Duel

Duel Code

A duel code is usually referred to as a set of rules governing the causes and reasons for challenging a duel, types of duels, the order of challenge, its acceptance and rejection, the procedure for preparing and conducting the duel itself, determining which behavior of the participants in the duel is acceptable and which is not.

In France, the dueling code was first published by the comte de Châtiguillar in 1836. At the end of the 19th century, the dueling code of Count Verger, published in 1879, became generally recognized for Europe. ^[1] Both of these and other editions record the practice of duels of the corresponding time. The dueling code of Durasov, published in 1912, is known in Russia. All published versions of the duel code were not regulating official documents, but sets of recommendations formed by experts. The duel code has always been well known in the nobility and the officer environment (as well as within other communities where the duel was used).

Further in this section, the description of the duel is conducted in accordance with the Durasov Dueling Code, which is a generalization of the dueling experience of Russia and the later French dueling codes.

Weapon

The main type of dueling weapons was originally cold. Historians of the question notice that the nobility was originally supposed to fight a duel with the weapon that he had with him, so naturally bladed cold weapons that were constantly worn with him became a duel:

• One-handed or bastard sword ;
• Saber ;
• Sword , dagger or dagha ;
• Sword ;
• The rapier .

The weapons of legal duels (judicial duels) were appointed by the court and could depend on the class of rivals. So, rivals of a simple rank could fight on clubs, sticks or axes, for nobles such a weapon was considered not enough “noble”.

In duels of the nobles of Western Europe until the 17th century, the main weapon was a sword paired with dag, as it was the only weapon that a nobleman could carry with him outside the service. Instead of dagi in his left hand, the duelist could hold a special duel shield or a rolled-up cloak - with the help of these objects they parried the blows and also blocked themselves with them, hiding their actions from the enemy. In the 17th century, shields and dagas gradually fell out of use - the free hand in battle was removed behind its back. Only in Italy, the dueling dagger for the left hand continued to be used until the beginning of the 19th century. With the development of fencing techniques, more attention was paid to the speed of movements, which led first to the relief of swords, and then to a massive transition to rapiers, which are already purely piercing weapons.

In the 18th century, firearms became increasingly common in duels, mainly trigger pistols . The use of pistols removes the main problem of all duels with the use of physical strength or melee weapons - the effect on the result of the difference in age and the physical training of duelists. If during a duel with a cold weapon, one of the participants was significantly more skilled in fencing, then he was not in danger at all, as he defended himself much more effectively, and in a pistol duel even a bad shooter could, by shooting first, accidentally hit; Thus, both participants in the duel, regardless of their level of training, were in mortal danger. In some types of pistol duels artificially increased the influence of the factor of chance (see below). To equalize the chances of duelists, dueling pistols were made paired, absolutely identical and no different from each other, with the exception of the number 1 or 2 on the barrel. It is curious that at first pistol duels on horseback entered the practice, and only later the walking form, which is now widely known, appeared.

Much less often long-barreled firearms (a duel on rifles , rifles , carbines ) and multiply-charged pistols or revolvers were used for duels. There are also known cases of using duels of a completely “non-canonical” weapon or objects used in that capacity. Thus, for example, a duel between two English officers in India was described, which consisted of the following: the officers sat motionless for several hours in a dark room, where the Indian cobra was launched, until, finally, it bit one of them. In Russia in the XIX century there was a case of a duel between police officer Tsitovich and staff captain Zhegalov on copper candelabra - such a weapon, in accordance with his right to be offended, chose Tsitovich because he could not sufficiently shoot or fence .

Reason to duel

A challenge to a duel usually followed if one person (offended) believed that the actions or statements of another person (offender) were detrimental to his honor. The concept of honor itself could be interpreted very broadly and vary depending on the social community to which the offended and the offender belong, as well as geographical and historical circumstances. Usually, honor was understood as an innate personal dignity, requiring to observe certain rules of conduct with respect to a person, demonstrating respect for his origin and social status. Damage to honor was considered any deviation from such rules, degrading the face in his own eyes and the eyes of public opinion. Also, family or clan honor could be defended by means of a duel, and in certain circumstances - the honor of strangers, by virtue of accepted customs found themselves under the auspices of the offended.

No material damage could not, in itself, be the reason for the duel, such claims were resolved in court. Filing an official complaint against the offender to the authorities, the authorities or the court forever deprived the offended right to challenge the offender to a duel because of this insult.

Over the centuries, a variety of circumstances became almost a pretext for duels. There were duels for extremely serious reasons, such as revenge for a murdered relative or friend, but it happened that an unwary joke, taken by someone at his own expense, or an awkward gesture led to the duel. Since in all cases the fact of an insult was determined by the offended himself, there was no standard of insulting or non-insulting behavior. At the same time, even having received a call on an extremely dubious reason, the abuser most often was forced to accept it in order not to look like a coward in the eyes of society.

