Dueling
Throughout time, the image of the duel has transcended into our collective consciousness, so that there is hardly a person today who does not understand what the word means, even though there are practically no modern day duels. Anyone asked to define the word would be able to conjure up the image of two men standing face to face, for the purpose of settling a dispute and very likely leaving one of the men dead. The portrait of the duel has remained a constant in literature through centuries and even in the modern day can be found in the mediums of television and cinema. These fictional duels are usually pretty clear cut, with good and evil coming together for a final face off where, ideally, the just side will prevail. The myth of the duel is not consistent with the reality of the duel as seen through facts of history and of literature of the time period. While the literature of the time period sensationalized the duel to some degree. it is partially through literature that it is possible to examine aspects of dueling; the ethics behind the encounters, public opinion, and unspoken rules. As V.G. Kiernam states in his book The Duel in European History "What ha
Sometimes the victor would spare the life of the other party, instilling more honor upon himself. Dueling was created among the 'true' noble class at a time when the middle classes were gaining money and prestige and dueling established a distinction between lineage or lack of. Jery writes a friend about this stating "Though his rank in life (which bye the by, I am as ashamed to declare) did not entitle him to much deference; yet his behavior was remarkably spirited, I admitted to him the privilege of a gentleman" (8). " (5) This was an encounter between two men who both claimed to be just. Since one's honour was also intricately bound to the honour of his family, it made backing down more difficult. This catch-22 in the eighteenth century mind can be found in almost every piece of literature that duelling is a part of, no matter how small a part that may be. In this case, the Lord does not duel with Bramble; instead he sends apologies to the offended party as they stalk around his house. After Amis denies this charge, the Duke declares "It shal be proved in batail, / And sen bitven hem to" (863-864). In Book XVIII, chapter three (of the Caxton Printing), the Queen is accused of treason by Sir Mador, who claims that she tried to poison several knights. The duel's purpose was to decide who the victor in the dispute would be, either using rapiers, swords, or pistols. For Madame de Rosemond to go against the social codes of duelling, would be to go against one's own class and the institution that it upheld. At diner, Bramble takes offense after the Lord, who is described as prideful to the point of fault, dismisses them without courtesy. The second situation in Humphry Clinker is the opposite of the first. There was a challenger and an offended party, with the offended party commonly being allowed to choose the weapons that would be used to fight with. Kiernan reflects this when he states "heavenly justice being open to all, individuals of any rank could claim the right to ordeal by battle.
Common topics in this essay:
Francois Billacois',
Chevalier Danceny,
Jery Melford,
George George's,
Kiernan Dueling,
Ethics Throughout,
European History,
King Arthur,
Sir William,
James Kelly,
eighteenth century,
judicial combat,
madame de,
madame de rosemond,
offended party,
de rosemond,
middle ages,
literature eighteenth,
noble class,
literature period,
sir william,
literature eighteenth century,
found literature eighteenth,
george sir william,
|
Acceptance Essays
