DUEL
185
DUEL
to the duel or who in any way abet or encourage the
same; and finally against those who are present at a
duel as spectators [de industrid spectanteg], or those
who permit the same, or do not prevent it, whatever
their rank, even if they are kings or emperors".
Like the Church, the State also took steps against the evil of duelUng. In 160S an edict against the practice was issued by Henry IV of France. Whoever killed his opponent in a duel was to be punished with death; severe penalties were also enacted against the sending of a challenge and the acceptance of the same. Unfortunately transgressors against this law were generally pardoned. In 1626, during the reign of Henry's successor, Louis XIII, the laws against duel- ling were made more stringent and were strictly car- ried out. Notwithstanding these measures the custom of duelling increased alarmingly in France. The great number of French noblemen who fell in duels about the middle of the seventeenth century, is shown by the statement of the contemporary writer Theophile Ray- naud that within thirty years more men of rank had been killed in duels than would have been needed to make up an entire army. Oher, the foimder of the Congregation of Saint-Sulpice, ■n-ith the aid of St. \'incent de Paul, formed an association of distinguished noblemen, the memljers of which signed the following obligation: "The undersigned publicly and solemnly make known by this declaration that the}' will refuse every form of challenge, will for no cause whatever enter upon a duel, and will in every way be willing to give proof that they detest duelling as contrary to reason, the public good, and the laws of the .State, and as incompatible with salvation and the Christian re- ligion, without, however, relinquishing the right to avenge in every legal way any insult offered them as far as position and birth make such action obli- gatory." Louis XIV aided these efforts at reform by the severe enactment against duelling which he issued early in his reign. For a long time after this duelling was infrequent in France.
In other countries too severe measures were taken against the constantly spreading evil. In 1681 the Emperor Leopold I forbade the fighting of duels under the severest penalties; Maria Theresa ordered not only the challenger and the challenged but also all who had any share in a duel to be beheaded, and in the reign of the Emperor Joseph II duellists received the punish- ment of murderers. Frederick the Great of Prussia tolerated no duellists in his army. The present penal code of Austria makes imprisonment the punishment of duelling; the penal code of the German Empire com- mands confinement in a fortress. The penalty is, vdth- out doubt, entirely insufficient and constitutes a form of privilege for the person who kills his adversary in a duel. Theoretically these penal laws are also appli- cable to the respective armies, but unfortunatelyin the case of officers they are not carried out ; indeed, up to the present time, an officer who refuses to fight a duel in Germany and Austria is in danger of being dis- missed from the army. In 1S96 when, in consequence of the fatal issue of a duel, the Reichstag by a large majority called upon the Government to proceed by all the means in its power against the practice of duel- ling, as opposed to the criminal code, the emperor issued a cabinet order on 1 January, 1897, which es- tablished courts of honour to deal with disputes in the army concerning questions of honour. Unfortu- nately the decree leaves it open to the court of honour to permit or even to command a duel to take place. Furthermore, on 15 January, 1906. General von Einem, Prussian Minister of War, stated that the principle of the duel was still in force, and Chancellor von Bulow added to this: "... .the corps of army officers can tolerate no member in its ranks who is not ready, should necessity arise, to defend his honour by force of arms". In the army, as a result of this prin- ciple, a conscientious opponent of duelUng is con-
stantly exposed to the danger of being expelled for
refusing to fight. In England duelling is almost un-
known, and no duel has occurred, it is said, in the
British army for the last eighty years. English juris-
prudence contains no special ordinances against duel-
ling; the wounding or killing of another in a duel is
punishable according to common law. On the Con-
tinent also public opinion on the subject of duelUng
seems to be gradually changing. The demand for the
abolition, even in the army, of this abuse is growing
louder and louder. Some years ago, at the instance
of the Infante Alfonso of Bourbon and Austria-Este,
an anti-duelling league was formed in order to carry
on systematically the opposition to duelling. A pre-
liminary convention, held at Frankfort-on-t he-Main in
the spring of 1901, issued an appeal for support in its
struggle against this evil. In a few weeks a thousand
signatures were received, mostly those of men of in-
fluence from the most varied ranks of society. A con-
vention to draw up a constitution met at Cassel 11
January, 1902, and Prince Carl zu Lowenstein was
elected president. A committee was also appointed
to direct affairs and to conduct the agitation. The
league has made most satisfactory progress; in 1908 it
established a permanent bureau at Leipzig. Concern-
ing the aims of the league the declaration subscribed
by the members states the following: "The under-
signed herewith declare their rejection, on principle,
of duelling as a custom repugnant to reason, con-
science, the demands of civilization, existing laws, and
the common good of society and the State."
Wrongfclxess op Duelling. — .\fter what has been said above there can be no doubt that duel- hng is contrary to the ordinances of the Catholic Church and of most civilized countries. By the wording of its ordinance against duelling, the Council of Trent plainly indicated that duelling was essentially wrong and since then theologians have almost uni- versally characterized it as a sinful and reprehensible course of action. However there were always a few scholars who held the opinion that cases might arise in which the unlawfulness of duelling could not be proved with certainty by mere reason. But this opinion has not been tenable since Pope Benedict XIV in the Bull " Detestabilem " of the year 1752 con- demned the following propositions: (1) "A soldier would be blameless and not liable to punishment for sending or accepting a challenge if he would be con- sidered timid and cowardly, worthy of contempt, and unfit for military duty, were he not to send a chal- lenge or accept such, and who would for this reason lose the position which supported him and liis familj', or who would be obliged to give up forever the hope of befitting and well-earned advancement." (2) "Those persons are excusable who to defend their honour or to escape the contempt of men accept or send a challenge when they know positively that the duel will not take place but will be prevented by others." (3) "A gen- eral or officer who accepts a challenge through fear of the loss of his reputation and his position does not come under the ecclesiastical punishment decreed by the Church for duellists." (4) "It is permissible under the natural conditions of man to accept or send a challenge in ortler to save one's fortune, when the loss of it can not be prevented by any other means." (5) "This permission claimed for natural conditions can also be applied to a badly guided state in which, especially, justice is openly denied by the remissness or malevolence of the authorities." Like his prede- cessors, Leo XIII in his letter "Pastoralis officii", of 12 September, 1891, to the German and Austro-Hun- garian bishops, laid down the following principles: " From two points of view the Divine law forbids a man as a private person to wound or kill another, ex- cepting when he is forced to it by self-defence. Both natural reason and the inspired Holy Scriptures pro- claim this Divine law."