It was widely believed that only a person of equal status could damage his honor. An insult inflicted by a lower rank or social position, for example, a raznochintsy - a nobleman , was a violation of the right, but did not touch the honor of a nobleman, therefore could not become a reason for a duel - the call from the highest to the lowest was excluded, the violated right should be restored in court. A call from a lower rank to a higher one, under certain circumstances, was allowed, so sometimes a junior officer could challenge a superior to a duel, but the unequal position of the caller allowed the caller to reject such a call if he wanted to, without fear of his reputation.

Later dueling codes classified the reasons for the duel as follows:

Normal, or slight insult (first degree insult).

Insult with the word, directed mainly against the vanity of the offended and not affecting the good name and reputation. For example, such are offensive or stinging expressions affecting unimportant personality traits, appearance, manner of dress, unfamiliarity with any subject.

Insulted received the right to choose weapons, other conditions of the duel were determined by the agreement worked out by the seconds.

Heavy insult (second degree insult).

Insult with a word or indecent gesture affecting the honor and reputation of the offended, including accusation of dishonest actions and accusation of lying, or combined with obscene language. The "spiritual infidelity" of the spouse was also considered an insult to the second degree.

Insulted could choose the type of weapon and the type of duel (before the first blood, before injury, before the result).

Insult action (third degree insult).

The real aggressive action aimed at the offended. A blow, a slap in the face, an insulting touch, a throw of an object into an insulted person, as well as an attempt at any such action if it could be brought to a result under the given concrete conditions, but did not reach the goal due to circumstances beyond the control of the offender. By insulting the action was also equated physical infidelity spouse.

In the event of an insult, the offended had the right to choose a weapon, kind of duel, barrier distance (if it was a duel with pistols), or a choice between a moving and stationary duel (with a duel with swords, sabers or rapiers), and also to use his own weapon ( in this case, the enemy could also use their own weapons).

Sometimes the difference between a grave insult and an insult was purely formal: if an attempt was made to strike or throw an object from a distance at which the strike or throw could reach the goal, it was considered an insult to the action, if the insult could not be touched (by hand or object) to the offended, then - an insult of the second degree. At the same time, a verbal announcement of insulting an action (for example, a statement: “I spit on you!”), Not even accompanied by any real actions, was considered an insult of the third degree.

The severity of insults of 2-3 degrees inflicted by a woman is reduced to 1 step. The severity of insults of 2-3 degrees inflicted by an incapacitated person was reduced by one degree. The severity of an insult inflicted on a woman, deceased relatives or the honor of a family increased by one degree.

If the offended responded to an insult with his insult of the same severity, then this did not deprive him of the rights of the offended. If the response to the insult was more severe, the more severe insult became the offending party and acquired the corresponding rights.

Call

It was recommended that the offended immediately, on the spot, in a calm and respectful tone, demand an apology or immediately declare to the abuser that seconds would be sent to him. Further, the offended could either send a written challenge (the cartel), or summon the offender to a duel through the seconds. The maximum period for a call under normal conditions (when the abuser was directly available and there were no objective difficulties for transferring the call) was considered a day. Delay with a call was considered a bad form.

In cases where one person simultaneously insulted several, the rule was: "One insult is one challenge." It meant that the offender was obliged to satisfy only one of the calls of several people who were simultaneously offended by him. If all the insults were inflicted with one degree of severity, then the offender was free to choose any of the incoming calls, but, having chosen, could no longer replace it with another. If the severity of the insult was different, then the advantage was given to those of the callers who were offended harder. In any case, after the duel about a particular insult took place, repeated calls from other offended people were not accepted. This rule excluded the possibility of a series of duels (with a high probability - fatal) for one person with a group of people about the same insult.

Duel Members

The duelists themselves, that is, the offending and offended, the seconds, the doctor, could take part in the duel. Friends and relatives of duelists could also attend, although it was not considered to be a good form to turn a duel into a performance, gathering spectators for it.

Duels with relatives and stakeholders

In later dueling codes, there was a direct prohibition against summoning close relatives to a duel, which included sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, and brothers. Cousin could already be called. Also duels between the creditor and the debtor were strictly forbidden.

Replacement for persons unable to duel

The direct participants of the duel could not be women, persons incapacitated, having a disease or injury, putting them in a clearly unequal position with the enemy, the elderly (usually from the age of 60, although if desired, an older man who maintained physical health could fight for duel myself) or too young (minors). If in reality the insult was inflicted or offended by such a person, a duel had to be replaced by one of his “natural patrons”; it was believed that such a substitute takes the brunt of the insult and takes on all the rights and obligations of the participant in the duel relying on the person being replaced. Someone from his closest blood relatives (up to and including his uncle and nephew) had to replace an elderly, minor, sick or injured man.

