FencingOnline.com wishes to thank Dr. Archie Lamb, a Brisbane Fencer, for supplying us with the following article. Archie started fencing in Scotland when he was just a wee lad and now both his children, James and Aiden are accomplished fencers in their age classes. Archie is an established Brisbane eye surgeon specializing in cosmetic eyelid and laser surgery.

Duelling as a method of steeling disputes between gentlemen was practiced in the British Isles and on the Continent from the 16^th to the beginning of the 20^th century. In early duels the victory would go to the better swordsman, but the use of pistols not only made the contest more deadly, but also more democratic. The social aspects, the indications for a challenge, the material and methods and the morbidity of the contest are considered. Mention is made of a case in which John Hunter was consulted. Its management, progress and autopsy findings are described together with Hunter’s thoughts about it and the management of similar wounds.

• Introduction

• Duelling in France

• Duelling in England and Ireland

• Duelling in Germany

• The Reasons for Duelling

• The Pistol Duel

• Other Rituals

• Notable Duels

• John Hunter's Case

• Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

Duelling as a means of settling a dispute or defending one’s honour was fashionable in the upper echelons of society in Britain and continental Europe from the 16^th to the beginning of the 20^th century. By definition, a duel is a premeditated, mutually agreeable combat between two sides of equal numbers, using identical weapons and armour. The duel developed from the trial by combat, and in the 16^th century the challenger would publish cartels asking the ruler or landowner to grant the combatants a field in which to conduct their encounter. The use of armour was customary in early history of dueling, but in later times its use was discontinued. The combatants believed that God would give victory to the side most deserving. This was a rather spurious belief, however, because in reality the victor would be the swordsman with the greater skill.

|table of contents|

DUELLING IN FRANCE

Duelling was at its peak in France at the beginning of the 17^th century, although the practice was illegal. Henry II forbade it. Charles IX issued an ordnance at Moulins in 1566 forbidding single combat under pain of death and Henry IV issued a statement that duellists were subject to confiscation of body and or goods whether dead or alive. Despite this the duellist in France was a romantic figure, ready to risk his life for the sake of his honour, and often for the sake of someone else’s honour! To put oneself at the risk of death was considered proof that one considered oneself to be in the right, and to be following an honourable course. It permitted a gentleman who felt slighted an opportunity to demonstrate in public that hew possessed the total absence of fear in defending his honour. In a duel, no one is dishonoured.

|table of contents|

DUELLING IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND

Sword dueling as practiced in England but it became unpopular in the 1770s. At that time there had been a highly publicized account of a very messy and bloody encounter between a Captain Matthews and a Mr Sheridan over a lady. However, the abandonment of fencing and swordplay from the education of English gentlemen and the advent of the pistol were more likely the reasons for its decline. The pistol transformed the nature of the contest. Not only did it make duelling more deadly but it also made it more democratic in that the practice became accessible to those who did not have military training or expertise with edged weapons. Also, it put less affluent members of the middle class on an equal footing with the wealthy upper class gentleman.

Duelling had long been considered the honourable way of settling disputes between gentlemen, but with the rise of the middle classes the institution was extended. All members of the genteel and professional classes participated, including army officers, judges, politicians and surgeons. Even reverend gentlemen of the cloth were not averse to calling out a man to gain "satisfaction".

The British Code of Duel decreed "If a gentleman evades a justifiable call he puts himself outside the pale of honour and notification of this fact to honourable society produces his expulsion from it. The refusal of a challenge would lead to ostracization from society and the posting of notices proclaiming the person to be a coward.

The duel was also a way of achieving upward movement in society. Ambitious young men who wished to improve their status in the officers’ mess or the club believed that one way to do this was to "call out" a man and kill him. Between 1785 and 1850 there were 840 duels reported involving Britons at home or overseas, although the actual number fought may have been much higher. Of these, 229 were fatal. The Irish were also keen duellists. Sir Jonah Barrington, magistrate and duellist, stated in his memoirs that he had personal knowledge of 227 duels that had occurred in that country in the single year of 1823.

Duelling was outlawed in the 1840s due to a number of factors. The press became very critical, cartoonists lampooned it and the pressure of intiduelling societies led to changes to the laws by parliament. Despite this, a number of duels continued to be fought by Britons, some of whom would travel to France for the purpose.

