dueling isn't stupid-Part One
Part One
On first appearances dueling does appear stupid. But why is that? Most of individuals understand dueling from movies and plays. Consequently, most people have been conditioned to understand dueling from a rather trite and sensational perspective. Contrary to dueling being considered illegal and mostly based upon inflated aristocratic ego, dueling has a deep and long extant history in western civilization’s law. In reality, dueling is the same thing as a trial except instead of using words to prove your point (as in point of the sword) a sword was used. Thus, dueling wasn't an extra-constitutional measure but was in fact an organic part of the law from which most of our understanding of the court system of today is derived from. Indeed, before the late middle ages it was the accepted method for all contests before the law.
"Dueling was a big cause of death among young men back then and that's why it was OUTLAWED. It is similar to smoking... glamorous yet stupid."
Even today, men often behave more properly than they normally would both because of the shame (sullying of their honor) their actions might impugn, and because of the challenge they might be unable to face (cowardice). Thus, dueling is still in existence in more ways than one. Dueling wasn't outlawed although it was restricted to the point of obsolescence. In fact, dueling is still legal in many states of our union. However, the necessary due process of making a duel is so prohibitive that it is near impossible to undertake except in the military. The military today still allows the processing of duels. Dueling serves an effective deterrent to the breakdown of social norms. Nonetheless, many monarchs in Continental Europe did in fact outlaw dueling, but none of them were ours. Case in point (another dueling saying) were the Bourbon Kings. They unilaterally and unconstitutionally without due process outlawed dueling. Their actions were what you might say progressive. But much like today their ultimate effect was useless in stopping the cause of action since secret dueling went on regardless. Thus the unilateral process of outlawing dueling merely served to increase absolutist power.
"....it was simply a way of reinforcing their already inflated egos. but i will say one good thing about dueling, it's sort of an aristocratic form of population control. at least they were kind enough to get rid of the most useless members of society."
You obviously have a derisible viewpoint of traditional western Christian upper classes. Yet, you are correct that dueling especially in France did reduce aristocratic numbers. During the later parts of the ancien regime in France, the Bourbon monarchs became acutely aware of the over-tendency of the King's nobles to slay one another in duels thereby increasing political strife at court and reducing the officer corps of his army. Both of these effects acted negatively upon the French King's imperialistic ambitions. Thus, the outlawing of dueling wasn't so progressive at all but merely served an ulterior purpose of increasing central power. Wait a minute, isn't that progressive politics?
"notice how peasants and other PRODUCTIVE members of society don't duel."
Actually peasants and other productive members of society dueled. A free-born French peasant did have the right to weapons and often did fight with them in the streets. If such fights went beyond the rules of dueling they became known as affrays and were illegal. In England were the ancient liberties of the people hadn't yet been smothered by progressive oriented absolutism, all free-born Englishmen had the right to bare arms and developed training schools to teach the basics of self-defense to all who came. These trained bands excelled in teaching the martial arts of the swash and buckle (swashbucklers) and were allowed to ply their trade in tournaments on the streets all the way until the early 1800's. As to aristocrats not being productive members of society, solely because they don't make anything or do anything but lead governments and command armies, that would mean the vanguard of the people, the party apparatus isn’t productive either. Right?
"Oh and my lord the pirate, sorry if we sullied this website with our common presence but not everyone shares your views that dueling was a matter of integrity. maybe you wouldn't mind impaling someone for insulting your hairdo or even a slip of the tongue, but the rest of the world (i.e.: 90% of the population in 17th century france) was fortunately a little more mature.”
Dueling was in fact a matter of integrity. Whereas today we have credit bureaus, back in the day they had social controls like honor. Literally someone's honor was worth a future. Without it one couldn't gain credit for goods, gain entrance into community events, or in fact have friends. Without honor someone was worth nothing. No wonder they fought for honor. As to fighting over hairdos, that was unlikely. Ridicule rarely led to a duel. Large amounts of it could and usually did escalate to duels. Only after issuing a challenge could a duel then occur. However, this was the situation between equals. If someone from a lower class dishonored or even ridiculed a member of a higher class he was usually beaten, and then with some blunt instrument. Thus, when Southern Representative Preston Smith Brooks was dishonored and insulted in official speech by the extremist Republican Senator Charles Sumner, Congressman Brooks beat him senseless with a cane. When asked if he intended to kill Senator Sumner he replied no. In his mind, a real court of honor had no jurisdiction over a non-gentleman like Sumner.