The woman had to replace either a man from the closest blood relatives, or a husband, or a companion (that is, who accompanied the woman at that time and in the place where the insult was inflicted), or, by expressing such a desire, any man who was present if you insult or later find out about him and who consider it necessary for him to intervene for this woman. At the same time, a prerequisite for recognizing the right of a woman to such intercession was her impeccable behavior, from the point of view of social norms adopted in society. A woman known to be too free to behave was deprived of her right to protection from insult.

In the event that the wife’s infidelity of the wife became the cause of the duel, the wife’s lover was considered an insult, and it was his duty to call him. In the event of a husband’s infidelity, for the honor of his wife, any of her immediate relatives or any man who considers this necessary for himself could intervene.

In all cases, when an offended person who was unable to take part in the duel independently, was expressed the desire to intercede by several people who are his (or her) “natural patrons”, only one of them had the right to be called. For a man, it was usually the closest blood relative, for a woman, her husband or her companion had the advantage. All other calls were automatically rejected.

Seconds

Ideally, the offended and the offender from the moment of the challenge and until the duel itself should no longer meet and, all the more, communicate with each other. To make preparations for the duel and agree on its terms, each of them invited one or two of their representatives - the seconds . The second played a dual role: he ensured the organization of the duel, while defending the interests of his ward, and was a witness to what was happening, which with his honor guaranteed that everything was done in accordance with the traditions and equality of the participants was not violated anywhere.

Dueling codes recommended to choose seconds from among equal by the position of people who are not interested in the outcome of the case and did not deface their honor. In accordance with these recommendations, the second could not choose a close relative, his or her opponent, as well as one of those who were directly affected by the insult. The duelist had to state in full detail to the invited seconds all the circumstances of the case, and the invited one, who considered that the circumstances were not sufficiently solid for the duel, had the right to refuse the role of the second without harming his honor. Seconds were instructed to negotiate a duel, and they were obliged to act within the authority given to them. Here, the duelist had every right to allow the seconds to act either fully according to their own understanding (including even allowing them to consent to reconciliation on their own behalf), or within certain limits, or clearly adhere to certain requirements. In the latter case, the seconds, in fact, turned into couriers, transmitting the demands of the principal and not having the right to depart from them.

In their talks, the seconds discussed the possibility of reconciliation and, if that turned out to be unattainable, the organization of the duel, first of all, those technical details that were not determined offended according to the severity of the insult: the type of duel (before the first blood, before serious injury, until the death of one of the participants and so on), in motion or without, barrier distance, shooting sequence, and so on. The main task of the seconds at this stage was considered to agree on a duel order in which none of the parties would have a clear advantage.

In the event that the seconds could not agree on the terms of the duel between themselves, they could jointly invite a respected person to perform the function of arbitrator, and in this case the decision of this invited was made by both parties without objection. For the duel, a manager was chosen from among the seconds, who owned the main role at the duel site. Usually, a doctor was also invited to a duel to certify the severity of the injuries, ascertain death and provide immediate help to the wounded.

General Duel Order

Traditionally, the duel was held early in the morning, in a secluded place. At the agreed time, the participants had to arrive at the place. A delay of more than 10-15 minutes was not allowed, if one of the opponents was delayed for a longer time, the arriving party received the right to leave the place, while the latecomer was considered to have evaded a duel, therefore, disgraced.

Upon arrival at the place of both sides, the seconds of the opponents confirmed their readiness for a duel. The steward announced the last offer to the duelists to resolve the matter with apologies and peace. If opponents refused, the manager announced aloud the conditions of the fight. Later, until the end of the duel, none of the opponents could return to the reconciliation proposal. Making an apology to the barrier was considered a sign of cowardice.

Under the supervision of the seconds, the opponents occupied initial positions, depending on the nature of the fight, and at the command of the manager a duel began. After the shots were fired (either after injuring or dying at least one of the opponents during a duel on cold weapons), the steward announced the end of the duel. If both opponents remained alive and conscious as a result, then they were supposed to shake hands, the offender to apologize (in this case, an apology did not hurt his honor, since it was considered a restored duel, but a tribute to ordinary politeness). Upon completion of the duel, the honor was considered restored, and any claims of opponents to each other about the former insult were invalid. Seconds compiled and signed a protocol on a duel, fixing as much as possible all the actions that took place. This protocol was preserved as evidence that everything happened in accordance with the traditions and the participants of the duel behaved as they should. It was believed that after a duel, opponents, if both were alive, should become friends, at least - to maintain normal relations . To call without any particular reason to whom he once fought was once considered to be a bad form.

Duel Types

In general, there were a huge number of different types of duels, but by the XIX century a certain “gentlemanly minimum” was established in the aristocratic environment, from which the choice was made when organizing a duel: two or three types of cold weapons and pistols. Everything else was considered exotic and was used extremely rarely. First of all, the type of duel was determined by the kind of weapons: cold or firearms.

