Hi, Jo here, talking about duels. The best I could do as a CBK image is a pirate.
My novel, A Scandalous Countess, will be out next February and I'm doing the final work on it. As sometimes happens, I'm rewriting a small section and I wanted to mention the inquest into the death of Georgia Maybury's husband. So I went looking for an inquest on a duel.
A great site for things like this is the London Lives site, which is wonderful collection of documents about the ordinary lives of Londoners from the 16th to the 19th century. I recommend a browse, but only if you have time to spare!
Here I found an inquest from 1764, only one year before my book, about a duel, but an odd one. I'm pasting it without editing other than to insert paragraph breaks for easier reading. I've put in some observations in red.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
An Inquisition taken on View of the Body of Evan Jones lying Dead in the said Parish Liberty and County.
James Frith of May Fair (Son of James Frith Chandler ) on his Oath saith that he was taking a walk in Hyde Park in the Parish of St. George Hanover Square within the Liberty of Westmr. on Sunday last in the Afternoon between two and three O'Clock.
(Interesting time for a duel!)
Says that he heard a Noise which he took to be the report of a Pistol, and on looking round Deponent saw a Man drop down on his rightside and immediately after turned upon his Back on the Ground in the Wilderness in Hyde Park (at this point a large part of Hyde park was untamed countryside) aforesaid, at about twenty or thirty yards distance from Deponent.
Says that there was another Man standing at about twelve or fourteen yards distance from the Man that fell down at the time he dropt, Says that he immediately went to the Person thay lay on the Ground, and the other Man ran by Deponent, having three Pistols and two Swords in his Hands (This is a really odd image. Talk about being armed to the teeth!), and said that he was going for a Surgeon.
Says that another Person (whose Name Deponent knows not) came to Deced about the same time as he did, says that they lifted up the Deced on his Backside and the Deced then did spit much Blood. Says that he asked if he was Wounded (er, duh!), to which Deced replied that he was Wounded under the right Arm, but tha there had been no foul Play shown.
(Wounded under the right arm would presumably be because he was standing sideways, arm raised, prepared to fire.)
Deponent says that he believes the Wound was reced by a Bullet discharged from a Pistol by the other Man that want away, (whose Name Deponent knows not) but says that Deced did not mention his Name.
Deponent says that he afterwards found three Pistols and two Swords in a hollow tree in Hyde Park about one hundred and fifty yards distance from that Place, Says that the Person that came to the Deced first with him, took up another Pistol that lay on the Ground near the Deced, Says that two Gentleman come up to the Deced soon after and Deced desired one of them to send for Mr. Hawkins a Surgeon , says that the Gentleman immediately went.
Says that another Person brought a Post Chaise (which Deponent had seen before in Hyde Park ) into the
Wilderness and the Deced was put into it, and carried to St. George's Hospital near Hyde Park Corner , Says that he assisted the Deced into the House when he observed the Deced's Shirt to be very Bloody, Says that Deced was put into Bed, and Depont.left him there and went away, Deponent says that he saw no Person near the Deced when he fell, but the Man that ran away with the Swords & Pistols as above.
Richard Morris of the Navy Office Gentleman on his Oath saith that he has known the Deced several Years, that Deced sent for Deponent on Sunday Night last to come to him, says that he went to Deced who was in St. Georges Hospital on Monday Morning last, says that he found the Deced in Bed, very Bloody, Says that Deced was Sensible and that he informed Deponent that he had reced a Wound from Lieutenant Span in a Duel Says that Deced told him that there had been an old Quarrel between him and Lieutenant Span when they were on Board the Richmond Man of War, and that he (the Deced) had given the said Lieutenant Span some hard Words which occasioned this Duel.
Says that he asked Deced if he had any Second to which Deced replied that he had not, but that Lieutenant Span had one, and said that he (the Deced) had a Post Chaire ready to carry him off if he had killed the said Lieutenant Span, Deponent says that he asked Deced where he would have gone to which Deced Answered he could not tell, Deponent says that Deced was of a Quarrel some Disposition, and Deced informed Deponent that he has fought a Duel at Nova Scotia with a Lieutenant belonging to the Richmond Man of War, on Board of which Ship Deced had been Surgeon
R.M.
William Walker House Surgeon at St. George's Hospital on his Oath saith that about three O'Clock in the Afternoon on Sunday last the Deced was brought in a Post Chaise to said Hospital, Says that he observed the Deced was Wounded under the right Arm, Says that he immediately sent for Mr. Hawkins one of the Surgeons belonging to said Hospital, says that Mr. Hawkins soon after came there and Examined the Deced's Wound and laid it open, Says that Mr. Hawkins declared that one or more of the Deced's Ribs were broke
and took out several pieces of Bones, Says that proper care we taken of the Deced in said Hospital, says that Deced grew worse, and that Deced died in said Hospital on Monday Night last about Eleven O Clock,
Deponent says that he believes the Wound was reced by a Bullet entering in there, and is of Opinion that the Wound was the Occasion of the Death of the Deced.
W W.
