Code
of
Honour.

Opposition
to Dueling
in England.

A Threaded Discussion....

"The Code of Honour and Its Critics: The Early Opposition to Dueling in England, 1700-1780."
An article by Donna T. Andrew
     from "The Code of Honour and Its Critics: The Oppositions to Duelling in England, 1700-1850" by Donna T. Andrew, Social History, October 1980.

A thread posted by Eb Bowles....

I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
T. S. Eliot, The Waste Land

Honour appears as a pale flicker on a distant wall, announcing the fading away of the fires of pride into the embers of forbearance.

Once ago, we are told in scholarly whispers, honour burned like a hot blaze among men of high birth and fierce passion. To impugn it was to arouse its cruel guardian, The Duel. Someone would die for the insult.

The duelist's sword, his brace of pistols are relics now. The field of honour is deeded to the courts of civil justice and paved over by the uniform surface of law. Aren't we glad? Who among us would be so bold to seek our satisfaction in a vengeful pool of The Other's blood? Who would feign to see glory in the death of a brother or a husband, see his spirit riding on the valorous cloud of the consummated duel?

Like any decent piece of historical inquiry, Donna T. Andrew's study of the duel and its close ties to a code of manly behavior among Englishmen in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries raises issues of import to the moment at hand.

What worth is honour to a dissolute culture, the culture of the Cult of Anything Goes?

What value is courage to a people enamored of victimhood?

How can private disputes of principle and reputation be settled when few are willing to take a stand against rudeness and abuse, fewer still bold enough to call the repeat offender to the docket and demand that he account for his offensive behaviour?

As one minion in a bastion of two hundred million United States of Americans, I wade daily into a scene of debased discourse, where insult is common currency and offense is given as thoughtlessly as a handful of dollar bills for the morning cup of coffee and pastry. With foreknowledge that there shall be zero sum to pay for words flung maliciously into the void, practitioners of the rapacious tongue emerge from their electronic haze to strike any and all who might wander closeby. They are unbound psychic predators with an attitude — and they are legion.

One's very passage through the commonplace day all too often leads into a minefield of rudeness and indifference. Courtesy is destroyed in the new ritual of casual meanness. All hope for a refreshing episode of interpersonal harmony vanishes in the daily mockery of civility. Night falls like a damp curtain on the survivor, who retreats to a private place to rebuild her wall of self-defense and polish her armor for the next foray.

Shall I run you through, thrust my steel blade of anger deep into your black heart? You prefer pistols, do you? What if I miss with my first volley? Will I have the courage to stand, unflinching, and await the stunning deathblow of your sure bullet into my chest?

What caused duels, Ms. Andrew asks. The one-word answer is "affront," a hostile term of intentional defiance and confrontation, which passed into the language from Old French. "The most serious affront was 'giving the lie' or publicly impugning the veracity, honesty, or courage of another gentleman," she writes. "Since a gentleman's word was his honour, calling him a liar questioned both his courage and his status as a gentleman.... Less serious affronts, however, could also be the occasion of a conflict on the field of honour."

Again, that alien word arises from the text: honour. "The code of behavior that included the practice of dueling was commonly called the code of honor, or by its detractors, the code of false or modern honour," Ms. Andrews writes. "It contained the rules by which men of gentle birth and fashion were to live, and sometimes die.... The duel served to settle infractions of the code of honour; it dispensed both judgment and execution in a single event."

That single event, the duel, "formal and well-mannered," unfolded with swiftness and finality, and continued "until satisfaction or serious injury occurred." Satisfaction often equated to the death of one of the duelists. One way or another, the dispute was settled.

Bound inextricably to honour among Englishmen of old was the passion of personal pride, which is reduced by the sloganeer of today's culture into a pop hook for empty juvenile accomplishment — they call it "self-esteem" — or shaped into a rhetorical smokescreen for in-your-face arrogance from identity groups purported to be oppressed or excluded. It becomes the banner for a company of hungry lions.

"You do wonder why they ended it," the mistress of the hacienda comments about the duel. She is reading over my shoulder, having slipped off her tai chi shoes and put away her curved sabre after an evening of martial arts training with the sifu. "Obviously the men were killing one another. Sure, they stopped the killing, but did they also stop honour?"