Duels with edged weapons

As a cold weapon, duels were used mainly as a sword , saber and rapier . Usually used a pair of identical blades of the same type. With the urgent need to fight in the absence of identical blades, it was allowed, with the consent of opponents and seconds, to use a pair of similar blades of the same possible length. The choice of weapons was made in this case by lot. If one of the opponents (rightfully offended by the action) decided to use his own weapon, he thereby gave the enemy the right to use his own weapon of the same type.

Duels on cold weapons were divided into mobile and immobile.

• Moving duel. A more or less long path or platform was marked, within which duelists could move freely, advancing, retreating, bypassing the enemy, that is, using all the possibilities of fencing techniques. Possible was a mobile duel and without site restrictions.
• Fixed duel. Opponents were placed in the fencing position at a distance of the actual strike used by the weapon. It was forbidden to both attack the enemy and retreat, the battle was to take place on the spot.

In the 15th-17th centuries, duels with cold arms prevented punches and kicks, fighting on the ground, in general, any actions from the arsenal of street fighting. In addition, usually a dagger for the left hand was used in a pair with a sword, or the left hand was wound with a cloak and used to deflect enemy strikes and grips.

By the beginning of the XIX century they fought with one sword (saber, rapier), the second hand was usually removed behind the back. Punches and kicks were prohibited, it was also absolutely forbidden to seize the blade of the enemy’s weapon with his hand. The battle began at the signal of the second-manager and had to stop on his first request (otherwise the seconds would have to separate the opponents). If one of the opponents dropped the weapon, the second had to stop the fight and give the first an opportunity to raise it. During the duels “before the first blood” or “before the injury” after any blow that reached the goal, the opponents had to stop and allow the doctor to examine the wounded and conclude if the wound is not serious enough to stop the fight, in accordance with accepted rules. During the duel "to the result" the fight stopped when one of the opponents stopped moving.

Pistol Duels

There are more types of duels on pistols than on melee weapons. In all cases, a pair of single-shot pistols was used for the duel. The weapon should not have been familiar to any of the opponents, this was attached great importance, since prior to the era of mass industrial production each weapon had distinct individual characteristics, and the duelist familiar with the pistol could have a serious advantage ^[2] . In some noble houses they kept a separate set of pistols on purpose in case of a duel, and for nothing else they were not used. Opponents came to the field of honor, each with their own pair of pistols, testifying honestly that the weapon was not adjusted, then they determined by lot from whose pistols to shoot. ^[3]

In the most traditional duels, each of the opponents fired only one shot. If it turned out that as a result both opponents remained unharmed, it was considered, however, that the honor was restored and the case was over. It was not always that opponents were thirsting for blood, but it was believed that if the shooter was the first to clearly seek to injure his opponent dangerously, then the second one also gets the right to do so. On the other hand, when the duelist defiantly fired by, this in itself could be considered an insult and a reason for a new duel.

In the case when the seconds agreed on a duel “before the result” or “before the injury”, with a mutual miss, the pistols were charged again and the duel was repeated either from the very beginning or, if it was agreed, with changing conditions (for example, at the minimum distance).

"Fixed Duel"

Opponents are located at a specified distance from each other (as a rule, in Western Europe, a distance of about 25-35 steps was used, in Russia - 15-20 steps). They shoot after the command of the manager, depending on the previously agreed conditions, either in random order, or alternately, according to the lot. After the first shot, the second should be done in no more than a minute.

"Movable duel with barriers"

The most common type of duel in Russia XVIII-XIX century. The path is marked "distance" (10-25 steps), its boundaries are marked by "barriers", in which quality can be used any objects laid across the track. Opponents are placed at an equal distance from the barriers, holding pistols in their hands muzzle up. At the command of the manager, the opponents begin to converge - move towards each other. You can go at any speed, it is forbidden to move back, you can stop for a while. Having reached his barrier, the duelist should stop. The order of shots can be negotiated, but more often they are shot at readiness, in random order (the enemy is healed in motion and fired, stopping). There are two options for the rules of this duel. According to the first, more common in Western Europe, the enemy, who fired the first, had the right to stop where he had shot. According to the second one, adopted in Russia, after the first shot, one of the rivals who had not yet fired had the right to demand that the enemy go to his barrier and, thus, get the opportunity to shoot from the minimum distance. The well-known expression “To the barrier!” Just means such a requirement ^[4] .

"At a noble distance"

The very purpose of a distance of more than 15 steps was, as a rule, an indication of the "peacefulness" of rivals: the probability of a successful outcome was low. Meanwhile, precisely at the initial distance of 20 steps from his opponent, Alexander Pushkin was mortally wounded.

"Duel on parallel lines"

On the ground, there are two parallel lines on the barrier distance defined by the agreement (usually 10-15 steps). Opponents stand opposite each other and go along the lines, gradually reducing the distance. You can not move back, increasing the distance to the line. You can shoot at any time.