The jury concluded "And so the Jurors aforesaid upon their Oath aforesaid do say, that the said Lieutenant Span him the said Evan Jones in manner and form aforesaid , feloniously did Kill and Slay, against the Peace of our said Lord the King his Crown and Dignity."
Richard Morris then prosecuted Span for the death. At this time, nearly all criminal cases needed to be brought by individuals.
As part of the evidence, a note was produced from Evans to Span "calling him out." The actual note can be seen here.
Feb. 4. 1764
I shall expect that you will meet me tomorrow, at any horn (hour) that you shall
appoint, with a brace of Pistols, either in Hyde Park , Green wick , or
mentioning two other places which I cannot recollect.
Directed to
Mr. Span
So Evans called him out, and specified weapons, so we aren't quite in the duelling code that came in later. I couldn't find anything at all about the trial, so I suspect it didn't happen. Duellists could be liable to prosecution, as could the seconds, but it rarely happened unless murderous intent could be proved. A quick search failed to find any criminal prosecution for a dueling death, though I've come across them.
In this case, Evans was the aggressor and he'd also had a chaise stand by in case he killed Span, so he'd had murderous intent. Also, he died. He also absolved Span of misdoing. "Deced replied that he was Wounded under the right Arm, but tha there had been no foul Play shown."There probably wouldn't have been much point in pursuing a case against Span.
A famous duel was fought in 1712 Lord Mohun and the Duke of Hamilton where both died. Hamilton mortally wounded Mohun, but was then killed by one of Mohun's seconds. Even wilder times.
There's an account of a duel on the lovely Number One London site.
It has this picture, which migh be a little similar to Evans and Span.
I did turn up a little extra on Span in "Some Selected Reports from Berrow's Worcester Journal, Thursday, February 16th, 1764"
Yesterday died, in St.George's Hospital, Mr. Evan Jones, late Surgeon of the Richmond Man of War, who was wounded on Sunday last in a Duel in Hyde Park, with Lieutenant Span of the Marines, who also received a Wound in each Thigh, though not dangerously.
From that I deduce that Evans had fired twice -- remember they were to have a brace of pistols. The swords would have been in case they wanted to continue with blades after firing both. Duels at this time could me pretty wild.
I'm not sure if at this time they would have fired pistols simultaneously, or taken turns, going first by the toss of a coin. This wasn't quite as alarming as it seems as pistols were very unreliable then. Also, according to the evidence, Span was "about twelve or fourteen yards distance from the Man that fell down" which is a fair distance with an old pistol.
But one way or another, Evans shot Span twice, and Span only made one pistol ball count, but fatally. I'b just speculating, but Span may have tried to avoid killing Evans, but having been injured in both legs, and with the possibility of sword play, decided to take serious aim. Interesting that Span could run away, though!
I love these little windows into the past, and they set up all kinds of speculation in my mind, not to mention story ideas!
What do you think of duels in romance novels? Do you see the participants as brave, even heroic, or stupid?
Can you think of any memorable duels in romances, ones that really served a story purpose?
Cheers,
Jo
Like many of the heroines in various romances which I enjoy, I find duels rather stupid. In Georgian times and later, this was really a matter of an odd form of "conspicuous consumption," a grand pose, and a thumbing of the law. None of which is intelligent or romantic.
Posted by: Sue Mccormick | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 03:40 AM
Fabulous blog, Jo, thank you for the information. I shall take a tea-break and browse of the websites you mention. Duels were a fact of life in Georgian times but like spice in cooking, they need to be used sparingly in novels to work well!
Posted by: Sarah Mallory | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 05:58 AM
I know they were a fact of life back then, but duels to me were just plain stupid, another way for man to kill each other. :( I don't think duels are anything to do with romance.
Posted by: Julie Wolf | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 06:07 AM
I find them brave, heroic and stupid. Brave because it takes guts to stand up and face an armed enemy, heroic if it arose from a desire to defend someone and make things right, and stupid because duelling is a stupid waste of life, often the wrong one, especially if it's drunken duelling for sport. We lost Alexande Hamilton in a duel, as I recall.
I thin Georgette Heyer did the best duelling scenes. They weren't for show, they were a last resort sort of thing, and they belonged in the story. I am thinking not only of meetings on the heath at dawn, but also fencing bouts like Lethbridge vs Rule -- one of the really good ones.
Duels also offer an opportunity for a bystander to do something stupid, or heroic, as Mary Challoner did.
Posted by: Janice | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 07:12 AM
I confess that when I read about some of the truly stupid lawsuits being initiated these days, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to revive dueling, sort of on the Darwin principle.
But that may be a bit too bloodthirsty.
Perhaps we could revive dueling but limit the weapons to custard pies.
Posted by: Jane O | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 07:47 AM
I cannot imagine intentionally knowing someone was going to shoot at me. I know you would need a lot of nerve, daring and a good deal of stupidity!
Posted by: Kat | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 09:43 AM
Jo here.
