The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Duel and Dueling
DUEL AND DUELING (from duellum,
derived from duo) is a combat between two,
at a time and place appointed in consequence of
a challenge, and so is distinguished from an
encounter taking place without any previous
arrangement. The custom of dueling was 

 from the Germans, Danes and Franks,
who carried the practice of the judicial combat
so far that none were excused except women,
sick people, cripples and such as were over
60 years of age. Even ecclesiastics and monks
were obliged to maintain their controversies by
a champion in arms; and this singular species
of jurisprudence was not confined to criminal
accusations, but the titles to estates were decided
in the same manner. At length, however, this
mode of trial was limited to those accusations
of capital offenses in which there was no other
testimony and in which common fame
pronounced the accused party to be guilty. The
party vanquished was punished by hanging,
beheading or mutilation of members. A judicial
combat was authorized by Gundebald, king of
the Burgundians, as early is 501 A.D. The practice
of trying rights to land, as well as the guilt
or innocence of an accused party, by combat
under judicial authority, very naturally
suggested the decision of personal quarrels in the
same way, and all cases in which there was no
adequate redress provided in the ordinary
tribunals.

The example of Francis I of France and
Charles V of Spain gave a sanction to this
mode of arbitration. On the breaking up of
the treaty between these sovereigns and the
declaration of war by the French and English
heralds at the court of Charles, 2 Jan. 1528,
the emperor, in replying to the declaration of
the French monarch, desired the herald to
acquaint his sovereign that he would henceforth
consider him not only as a base violator of public
faith, but as a stranger to the honor and
integrity becoming a gentleman. On receiving this
message Francis immediately sent back the herald
with a cartel of defiance, gave the Emperor the
lie in form, challenged him to single combat and
required him to appoint the time, place and
weapons. Charles accepted the challenge; but
after many messages concerning the arrangements
for the combat, accompanied with mutual
reproaches bordering on the most indecent
scurrility, all thoughts of the duel were given up.
But this affair, though it thus terminated without
any encounter, is supposed to have had a
great influence in producing an important change
in manners all over Europe. Upon every insult
or injury which seemed to touch his honor a
gentleman thought himself entitled to draw his
sword and to call on his adversary to give him
satisfaction. Dueling raged with the greatest
violence in France, where it is calculated that
6,000 persons fell in duels during 10 years of
the reign of Henry IV. His celebrated minister,
Sully, remonstrated against the practice; but
the king connived at it, supposing that it tended
to maintain a military spirit among his people.
But afterward, in 1602, he issued a very severe
decree against it and declared it to be punishable
with death; and at the same time
commanded any person who had suffered wrong or
received an insult to submit his case to the
governor of the province, in order that it might
be considered by a tribunal consisting of the
constables and marshals of France. This
decree, however, accompanied by the institution
of a tribunal of honor, did not put an end to
duels in France. Richelieu was firm in carrying
out all edicts by which he hoped to check the
power of the nobility, and accordingly insisted

on the strict observance of those against duels.
Under his ministry the Count of Bouteville-Montmorency
suffered death in 1627 for having
violated a decree of the French Parliament
against dueling. This had for a time the effect
of deterring others from engaging in this
practice. During the minority of Louis XIV the
law was more feebly administered and more
than 4,000 nobles are said to have lost their lives
in duels. With the revolution of 1789
commenced the period of legal impunity for duels
and a new class of duels became common, those,
namely, between men engaged in politics. Bills,
with a view to put down the practice, were
brought forward in the Chambers in 1829 and
1830 and a similar proposal was made to the
Council of State in 1832; but they were not
accepted. At last, in 1837, the Court of Cassation
determined to follow a new law with
regard to duels, and protesting against the practice
in the name of morality and law, it decided
that in case of death or injury resulting from
a duel the principal parties and the seconds
should be proceeded against and punished in
accordance with the general provisions of the
code pénal. The French courts, however,
reserve to themselves a discretionary power in
dealing with cases of dueling, and the practice
is by no means yet obsolete in France.