"Fixed blind duel"

Opponents stand motionless at an agreed distance, their backs to each other. After the command of the manager, they, in a certain or random order, shoot over their shoulders. If after two shots both are intact, the pistols can be charged again.

"Put a gun to his forehead"

Purely Russian version of the "extreme" duel. Opponents stand at a distance, providing a guaranteed hit (5-8 steps). Only one of the two pistols is charged, the weapon is selected by lot. At the command of the manager, opponents simultaneously shoot each other.

"The barrel in the barrel"

Also used exclusively in Russia. Similar to the previous version, but both pistols are charged. In such duels, both opponents were often killed.

"Through the handkerchief"

The fight with one hundred percent fatal outcome was appointed in exceptional cases. Opponents took with their left hands for the opposite ends of the handkerchief and, at the command of the second, simultaneously fired. Only one pistol was loaded.

"Duel in the grave"

A pistol duel at a distance of no more than ten steps was fraught with either serious injuries or the death of both participants and was appointed because of a serious insult. In dueling codes, such duels are called extraordinary or even unacceptable.

American Duel

A special kind of duel, not recommended by later dueling codes, was the so-called “ American duel ”, which was actually suicidal by lot. Opponents in one way or another cast lots, and the one he fell on was obliged to commit suicide for a short time.

The “American duel” was resorted to more often in cases when it was not possible to arrange a traditional duel (due to legal prohibitions, too unequal position of the rivals, physical limitations under which the result of the usual duel was predetermined, but the rivals did not have the ability or did not want to use substitution right, and so on), but at the same time both opponents believed that the differences could be solved only by the death of one of them.

Also, the “American duel” could be called another type of duel, more similar to hunting each other: rivals, by mutual agreement, arrived, usually from different sides, at a certain time in a given place, chosen as a “duel territory”, for example, gorge, and with weapons in their hands went to track each other. The goal was to detect the enemy and kill him. Such a duel is described, in particular, by Jules Verne in the novel From the Earth to the Moon . A satirical description of the “American duel” between two Soviet young people is in the story by Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov “ A Thousand and One Days, or New Scheherazade ” (1929, the novel “The Keeper of Traditions”).

Historical Ancestors

The immediate historical predecessor of the duel can be considered the judicial duel , which was widespread in the Middle Ages and originated, in turn, from the ancient, rooted in paganism, tradition of “divine judgment”, based on the idea that, in an equal from a technical point of view, the gods confer victory to the one who is right. Many nations had the practice of resolving an armed dispute in a situation where the court could not establish the truth by examining evidence and interviewing witnesses: the court could appoint a duel for opponents. The winner of this fight was considered right in the case under review, defeated if he remained alive, was punishable by law. The judicial duel was solemnly arranged, the order of its conduct was regulated by laws and traditions. The winner of the judicial duel did not have to kill the enemy at all - it was enough for him to fix an unconditional victory (for example, to disarm the enemy or knock him down and hold him, without giving him the opportunity to rise).

Although the judicial duel remained legitimate in the laws of European states until the 15th — 16th centuries, its practical application ceased or, in any case, was greatly reduced by the 14th century. One of the reasons was the widely known cases in which the loser of a judicial duel and, often, a man executed after that, subsequently, due to newly discovered circumstances, turned out to be innocent. So in 1358, a certain Jacques Legré lost an official judicial duel, appointed to determine his guilt in a crime, as a result of which he was hanged. Soon the criminal caught in another case also confessed to the crime incriminated to Legras.

Another predecessor of the duel can be considered a knightly tournament - also a definitely arranged solemn action, the central point of which was a series of ritual fights of fighters on cold weapons - equestrian duel on heavy spears or equestrian or foot fighting on swords. The goal of the tournament was also a victory, not the killing of an opponent, and over time, measures were taken to reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury: the battle was waged with specially blunt weapons that did not pierce the armor, and it was absolutely forbidden to kill the defeated. Tournaments were abolished in the XVI century, when the knightly cavalry lost its military significance, being replaced by foot arrows, first with bows and crossbows, and then with firearms, which made the useless armor. The formal reason for the termination of tournaments was the ridiculous death of King Henry II in the tournament in 1559: the spear of the rival king, Count Montgomery , broke on impact, and his sharp fragment hit the king in the eye, inflicting a fatal wound.

The appearance of a duel

The nobility that had been formed on the basis of chivalry gave rise to its own notions of honor and dignity inherent to any nobleman by birth and, accordingly, that encroachment on the honor of a nobleman in the form of insult with a word or action requires an indispensable retribution, otherwise, the offended is considered discredited. Another feature of the European noble mentality was the idea of ​​certain privileges inherent to a nobleman by birthright, which no one, not even a suzerain (king or other ruler), especially the right to bear arms, could encroach upon. The combination of notions of honor and the need to protect them with the constant availability of weapons naturally brought to life the practice of immediately resolving personal conflicts by duel, in the organization and conduct of which the nobleman did not consider it necessary to involve the overlord, the court or government services.