Ms. Andrew tells us that the private clerics of English Christianity aligned their revulsion with the public servants of the "common weal" to quash the duel. The government men sought to end it because duelists tended to "subvert the inviolability and authority" of the state by "placing the private interest of revenge above the public welfare." Rash men of honor posed a threat to "the basic stability ... of a quiet and peaceable life." To the priests and preachers "the rules of honor clashed with those of Christ." Included in the rulebook of Christ was the proscription to patiently endure "contumely and disgrace."

The demise of the duel — by 1850 it was effectively over and done with — happened not through the arguments of religious moralists, but through the clever interjection of a substitute and the willingness of gentlemen to modify their code of behavior. "Satisfaction, the abolitionists argued, could be given in the courts, either in regular civil courts or in special Courts of Honor," Ms. Andrew writes. "Thus the idol of Honour would still be worshipped, but an attempt would be made to see 'whether it was not to be satisfied with less valuable Victims, and other Sacrifices besides Human Blood.' "

The aristocratic warriors of an England committed to "the advancement of Dominion and wordly Glory" were contemptuous of the siren called Shame. They were "willing to risk all, to fight and die bravely" to protect their reputation from her sullied embrace.

So you fear shame? Come now, silly man. Learn to walk away, turn the other cheek. You know as well as I that nothing can be done to gain your satisfaction. Let it slide. The boorish bully is protected now. He is a ward of the state.

You love glory? You must be a soldier. Don't burden me with your primal embrace of conflict, your tales of battles and bloodshed, your Neanderthal delusions of honour. When's the last time you heard a bomb whistle from the sky over America's heartland? We're a thousand miles distant and nearly a thousand days removed from the smoke of the fallen towers. Chill out. Eat an imported peach.

The determined need of passionless men and dependent women to find meaning in the act of restriction and withdrawal led to the end of the duel. And then some time passed. And now we wander into an age of the unbridled affront.

The timid man, hiding behind the charade of book-bound meekness, wilts beside the fire of his honour-bound peer. How can he bear the impassioned heat of another's hot vitality? He cannot. The sharp clang of steel against steel, honed blade against honed and slashing blade, becomes a cacophony to the timid man's carefully ordered universe. He and his consorts have rewritten the rules to put honour in its cage. The sense of personal Pride among men lies slain in the judge's chamber. From the bench they offer a judicial proclamation and a fistful of dollars in recompense. The counter offer of fear in a handful of dust is immediately enjoined and restrained.

As one who fought early, fought often, fought hard, and fought to win, I can understand the hot passion of the duelist, even if I cannot relate to the high-born nature of the English gentleman. A dirt-poor bastard child of a socially insignificant and lower class single mother, I grew up on the sharp edge of the margin, where every day was a war of us against the world. I grew up fighting against any and all comers. Ms. Andrews' observation that "it sometimes happened that men fought immediately on receiving the affront" fits my life like an old glove on a bruised hand. I was one of those tough guys with a reputation. I remember the day I was kicked out of high school for fistfighting in the hallway outside the principal's office — it was the same day I had been inducted into the Beta Club, supposedly in recognition of academic achievement and the practice of good citizenship. I couldn't stand a good thing. I didn't learn the lesson.

I suppose I've never quit fighting, although I've retired the fisticuffs in homage to the polite society of my present endeavour. I can still muster a fierce volley of indignation in the presence of the bully, but I temper it with reason, and rely on sharp argument and fiery wit to wage battle in defense of the weak and downtrodden. At fifty-four I'm just too damned old to wrangle with any sure confidence of victory. I was forty-one when last I struck a blow in anger. It was bitterly cold on a Sunday night in Hungary. I was chatting with family in far-off America when an impatient Hun snatched the pay telephone receiver from my right hand. I left him bleeding on the cobblestones.

Then there was the time I challenged two acquaintances to a duel with pistols. I had railed about honour. They told me I was crazy and drifted into the night.

Ebenezer Bowles
ebenezer@corndancer.com
POSTED Sat 3/20/04 9:39 AM

A thread posted by Joe Hoelzeman....

