Honor Codes in Modern France A Historical Anthropology Robert A. Nye

Nye, Robert A. 1991: Honor Codes in Modern France. A Historical Anthropology. - Ethnologia Europaea 21: 5-17.

Historians have traditionally considered codes of honor as creations of the old regime that did not prosper in modern indu strialized society, surviving , at best, as cultural anachroni ms in a vestigia l aristocracy. Anthropologists, on the other harid, bave found ample evidence of honor culture in contemporary Medlterra­ n an societie., which sugge ·ts some continuity with the old regime . This paper investig ates the l1istorical transmission of codes of honor from noble to boul'geois culture in the form of the point cl'honn(Jltr governing the due.I. This feature ()f male honorability flourished in France at least until World War One.

Robert A. Nye, Professor of History, Depa.rt.ment of History , 455 West Lindsey , Room 406, The Uniuersity of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019 USA.

My aim here is to provide an account of the and hierarchical social order of the old regime way that male codes of honor have worked to transformed into components of urban, com­ shape and reflect male identity and ideals of mercial, bourgeois civilization? The assump­ masculine behavior in modern France. It is my tion that informs this question is that honor assumption that masculinity, like most human codes survived the abolition of feudalism and traits, is primarily a cultural construction that the birth of a new political order in 1789. While changes over time, not an "essential" or "natu­ they did not survive the Revolution with all ral" feature of men. I acknowledge the dis­ their forms and functions intact, codes of honor tinction, therefore, between "sex" and "gender" helped shape the behavior and ideals of upper 1 as an analytically useful one to the historian . and middle-class French men well into the An important corollary of this assumption is twentieth century. I am particularly interested the recognition that within these "sex/gender" here in the duel, which was governed, both in systems masculinity and femininity are de­ the old regime and the post-Revolutionary era, fined conceptually in terms of one another, in by the rules of the so-called point d'honneur. It 2 the manner of a binary opposition • This fea­ is my contention that dueling rituals were an ture of sex/gender systems means that individ­ intrinsic part of the prevalent male honor code uals in a society governed by such a system will and may thus provide important insights into usually define the "other" sex in either "oppo­ the scope and function of those codes in histor­ site" or "complementary" terms. Changes in ical societies. the meaning of one term will therefore provoke Anthropologists have long recognized the adjustments in the other, producing moments role of such codes in their treatments of Medi­ of crisis and cultural negotiation of interest to terranean societies regulated by "honor and the historian. The focus of this paper is on shame" (Campbell 1964; Gilmore 1987; Pitt­ masculinity, but, as we shall see, a reciprocal Rivers 1961). The functions of honor and femininity is seldom far from view as an ac­ shame are many, but they operate primarily to tively influential aspect of masculine "nature". regulate the relations between the sexes, fam­ The question I wish to pose is how were codes ilies, and clans, to distribute prestige (and of honor that were fashioned in the martial therefore status) among them, and, finally, to

5 + promote social cohesion through the "shaming" stant challenge, and produces keen feelings of of individuals who forfeit their honor by failing vulnerability in men. to respond when it is challenged (Gilmore I do not wish to argue here that one may 1987; Ortner and Whitehead 1981: 1-27). On directly apply the anthropological concepts of the more positive side, Pitt-Rivers has argued "honor and shame" to an understanding of his­ that honor provides "a nexus between the torical societies in which honor codes played an ideals of a society and their reproduction in the important role; these modern Mediterranean individual through his aspiration to personify societies and the codes that regulate them are them" (Pitt-Rivers 1977: 36; Campbell 1964 : themselves the product of a long historical evo­ 274--91). lution4. But there are some features of these In "honor and shame" societies, men are the concepts that I believe offer rich interpretive "active" and women the "passive" principle. possibilities to the historian. The chief benefit Both sexes are attributed a measure of honor may be that since honor provides a crucial con­ at adolescence, but women's honor is primarily nection between sexual and social identity, the sexual in nature and consists first of her vir­ historian may get a better fix on how men have ginity and later her strict marital fidelity. related to and judged other men and on male­ Women can only lose their honor, but men are female relations, because a single system of permitted to accrue to their honor in the "pub­ honor regulates both. I rely on the fact that in lic" realm by seeking glory and distinction. these "honor-shame" systems , rules of be­ Men, however, may also lose their honor in a havior, sanctions, and rewards must be public variety of ways, suffering a kind of "annihila­ to be effective; they are thus visible to all, in­ tion" and social death. They might act in a cluding the historian (Speier 1969: 37-9; Pitt­ cowardly or fearful manner, commit civil Rivers 1968: 510). crimes, break a betrothal, engage in unpro­ If we now have a general idea how honor voked violence, or fail to oversee and protect works, we yet need to understand how honor the honor of the women of their family. This codes evolved historically in early modern list is only partial, and the extraordinary sub­ France up to 1789, when the modern history of tlety of the discriminations in attributions these codes begins. The etymological dictio­ of honor and shame may only be suggested naries give us an excellence sense of the here . changes of meaning in "honor" over the sweep For my purposes it is of particular interest of the centuries. In the era prior to the fif­ that the honorable man aspires to a manliness teenth century, "honneur", in its ancient spell­ that "subsumes both shame and masculinity" ing, signified the feudal possessions, fiefs or (Peristiany 1961: 22). A man's masculine benefices possessed by a noble man. The rever­ sexual identity, and, by implication, his sexual ence or respect he enjoyed in the world de­ behavior, is thus a key element in his social pended on these "marks and attributes of his identity as a man of honor and legitimizes his dignity" (Godefroy 1885: 224--5). A man's wife claims to the worldly honors he may have won. was one of these possessions, and the term A man whose wife cuckolds him is assumed to appears to have acknowledged her only in that be lacking the usual marital authority because capacity . he is in some sense deficient as a man. Various By the Sixteenth century the term attaches insults in rural Andalusia locate willpower in more closely to the noble individual himself, to the genitals, and there is a widespread fear in his reputation, beauty, and personal character. 3 "honor and shame" societies of impotence . Ef­ It was a "natural" quality of noblesse, however, feminacy is deplored, and is invariably linked because it slipped away from those who sought to cowardice, both of which are incompatible it, while adhering to those who appeared least with masculine honor. The irony of male au­ concerned with it (Huguet 1980: 497-8). By thority in such societies is that the consider­ this time the words "honte" and "honteux" able power males possess by virtue of their have developed from the same root, meaning, masculinity is of a fragile sort, is open to con- essentially, "modest" or "chaste" and applying,

