- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Sometimes it is worth considering the formal definition of a thing. This helps frame a subject around it's legal precedence, but also tells a little about how much an activity was thought about within elite intellectual circles. Anyway, the following quote is from an Italian cannon law treatise by Giovanni da Legnano in 1360 (link), which is the same source as I referenced in regards to Lombard judicial dueling laws in a previous post (link). It tells us what he considers to be the formal definition of a duel:
Legnano then goes further into the details about the legal philosophy underpinned the regulation of duels in each of these three cases. Which is kind of interesting, from an: "understanding how people organized logical arguments" standpoint, but it not particularly relevant to martial practices.
In this manner, we see that pretty early in history, the late 1300's, there was already a well defined legal construct around what was or wasn't a duel. I bring this up, just because most people probably associate the civilian practice of dueling with the late 1500's and early 1600's, but usually not that early.
Like most things, I don't believe that such definitions become recognized without a fair amount of actual physical participation. So things like this source, help us to understand that dueling must have existed in the late 1300's, which is the time frame around which most of the early formalism around the martial arts that we now study is thought to have occurred. Interestingly, Legnano believes that these forms of dueling should be illegal, as they involve killing or the risk of death, which is immoral. Still, you don't need to write a thesis about things that didn't exist, so it helps us conceptualize that period.
* Compurgation, def: acquittal from a charge or accusation
"I say that a duel is a corporeal fight between two persons, deliberate on both sides, designed for
- compurgation,*
- glory,
- or exaggeration of hatred.
I said a "fight." This is the genus to which it belongs. I said "deliberate on both sides." This distinguishes it from a fight in necessary self-defense. For in a fight of that kind there is ordinarily no deliberation on the part of the attacked, but only on the part of the attacker, or on the part of neither. But in a duel there is deliberation on both sides. I said "between two persons," because a fight is then properly called a duel, following the etymology of the word. "A fight between two persons" to distinguish it from contracts formed between two person by mutual agreement of the parties. And I said "corporeal," to distinguish it from a judicial fight, which also takes place between two persons as plaintiff and defendant. For there the contest is not fought by the strength of the body, but by the laws. I said "designed for compurgation, glory, or exaggeration of hatred"; for this touches the end, and indicates the kinds of duel, as follows below. This, then, concludes the description of the genus of duel.
..., it must be noted that the duel, above described, is regard generally, and, as I suggested at the end of the description, the kinds of duel are indicated by the words placed at the end; for there are three kinds of duel. For a duel is fought either for exaggeration of hatred, or to win public glory by the strength of the body, or for the compurgation of some accusation brought.
How a duel is fought for exaggeration of hatred.
It is fought then for exaggeration of hatred, when men are induced by mere hatred, natural in its origin, and of that singular naturalness which natural philosophers call the "specific form," to exterminate one another. And I do not find that this duel is regulated by legal rules; but it springs from natural first principles, as I shall a once show, and because it is approved by sensual experience.
How a duel is fought to win public glory
It is fought, secondly, to win public glory, as in public spectacles, when two men prove their bodily strength in various ways. I find that this form of duel is regulated by both civil and canon law.
How a duel fought for the compurgation of an accusation.
It is also fought, thirdly, for compurgation; that is to say, when an accusation is laid on a person, and the party challenging to the proof, either with or without other proofs, offers to prove it by his bodily strength, and a duel is fought, and the person challenged "purges" himself in this way. And this also is regulated by law."
Legnano then goes further into the details about the legal philosophy underpinned the regulation of duels in each of these three cases. Which is kind of interesting, from an: "understanding how people organized logical arguments" standpoint, but it not particularly relevant to martial practices.
In this manner, we see that pretty early in history, the late 1300's, there was already a well defined legal construct around what was or wasn't a duel. I bring this up, just because most people probably associate the civilian practice of dueling with the late 1500's and early 1600's, but usually not that early.
Like most things, I don't believe that such definitions become recognized without a fair amount of actual physical participation. So things like this source, help us to understand that dueling must have existed in the late 1300's, which is the time frame around which most of the early formalism around the martial arts that we now study is thought to have occurred. Interestingly, Legnano believes that these forms of dueling should be illegal, as they involve killing or the risk of death, which is immoral. Still, you don't need to write a thesis about things that didn't exist, so it helps us conceptualize that period.
* Compurgation, def: acquittal from a charge or accusation
Comments
Post a Comment