five blows; the second, with ten; increased in aggravated cases, and on reiteration of the offence. To inflict a wound that requires more than two days to heal, is an _Aredosch_; and to strike a man behind, a _Khor_. The punishment of the first, is fifteen strokes; of the second, thirty lashes, inflicted with a leather strap.

In Japan, instead of fighting duels, the parties endeavour to display their valour by committing suicide. It is related that two officers of the household of the Emperor having met on the staircase of the palace, their sabres happened to entangle: words arose; one of them imputed the affair to accident, adding, that the quarrel was between the two swords, and the one was as good as the other. “We shall see that presently,” replied his adversary, and with these words he drew his weapon, and plunged it into his own breast. The other, impatient to display similar courage, hurried away, in order to serve up a dish that he was carrying to the Emperor’s table, which having done, he returned to his opponent, who was at the point of death; but on finding that he was still alive, he also plunged his sword into his own body, adding, “You should not have had the start of me, had not my duties obliged me to attend the Emperor. I die, however, contented, since I have proved to you and to the world, that my sabre is as trusty as your own.”

Under such regulations it may be easily imagined that duels in Japan are rare, and quarrels not frequent. Each street has a resident police officer, called an _Ottona_. In the event of any difference arising, he calls upon the parties to come to some amicable arrangement, and has the power of incarcerating the persons who hesitate in following his advice. When a quarrel or an affray takes place, the inhabitants of the street are obliged to check it, and if one of the party is killed, the survivor is put to death, and three of the principal neighbouring families are placed under interdict for several months, while the other citizens in the vicinity are condemned to some hard labour. When a man dies, an inquest is invariably held on the body, to ascertain that it bears no marks of violence, for a violent death must be avenged somehow or other.

Amongst the Arabs we again have the Germanic vindictive retaliation: each family is considered the guardian and avenger of its own rights. Their susceptibility of an offence is most punctilious, and as Niebuhr observes, “the honour of their women, and their beards, is equally dear to them.” An expression of contempt can only be washed off by the blood of the offender, and their inveterate hate, and thirst of revenge, frequently brood and smoulder for years, until an opportunity offers to glut their revenge. No compensation can atone for the loss of life: the existence of the murderer is placed in the hands of the relatives of the deceased; but it is not always the life of the assassin alone that can gratify them,--they will fix upon some innocent member of his family, whose existence may be the most precious to his friends. When their victim is murdered, his family and his clan will, in their turn, meditate on the most refined means of avenging his fall. Thus do these bloody feuds exist for centuries, and revenge is transmitted down as an honourable heir-loom.

Amongst the American Indians we observe similar acts of vengeance. An Indian had a quarrel with one of his countrymen, who bit him severely in the hand; the latter declared himself maimed, and demanded a combat. The day is fixed; the tribe assembled. The champions advance: the offended is armed with a musket; the offender is without any weapon; both are painted of different colours. The parties approach each other running, but halt at fifteen paces distance. The man without arms presents his breast to his antagonist, who, quietly resting on his piece, takes a draught out of his gourd, and calmly looks around him. On a sudden he utters a loud and wild shriek, fires, and brings down his foe. While the offender is weltering in his blood, the other gives up his musket to the son, or a near relation of the dying man; he then retreats some paces, takes a firm stand, points with his finger to the region of the heart, and in turn receives his mortal wound. It appears that in all such cases it is necessary that both parties should perish.

Such are the notions of honour amongst uncivilised nations and infidels! Can we, as CHRISTIANS, boast of a higher sense of justice, and of respect to the laws of God and man? Alas! might not the unbelievers whom we seek to reclaim by the mild doctrines of the SAVIOUR, have too frequently reason to reply to us in the words of the Inca to the murderous Castilian, “I should not wish to go to thy Heaven, if I am to meet thee there.” The following anecdote will show that barbarians, as we are pleased to denominate them, can afford a bright example to the most refined nations of Europe.

In 1690, a quarrel arose between two sons of Muly Ismael, Emperor of Morocco: a combat took place, which was interrupted, and they were both brought in chains before their father, who thus addressed them:--“I am rejoiced to see you still amongst the living, although you both should have fallen in the combat. It appears that you imagined that you no longer possessed a father, or that you had forgotten that you were my sons. Mild as lambs when I am with you, you are each more furious than a roaring lion when I am away. I still live, and you have dared to have recourse to arms.” So saying, he ordered that staves should be put into their hands, and that they should chastise each other in his presence.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY SAMUEL BENTLEY,

Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In the following pages I shall describe these several ordeals; for although they may not be considered as coming within the legitimate sphere of duelling, yet both practices were equally barbarous in their origin and absurd in their application. Duels actually formed part of the system of ordeals, in which the judgment of God was appealed to in behalf of the innocent.

