A friend of mine has a friend who teaches in a classics department at a university. On different campuses different kinds of progressive ideologies have more sway, and at this particular school the administration required the classics professor to document how he would help his students encounter “the other” in the time periods he studied.
This in itself is a worthy goal, for getting outside of the prejudices and perspectives of one’s own time is one of history’s great benefits. Like C.S. Lewis said about great literature, history can get one outside of oneself, and ultimately can prepare us for worship.
My friend’s friend made the argument that in studying the Greeks and Romans one studies “the other.” We need nothing else. Many aspects of their society make them very weird indeed to our current sensibilities. Anyone from ancient Greece or Rome would feel completely out of place in the modern world.
Alas that his argument held no sway with the administration.*
But we need not go back thousands of years to get at “the other.” Even certain aspects of European culture from just a few centuries ago would suffice. We inherited a great deal from the Enlightenment era, but even so, we could not imagine settling disagreements as they did.
I have dealt with the subject of dueling before, but wish to speculate on the connections between dueling, warfare, and ceremony.
Many unwritten rules governed duels, but eventually a man named Crow Ryan (perhaps a pseudonym?) codified them into the “Code Duello.” No need to review all 26 stipulations, but a few examples will help illustrate for us how they thought. First, the hierarchy of insults:
I. The first offence requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology, because he gave the first offence, and (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by subsequent apology.
II. But if the parties would rather fight on, then, after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first and A apologize afterwards.
N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offences in retort not of a stronger class than the example.
V. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore, are: The offender handing a cane to the injured party to be used on his back, at the same time begging pardon, firing until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots and then begging pardon without the proffer of the cane.
N.B. If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed, or until, after receiving a wound and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.
VI. If A gives B the lie and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offences), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each or a severe hit, after which B may beg A’s pardon for the blow, and then A may explain simply for the lie, because a blow is never allowable, and the offence of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rule.)
It seems obvious to me (someone correct me if I’m wrong) that the code prohibited “blows” because any Joe Six-Pack can use their fists. Fists then, would offer no opportunity to distinguish oneself as a gentleman. In addition, fists lack the deadly power of pistols or sabres. If we’re going to fight, let’s really fight and not play around as children. To use your fists on someone communicates to them that they are not “worth your sword.” The contest wouldn’t count because it would lack any real gravitas.
But I think that fists lacked the proper ceremony that helped legitimize dueling. The rituals of the duel gave the duel the power to confer status on the participants. We see an example of this ceremony from a scene in Barry Lyndon:
This short scene captures much:
- The setting for the duel serves the immediate purpose of being away from the law or other bystanders. But it also is a “genteel” spot that elevates the occasion.
- The seconds do their duty and attempt a reconciliation before the event.
- Once the apology was refused, they must fight. Though Captain Quinn looks as if he had second thoughts, he cannot back down now.
- Captain Quinn’s second accepts the results and even encourages the other to get away so as to avoid the police.**
The word for duel comes from the Latin “duo” and “bellum,”–a “two-person war,” shortened to “duel.” It should not surprise us that at the height of dueling, war itself had some of the same rituals.
Another scene from Barry Lyndon shows the ritual nature of battle to some extent. Neither side employs any strategy. They declare themselves plainly and come at each other simply and openly.
The first 1:30 of this next clip show the ritual nature of battle well:
In his magnificent The Centurions, Jean Larteguy has the character of Jacques Glatigny, who hails from an established French military family, muse on how things have changed during the French disaster at Dien Bien Phu:
Glatigny’s reaction [he has just been captured near Dien Bien Phu] was that of a regular officer; he could not believe that this “officer” squatting over him and smoking foul tobacco was, like him, a battalion commander with the same rank and responsibilities as his own.
Glatigny thought that his “opposite number” looked much like a peasant. His face was neither cruel nor intelligent but rather sly, patient, and attentive.
So this was one of the officers of the 308th Division, the best unit the Vietminh had; it was this peasant from the fields that had beaten him, Glatigny, the descendant of one of the great military dynasties of the West, for whom was was a profession. He looked at the Vietminh captain with some confusion. They had fought against each other on equal terms. Their heavy mortars were just as effective as French artillery, and the French air force had not been able to operate over the battlefield. They had fought hand-to-hand and the position had changed several times throughout the battle, but there remained neither respect, hatred, or even anything resembling interest on his inscrutable face.
The days when the victorious side presented arms to the vanquished garrison that had fought bravely were over. There was no room left for military chivalry. In the deadly world of Communism the vanquished was a culprit and reduced to the position of a man condemned by law.
Up to 1945 the principles of the old world still held. Second Lt. Glatigny was then in command of a platoon outside Karlruhe. He had taken a German major prisoner and brought him back to his squadron commander, of the same social class as himself. The commander had established his HQ in a forester’s cottage. They saluted and then introduced themselves. The captured major, after all, had fought gallantly himself and came from a vaunted division of the Wehrmacht.
The German and the Frenchman, completely at ease with one another, discussed where they might have fought against each other since 1939. To them it was of little consequence that one was the victor and one the loser, provided that they had observed the rules and fought bravely. They respected each other and became fast friends. The major drove the captured German to the prison in his personal Jeep and before departing, shook hands.
Democracies tend to eschew ceremony as elitist, and this has some truth to it. Ceremonies need presiding, and those that know how to conduct them must have some kind of training not available to all. But without ceremony we will have a hard time finding meaning in our military endeavors–or in general, for that matter. This perhaps sheds light on the current problem of the “War on Terror.” What are we doing, where are we doing it, how are we fighting, and to what end?
But one can have the opposite reaction. Many students who view the videos above see the actions of the army and the duelists as essentially meaningless. Two of the clips above come from Stanley Kubrick’s highly praised Barry Lyndon, and one might interpret the movie as an indictment of the meaningless nature of Lyndon’s life in pursuit of aristocratic status.
Maybe, maybe. But if we eschew one form of ceremony, we will need to replace it with something else, as nature abhors a vacuum.
*For the administration in question, the “other” had to be defined ethnically. The Greeks and Romans were “white.” This tendency of some progressives to label people primarily or almost exclusively by their gender and ethnicity is quite unfortunate and even dangerous, but that is another post.
**Those who have seen the movie know that this is not quite the whole story . . .