Article Summary
Dr. Fritze
March 25, 2004
The Code of Honour and Its Critics:
The Early Opposition to Dueling in England, 1700-1780
By: Donna T. Andrew

The Duel: it as been romanticized and glorified in literature for years and has been a climactic tool of cinematography ever since the early days of Hollywood. It as been the sport of many a young boy brandishing a stick with shouts of En Guard. The duel has become so amalgamated with the modern idea of the past that it seems odd and slightly anachronistic to think that as early as the duel made its appearance, so did its dissenters. Such is the topic of Donna T. Andrew's article. In her article, Ms. Andrew explains the various nuances and contingencies of the duel- many of which are completely unknown and rarely illustrated in the many movies and book which make use of the practice.

According to Ms. Andrew, the duel must first and foremost be witnessed by seconds, friends of the duelist entrusted with carrying out official protocol. For, as Ms. Andrews illustrates by citing the case of Captain Bowel, without being witnessed the jury was likely to see a duel as tantamount to murder and send a duelist and his honor to the hangman's noose. Nevertheless, the duel was seen by the elite of the time to be a tool which could control the passions of men and maintain their honor. Without the carefully constructed guidelines followed by the "fashionable" man it was thought that unbridled anger and vendetta would wreak havoc throughout the land. And it was also held, even by those who did not support the duel, that defamation of a gentleman's character or the issuance of "the lie" was effrontery that could be suffered by no gentlemen and that no monetary offering could expatiate. But the duel was and remained illegal throughout the whole of its existence and was condemned by most of the clergy and lay authorities. The clergy held that the duel was contradictory to the teachings of Christ that so many of the aristocrats claimed to follow. Theirs, as the clergy pointed out, was a false sense of honor based solely on appearance and very little on the quest for glory and the good of society as was the honor the Romans and Greeks. Ms .Andrew cites the antiduelist Bishop Berkly who claimed the false honor avenged by the duel was based on fear, not honor, and that "a Man may abuse his Wife, Starve his Family, and cheat his Creditor without offending against it [the code of honour]; but if on Demand he refuses to pay Sharper, he ceases to be a Man of Honour(86)." The civil authorities held opposition to the duel because it undermined the State's and in turn their authority. Rather than being submissive to the laws of the land, the contumacious duelist, according to the authorities, submitted only to base, animalistic instincts. However, according to the article, these protestations were, at the time, all for naught. Though the practice of dueling posed a threat to ordered so society, it would remain consuetudinary of a society consubstantial with the ideas of aristocracy.

Ms. Andrew's article was quite captivating and insightful. Drawing from court cases and directly quoting protesters of the time, she was able to make vivid and cogent the idea that there was actually a rather large number of dissenters to the idea that human blood was the only absolvent of personal degradation by the hands of another. However, more explanation and description are needed for some of her points. She mentions that public opinion was shaped by the duel between Lord Mohun and the Duke of Hamilton due to its " ferocity and ill-regulated nature" but the article wanting in the way of details and leaves the reader desiring more information. What was the particular cause of this duel? Who were these men that were so well known that the eyes of the public were affixed on them? Andrew also makes a claim that during the time of the Commonwealth the practice of dueling saw a recession and, in turn, resurgence during the Restoration, but once more declined with the ascension of the Hanovers. But no cause or statistics are given, and thus the point adds little to the article. Yet, on the whole, the article is well written and highly readable, and the over all knowledge gained by the reader far out ways any shortcomings the article may have.

The idea of challenging someone to a duel, be it with modern weapons, fists, or any other devise, as entered the head of every male who has ever been insulted or embarrassed. And in a society so quick to use the ubiquitous weapon of a razor tongue, and one in which everyone's opinion is held to be worthy of speech regardless of their credentials or the amount of hurt it inflicts, the duel, at times seems an attractive devise of restitution. But, Ms. Andrew's article wonderfully illustrates that it has little place in a modern society no longer attached to the ideas of an aristocratic elite.

Joe Hoelzeman
jnvdphoelzeman@hotmail.com
POSTED Sun 3/28/04 11:50 PM

A thread posted by April Guy....

