Sunday, February 23, 2020

Fighting a Duel in late 19th Century France - Jules Jacob’s 1887 treatise “Le jeu de l’epee”


Title page for "le Jeu de l'Epee" 1887

MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: Well! This Fencing Master seems to get under your skin. I'll soon show you how impertinent you are. (He has the foils brought and gives one to Nicole). There. Demonstration: The line of the body. When your opponent thrusts in quarte, you need only do this, and when they thrust in tierce, you need only do this. That is the way never to be killed, and isn't it fine to be assured of what one does, when fighting against someone? There, thrust at me a little, to see.
NICOLE: Well then, what? (Nicole thrusts, giving him several hits).
MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: Easy! Wait! Oh! Gently! Devil take the hussy!
NICOLE: You told me to thrust.
MONSIEUR JOURDAIN: Yes, but you thrust in tierce, before you thrust in quarte, and you didn't have the patience to let me parry.
From Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme by Molière (1670)


Oil painting "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme" by Charles Robert Leslie c.1841


Part 1 – The Authors and the Duelists

Dueling in France was on the rise in the latter part of the nineteenth century. Theodore Child, a well-known art critic and journalist residing in Paris wrote the book “The Praise of Paris” published in 1893. He included a chapter called “The Duellists”, where he described the French appetite for dueling.
“It is not to the credit of the French press, but it is a striking sign of the times, that while you seek in vain in the Parisian newspapers for three lines of honest criticism on a new book, you will find columns of letterpress devoted to the daily chronicle of the race-courses and the salles d’armes. Never has the art of fencing been taught in France with more science, and learned with greater avidity, than at the present day; and perhaps never since the times of Richelieu and the Fronde has duelling been more common in France.”
 
"Master, I must duel tomorrow, but I have never fenced. Teach me a secret thrust."
from "Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France" by Robert Nye

The Duel in France during the latter period remained unique in that the sword continued to be in common use for the encounters. By the mid-19th century most other countries usually employed pistols, or the entire practice of dueling had declined. There are several possible reasons for the continuance of the sword in France. The sword remained a badge of honor and the mark of a gentleman. The French preferred the skill involved in fighting with the sword rather than a gun. Perhaps also, as the pistol evolved in to a more accurate and therefor deadly weapon, the sword was preferred as a weapon that defended one’s honor, but did not have to be fatal. First blood was often the end of a duel, and a simple scratch on the arm might suffice to gain satisfaction and demonstrate the expertise with the weapon.

A Duel from Harper's Weekly 1875

As Mark Twain noted in his essay on dueling:
“This pastime is as common in Austria to-day as it is in France. But with this difference--that here in the Austrian states the duel is dangerous, while in France it is not. Here it is tragedy, in France it is comedy; here it is a solemnity, there it is monkeyshines; here the duelist risks his life, there he does not even risk his shirt. Here he fights with pistol or saber, in France with a hairpin--a blunt one. Here the desperately wounded man tries to walk to the hospital; there they paint the scratch so that they can find it again, lay the sufferer on a stretcher, and conduct him off the field with a band of music.”
-From  "Dueling," in Europe and Elsewhere by Mark Twain

Twain perhaps exaggerates the harmlessness of the duel in France. Serious injuries were recorded, such as in the 1886 duel between author Robert Caze and critic Charles Vignier. The inexperienced Caze ran on to Vignier’s blade. Caze was pierced through the liver, and died 6 weeks later.


The popularity of fencing in 19th century France rose and fell throughout the era. Following the Revolution, aristocratic pursuits, fencing included, were denounced by the French people. But after the disastrous Franco-Prussian war where France suffered humiliating defeats and loss of property, the people of France began to search for ways to reassert their honor and masculinity. Fencing and dueling helped to fill this desire. The sword had always been a symbol of honor and self-respect, teaching courage and manners. Men were eager to prove their bravery through the duel.
According to Robert Nye in his book "Masculinity and Male Codes of Honor in Modern France", there was a new demand for fencing salles and masters, seen both as a source of education and training for the duel.


