Introduction to Duelling Stories from the Sixteenth Century
The original memoir, presented to the English reader, stands as a singular contribution to the social history of the sixteenth century [1]. It is a collection of sensational anecdotes from real life and stands by itself in continental literature [1]. The biographer, Brantome, provides knowledge of many celebrities of this period, a time characterized by treachery, violence, debauchery, and fanaticism as France struggled through religious civil wars [1]. Few chroniclers were as intimately acquainted with the subject matter, and none were less affected by indignation or scruples that would conceal the vices and follies of their contemporaries [1]. Pierre de Bourdeille, Abbot and Lord of Brantome, born in 1542, lived a life full of enterprise and adventure [1].
The Author's Perspective on Duelling
Brantome does not aspire to the dignity of a moralist or a serious historian; he is a first-hand authority of unique human interest [1]. He was interested in the proper etiquette and the rights and wrongs of the practices of his day [1]. He questioned whether one ought to be generous to an opponent or take every advantage and be thankful [1]. He also pondered what should happen if one was fortunate enough to kill their opponent [1]. Brantome provides an inexhaustible store of precedents, wise saws, and modern instances, illustrated from past history and recent experience [1]. While the narrator is sincerely bent on preserving the materials of a ‘belle histoire,’ nothing can be more remarkable than his absolute detachment from the problems of morals, not to say criminology, which they so constantly suggest [1].
Customs and Laws Governing Duels
The Danes and the Lombards first brought the combat 'a outrance' into vogue [1]. By those Danish and Lombard laws, the conqueror did just what he pleased with his unsuccessful opponent, including dragging him about the field, hanging, burning, keeping him prisoner, or treating him worse than any slave [1]. In the time of Charles VI, it was decreed by the Parliament of Paris that the Lord de Carrouges should fight in single combat against a squire called De Gris, accused of having done an unbearable wrong to the seigneur’s lady during his absence in the Holy Land [1]. The lady was placed upon a scaffold draped in black until her innocence was proved [1].
Anecdotes Illustrating Duelling Practices
A duel fought at Sedan between the Baron des Guerres and the Lord de Fendilles illustrates the ignominies that could be inflicted by the victor on the vanquished [1]. Fendilles wanted to see a fire lighted and a gallows ready to hang and burn his enemy after the victory, but fortune failed him [1]. The Baron de Guerres, feeling his strength failing, closed with his antagonist and bore him to the ground [1]. During the struggle, some of the supporters of De Guerres called out, ‘Throw some gravel in his eyes and mouth!’ [1]. The Baron executed this maneuver, and reduced his haughty young antagonist to a shameful surrender [1].
Another combat took place in Valenciennes before the good Duke Philip [1]. It turned on the question of an ancient privilege accorded to the city of Valenciennes, that whenever anyone had killed another ‘in fair fight,’ he could demand the freedom of the city [1]. Before joining the fray the combatants were provided with three things: sugar, cinders, and oil [1]. Mahiot flung a handful of gravel into the face of Jacotin, dealing him a sturdy blow on the headpiece which brought blood [1]. Jacotin gouged out those of his opponent, and then condemned Mahiot to be taken to the gibbet and hanged [1].
The Role of Seconds and Umpires
In a duel between two Spanish captains, the second came forward and said, ‘Signor Azevedo, I know my friend well enough, and that he would rather die than surrender; but as I see he cannot possibly do more, Fll surrender for himF’ [1]. Brantome questions if such a surrender can be regarded as valid [1]. The herald made his usual proclamation that nobody should make a sound, spit, or cough, or do anything to disturb the combatants [1]. Brantome says that kings, princes, lords, and sovereigns reserved to themselves the right and authority to control duels as they pleased [1].
Acts of Mercy and Chivalry
During a combat at Florence, one of the besieged party being desperately wounded, and weakened from loss of blood, when called upon to ‘surrender,’ could not quite bring himself to utter the hateful formula, and so determined only to answer, ‘I surrender to His Highness’ [1]. In Queen Jeanne of Naples’ court, Galeazzo of Mantua vowed to ride knight-errant through the world, until he had conquered by his own prowess and brought to Her Majesty’s feet two gallant knights as prisoners [1]. However, the Princess declined to exercise any of the ‘cruel privileges’ conferred upon her by law, and sent them away with handsome presents [1].
Treacherous and Dishonorable Conduct
Brantome states that it was amazing that Montluc should venture to let fall the word “dishonour,” as Brantome had so often heard him speak so favorably of his late uncle [1]. There could be no question of ‘dishonour’ in such a case, unless a man surrendered like a coward to save his life [1]. Theworked on hisbody. There was one lord who tried to get away with murder by using “glass” swords so that his opponent would not stand a chance! [1]. Brantome considered it more wicked than assassination to practice this. Some duellists would seek all sorts of legal trickery so as to force their opponent to spend all his money [1].
The Abolition of Duelling
Brantome notes the duelling had been abolished throughout Christendom by the Council of Trent [1]. According toBrantome, asuitable pendant to theVies desDames Galantes is theDiscours sur lesDuels, anequally light-hearted “chronique scandaleuse” of the “out-of-door” habits and ethics of the male sex [1].