The practic of honourable duels has its origins in the judicial duel established by Gundebald, King of the Burgundians, in AD 501. His original method of determining guilt or innocence involved the "Judgement of God," in which defendants could either swear an oath of innocence, or endure the trial by ordeal. Since the trial by ordeal involved retrieving a ring from a bowl of boiling water, with guilt decided corresponding to whether the burn completely healed or not, many defendants preferred to hazard Divine retribution rather than their own flesh. Gundebald eventually decided that, since so many of his subjects seemed inclined to perjury, they "might as well risk their bodies as their souls." From this concept, it was determined that if the plaintiff was not satisfied with the defendant's oath, the controversy may be settled by the sword, "it being just that every man should be ready to defend with his sword the truth which he attests, and to submit himself to the judgement of Heaven." So, the Trial by Battle spread throughout western Europe, to become an integral part of medieval notions of divine justice.
Ideally, the accuser and accused would fight in person. However, champions were allowed for women, invalids, and persons over sixty. It was a dangerous trade, as the losing party, as well as his champion would be executed. To prove his innocence, the defendant's champion must either slay the appellant, or maintain the fight all day long. The plaintiff might also retract his claim, crying craven (hence the origin of the word in our language). Eventually champions were allowed for all claimants.
The judicial duel quite naturally evolved into the duel of chivalry, which was alternative supported and suppressed by succeeding monarchs, although consistently condemned by the Church. The advent of Courts and juries and such, reduced the judicial duel from its role as a divine determination of guilt, to a means of settling personal and national conflicts between knights. Yet, these duels were conducted with great pomp and all the seriousness of a judicial duel.
With the introduction of the rapier in Italy in the early 1500's, the era of the duel of honour began. A code of duello began to form, enumerating circumstances in which a gentleman would be required to redress the wrong upon the body of his offender. Rather than seeking the duel as the divine answer, the gentleman viewed the duel as the only method of adequate retribution for certain wrongs. For instance, the chronicler Bryskett, wrote in 1606, in A Discourse of Civill Life, that "It is reputed so great a shame to be accounted a liar, that any other injury is cancelled by giving the lie, and he that receiveth it standeth so charged in his honour and reputation, that he cannot disburden himself of that imputation, but by the striking of him that hath so given it, or by challenging him to combat." Here is the origin of the phrase "giving the lie." To induce a duel, one simply must insult his opponent, who replies that it is a lie. Having been called a liar, the first is obliged to strike or challenge the latter. The gentleman also would be ready to assert his station, calling out anyone who treated him presumptuously or disrespectfully.
The duel of honor is centered around the gentleman's reputation, and willingness to defend himself. Although personal pride is central to the duel of honor, its connection to the duel of justice is clear. The most serious issue is truth, and the gentleman must always be prepared to defend his statements upon his body.
Copyright © 1998, Andy Borman (Walter Robin). All rights reserved. Contact to reprint.
Manuscript Index | Site Index