Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - XIV. The difference between the English and Russian point of view upon duelling
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
DUELLING
193
It is a rather strange fact that duellists trying to vindicate
their honour leave out of account the fact that the offence
committed may be in itself dishonourable, as, for instance,
in the cases of impropriety with women, false accusations,
slander, and so forth. The combatants in a duel are
considered to be both men of honour, as according to the code
of honour no duel can be fought with a man who has lost his
honour. Now, if a man has offended another by a
dishonourable action, he has lost his honour, and, strictly speaking,
such a man should not be called out to a duel. If none the
less a duel takes place, it implies the unwarranted and
nonsensical rehabilitation of a man who has lost his honour. A
typical example may serve as an illustration. Duellists are
especially uncompromising about the obligation of fighting
a duel in cases of seduction of a near female relative and a
refusal on the part of the seducer to marry her. There can
be no doubt that such an action is dishonourable. And yet a
duellist finds himself bound to call such a despicable man
out to a duel, and in doing so to give him the privilege of
being considered a man of honour by the very fact that he is
challenged to fight a duel. In countries where duelling is
out of the question—for instance, in Norway and Sweden—
no one would dream of doing a scoundrel the honour of
fighting him in a duel; he may be horsewhipped or punished
otherwise—that would certainly be more to the point. In
England public opinion ostracises men of that sort; they
become outlaws of Society.
According to a duellist’s point of view, a man loses his
honour if he does not take revenge by a duel for an offence
committed against him or his women-folk. It needs no
further explanation that the wrong committed must be
redressed by all possible lawful means. Revindication of
honour is indispensable. But the question is whether the
duel can be considered as a proper method of redress, and
whether in case of an offence committed against a woman a
man is under the obligation to fight a duel for her sake. In
our present state of civilisation a woman has the possibility
of vindicating her honour herself, and only so far as she
n
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