The Scandinavian countries, Italy, Spain and Russia stopped the practice of duelling by the middle of the 19^th century. The French continued, but critics have said that engagements were more of a "gay romp" than a mortal combat. The Germans were the most tenacious and serious duellists and this was related to the dynamics of the imperial German society.

|table of contents|

DUELLING IN GERMANY

The German attitude to this deadly confrontation was founded in caste honour; "the collective honour of German society upper strata", the duel drew a strict line between men of honour and the rest of society. The participants represented not only their own interests but also those of their class. Among German men it was believed that in order to be considered fit for good society, it was necessary to be capable of dispensing satisfaction in a duel. German men acquired both their duelling skill and their class-consciousness while attending university. These institutions had their fencing masters, and the elite sword duelling fraternities that were formed primed students for the social expectations that would await them on their graduation. At the university, the student duel or mensur served as an academic proving ground for future duellists, imbuing them with caste consciousness and acculturating them to the social punctilio of honour. After graduation, these students would enter the upper echelons of German society and assume positions of power and authority. The mensur functioned as an affidavit of manhood and was a phenomenon specific to central Europe. Bismark believed that the college student should "not only be educated in his special field but should simultaneously receive the foundation for his whole future destiny" For this, the mensur was vital because the student duellist was concerned with moulding a certain attitude toward life. Wilhelm II accorded that the duelling clubs were "the best education which a young man can get for his future life".

For a German, the badge of courage was the duelling scar (the schmiss, or sometimes called the renommierschmiss; the bragging scar), mostly on the left side of the face, where blows would fall from a right-handed duellist. This was the up-market tattoo of the day borne by a generation of doctors, jurists, professors and officials, certifying the owner’s claim to manly stature and cultivated rank. The duelling scar was certain to attract the pretty girls because it signified virility and breeding.

Schmisse were the products of male vanity and were regarded as jewellery because they guaranteed the wearer an active love life for the rest of their days. Newly bandaged warriors were often seen in the gardens, cafes and theatres. There were stories that students would approach a doctor to acquire such a scar or alternatively they would resort to self-infliction with a straight-edged razor. Those who received their engravatures in this less artful way would frequently enhance it by pulling the would apart and irritate it by pouring in wine or sewing a horse hair into the gash.

The German philosophy was that it was better to receive than to give. In student duels the real victor was the one who emerged from the battle with the greater number of wounds. Freud, quoted by McAleer, believed that the sadist is a masochist at heart and so duellists, instead of taking pleasure in the pain they were imparting, may have been imparting pleasure as they knew it. "Satisfaction" for German duellists was achieved by having the opponent personally witness that when the chips were down the victor behaved with aplomb, and showing that his true self was concentrated in a single point.

|table of contents|

THE REASONS FOR DUELLING

A Duel was possible only where there had been an insult, of which there were three categories. The first or slight insult was some impoliteness or inconsiderate behaviour. The second was cursing or the attribution of shameful qualities such as calling someone a jackass or an imbecile. The third was the greatest. It included a slap or touching, some violation of physical integrity, a threatened blow, seduction or lewd touching of a wife, daughter or sister. Women often sparked the controversies that resulted in the issue of a challenge, and the duel was looked as the most effective device by which a woman’s honour could be redeemed. Some women prided themselves on being fought over, and Bosquett in his book The Young Man of Honour’s Vade Mecum (a treatise on duelling), warned men against being lured into duels by artful, dangerous and vicious females and inflammatory mistresses.

The challenge could be delivered on the spot by the principals exchanging names and addresses or by swapping calling cards. Otherwise, trustees of honour were notified and they would become seconds, whereby their first duty was to act as pages to deliver up the complaint of their client and his demand for satisfaction. After the provocation the offended person had 24 hours to make the challenge, and the duel would then take place within the next 48 hours. This gave the participants time to put their affairs in order and to write letters. Another duty of the seconds was to try to achieve reconciliation if possible but, if unsuccessful, they would arrange where the duel was to take place and inspect the weapons and carry out their duties according to the code duello.

A doctor would also be in attendance. His role was to extract balls if they were not too deeply embedded; stitch up sabre wounds and to be consulted as to whether a bout should continue. If the doctor stopped the duel prematurely, the injured party would be justified in demanding satisfaction from him.

The ritual of the pistol duel possessed a certain atmosphere. The seconds would choose a suitable site where sunlight, shadow and wind were evenly apportioned with a clear horizon behind the duellists to provide a sharp silhouette at which to aim. The participants would arrive in carriages with their seconds, and punctuality was essential. The opponents would be checked for watches, coins and letters or objects capable of deflecting pistol balls. There would then be the formal opening of the pistol case which was carried by the seconds of the insulted party, the key to the case being held by the opposition. Then following the ominous loading process by the seconds.