Article: Donna T. Andrew, "The Code of Honour and Its Critics: The Early Opposition to Dueling in England, 1700-1850."

Calvin Coolidge once said, "No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor has been the reward for what he gave." Yet, the blind determination to receive honor has taunted men throughout history. In eighteenth-century England, passions flew so high that gentlemen dueled, sometimes to the death, in their prideful desperation to be recognized by their peers as an honorable man. University of Guelph history professor Donna T. Andrew writes about the importance of the "Code of Honour" which dictated their lives. She explores the reasons that dueling persisted in this civilized society despite the condemnation of the Church and the rebuke of the law.

The "duel of honour" conducted by gentlemen followed a set of established procedures which gave an air of dignity to an otherwise cold-blooded act. Common ruffians hanged for less while courts looked the other way as gentlemen murdered their gentry brother. Prior to the brutal 1712 duel between the unsavory Lord Mohun and the Duke of Hamilton, condemnation of dueling was mostly left to the church and philosophical men. There was nothing gentlemanly about a slaughter in Hyde Park. No longer could dueling be viewed as something elegant, "like the minuet."

The problem remained of how to outlaw dueling and yet maintain a civilized society, a culture ingrained with the notion that honor was "the basic passion for human motivation." Honor built great men, great armies, and a great England. Would the countryside be overrun by savages? Would soldiers refuse to fight? Would the very fiber of morality collapse without the duel? Such fears overwhelmed the people and they were unwilling to take the risk. Ministers lifted up the example of Christ and philosophers admonished that true honor would not be established through bloodshed. In the end, Andrew finds that dueling lived on because no one presented a suitable alternative. The importance of receiving and maintaining honor was too great for eighteenth-century Englanders. The field of honor remained covered in blood.

This article presents an insightful look at a time and way of thinking that found an accepted place for dueling. Andrew's diligent use of quotes from period texts provides students with a deeper understanding of the perceived significance and definition of honor. The comical illustration of a coffee shop duel highlights the paradox of resplendently dressed gentlemen acting like brutes with swords drawn. One wonders what great outrage demanded that exchange of blows. The only question remaining is whether, as Andrew asserts, dueling actually disappeared in 1850 and today "no longer carries social significance." I would say that dueling for honor is alive and well, the weapons have simply changed, as well as the rules. Words have taken the place of swords, but the result is the same. Despite the childhood saying, words do hurt and scar countless lives with their cowardly thrusts. The ambition for honor drives mankind's attempt to grasp the slippery mantle no matter what the cost. Andrew illuminates the folly of such a crusade. Honor is not the divine right of man, nor will a sharp tongue or quick wit gain it any faster than did the whetted sword. Imagine the possibilities if anyone were ready to listen.

April Guy
trident6@yahoo.com
POSTED Mon 3/29/04 12:16 AM

A thread posted by Robert Gregory....

Code of Honor
Article Summary

The Code of Honor and its Critics discusses the perceptions of both proponents and adversaries of dueling as an acceptable form of mediation between injured or insulted parties. It also addresses the atmosphere of the society in which dueling thrived. There were claims that without the practice of dueling society itself would sink to a level in which there would be no honor among men. It’s argued that in the 18th Century the people of England prized their honor above all things, including personal safety. This is a condition that allowed for a strong military presence, but caused enough distress among the population that alternatives to dueling were sought while trying to remain true to ideals of honor. These alternatives were largely backed by the church, which felt that the very idea of what it meant to be a man of honor should be redefined. As it was, questioning a man’s honesty seemed to be the sore spot, while other offences went unchallenged. The benefit of dueling was that it allowed a measure of constraint to be placed on the bloodshed created by vendettas. In this way it led to a fair amount of stability within the society. Detractors agreed the stability was needed, but still looked for better methods to reach that end.

The author did a fine job of telling both sides of the issue, and avoided a one-sided argument in the article. If anything there may have actually been more material on the positive side of dueling than on the negative consequences. A very good point is made about the nostalgic view taken by most on things from the past. I would probably fall into that group, and hadn’t really given thought to the realities of dueling. I agree with the anti-dueling sentiment that the definition of honor should be reassessed, however there should be something strangely commendable about a person who believes so much in something or someone that they put there own life at risk. The truth seems to be that dueling was not so much about honor as it was a traditional response that became expected of the upper class. I also thought it was interesting that the major antagonist of duels was the church, and for the most part the regular citizens of England would not convict a participant in most cases. It would suggest that the problems of dueling were much more from a moral standpoint than from societal one.