A duel as a form of clarification of relations and a way to call the offender to account for an insult appeared around the XIV century in Italy. It was there that among young noblemen-citizens it became the custom to turn conflict into a pretext for a duel. For such a fight, opponents usually went to some deaf place, where they fought with weapons that they had, ignoring all conventions, which was why original duels (as opposed to official court fights) were originally called “fight in the bushes” ( Italian bataille àla mazza ) or “fight of animals” ( ital. bataille en bestes brutes ). In contrast to the official battles by court order, the “fight in the bushes” usually took place “as is”, on the weapons that they constantly carried with them, that is, on the sword and dagger, and without armor, which, of course, in everyday life no one did not wear.

It may be noted that for the Italian nobility "fighting in the bushes" became, to a certain extent, a progressive innovation. If earlier aristocrats often resolved honor issues by organizing attacks on individuals, houses or possessions of opponents by whole detachments, now at least the number of people involved in the conflict has decreased and, accordingly, the number of victims.

Spreading duels in Europe

The French nobility got acquainted with the “fights in the bushes” during the Italian wars of the 15th century and quickly adopted fashion. However, fights that took place in Italy in secret, in secluded places, were practiced literally everywhere in France, right down to the city streets and the royal palace, although more often they fought in the outlying parks.

By the beginning of the 16th century, the duel was quite common for the nobility of all of Western Europe, although the distribution of this custom differed sharply in different states; for example, in England the duel was much less common than in Italy and France. This time includes the first printed works of theorists of the duels, who consider the “battle in the bushes” as opposed to the knightly traditions of tournaments and court fights of the past centuries and insist on the need to follow the rules, rituals and a certain regulation of duels in order to resolve issues of honor. But among those who often fought in duels, the majority did not bother to read the treatises and were content with traditions learned from experience. In practice, the duels of this time arose spontaneously, mostly for domestic reasons, because of verbal abuse and because of rivalry for women, and occurred everywhere.

The right and duty to defend their honor through a duel acquired the status of generally accepted. Forgive a clear insult, without causing the offender to a duel, began to mean completely "lose face" and be disgraced in the eyes of society. A similar shame was waiting for the one who would not accept the challenge that was thrown to him, at least for the most trivial reason. He could afford to reject the call either very elderly (usually not younger than 60 years), or obviously seriously ill or frail nobleman. The lower limit of the age of "fitness to duels" was held at the level of 14-16 years, that is, the age at which the nobleman began to wear a sword.

There were no established rules, in fact, except for the most general ones. So, it was generally accepted that the caller chose the time and place of the duel, and the weapon was chosen by the one who was called. Since the right to choose a weapon gave a certain advantage, duels instigators often resorted to various tricks to be called party, for example, the offensive remark of the opponent was publicly called his slanderer or rudely insulted in response, putting him in a position when he was forced to challenge himself to save face. Subsequently, traditions changed and the issue of choosing a weapon became complicated, as a result, the seconds of the parties, arguing about who should be given this choice, often resorted to references to previously existing precedents and printed dueling codes, to a variety of tricks. for their wards.

Often the duels were tied literally in a few minutes and took place without seconds. The usual thing, not to blame society, was the use of techniques, according to modern ideas that do not comply with knightly rules: to divert the attention of the enemy, hit accidentally slipped or stumbled, finish off the disarmed or wounded, hit in the back, attack on foot (with a duel riding). Moreover, when an opponent who had all the chances to win because of an opponent's mistake, refused them out of nobility, such behavior was often condemned by society as stupidity and arrogance, since it could well lead to a backstab from a spared or repeated duel.

A classic example of the French duel of the early period can be considered the duel of the young Ashon Muron, nephew of one of the marshals of France, with the elderly captain Matas in 1559. During the hunt, Muron and Matas were quarreled, Muron demanded an immediate duel, during which Matas, much more experienced in possession of the sword, easily disarmed Muron than he thought the case was complete, after which he read the moral about the fact that you shouldn’t throw a sword on man, if you don't know how dangerous he can be. Having finished his speech, the captain turned away from the enemy in order to mount the horse; at that moment Muron raised his sword and stabbed Matas in the back, killing him outright. Thanks to Muron's kinship, the case was hushed up. At the same time, in society, his mean blow did not receive any censure, on the contrary, the majority was surprised how an experienced captain could allow such an oversight and reproached him for inappropriate humanism.