The foil had been considered the training sword for the duel, but academic rules began to create a system based more on the elegant display of skill by restricting the target area and emphasizing form and etiquette. Some fencing masters decided to teach a more practical system for combat. This theory was featured by the fencing master Jules Jacob, who suggested there were two styles of fencing – the foil and the dueling sword, one for the fencing room and one for the outdoors where duels were fought. This was controversial at the time, the new method being perceived as ungentlemanly and crude.

The Authors: Jules Jacob & Emile Andre 
Jules Jacob

Jules Jacob (1842-1893) was a noted French master of arms and one of the foremost fencing masters to introduce this new system. He began his career as an assistant to Hippolyte Gatechair, a French fencing master and first president of the Academy of Arms in Paris (formed in 1886) who taught lessons in the dueling sword known as the ‘widow’s lesson’. Jacob founded a salle in the Faubourg Montmartre which attracted, among other amateurs, some of the most notorious political writers of his time. Later, he became a professor at the l'Ecole d'escrime française, rue Saint-Marc, where he taught dueling sword and foil. With the increase in the popularity of dueling his method was recognized for departing from sporting practices of the “jeu de fleuret”, to become a method applicable in the field or “jeu de terrain”. This caused rancorous debate among traditional foilists. Nevertheless, his students were known for their successful duels, and it was rumored that Jacob knew several botte secreta, or secret thrusts.
  
Emile Andre (1859-1943) was co-author of “le jeu de l’epee” with Jacob. He was a sports journalist and author of numerous books on fencing and other martial arts, including “The Tricks of the Duel for epee, pistol and saber” and “The art of defending on the street with or without arms”. He was one of the founders of the magazine "L'Escrime Francaise" and an editor of the newspaper “Le Voltaire”. Besides fencing, he practiced cane, savate and stick fighting.

The Duelists: Arthur Ranc, Paul de Cassagnac and Anatole de la Forge
  
The three men who endorsed the book in the preface were all prominent fin de siècle French journalists, politicians and (because of the two professions) active duelists. They praised Jacob for his method as a useful science for the duel.

Arthur Ranc


Caricature of Arthur Ranc published in
 "Le Trombinoscope de Touchatout" in 1873



Arthur Ranc (1831-1908) was a politician and writer with an education in law, generally supporting the leftwing anti-imperialist groups in France. He was arrested several times for conspiracy, and at one time was condemned to death.
He fought at the siege of Paris during the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71 and escaped the city in a balloon when Prussian forces captured the city.

An active contributor to the magazine La Republique francaise (a daily French newspaper), Ranc took part in the Dreyfus affair (a political scandal involving the French Republic from about 1894-1906), convinced of the innocence of Captain Dreyfuss.

 In the 1898 Picquart-Henry duel we was second to Colonel Picquart. In 1873 he fought a duel with Paul Cassagnac, and acted as a second to Georges Clemenceau. 


In addition to his purely political writings, Arthur Ranc published political novels.
In the preface Ranc begins by citing the example of a classic foilist against one of Jacob’s students. First they fenced traditional foil, where the foilist was far superior. Then he describes the match with the dueling sword.
“We started on guard. From the first engagement, the foil fencer was disoriented by attacks on the arm, leg, and head. He was not used to protecting these parts of the body; he did not think about it, and was touched five or six times in a row, before having succeeded in placing a button.”
He concludes that when fencers fight duels contesting like a foilist they were invariably beaten.

He cites some of the issues with traditional foil training used in a duel. An inexperienced swordsman may attack in any unexpected line by closing his eyes, and under these conditions there is no certainty in avoiding the attack. And even if a quick attack on your part works, if your opponent is not killed you will be unable to avoid a riposte. Ranc suggests that this game is nothing new and was known by the duelists of old.

Ranc concludes with this thought: “M. d'Alembert often said to me: ‘I strike at the wrist and riposte to the body.’ In one sentence it is the method of the field.”



Paul de Cassagnac
  Paul de Cassagnac (1842-1904) was a political journalist, a Bonapartist and a French duelist. As a foe of the Republic, he popularized the pejorative nickname La Gueuse (perhaps meaning a beggar or prostitute), referring to the supporters of the Republic. During his youth, de Cassagnac studied in Foix and Perpignan before going to Toulouse to study law. Attracted to journalism, he was employed at several newspapers and became involved in politics, which resulted in a number of duels.
Caricature of Paul de Cassagnac published in
 "Les Hommes d'aujourd'hui" 1878
One controversy earned him a duel in September 1868 against Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray, editor of The Future. Lissagaray received several wounds that incapacitated him for a month. Once recovered, he sent his witnesses back to Cassagnac to resume the affair. Cassaganac replied "No sir, I could consent to be your adversary, I hate to become your pork-butcher ..."
Though dueling in France was technically outlawed, the punishment if caught was generally lenient. For this duel, Cassagnac was sentenced to 6 days in prison and the 4 witnesses to a 50 francs fine.
He also dueled with another of Jacob’s supporters in the preface of the book, Arthur Ranc, in 1873 for their opposing political views.
He fought in the War of 1870 (Franco-Prussian War) and was taken prisoner after the battle of Sedan. Though supportive of the army and considered an anti-semite, during the Dreyfus affair he expressed doubts about the guilt of Captain Dreyfus.

In the preface de Cassagnac says of fencing that it has always consisted of first, not being touched, and then trying to touch. He prefers this teaching to the “purely material, physical, and almost beastly kind where we break foils right and wrong, mechanically and without realizing, most of the time, what we do!...What, then, was not my joy in finding…that classical, simple school, giving nothing to the unforeseen, the enemy of all fantasy, and which resolutely sacrificed the ambition of the touch of a button to the security of the parry.”

De Cassagnac says that the duel is a serious matter and it is important to know how to fight a duel. He adds that “Every father must henceforth put the sword in his son's hand, if only with that ulterior motive that the young man becomes a strong one, and he will be left alone.”

He complains of the complexity of fencing, and says “It is true that for a man who has never touched a sword, you, or any teacher, have only one lesson to teach him, one that allows him to get away with it in the best possible way. And that your responsibility would be terrible, if you gave him other counsel than that of extreme prudence.”



Anatole de La Forge
Anatole de La Forge (1820-1892) was a journalist, author and French politician. He began his career as a diplomat in Madrid. He left this position in 1848 to become a political journalist and editor of Le Siecle, a magazine favoring Republican ideals. During the War of 1870 he became a prefect of the National Defense, earning the name "defender of Saint-Quentin" for helping to repulse a column of Prussian soldiers who came to invade and occupy the city. On September 14, 1870, he was appointed Prefect of the Aisne, and in January 1871 prefect of the Basses-Pyrénées. In February 1871 he returned to journalism. De la Forge was a member of the Paris Seine from 1881 to 1889, where he was Deputy Speaker of the House.
Caricature of Anatole de la Forge published
in 
"Les Hommes d'aujourd'hui"
In his preface, de la Forge quotes Molière “The science of arms,” he says, “consists of giving and never receiving.” He says that having given this precept of Molière, Jacob’s students follow the formula.
De la Forge complains that fencing has become a business, and did not teach the serious encounter.
“Those who have learned to handle a sword do not forget that fencing is more than a simulacrum, more than recreation for the idlers of the salle.”
He congratulates Jacob on his method and his book, and considers, without too much paradox, that Jacob’s salle was the hall for the assembly of perpetual peace.


Next: PART II – Le Jeu de l’epee and The Code of Duelling

No comments:

Post a Comment