Robert Gregory
celticcircus@tcworks.net
POSTED Mon 3/29/04 11:29 AM

A thread posted by Matt Olive....

Article Summary
"The Code of Honour and its Critics: The Early Opposition to Dueling in England 1700-1780," By Donna T. Andrew.

In this article Andrew discusses the controversy over dueling in England during the eighteenth century. She begins her essay by explaining the need for dueling during the era. She explains that it was the only in which gentlemen could defend their honor on a personal level without causing the possibility of escalating violence. However, as she noted the practice of dueling was not approved by all members of society. For instance, the clergy was in opposition to dueling because they felt that obsession with honor, as well as the violent nature of dueling, went against the teachings of Christ. The law also opposed dueling because it undermined the justice system.

In order to escape from prosecution of the law, Andrew points out that duelers would have to meet in a disclosed location and be supervised in order to insure the fair conduct of the duel. After a duel the fallen would have to revoke any claims of guilt that he had made towards his adversary. If one was caught dueling he would be put on trial. However, if the jury found that the duel had been executed in a fair manner then charges would frequently be dropped or reduced to manslaughter. The fact that duels were judged so lightly could lead one to believe that the courts respected the practice of dueling. However, Andrew argues that it was treated this way because while both society and the law considered dueling to be wrong, they could not offer a more effective alternative.

I feel that the author did a good job addressing the subject. The use of quotes from the opposing sides captures the sense of controversy surrounding both the issues of dueling, and notions of honor that existed during the era. Although, I do not feel that the author provided the reader with adequate bibliographic information. Also the lack of footnotes could lead the reader to question the credibility of certain pieces of information in the essay. All and all, I thought that this article was very interesting, and would be a good place to begin research on the topic.

Matt Olive
olive82matt@yahoo.com
POSTED Mon 3/29/04 5:37 PM

A thread posted by Justin Peden....

Justin Peden
HIST 4378
Dr Fritze
3/29/04

Review:
Andrew, Donna T. "The Code of Honour and its Critics: The Early Opposition to Dueling in England, 1700-1780."

The article chosen for review dealt with dueling during the eighteenth century. The article looked at dueling from both angles. The author , Donna T. Andrew, seemed to present a fair view of the practice of dueling, not vilifying any particular group for their support or opposition to the time honored act.

Andrew did an excellent job describing the history of dueling and the actual act itself. She also attempted to shatter the romantic view of dueling many people posses, "It is perhaps difficult for us, in the late twentieth century, to understand why so many people became so upset about dueling."(pg. 78) The practice of dueling is viewed by modern day people as a romantic act, one that evokes romantic images from movies and literature. But the real practice of dueling was anything but romantic, and "represented a major threat to public peace and the sanctity of religion"(78).

The general attitude towards dueling was quite sympathetic in the early eighteenth century. If a duel was to end in an arrest, the "winner" was rarely convicted of murder, usually manslaughter was the most severe punishment, if one was handed out at all. Andrew explains that the reason for this was the high code of honour that noblemen lived by, one that seemed almost above the law. The steps that actually led to duels was described quite well by Andrew, the most grievous cause being called a liar, which "Is touching him in the most sensible part of Honour, and indirectly calling him a coward"(79). Andrew also does an excellent job of presenting the duelists in a fair light. These were not savage man, but rather ones that lived by a very strict code, and to be accused of being in breach of it was simply unforgivable.

A great anti-dueling sentiment began to rise in the later part of the eighteenth century. Man of law looked at duelists as believing they were above it, seeing that few if any duelists served any real jail time. Many argued that dueling presented a real danger to the public "because it tended to subvert the inviolability and authority of the government. The duel, by placing the private interest of revenge above the public welfare, threatened the stability of government"(83). Religious figures also looked dueling as a moral dilemma, condoning murder in the name of a code, that was not that of god. John Cockburn, a noted Scottish cleric led a movement to redefine the code of honour so dueling would no longer be a viable option. He argued that dueling wa out of a sense of shame, and that true honour was that of a love of glory, and that dueling made neither of the participants seem glorious.