Often used and frankly vile techniques, such as putting on hidden protective armor (armor) under casual clothing or even a sudden attack on an opponent from the back of a specially hired killer. To avoid this, in private duels, like court fights of the past, there appeared seconds, whose duties included keeping order and adherence to rules and traditions, and subsequently witnessing that the fight was fair. Subsequently, the powers and duties of the seconds expanded, they began to transfer calls and negotiate the conditions of the fight, in order to exclude the meeting of rivals between the insult and the duel. The most common weapon of duelists remained swords and dagi - the only weapon that a nobleman was allowed to carry in the city in peacetime, being outside the ranks. There was a manner of fighting naked to the waist or putting on only a light shirt on the torso: this made it impossible to put on armor under clothes and demonstrated the contempt of duelists to death.

Legislative bans on duels

Initially, the authorities treated duels calmly, often kings were even present during duels of the most famous straps or their close ones. This practice was put an end to the French king Henry II , after a duel in his presence, the favorite of François de Vivonne, the lord de la Chatenière was injured and died a few days later.

From the 16th century, the duel began to be prohibited by law both by secular laws and by the institutions of the Christian church, and the church, in its decisions denouncing the practice of duels, did not distinguish between state judicial duels and private duels, recognizing both of them as opposed to divine principles. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) forbade the sovereigns to organize judicial fights under the threat of excommunication and declared all participants, seconds, and even viewers to duels, automatically excommunicated. Catholic duel denunciations continued until the XIX century, when Pope Pius IX, on October 12, 1869, confirmed excommunication from the church of everyone who calls or agrees to fight a duel. The dead in a duel, like suicides, were ordered not to be buried in the cemetery. King Henry IV of France, at the insistence of the States General, issued a law equating participation in a duel to an insult to majesty. The decree of Cardinal Richelieu dated 1626 established the death penalty or exile as a punishment for a duel, with deprivation of all rights and confiscation of all property for all participants in duels, including even spectators. In the reign of Louis XIV , 11 edicts were issued against duels.

Duel bans were taken everywhere in Europe. In 1681 such a ban was issued by the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and Austria Leopold I. According to the laws of Maria Theresa, all those who took any part in the duel were subject to the death penalty through beheading. Emperor Joseph II legally equated a duel with an intentional murder. Frederick the Great introduced severe punishments for duels in the army. Over time, the punishments for duels softened. In the 19th century, a duel was supposed to be imprisoned under the Austrian criminal code, and imprisoned in a German fortress under the criminal code.

Nevertheless, the practice of duels continued in those countries where it initially took root and where duels were common, mainly in Italy, Spain and France. Many eminent lawyers who spoke out against duels in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, nevertheless, recognized that written laws did not affect law enforcement practice and it would probably be so until the attitude to the duel in society as a whole changed. Since the main executors of laws and persons supervising the execution of laws were nobles everywhere, in practice, terrible edicts and heavy penalties for a duel often remained only on paper, and their application was either simply sabotaged or blocked by various tricks. Even in those cases when the cases of duelists reached the court, difficulties arose. Acting in many countries, a jury trial was composed, according to canons, of people of the same class with the accused, that is, in a particular case, of the nobles, who mostly shared the notion of an inalienable right of a nobleman to a duel. Such a court almost never found duelists guilty under laws that equated a duel to murder.

Attempts to apply the law against the duel "for wits" did not lead to the desired result. Thus, Cardinal Richelieu sent to the scaffold the famous skirmisher de Butville and his cousin de Chapelle after a duel on the Royal Square in Paris on May 12, 1627, in which Butville fought against de Beuvron (de Chapelle was the second and, according to the custom of the time, fought with Bussy, De Beuvron's second). De Beuvron, who remained after the duel, escaped the sentence by fleeing from Paris. But the penalty did not give effect - the number of duels did not decrease, and Richelieu only acquired more detractors in the nobility.

Sometimes the duel was even informally encouraged from some side considerations. Thus, during the board of the aforementioned Henry IV, duels became an important source of filling the constantly depleted royal treasury: over 20 years of rule, more than 7,000 official royal forgiveness was granted to the surviving duel participants, only on their notary registration (for which the recipient paid) the treasury saved about 3 million livres in gold. At the same time, for the same years, according to various estimates, from 7 to 12 thousand nobles died in duels, some modern researchers insist on a figure of 20 thousand - for that time it is the size of a rather large army.