Single combats are said to have been introduced
into England by the Normans. In the
time of chivalry numerous single combats took
place in England, which, in the proper sense of
the term, can scarcely be called duels. It may
be said that the duel, strictly so called, was
introduced into England about the same time
that it became common in France, such was the
contagion of the example of Francis I and
Charles V. In the reign of James I of
England there were numerous cases of dueling, the
most celebrated of which is that in which Lord
Bruce and Lord Sackville (afterward Lord
Dorset) were the principals and in which the
former was killed. Cromwell was an enemy of
the duel and during the protectorate there was
a cessation of the practice. It came again into
vogue, however, after the Restoration, thanks
chiefly to the Gallican ideas that then inundated
the court of Saint James. Some of the duels of
that epoch are in perfect accord with the loose
morality then prevalent. An instance of this is
the duel in which the Duke of Buckingham
killed the Earl of Shrewsbury, while the wife
of the latter, the cause of the duel, who had
accompanied the duke to the ground, witnessed
the encounter in the dress of a page. A striking
thing is that as society became more polished in
England duels became more frequent. They
were never more numerous than in the reign of
George III. Among the principals in the fatal
duels of this period were Charles James Fox,
Sheridan, Pitt, Canning, Castlereagh, the Duke
of York, the Duke of Richmond and Lord
Camelford. The last-mentioned was the most
notorious duelist of his time and was himself
killed in a duel in 1804. Of all the duels
which took place during the reigns of George
IV, William IV and Queen Victoria, the most
celebrated is that which was fought between the
Duke of Wellington and Lord Winchelsea in
1829, the cause of which was certain animadversions
which Lord Winchelsea had passed on the
duke's conduct in connection with the Catholic

Emancipation Bill. The duel passed off without
any injury being done to either of the parties
engaged. The Duke of Wellington missed his
aim, whereupon Lord Winchelsea fired into the
air and apologized. Since 1844, when stringent
regulations against the practice were passed,
dueling has become extinct in the British army.

Generally on the continent of Europe the
practice obtains among the great conscriptionist
nations. An anti-dueling league has been
formed, in which one of the leading spirits is
the Infanta Alfonso, a member of the Spanish
royal house, and its operations embrace France,
Belgium, Germany, Austria and Spain. Dueling
is still practised in Germany and is recognized
as having a defined position in the army. As an
illustration of the military viewpoint the
following case may be cited. Dr. Sambeth, an army
officer, in May 1912 was challenged by a
brother officer, but as he was a Catholic he
refused to accept it, the Church having
pronounced against it. On the question being
submitted to him, the Emperor William decided as
follows: “The refusal to fight a duel based
on religious conviction is not a subject for
examination by a court of honor, but the
medical officer who in this respect holds opinions
contrary to those of his fellow officers, cannot
be allowed to remain in the service.” Accordingly,
he was dismissed from the army. A
resolution against dueling passed by the Reichstag
In 1912 was negatived by the Bundesrath in
1913. There were 13 duels fought by army
officers in the latter year. Dueling is still practised
at the universities in Germany and to a
less extent in Russia, but these are very seldom
serious affairs, being rather fencing matches
with sharp weapons than duels proper. The
combatants are generally padded all over the
body except the face and sword-arm.  The late
Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria exercised
his influence against dueling, counseling (1913)
aggrieved officers to seek redress in the law
courts. General Kuropatkin is a notable
opponent of dueling in Russia, Victor Immanuel
III of Italy some years ago directed an officer
who had provoked a duel to be dismissed from
the army and sentenced the principals and
seconds to terms of imprisonment.