Dueling was eventually outlawed all together in 1850 in England, but many of the practices carried over to the new world, Andrew Jackson's history as a duelist being one example. But the debate over dueling raged in England for almost one hundred years.

Andrew did an excellent job presenting this article. She seemed to be impartial, perhaps leaning slightly to the anti-duelist camp, but nothing seemed to jump out. She presents the argument clearly and succinctly with little error or obvious bias. The article would be excellent to use for a research paper because it comes off as an easy read and still contains numerous facts, and good sources.

Justin Peden
jpeden_74@yahoo.com
POSTED Fri 4/2/04 12:07 PM

A thread posted by April Guy....

Although I fear my own writing being skewered, it was enjoyable and interesting to read everyone's summaries.

Eb... You write with an impassioned spirit and are an engaging storyteller....draws you in splendidly. You selected a quote from an anti-duelist stating that dueling posed a threat to "the basic stability ... of a quiet and peaceable life." Quite intriguing to ponder just how 'quiet and peaceable' the world is today, cursed with cowardly brow-beaters who ride roughshod over anyone who gets in their way without fear of being called out to defend their childish ranting with their lives.

Joe... Kudos on your challenging verbal acumen. My word for the week is consuetudinary! Your vocabulary is undoubtedly a nifty asset to a writer. I had wondered the same thing about Lord Mohun and the Duke of Hamilton. Seems that Mohun was a leading Whig with a few murders already under his belt and Hamilton was a leading Tory...both quite well known. They were wrapped up in a legal battle over an estate for more than ten years prior to the duel. Each man's wife was a niece of the estate's deceased owner. Apparently there was quite an uproar over who killed whom as it was a particularly brutal and bloody fight, even Jonathan Swift wrote about it. In the end, both duelists died.

Robert... Another nicely written summary - clear and straightforward. I agree that it was striking about how other offenses went unchallenged, meanwhile 'liar, liar pants on fire' could find you facing off at high noon. Of course, only if you were upper class. Surely the lower class was not a liar-free zone or maybe they just tolerated their liars better.

Matt... I enjoyed your insight and commendable discernment about the article. The decisions of the court remind me of the period in American history where white citizens were given a free pass on crimes against minorities. It does make you wonder if they respected dueling or if peer pressure kept them from taking a hard-line against it.

Justin... I appreciated your proficient assessment of the points raised about duels not being the romantic escapades we fantasize in our minds. Your mention of the import of dueling to the New World sparked my curiosity about duels in Arkansas. Apparently a rough and tumble state...the last duel in the state was in 1863 between two Confederate generals...during battle! Even Conway County was named after Henry Wharton Conway who died in an 1827 duel with Crittenden County's namesake, Robert Crittenden. If Arkansas is any indication, the impression that dueling placed "the private interest of revenge above the public welfare" fits perfectly.

Thanks!

April Guy
trident6@yahoo.com
POSTED Sun 4/4/04 1:30 AM

A thread posted by Melissa Moore....

For these articles that I did not get the chance to read, I was real impressed at the amount of information presented within the summaries--It's like I have read them myself!! For starters, Mr. Bowles your article was great, though a little heavy on the adjectives. I really enjoyed your narrative type of summary along with the personal views concerning the duel. Mr. Hoelzeman really showed how dueling was seen as a threat and a mechanism of ordered society and the aristocracy. I thought that it was good also, that Mr. Hoelzman described how duels decreased with the decrease in the significance of the aristocracy. Ms. Guy's summary was also superb. I really enjoyed the opening of the summary with the quote from Calvin Coolidge. This along with Ms. Guy's description of how in 18th century England the importance placed on honor as the "basic passion for human motivation," help to promulgate the duelist culture. This combined with Mr. Peden's assessment that duels were considered a threat to the authority of the government. Mr. Greg further illustrates this point by stating that duels were seen as a traditional responsibility of the upper class. With these points in place, it is not shocking to discover that with the decrease in the importance of the aristocracy, duels would also be affected. Closing out this compiled group of summaries, Mr. Olive is smart to point out that the article is lacking in footnotes and a complete bibliography, which is an important thing to consider when picking a source for possible use.I enjoyed reading these articles concerning the history and rules that went along with dueling, and the summaries presented provide a well-rounded view of the article presented. You guys did a nice job!!

