From the middle of the fifteenth century duelling over questions of honour increased so greatly, especially in the Romanic countries, that the Council of Trent was obliged to enact the severest penalties against it. The more the judicial combat fell into disuse, the more the old instinct of the Germanic and Gallic peoples, by which each man sought to gain his rights with weapon in hand, showed itself in personal contests and at tournaments. The tournaments, especially, were often used to satisfy revenge on account of this misuse the Church early issued ordinances against the excesses committed at tournaments, although these were not always obeyed. In addition to the judicial, non-judicial combats also occurred, in which men arbitrarily settled private grudges or sought to revenge themselves. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others. In a letter to Charles the Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned the duel ( monomachia) as a tempting of God. The popes also at an early date took a stand against duelling. 840), who in a special work on the subject points out the opposition between the law of Gundobald and the clemency of the Gospel God might very easily permit the defeat of the innocent. 518) made an earnest protest against the law of the above-mentioned Gundobald, as is related by Agobard (d. The Church soon raised her voice against duelling. It was believed, first, that God could not allow the innocent to be defeated in a duel hence it was held that the guilty party would not dare primarily to appeal to the judgment of God in proof of his innocence and then enter upon the fight under the weight of perjury the fear of Divine wrath would discourage him and make victory impossible. With few exceptions the judicial duel is mentioned in all old German laws as a legal ordeal. The oldest known law of Christian times that permitted the judicial duel is that of the Burgundian King Gundobald (d. The duel is, therefore, undoubtedly of heathen origin, and was so firmly rooted in the customs of the Gauls and Germans that it persisted among them even after their conversion.
On the other hand the custom of duelling existed among the Gauls and Germans from the earliest era, as Diodorus Siculus (Biblioth. The contests of the Roman gladiators were not, like the duels of today, a means of self-defence, but bloody spectacles to satisfy the curiosity and cruelty of an effeminate and degenerate people. Historyĭuelling was unknown to the civilized nations of antiquity. Between contending nations there is no higher court than the appeal to arms therefore war must decide, and there may be instances in which it is allowable to substitute for a battle between two armies a contest between two persons selected for the purpose. Consequently the customary duel of today differs from those public duels which took place for some public reason by the arrangement of the authorities, as the conflict between David and Goliath. Finally it is essential to a duel that it take place on account of some private matter, such as wounded honour.
Although generally demanded by custom, similarity of weapons is not essential neither are witnesses, seconds, etc. Further, the contest must take place by agreement, and the weapons used must be capable of inflicting deadly wounds. Thus a contest with weapons is essential to the conception of a duel. This word, as used both in the ecclesiastical and civil criminal codes today, generally signifies every contest with deadly weapons which takes place by agreement between two persons on account of some private quarrel. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99.
Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download.