Dueling has been known in the United States
from the very beginning of their settlement, the
first duel taking place in 1621, at Plymouth,
between two serving men. In 1728 a young man
named Woodbridge was killed in a duel on
Boston Common by another young man named
Phillips.  They fought without seconds, in the
night time, and with swords.  Aided by some of
his friends, Phillips got on board a man-of-war
and escaped to France, where he died a year
afterward. There were few duels in the
Revolution, the most noted being those between Gen.
C. Lee and Col. John Laurens, in which the
former was wounded, and between Generals
Cadwallader and Conway, in 1778, in which the
latter received a shot in the head from which
be recovered. Button Gwinnett, one of the
signers of the Declaration of Independence,
from Georgia, was killed in a duel with General
McIntosh, in May 1777. In 1785 Captain Gunn
challenged General Greene twice, both being
citizens of Georgia, and threatened a personal
assault when the latter refused to meet him.
Greene wrote to Washington, acknowledging

that if he thought his honor or reputation would
suffer from his refusal he would accept the
challenge. He was especially concerned as to
the effect of his conduct on the minds of military
men and admitted his regard for the
opinion of the world. Washington approved
of his course in the most decisive terms, not on
moral grounds, but because a commanding officer
is not amenable to private calls for the
discharge of his public duty.

Alexander Hamilton was killed in a duel
with Aaron Burr in 1804, the latter being
Vice-President and the former the greatest leader of
the opposition. This duel is always allowed the
first place in the history of American private
combats. That which stands next is the duel
between Captains Barron and Decatur, the latter
being killed and Barron severely wounded.
Henry Clay and John Randolph fought in 1826,
and Colonel Benton, in closing his account of
the fight, says: “Certainly dueling is bad, and
has been put down, but not quite so bad as its
substitute — revolvers, bowie knives,
blackguarding, and street assassinations under the
pretext of self-defense.” General Jackson killed
M. Dickinson in a duel, and was engaged in
other “affairs.” Colonel Benton killed a Mr.
Lucas and had other duels. In 1841 Mr. Clay
was on the verge of fighting with Colonel King,
then a senator from Alabama and elected
Vice-President in 1852. Mr. Cilley of Maine fought
with Mr. Graves of Kentucky in 1838, near
Washington, and the former was killed. This
duel caused nearly as much excitement as that
between Hamilton and Burr. Both parties were
members of Congress. Duels have been numerous
in California, notably the combat between
Terry and Broderick. Formerly they were very
common in the United States navy and valuable
lives were lost. It is related of Richard Somers,
who perished in the Intrepid, and who is said
to have been a mild man, that he fought three
duels in one day. In 1830 President Jackson
caused the names of four officers to be struck
from the navy roll because they had been
engaged in a duel. Since the Civil War stringent
laws have been passed in all the States against
dueling and the practice has become obsolete in
this country.

Dueling in Upper Canada (now Ontario)
was illegal and the person guilty of so taking
life was liable for murder, but by the “unwritten
law” the Crown counsel, if the combat was
fairly conducted, did not press for conviction.
Perhaps the most celebrated duel fought in the
early days of the colony was that between William
Weekes and William Dickson, and took
place behind a bastion of old Fort Niagara, on
the American side of the river, on 10 Oct. 1806,
Weekes was killed; but as the duel had been
fought in a foreign country, Dickson was never
brought to trial. What is regarded as the last
duel in Upper Canada took place on the banks
of the river Tay at Perth on 13 June 1833
between John Wilson (afterward puisne judge
of the Common Pleas of Ontario) and one
Robert Lyon, in which the latter was mortally
wounded; but following the customary practice,
the fight having been a fair one, the jury did
not convict.

Bibliography. — Douglas, ‘Duelling Days in
the Army’ (1887); Massi, ‘History of Duelling
in All Countries’ (1880); Milligen, ‘History of

Duelling’ (1841); Sabine, ‘Notes on Duels and
Dueling’ (1855); Steinmetz, ‘The Romance of
Duelling’ (1868); Truman, ‘The Field of
Honor’ (1884).