 |
| 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
-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 |
 |
| Caricature of Paul de Cassagnac published in "Les Hommes d'aujourd'hui" 1878 |
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 |
 |
| 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