The type of duel, distance and the number of shots to be exchanged would have been determined beforehand. When there was to be more than one exchange, the drama would be heightened by each act of reloading. Lord Byron captured something of the atmosphere in the statement:

|table of contents|

THE PISTOL DUEL

In early duels (16^th century), wheel-lock pistols were used, and in the 18^th century they were replaced by the flintlock. English duelling pistols were usually smoothbore and the calibre was approximately 0.5"inches. Pistols with rifled barrels were denounced by the codes of duelling, but some had ‘blind’ rifling which stopped a few inches short of the muzzle and gave the impression of a smoothbore. French duellers were usually rifled.

The duelling pistol reached its height of perfection between 1770 and 1810. They were superb examples of the artistry of the gun makers of the time, many of whom were in London and other parts of the country. A well-made weapon was designed so that it could be used quickly and accurately. It would ‘point’ almost automatically and be right on target when brought up to the shooting position. For example, one English smoothbore pistol made in ca 1790 was found to be capable of hitting a man-sized target at 85 yards, three out of four times. Expert shots could cut the ace out of a card, shatter the stem of a wine glass at 20 paces or kill a swallow on the wing with a single ball, but most of the pistols used were accurate to 3 inches at 15 paces.

The most common duel stance in all countries was the face-to-face meeting at a given distance. This could be between 10 and 30 paces. The trained duellist would show only his right side to his opponent, keep his stomach drawn in and his right arm shielding as much of his chest a possible (a beefy arm could stop a ball), thus presenting the smallest target and protecting his vital areas in the best manner. Most of the bullets struck in the region of the kidneys or the posterior rib cage.

The duellist would then shoot immediately on taking aim, moving only the forefinger so that his aim would not be deflected. If hit, the intent would be to remain calm and treat the matter coolly so as not to appear alarmed or confused, but if mortally wounded, go off with as good a grace as possible. In English duels deliberate aiming was not considered ‘good form’.

|table of contents|

OTHER RITUALS

To the Germans and other mid-Europeans, duelling was a serious business and a number of rituals were practiced. These included the vieduel or aiming duel, the barrier duel (with variations), back-to-back, on-cue, over-the-hanky, and the rope duel. In the aiming duel, the opponents fired alternately with the aggrieved person having the first shot, or alternatively they drew lots. One could suggest that those of a sadistic nature could derive some pleasure from such an exercise. In the barrier duel a distance was marked out with two stakes, and on a command the opponents would walk forward and fire when they reached the mark. There were variations of this duel with the shooters walking along parallel lines or on a zigzag course. Another variation was the back-to-back duel. The combatants would stand at the appointed distance, facing away from each other, and at a signal such as a handclap, turn and fire. In the on-cue duel, they would stand facing each other and aiming, firing when the signal was given. There was quite a long ritual in the ‘over-the-hanky duel, which had some similarities to Russian roulette. Two of the seconds, one from each team, would meet approximately 50 m from the opponents, open the case, load one pistol and only prime the other. One of the seconds would then be called over and given the pistols. HE then took them to the remaining second who then placed them behind his back, and asks one of the combatants to choose the right or left hand. The combatants would stand apart, each holding one end of a handkerchief, aim at each other’s chest and fire on the signal. Firing prematurely was considered a chicanerous ploy because if the pistol were primed only, it placed the opponent in the situation of killing an unarmed man. For this type of behaviour the Comte de Chatauvillard considered that the second shooter had the right to kill the other.

A variation of this was the rope duel. The opponents stood at the ends of a length of rope and then advanced in their own time toward the centre point, firing at will, but once the shot was fired then that person must stand still. If one of the duellists should rush to the centre, fire and have the misfortune to miss, then his opponent could calmly walk up to the mark and do some steady target shooting. As regards mortality and morbidity, it has been estimated that approximately one in four duels had a fatal outcome and approximately two-thirds in some form of bloodshed.

|table of contents|

NOTABLE DUELS

Some notable people in the past were involved in duelling. These included the following;

1. The Duke of Wellington fought with the Earl of Winchilsea in 1829 over Catholic emancipation. Neither was hurt.
2. Prime Minister William Pitt fought George Tierney MP in 1728 over a bill introduced by Pitt to improve the conditions in the Royal Navy. Neither was hurt.
3. Disraeli challenged a man in 1837 and was hauled into court. He was forced to apologize but this did not deter him from attempting to fight a duel 4 years later.

Notable persons killed in pistol duels were Russian poets Alexander Pushkin (1839) and Michail Lermontov (1841).