Melissa Moore
melmoore11@excite.com
POSTED Fri 4/9/04 3:09 PM

A thread posted by Dr. Fritze....

I am pleased at what various people got out of the article on dueling. Here are a couple of comments. First, Matt noted that the article did not have footnotes or a bibliography. I need to explain, what you read for class is an edited version of the original article. It was shortened in length and the footnotes were eliminated as the version you read was used in a world history reader. But, if you want the footnotes and the whole article, the note at the beginning gives its location. The same applies to the other two articles in terms of the footnotes. Neither of them needed editing for length as they were more compact articles in their original form.

I enjoyed Eb's summary. His contribution causes one to think about what it would be like if dueling were still among us or was reintroduced. As you know from reading the article, the duel was intimately connected to the nobility. Where would we stand in contemporary America with regard to a class structure? For us, social class is largely an economic condition. The Beverley Hillbillies has taught us that the Clampetts were well accepted by their neighbors because of their wealth and in spite of their unaltered dress and manners. But Tony Soprano is a rich guy, how well would he be accepted by us? But I suspect both of them are good shots (of course, Jeb discovered his riches because of a missed shot). But I bet Donald Trump can't shoot straight unless it is a golf ball.

Eb asks us to ponder the uncivil state of our society and asks us to think about whether the threat of dueling might not cause our manners to improve. That was certainly one of the arguments of the pro-dueling lobby. Dueling might be a good thing if it became popular among politicians. If it caused them to be careful about their words and actions, we all win. If they fail to be careful about their words and actions and fall to dueling among themselves, we have a few less politicians — and we all win. What if those politicians who opposed school reform and consolidation were poor shots? We all win, unless you are a small district superintendent. What if Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken had a duel and took each other out? The trees win: No more books from either of them.

It is important to remember that customs similar to dueling existed among groups below the nobility. Among frontier Americans, there was the rough and tumble fight, a custom that was chronicled in an article in American Historical Review about 20-25 years ago. Two guys would fight bare-handed in a circular area. Inside the circle, just about anything went, except for the use of a weapon. Besides punching and kicking, they also gouged eyes and bit. Death was seldom the end result for one or the other of the antagonists, but there was a lot of badly maimed frontiersmen. If you watch the old Disney shows on Davey Crockett, at one point Davey (Fess Parker) has a confrontation with a thug (Mike Mazurki) in the employ of a land speculator who is cheating the Indians. The thug asks Davey, "How to do you want it?" and Davey replies, "Rough and Tumble." Of course, Disney sanitized the violence, although Davey does bite the thug, which was authentic rough and tumble. That form of fighting was replaced by Bowie knives, a much more deadly form of fighting. But it was all for a way for men to defend their honor. Getting in fights in a bar serves a similar purpose, but only for those with more testosterone than they know what to do with.

Eb's comments also touch on the concept(s) of honor. A lack of civility is connected to a lack of honor. Unless you are in the military, in modern American society we are somewhat cutoff from codes of honor. Most colleges had codes of honor and incoming freshmen were taught what made up those codes. But no more. What is honor for us? For most of us, one form of acting honorably is to do the job we are paid to do and that we committed to do and doing it the best that we can. Another form of honor is to be truthful. Honesty is a form of honor. That would include not stealing, something that Enron executives did not forego. Cheating is also bad and a form of stealing. In an egalitarian society like the USA purports to be, treating all people graciously is a form of acting honorably. In a society where many claim to be Christian, acting graciously and charitably toward those around us would also be a way of acting honorably. Restoring the idea that "how you play the game" is more important than winning (and we are talking about more than sports here) would also restore honor.

Ron Fritze
rfritze@conwaycorp.net
POSTED Mon 4/12/04 12:11 AM