[2] By other accounts it appears that in this same battle only five knights were killed,--four English and one Breton. Sir Robert Knolles and Sir Hugh Calverley were of the party.

[3] As Robertson has observed, “Force of mind, a sense of personal dignity, gallantry in enterprise, invincible perseverance in execution, contempt of danger and of deaths are the characteristic virtues of all uncivilized nations.”

[4] Strangers to the arts which embellish a polished age, these people as they progressed in civilization, however slowly and rudely, gradually lost all the virtues which are found among savages. They looked upon literature with sovereign contempt:

“When we would brand an enemy,” says Liutprandus, “with the most disgraceful and contumelious appellation, we call him a Roman.” Instruction, they maintained, tends to corrupt, enervate, and depress the mind; and he who has been accustomed to tremble under a rod, will never look upon a spear or sword with an undaunted eye.

[5] While public wars were to decide the feuds of nations and of tribes, a private war was considered right to settle individual disputes. In this private hostility, however, the kindred of both parties were obliged to espouse the quarrel, or forfeit all the rights and privileges of relationship; and it may be easily believed, from the inveteracy that marks all intestine discord, that these wars were waged with every possible refinement of ferocious revenge.

[6] A remarkable instance of this influence of brute force, that set at defiance all power and subordination, occurs in the history of Clovis, whose soldiers having plundered a church, and borne away various sacred utensils of great value, the bishop sent a deputation to the prince to solicit the restoration of a certain precious and sanctified vase. Clovis replied that when the booty was divided, if this vase fell to his lot, it should be immediately returned. Arrived at Soissons, the prince requested as a favour that this vessel should be allowed him as the only share of booty he would claim. All appeared willing to comply with this request; when a fierce soldier, striking the holy vessel with his battle-axe, exclaimed in a thundering voice, “You shall secure nothing here but that which the lot shall give you.” And there is but little doubt, that, had Clovis persisted, the battle-axe would have lighted upon his head.

[7] The accused was also sometimes obliged to walk barefoot and blindfold over nine red-hot ploughshares, laid lengthwise at unequal distances.

[8] This cut of the sabre is to this day called _coup de Jarnac_.

[9] The expressions quoted by the chronicler were affecting beyond translation. _Sire je vous le donne--prenez-le pour Dieu! et l’amour que vous l’avez nourri_; but the romantic monarch was deaf to the entreaty!

[10] This accident was strangely commented on by the theologic writers of the time, as appears by the following extract from Cockburn:--

“There was another observation made of this (accident), not only by the Protestants, but some of the moderate Roman Catholics, and which disposed some to turn Protestants. For this King Henry, by the persuasion of Cardinal Lorrain, had begun a severe persecution of the Protestants; and said, as was reported of him, that he _would raise a mountain out of the ashes of Protestants that should be burned, higher than any in France_: and, a day or two before, the Count Montmorency, by an order brought him by Oliver the Chancellor, seized and committed to the Bastile eleven eminent councillors and members of the Parliament of Paris, who lay under suspicion of favouring the Protestant doctrine: wherefore it was concluded and believed a visible and just judgment of God for avenging the blood of some of his servants, and the intended cruelty against others, that the King should receive his death by the same hand which seized these innocent men, in the very face of the Bastile where they were imprisoned, and that he should die too between twelve and one, the same hour in which he signed the order for seizing them. Thuanus reports that it was given out that King Henry said to those who came to take him up, that ‘_he was afraid he had been injurious to those innocent persons_,’ pointing to the Bastile; which Cardinal Lorrain checked in great wrath, telling him that these thoughts proceeded from an evil spirit. It is also remarkable how that the same Count Montgomery had afterwards his head struck off publicly at Paris, being condemned for treason because he joined the Prince of Condé’s party against the Queen and the Regency.”

[11] A still more ingenious mode of fighting was adopted by a young soldier, of a diminutive stature, who had been insulted by a tall sturdy Gascon: he insisted that they should both wear a steel collar round their necks, bristled with pointed blades as sharp as razors; and, wearing no armour, their bodies and limbs were exposed to the swords of each other. By this invention the little man could look up at his antagonist without any danger; while the tall fellow could not look down at his adversary without cutting his chin with the acerated points of his collar, in consequence of which he was soon run through the body.

