A friend sends The Code of Honor, subtitled “or Rules for the government of principals and seconds in duelling,” published in 1837 by the former governor of South Carolina. It’s a fascinating document of a world long gone, and though the sense of honor is mostly admirable, if from our point of view absurdly sensitive, one perhaps best gone. Or rather best refined: It should be possible to have a sense of honor without the desire to kill someone for violating it.
Indeed the author, John Lyde Wilson, in his own way attempts to refine it. In this booklet he offers the rules in order to save the lives of duellers, since, he believes, the proper instruction of the duellers’ seconds will help them avert the duels in the first place. In the introduction, titled “To the public,” he writes that he is strongly opposed to duelling, and yet,
if the question be directly put to me, whether there are not cases where duels are right and proper, I would unhesitatingly answer, there are. If an oppressed nation has a right to appeal to arms in defence of its liberty and the happiness of its people, there can be no argument used in support of such appeal, which will not apply with equal force to individuals.
How many cases are there, that might be enumerated, where there is no tribunal to do justice to an oppressed and deeply wronged individual? If he be subjected to a tame submission to insult and disgrace, where no power can shield him from its effects, then indeed it would seem, that the first law of nature, self-preservation, points out the only remedy for his wrongs.
The history of all animated nature exhibits a determined resistance to encroachments upon natural rights,—nay, I might add, inanimate nature, for it also exhibits a continual warfare for supremacy. . . . The principle of self-preservation is co-extensive with creation; and when by education we make character and moral worth a part of ourselves, we guard these possessions with more watchful zeal than life itself, and would go farther for their protection.
When one finds himself avoided in society, his friends shunning his approach, his substance wasting, his wife and children in want around him, and traces all his misfortunes and misery to the slanderous tongue of the calumniator, who, by secret whisper or artful innuendo, has sapped and undermined his reputation, he must be more or less than man to submit in silence.
After a paragraph in which he argues in effect that few people are ever going to be able to turn the other cheek, especially if their persecutor slaps that one too, he writes:
I would not wish to be understood to say, that I do not desire to see duelling to cease to exist entirely, in society. But my plan for doing it away, is essentially different from the one which teaches a passive forbearance to insult and indignity. I would inculcate in the rising generation a spirit of lofty independence; I would have them taught that nothing was more derogatory to the honor of a gentleman, than to wound the feelings of any one, however humble.
That if wrong be done to another, it was more an act of heroism and bravery to repair the injury, than to persist in error, and enter into mortal combat with the injured party. This would be an aggravation of that which was already odious, and would put him without the pale of all decent society and honorable men.
I would strongly inculcate the propriety of being tender of the feelings, as well as the failings, of those around him. I would teach immutable integrity, and uniform urbanity of manners. Scrupulously to guard individual honor, by a high personal self respect, and the practice of every commendable virtue. Once let such a system of education be universal, and we should seldom hear, if ever, of any more duelling.
March 29th, 2012 | 2:41 pm
I’m glad you liked it. It is an odd work, but there is so much practical advice in the booklet. His insistence, for example, of deferring to private communication if you’ve been publicly insulted is spot on. He only allows for an exception if there has been some physical harm done. In my own experience the corporate world would be a much more tolerable place if these rules were followed.
It would allow for the threat of, but not the actual use of violence. There’s something to be said for that. I’d actually like to read the papal pronouncements on dueling next and am working on digging them up (possibly someone could point out commentary on the protestant side of the fence).
March 29th, 2012 | 8:40 pm
[...] Considering dueling. [...]
March 30th, 2012 | 5:30 am
[...] David Mills has come across a fascinating text online, The Code of Honor;, by John Lyde Wilson. It’s a booklet from 1837 giving the proper etiquette for dueling. [...]
March 30th, 2012 | 7:39 am
Many years ago, a Catholic priest tried to convince me out of Lutheranism by telling me “new evidence” showed that Luther went into the monastery to escape the law after he killed a man in a duel.
I told the priest I approved of dueling.
March 31st, 2012 | 7:01 am
[...] Rules and Reasons for Duelling – David Mills, First Things/First Thought [...]
March 31st, 2012 | 10:49 am
What Christian could possibly approve of duelling?
April 3rd, 2012 | 6:33 am
Christians can approve of dueling just as Christianity can approve of self-defense. It is a feminized Christianity that cannot fathom the need for honor among men.
Read James Bowman’s book Honor: A History for the best primer on the subject, particularly for his description of the Christian gentleman, the apogee and most developed evolution of honor wherein virtue is grafted onto ancient codes to produce something new, that is, chivalry.
The destruction of reputation is every bit as damaging as physical assault, if not more, given the long-term consequences of unchallenged gossip, innuendo, and slander. To duel is to reply, and to stake one’s “life, fortune, and sacred honor” on the result.
Our cowardly age is several generations removed from gentlemanliness, and no doubt this defense of honor, recognizable to any man in any century prior, sounds like nothing more than violent, savage gibberish to the epicene “men” of our day.
“What Christian could possibly approve of duelling?” The cross of Christ was the ultimate duel! He challenged us to give him our worst, and we did, and he faced down evil and death once and for all, forever.
The essence of the duel is not in the exchange of blows. The essence is in the willingness to stake one’s life upon one’s reputation. Such stakes are not always for selfish purposes. In one’s defense of one’s own and in standing up for the good and true, we bring about more goodness and truth through our dying and killing. The violence is incidental, indemnifying justice just as the policeman’s pistol does, and only rarely necessary.
Also, dueling makes a sniveling manboy think twice before clawing at his fellow man’s good character. Are we really sure that man is a liar? Absent honor we have turned into a kaffeeklatch of snickering, cackling subverters, witches bitching without consequence, never cashing the checks our careless mouths write with every “false witness” it bears.
“But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.” — Col 3:8
Mr. Mills writes, “[T]hough the sense of honor is mostly admirable, if from our point of view absurdly sensitive, [it is] one perhaps best gone.” The dictates of honor appear “absurdly sensitive” to us because our general sense of virtue is at perhaps its weakest stage ever. It seems liberating to be free of virtue; it is a relief to know that we do not take our lives in our hands when we damage others without consequence. But the Christian understands that all slights go into the ledger, even the minor ones, so we must be sensitive to peccadilloes as well as great sins against one another. This is not overly sensitive so much as a comprehensive approach to life.
We have only done away with dueling because we have done away with virtue. “We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise,” wrote C.S. Lewis. “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
It might be argued that the Christian refuses to shoot back when challenged to (or challenging someone to) a duel. But to deny the importance of the duel is to deny the necessity of the cross, which, like dueling, bears witness to the truth in extremis.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact