Lockdown diary, day 67
And yet another baking hot, beautiful day in Whitehaven
I know I keep writing this, but I think this has been the warmest and driest spring since we moved to West Cumbria in 2004.
It is often said that the rise of social media and particularly the ability to post anonymous insults, has meant a reduction in civility and I think there is a great deal of truth in this.
But I had a reminder today that, historically, extreme rudeness is nothing new.
Indeed, in the 18th century, political and social discourse was often nearly as rude as it is today. Even the existence of a functioning if illegal duelling code - one with such overwhelming social force that even very powerful men who strongly disapproved of the whole business were forced to take part in duels - did not always prevent people being very rude about one another.
I know I keep writing this, but I think this has been the warmest and driest spring since we moved to West Cumbria in 2004.
It is often said that the rise of social media and particularly the ability to post anonymous insults, has meant a reduction in civility and I think there is a great deal of truth in this.
But I had a reminder today that, historically, extreme rudeness is nothing new.
Indeed, in the 18th century, political and social discourse was often nearly as rude as it is today. Even the existence of a functioning if illegal duelling code - one with such overwhelming social force that even very powerful men who strongly disapproved of the whole business were forced to take part in duels - did not always prevent people being very rude about one another.
In fact the very powerful were often in an impossible position when harsh words were exchanged, in that they would be seen as cowards and lose face if they did not fight a duel but as breaking the law if they did so and actually harmed their opponent.
Hence the practice known as "deloping" which appears to have been employed by all four parties on the two occasions when a present or former Prime Minister was forced to take part in a duel with another peer or MP. The challenged party selected pistols rather than swords and then one or more usually both parties would turn up for the duel but deliberately missing, usually be firing into the air or the ground rather than aiming at their opponent.
The theory behind deloping appears to have been that honour was satisfied because you turned up and gave your opponent the opportunity to try to shoot you, and therefore proved that you were not a coward, but you were not liable to be accused of murder or attempted murder because you didn't actually try to kill anyone. Certainly the politicians who took part in duels where both parties deliberately fired wide - or missed by a mile and claimed to have done so deliberately - suffered far less career damage - or indeed physical damage - than those who took part in duels where someone actually got hurt.
To be clear, I would never, ever want to see the practice of duelling ever brought back, but the mere thought of some of the trolls who write vicious and hurtful lies about other people behind the shield of anonymity provided by a computer being found out and having to stand on a duelling field holding a pistol and praying that the individual they had grievously insulted will have the sense to fire into the air rather than try to kill them, does present a certain entertainment value.
Of course, women were not allowed to fight duels, and could get away with being far more rude than men in the era, although if a gentleman insulted a lady her father, husband or brothers were all to liable to throw down the gauntlet.
What started this whole train of thought was that, while researching a post for tomorrow on the battle of the Glorious First of June, I came across a story about the captain of one of the RN ships in that battle, who had previously been at court as an aide to and friend of the Prince of Wales (later King George IV.)
The gallant captain had been rash enough allow himself to be overheard referring less than respectfully to Queen Charlotte by the Duchess of Gordon.
She put him in his place with the words
"You little, insignificant, good-for-nothing, upstart, pert chattering puppy"
"You little, insignificant, good-for-nothing, upstart, pert chattering puppy"
Not quite as rude or offensive as some of the trolling one gets on social media these days but I don't think I would have cared to be on the receiving end of such a putdown.
Keep Well
Keep Well
Comments
I dare say there may have been a few real historical women from the period who thought that way but I don't think I have ever seen a quote from such a woman expressing that opinion.
And here's the really interesting thing - there does appear to have been at least one case in Britain where two women fought a duel.
The list of duels in Wikipedia includes the following:
"1792: Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs Elphinstone;
so called "petticoat duel";
Lady Almeria Braddock felt insulted by Mrs Elphinstone and challenged her to a duel in London's Hyde Park after their genteel conversation turned to the subject of Lady Almeria's true age. The ladies first exchanged pistol shots in which Lady Almeria's hat was damaged. They then continued with swords until Mrs. Elphinstone received a wound to her arm and agreed to write Lady Almeria an apology."
You may also be interested in the story of the Chevalier d'Éon (5 October 1728 – 21 May 1810) who today would almost certainly be recognised as transgender.
This individual, who was a soldier, diplomat and spy, spent the first 49 years of life mostly dressing as and identifying as a man, and the last few decades dressing as and at least nominally identifying as a woman.
Havelock Ellis coined the term eonism after the Chevalier as an adjective to describe what we would now call transgender behavior. The Beaumont Society, a long-standing organisation for transgender people, is named after d'Éon.
The Chevalier d'Éon continued the practice of fencing after changing from male to female dress and identification, and there some of the fencing matches concerned were recorded in contemporary paintings or drawings.
I've seen at least one painting of the Chevalier in female dress with epee in hand facing off en garde against a male opponent, described as a duel, but I think this description was a misunderstanding and what was actually happening was a fencing match.
That put politicians who were given grave insult or were challenged into an impossible position because, as I wrote in the original post, if they refused a challenge, or in some cases failed to issue one, they would be socially ruined as perceived cowards, but both anyone who killed an opponent in a duel, and his second, were liable to be accused of murder or manslaughter. Being involved in a duel could also mean social and political ruin or exile even if criminal charges were not brought - which would be seen as a particularly blatant case of the rich and powerful ignoring the law - although on many occasions criminal charges were brought, and on at least one occasion the police got wind of a planned duel, turned up and arrested the participants before the duel could take place.
Hence the practice of deloping or firing wide - there is also at least one case in which a Royal prince allowed his opponent to take a shot, which missed, and then refused to fire his gun at all, saying that he had provided "satisfaction" by allowing himself to be shot at, and as honour was satisfied the matter was closed.
As a royal prince he got away with it: history records than an ensign who tried the same thing in a duel with a more senior officer was horsewhipped by his opponent's second!
I used to own a dictionary which stated that a duellist had been executed in 1812: I cannot verify that, or that a death sentence for duelling was ever actually carried out in Britain, though there were certainly a few passed, most of which appear to have been commuted to imprisonment or a fine.
In one particularly notorious case in Britain where both opponents in a duel mortally wounded each other, their seconds were convicted of manslaughter and sent to prison.
In France in 1627, King Louis XIII, who had been attempting to stop duelling between nobles in the belief that it could lead to civil war, had a duke and a count beheaded for fighting a double duel in which a marquis was killed. This was an interesting case, the story of the King, the Cardinal, the Duke, the Marquis, the Count and the Gentleman.
Cardinal Richelieu, who agreed with the King that duels between nobles were a bad idea which could lead to civil war, persuaded him that the original law that all involved in duels were liable to the death penalty was so severe that nobody took it seriously and it was never implemented.
Instead they revised the law so the death penalty was only applicable in the most serious cases, e.g. when someone died in the duel or when the seconds also fought.
Both these things applied to the 1627 duel, and also the duke was a repeat offender who had fought a number of previous duels and been exiled for a time after one of them. The Duke's opponent was the only participant to escape both his opponent's sword and the headsman's axe, as he fled France immediately after the duel. However his second, the Marquis, was killed by the Duke's second, the Count.
It would appear that both King and Cardinal saw the duel as an open challenge to the authority of the government which had to be met, and, with due process of law (there is no question that the accused were guilty as charged of a capital crime) had the Duke and the Count arrested and put on trial and they were duly convicted and executed.
Considering how many people clearly disapproved of it, and that it was illegal, it is astonishing how long the practice of duelling took to die.