[12] In Lady Blessington’s “Idler in Italy,” we find the following feminine remark, when speaking of Nice:--

“A marble cross marks the spot at Nice where an interview took place between Francis I, Charles V, and Pope Paul III. As I stood on the spot, I could call up to my mind’s eye these three remarkable men: but I found my fancy more disposed to dwell on the chivalrous sovereign of France than on the gloomy warrior of Spain, who exchanged a throne for a convent, or the churchman, who established the inquisition. I believe, all women take a stronger interest in the memory of two French monarchs of ancient days, than in that of any of their contemporaries. I refer to Henry IV. and Francis I; both were distinguished by great bravery and courtesy, which have a peculiar attraction for ladies; and the weaknesses of which they are accused, are such as women are most disposed to pardon, except in the persons of their suitors or their husbands.”

[13] Fougeroux de Campigneulles.

[14] _Botte_, in fencing, means a pass.

[15] A _bavaroise_ is a mixture of orgeat and tea.

[16] The late Charles X.

[17] It appears, that in the destruction of everything the mob found in the house, they respected a portrait of the King.

[18] A Gascon term, meaning perverse and treacherous.

[19] Tâteurs.

[20] In one instance, the French officers went to the little _Theâtre de la Gaieté_, then on the Allées Tourny, when a furious fray took place between them and several British officers: although the latter had no swords, the French drew theirs; but the British breaking up chairs and tables, in a few minutes shivered their weapons, and knocked them down in every direction. It is somewhat strange, but I was, in a great measure, the means of terminating these differences. Coming out of the theatre, I was assailed by a group of French officers; I calmly replied, that if I had given offence to any of them, I was ready to afford them any satisfaction, and dilated on the absurdity of making a national war the subject of personal hostility, while I enlarged on the friendly feeling that had prevailed between our armies during the Peninsular war, and recalled to their recollection the many kind acts that we had shown each other when prisoners and wounded. The officers not only listened to me with the greatest attention, but one of them actually hugged me in his rude embrace, and I was obliged to accompany them to an hotel, and sup with the party. The next morning there was not a French officer remaining in the town.

[21] This is a very judicious rule. An aged man may grievously offend another, skreening himself by his age and infirmities; and he, therefore, should be made personally responsible for his conduct, and obliged to make a most humble apology, if he cannot afford what, unfortunately, is considered personal satisfaction. This rule will also prevent the sacrifice of life, to which filial affection might expose a generous youth, who in his conscience may condemn his father’s conduct.

[22] This is a point of such vital importance, that it is impossible to be too careful in ascertaining coolly and deliberately from which of the parties the insult originated.

[23] To name a duel, refers to time and place.

[24] This is a point of great importance. It sometimes happens, that a man who has insulted another, will select as his second some notorious ruffian, who will, to use the common expression, “fix a quarrel” on him, and endeavour to fight for his principal. Not long ago, a fellow advertised himself in the public papers, to fight for any person who might require his services.

[25] This rule is of importance. Forty-eight hours may be considered a fair time to reflect upon the painful necessity of a hostile meeting; and there is in general reason to suppose, that a challenge sent long after a provocation, has been the result of the interference of _busy friends_.

[26] Such an arrangement will frequently prevent fatal duels.

[27] Sword-knot.

[28] This is an important precaution, since a considerable advantage will be obtained over an adversary, if the point of his sword should be caught in the end of the handkerchief that hangs down.

[29] The trial by ramrod is an uncertain mode, as the depth of the charge will vary according to the wadding; a regular powder-measure is the only method that can ensure a fair proceeding; and, in loading by measure, great care must be taken that the measure is given from hand to hand. I have known a measure thrown upon the grass, (purposely or not, I cannot presume to say,) and it was taken up quite wet by the other party’s second, who, had he not perceived the circumstance, would have loaded his friend’s pistol with damp powder.

[30] There is much judicious consideration in thus allowing great advantage to the person who has received a blow, as it may tend to render hasty subjects more cautious, not only from the just apprehension of their affording considerable advantage to their opponent, but of rushing into a quarrel of a desperate character.

[31] I cannot agree with this conclusion; a swordsman may so provoke a cripple, that the latter, generally irascible, may so far forget himself as to strike his offender: in such cases, a pistol meeting, without taking aim, is the fairest mode of proceeding.

[32] Amongst these we may name Antonio Massa, Pomponio Torelli, Pigna, Dario Attendolo, Suzio de la Mirandole, Fausto de Longiano, Possevino, Rinaldo Corsa, Fabio Albergoti, Maffei.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Obvious printer errors corrected silently.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]