“Duel Fever” in France of the 16th — 18th Centuries

The fight, which took place in 1578 and went down in history as the “ duel of the minions ” (depicted in the novel “The Countess de Monsoreau ” by Dumas Sr. ) and named after its participants - several young favorites - became a landmark for the history of the French duel. Henry III , known, in particular, a penchant for bright, defiant clothes ( Fr. mignon "handsome"). One of the minions, Jacques de Levy, the comte de Quelus , competed for a woman with Charles de Balzac d'Antrague, Baron de Quéneau. One day, after mutual insults, a duel was held between the rivals in Tournell Park. Immediately before the duel, Kelyus ’s second, Mozhiron , insulted Antargue’s, Ribeirak’s second, and demanded a fight with him, after which the two remaining seconds, Livaro and Schomberg, also uncovered swords. As a result of the group battle that followed, Mozhiron and Schomberg were killed on the spot, Ribeirac died of wounds within a few hours, Livaro was crippled (he was cut off by a sword with his sword, he recovered from the wound and died several years later in a regular duel). The king, who had received multiple injuries, took a long time to care for the king, but the favorite who had been on the mend decided to ride a horse; the wounds opened, and Kelyus died. Only Anthrage got off with a slight wound to the arm.

Despite the fact that duels at that time were already strictly prohibited, none of the survivors were punished. The king ordered the dead to bury in the magnificent mausoleums and put marble statues to them. The nobility perceived the reaction of the king as a sign that the duel, despite the official prohibition, was not only permissible but also honorable. At the same time, the “duel of minions” brought into fashion not only the direct participants of the duel, but also their seconds. As a result, the attitude of society to the duel has changed, duels have become not just a tradition, but also a fashion, their number has increased so much that it is possible to speak of a duel fever that has engulfed entire countries, which lasted more than a century. Everyone fought, from the poorest noblemen to the crowned heads, despite regularly reprinted laws against duels.

Among the young nobles, the category of "professional" brethers, as a rule, skilled fencers, who made the duel a way to achieve personal fame, stood out. They constantly bullied other nobles, they themselves called to a duel at the slightest pretext and provoked those around them with their defiantly impudent behavior. On account of some of them were hundreds of duels and dozens of wounded and killed opponents. One of the famous French brethren was Louis de Clermont, lord d'Amboise, Comte de Bussy , about whom contemporaries wrote that for him the reason for the duel could "fit on the fly's leg" (once he fought a duel, arguing about the shape of the pattern on the curtains) . So the literary quarrels of the nobles, described in Dumas' novels, for example, in The Three Musketeers, when the challenge comes from an accidental collision on the street or a joke about the cloak cut, were in fact quite common for that time. The challenge could follow on any occasion: because of the supposedly cast of a sidelong glance, an insufficiently courteous tone of the interlocutor, and so on.

Sunset duel in Europe

By the middle of the XVIIIth, the “duel fever” in Western Europe was over. Although the severity of punishment for a duel gradually decreased in the legislation of most states, duels have become much rarer, and most importantly, more streamlined. Cold weapons were noticeably pressed by pistols, which became the main tool of the duel of the XIX century. The transition to firearms had one important side effect: the impact on the outcome of the duel's physical capabilities of the duelist was significantly reduced. The rules of duels that were finalized in the form of duel codes of the 19th century were clarified: the majority of duels began with the seconds, the official challenge, the observance of the indispensable 24-hour interval between the challenge and the duel and according to a verified procedure ensuring the equal chances of the participants. Dueling rules have changed dramatically towards humanization: with a duel with pistols, a typical barrier distance of 30-40 steps was established, with duels with swords, as a rule, the battle was fought before the first wound, as a result most of the duels began to end with minor wounds or even bloodless. At the same time, the very concept of “restoration of honor” was transformed: the very fact that the enemy was put in mortal danger was considered to be sufficient as a retribution for insult. Of course, duels periodically took place under difficult conditions, including before the death, but their number decreased and public opinion was already disapproving of them.

The number of duels after the Napoleonic wars, when social changes led to a significant erosion of the aristocracy class and, accordingly, changes in morals and customs, declined even more. The development of the legal system, for its part, created the possibility of lawful prosecution of offenders through recourse to the court, to which many preferred to resort instead of risking their lives and freedom, arranging a duel. In general, despite the fact that in the 19th century, duels still occurred regularly, society’s view of them changed, they began to be seen as a relic of a bygone era and, in some cases, as an inevitable evil that must be endured until laws and in the worldview of people will not reach such a level that legal retribution will be in all cases sufficient to restore impaired honor.

There were separate "bursts" of dueling activity. For example, in France after 1830, when the freedom of the press increased significantly, an epidemic of “journalistic duels” began - calls between journalists because of printed accusations of lying.

Duels were widely spread in the first half of the 19th century among students in German universities. Practically at any university there was a “dueling society”, fights were held regularly, but most of them, due to carefully designed security measures, ended with light wounds or completely bloodless (fights were held on cold weapons, mainly on rapiers, duelists put on protective equipment, weapons disinfected to prevent wounds).

Also, until the end of the XIX century, and in some places and later, the duel was maintained in the army, despite all prohibitions and severe punishment. Even opponents of duels acknowledged that no prohibitions were able to eradicate the practice of duels between officers, in view of the traditions of this environment: the officer who refused to duel (who did not offend him or evade the challenge), was considered dishonored, the servicemen threw him and literally forced him to leave. service.