Sue, I'm not sure what you mean by conspicuous consumption, unless you mean the very expensive dueling pistols! As for heroines in novels, I'm not sure how women felt about dueling in the past. I'm sure many detested it, but probably some liked the warrior male concept.
I'm wondering what the difference is between a man who gets into an impulsive fight because he just isn't going put up with "it" anymore, including having someone call him a cheat, or insult a lady he admires. And the man who arranges to fight at a specific time.
I have the feeling that most readers admire the man ready to get into a fist fight, or even a knife fight, and I don't really see much difference between that and an arrangement to fight other than the latter gives time for tempers to cool. Which they often did.
Fatal duels were the exception, and despite the way they are usually shown in novels and on the screen, brawls can prove fatal.
I admire a man who can use his brain instead of his body to settle problems and deal with bullies.
Comments?
Jo
Posted by: Jo Beverley | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 10:41 AM
Sociological concept of saving face seems as relevant today as in the past. People who are involved in a conflict and secretly know they are wrong will often not admit that they are wrong because they don’t want to admit they made a mistake. They therefore continue the conflict, just to avoid the embarrassment of looking bad. It is important to allow one’s opponents to make concessions gracefully…to be the bigger person. Today I think the brainy guy is the Alpha male.
Posted by: Kat | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 12:09 PM
The two duels in romance novels that come immediately to mind is Rothgar's duel with Andrew Curry in the first chapter of Devilish and Tresham's duel that is interrupted by Jane Ingleby in Mary Balogh's More Than a Mistress. Both scenes serve multiple purposes in the story.
Posted by: Janga | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 12:21 PM
I like the duel that opens Devilish, too, especially for the scene that follows, where Rothgar dons his court finery so that the king may be reassured of Rothgar's health or upbraid him. Power and wealth yet duty.
There is also the senseless duel in Eugene Onegin that destroys the four lovers' happiness. May I count that story as a romance?
Posted by: Wynne | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Duels are often based on perceived insults to one's honor or in defense of someone else's. That the hero is willing to defend his honor could (should?) be seen as an admirable quality. However, like much else in life, it comes down to the fine print of how honor is defined and the potential consequences of the duel. I'm sure that there were people with hair-trigger tempers in the 18th C, just as they exist today, who had a very broad definition of what constituted insults to their honor.
In Elizabeth Hoyt's "The Serpent Prince" the hero's brother was tricked into a duel and left a grieving wife and young child. The hero has become a master duelist in order to get revenge on those people who, in his mind, murdered his brother. Is this admirable -- I loved the book but it's still an open question in my mind.
Posted by: Susan/DC | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 05:04 PM
Interesting that although pistols were notoriously incompetent during this era that both men managed to find ones in what one would have to consider perfect working order since they did hit their mark (though not necessarily accurately in one instance!)
Duels at times served their purpose and regardless of whether I agree with them or not, I'm not so sure they wouldn't still.
Posted by: theo | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 05:31 PM
I am sure some duels were fought for rather ridiculous, petty reasons, but the idea of defending one's honor (if it has truly been insulted) or defending the honor a lady (if her honor is worth defending) is very romantic to me. One of the appeals of the Georgian and Regency eras to me is the idea of personal honor. The idea that some things are dishonorable and therefore not to be done is sadly missing in our present age to some degree.
My father always told us the first person to raise his fist in an argument is the person who has run out of ideas. But he also said if someone takes a swing at you, defend yourself as quickly and efficiently as possible and walk away. Perhaps that is what a duel was in the 17th and 18th century.
Posted by: LouisaCornell | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 07:36 PM
Jo here. Jane, good point about stupid law suits. In addition, I think the leaders of countries should be in the front line of any battles they cause, as they used to be way back when!
Jo
Posted by: Jo Beverley | Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 11:54 PM
Susan, good point about hair-trigger tempers (a dueling reference, of course) and also the fact that a skilled swordsman could use dueling for malicious reasons. In the Malloren books it often comes up that Rothgar had all his younger half-brothers rigorously trained in sword fighting for that reason.
Theo, that's a very good point about this particular duel. They did make three shots count. Of course, we don't know where there were aiming! If Evans was aiming for the chest and hit the legs twice, he was way off. And Span might not have been aiming for a fatal spot.
Louisa, I strongly agree about honour. Many people do have pride in their honour today, but unfortunately they're often looked down on for not grabbing the dishonourable opportunity.
Jo
Posted by: Jo Beverley | Thursday, July 28, 2011 at 12:01 AM
I'm afraid I feel participating in a duel was rather stupid. I understand why they were fought, but often they were fought for such trivial reasons.
I read Jennifer Blake's series MASTER OS ARMS. The main characters are fencing instructors and there are plenty of duels throughout all six books. Great detail in her books on life in 1842s New Orleans. All very interesting. If I remember correctly, she gives the rules of the duel as well as good information on fencing. The stories do a good job of making clear the use and misuse of duels.
Thank you for an interesting post. Best of luck with the release of A SCANDALOUS COUNTESS next year.
Posted by: librarypat | Sunday, July 31, 2011 at 09:50 PM