In Australia, John White (surgeon of the first fleet and noted for his positive opinions and quick temper) fought a duel with one of his assistants. William Balmain on 4 June 1788, after the King’s birthday festivities. Balmain received a small wound in the thigh. A chronicler at the time wrote … It would not have rested there had not the Govr. Convinced the two Sons of Escalipious that it was much better to draw Blood with the point of there lance from the Arm of there patients than to doe it with pistol Balls from each other.

White’s temper almost led him to another duel with Lieutenant John Long until others convinced him that he was in the wrong.

|table of contents|

JOHN HUNTER’S CASE

In John Hunter’s treatise Blood, Inflammation and Gunshot Wounds, he describes a case in which he was consulted that had resulted from a duel. The contest between Col. The Honourable Cosmo Gordon and Lieut. Col. Thomas was recorded in the Annual Register of the time. Both of these men had served in the British Army during the American War of Independence. Thomas had accused Gordon of shirking in battle and on their return to England, Gordon issued the challenge. They met in the ring in Hyde Park on 4 September 1783. After three exchanges, Thomas was hit on the right side and the ball finished up in the subcutaneous tissue of the left side from where the attending surgeon, Mr Grant, immediately cut it out. Hunter saw the patient approximately 3 hours later with Mr Grant. He described the patient’s condition as ‘pretty quite, not in much pain, rather low, pulse not quick, nor full, and a sleepy languidness in the eye’ which made Hunter suspect a serious wound. Treatment administered at the time had been ‘fomentation of the belly, a clyster of warm water and a draught of confec: card with twenty drops of laudanum to procure sleep’. Five hours later the patient’s condition had deteriorated: the pulse was weaker and the abdomen was tense and tympanitic over the line of the transverse colon. In an attempt to relieve the tension another enema was administered but, because the patient was vomiting, the draught could not be repeated. Six hours later the patient’s condition was worse with a rapid pulse, coldness at times, frequent vomiting which was mainly bile, and a very tense abdomen. Hunter’s thoughts at that time were that because there had been no stool and with the colon continuing to distend, the bowel was becoming paralytic, probably from the ball dividing some of the nerves. Fumes of tobacco by clyster were considered but they were reluctant to use it because of the general condition of the patient. Twenty-four hours after receiving the gunshot wound Thomas died.

At autopsy carried out the following day it was found that the abdomen containing putrid gas, approximately a quart of fluid blood, and some coagulum on the intestines. The ball had passed in a horizontal direction behind the ascending colon, behind the root of the mesentery, through the third part of the duodenum and through a couple of loops of jejunum. It then passed anterior to the descending colon and entered the muscles of the abdominal wall, finishing up in the subcutaneous tissue. Hunter noted that the intestines were adhering to one another in many places and his comment was that this showed how ready nature was to secure all unnatural passages. He believed that if the injury had not been so severe, these adhesions would have prevented extravasation of the intestinal contents and the patient may have lived.

In looking at such a case with 20^th century eyes, one’ can appreciate how limited surgeons were in those days. Management of severe intestinal wounds consisted of keeping the patient quiet, doing no mischief, hoping for the best and waiting for nature to effect a cure. Hunter, reflecting on the treatment said

I suppose the best practice would be, to be quiet and do nothing, except bleeding, which in the case of wounded intestine is seldom necessary.

Another of Hunter’s comments was on the patient’s extreme thirst. Because oral fluid could not be given he wondered if a tepid bath would have been a way of allowing fluid to enter the system and improve hydration. Today, such a wound would be treated by an aggressive approach, the damage repaired, and the patient managed with the assistance of every available ancillary aid.

|table of contents|

CONCLUSION

The duel, the encounter with pistols for two followed by coffee for one, no longer exists as a method of settling disputes. They are now fought in the courtroom. The challenger and the challenged are still present but the contest is conducted by the seconds, namely the lawyers. Instead of the matter being settled in a few minutes by a couple of lead balls and two crachms of powder costing a few pence, the process may be dragged out for days or months at great expense. The result now depends on who is the better legal confidence person in their ability to influence a jury or judge rather than who is the better shot.

|table of contents|

REFERENCES

1. DE Bethune T. Duelling in France. http://www.crater.com/avacal/jpaper1.html 1999.
2. Atkinson JA. Duelling Pistols. London: Cassall, 1964.
3. Simpson AE Dandelions on the field of honor. Duelling, the middle classes, and the law in nineteenth-century England. Criminal Justice History. 1988; 9: 99-155.
4. McAleer K. Duelling. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994
5. Peterson HL. The Book of the Gun. London: Paul Hamlin, 1962.
6. Gillen M. The Founders of Australia. Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1989.
7. Hunter J. Treatise on Blood Inflammation and Gunshot Wounds. London: John Richardson, 1794.

|table of contents|

|top|