Although most of these examples are rooted in Anglo-Saxon culture, they were in fact French derived. Thus, one could go to France and expect to see the same things regarding honor, processing of court of honor, and how a duel was conducted. Additionally, France with its multitude of different classes jockeying cheek and jowl meant there were many times were someone felt slighted by someone beneath him and smacked him leading to a fight. Thus, dueling as portrayed in Alexander Dumas' novels isn’t solely about honor and swashbuckling, they are about the general breakdown of social norms and customs. Instead of a legal dueling process watched over by the king and/or his subordinates, the centralization and bureaucratization of power, the plethora of new classes in a growing France overwhelmed the old mores and lead to incessant fighting in the streets and political intrigue and duels at court.
dueling isn't stupid-Part Two
Thus, we see that dueling is an elemental part of the law and is still legal in many part of the world. It served a social and legal purpose for maintaining law and order and regulating class and interpersonal relationships among people. Additionally we see that dueling was the first form of legal challenge and in turn, many of our modern words for legal action derive from dueling. Indeed, the manner of dueling was carefully prescribed and generally wasn't an event of hot-blooded reaction over a ridicule involving hairdo but was in fact as a legal recourse, full of due process and challenges. What we see in Alexander Dumas books then is how the old ways were assaulted by a progressive French absolutist King and how the holders of the ancient way attempted to maintain their honor.
This ancient way had a prescribed course between equals regarding affairs of honor. First, a duel occurred as the final aspect of a court of honor, it was only the last aspect of a full blown out legal process. Thus, a duel was the conclusion of a legal affair involving a tribunal, a judge, and seconds (lawyers). The court as constituted was set up to determine various questions of social protocol, breaches of etiquette, and other allegations of breaches of honor, or entitlement to various honors. To ensure that honor had in fact been lost, seconds were involved to represent the parties establishing what the breach of honor was, how to remedy it, and were to remedy the action. If the plaintiff or aggrieved felt the defendant hadn't remedied the dishonor a proper time, place, and weapon for a duel would occur.
Originally, the court of honor as a public court was called the court of chivalry. The courts of chivalry in British law, and thereby in US Law was a court held before the Earl Marshal and the Lord High Constable unless another noble had been "deputized" by the Earl Marshal to act as his proxy. Since the abolition of the office of the Lord High Constable and the general decline of sanctioned duels, this right has been conducted by the Earl Marshal alone. In the United States, since the independence from the crown, the court of honor is presided over by a senior flag ranked officer of the military.
The first statute establishing the protocols of the "Royal" distinct from "Noble" courts of honor was established by a statute 13 Ric. II c.2. This court had jurisdiction to try cases concerning contracts and other matters concerning deeds and acts of war. However, as case law progressed, deeds which covered contracts slowly devolved to the lower common law courts. While honor courts still had jurisdiction over contracts with a final appeal to trial by combat, most "gentlemen" involved in contract cases claimed common law jurisdiction with no appeal to trial by combat. Thus, as time evolved, most gentlemen appealed to courts of honor over deeds concerning more abstract principles other than contracts. The court of chivalry also had jurisdiction over disputes regarding heraldry and rights to use coats of arms. From this case law developed into rights and "honors" of your name, your parentage etc. These latter can often be consolidated under libel, slander, defamation, etc and it is these which we most now recognize as honor.
The court of chivalry was not a court of record. Consequently, as the procedures for forming it became more difficult due to royal policy, most courts of honor came into being ex officio without approval of the Earl Marshal. Consequently, the official court of chivalry became disused. It is not illegal and cases have been brought before the court of chivalry as recently as 1954. In Britain, since the military still operates under the authority of the Earl Marshal or Lord High Constable, and the Queen's officers' rights to establish courts of honor were never removed, the military still has a relatively easy procedure to establish a court of chivalry. Furthermore, the process of these honor courts do allow for trial by combat. Additionally, these rights were transferred to US officers after independence and to this day are used under protocols which any person involved in a duel would recognize.
In conclusion, duels were not simple "affrays" you believe. This idea of yours is derived from movies and plays which have reduced the elements of traditional gentlemanly behavior to literary conceits useful for theatric artifices. The reality is that duels were a closely regulated activity which was part of an entire legal process. These courts were the first law courts in medieval Europe and much jurisprudence, particularly our common law, is derived from them. Although it was later to be prohibited, during the time of the Dumas novels, dueling was officially sanctioned in France. Here, fights, affrays, affairs of honor were common place as the old feudal regimes fell to the centralized despotism of Versailles and Paris. The King feeling stronger than ever used his new power to subjugate the whole of France by outlawing dueling, taking weapons away from the common man, and limiting the privileges of the nobles. Progress had been achieved under despotism. A despotism which climaxed in the reign of terror. Without recourse to arms and duels the French people turned to the guillotine. It is the later which is stupid not the duel.