6 5 in this form , to women as individuals for the or elsewhere . We must instead consider the first time. It is clear that honneur/honte have likelihood that honor was transformed to suit not yet been organized as a binary . The Littre the needs and functions of the new social order, of 1863, drawing its examples from the seven­ while exerting, as a body of beliefs and prac­ teenth and eighteenth centuries, recognizes tices, an influence over its possessors that en­ "honor" as applying wholly to personal charac­ sured the vitality of much of its traditional teristics, including virtue, courage, and the de­ ethos. sire for distinction, terms reflecting aristo­ Honor was the most important concept to cratic preoccupations . The point d'honneur, have survived the decline of medieval chivalry which governed personal combat, resolved dis­ in the fifteenth century. Chivalry emphasized putes pertaining to the possession of these military valor and courage to a high degree, qualities. The obligation for a man to defend a but it also cherished virtue, which comprised woman's chastity is maintained, and "honor" charity and protection of the weak (including and "shame" have now become a binary , the women). Indeed, all these qualities were privi­ latter meaning "dishonor", "humiliation", or leged over noble birth, because the chivalrous the fear of that condition, and applying now to man did not rest on his laurels but acted in­ men as well as women (Littre 1863: 2040-5). cessantly in behalf of honor (Keen 1984: 249- Modern usages drawn from the period after 53). The foremost practices of honor, where 1800 acknowledge decisively the rise of bour­ honorable behavior was ritualized and drama­ geois society. Honor now refers to the "senti­ tized for the edification of all, were the tourna­ ment one has of one's moral dignity as it de­ ment, which replaced the bloody melee in the pends on the consideration of others", and fourteenth century, the various ordeals , in­ usages denoting notions of contractural or per­ cluding trial by battle, and the elaborate eti­ sonal integrity now fall within the range of the quette of courtly love . term: thus, "parole d'honneur" dates from There is a considerable historical literature 1806, and "sur l'honneur" from 1835 (Grand devoted to these practices and their influence Larousse 1973: 2449-2450) . "Honte" is not on the primacy of honor. Keen appears to favor simply the mere absence of honor, its negation, the tournament as the primary influence, but but a quality in itself inviting "disdain, scorn, most commentators prefer to focus on the duel mockery, dishonor ... indignation". It is a "bit­ judiciaire as the ur-ritual in the emergence of ter sentiment of weakness, indignity, baseness the concept of personal honor (Morel 1964; according to one's own conscience and in the Kiernan 1988; Billacois 1986) . The so-called eyes of others". "ordeal by battle" was a literal judgement of There are several themes of interest here. guilt or innocence in a matter of difference First, the etymological evolution reveals that between two noble individuals. It was highly honor became an increasingly important fea­ ritualized, often presided over by prince or ture of individual identity. Secondly, the con­ monarch, and was initially favored by the tent of honor became more clearly moralistic in church as a secular representation of divine nature without altogether breaking its ties justice . Unless the monarch intervened, such with the martial virtues of strength and cour­ combats were usually to the death, with the age. Thirdly, the male members of the bour­ presumption of innocence falling to the victor, geoisie have gained the capacity to possess no matter how weak his case or how much honor, and to lose it, though this privilege is stronger his skill at arms. still denied to women. It is my argument here Resistance by the church to the trial by or­ that the history of these usages argues deal, and a growing sensitivity to its contradic­ strongly against the notion that honor in the tions gradually ended the public legal status of modern world is merely a survival of the old such proceedings in the fifteenth century. But regime, and that it weakened gradually in the in France the combats themselves persisted as nineteenth century as the power and numbers private duels of honor presided over by the of the aristocracy declined, whether in France King, not in his capacity as first magistrate,

7 ft: but as first gentleman of the realm. These com­ moments of personal insult or self-aggrandize­ bats were apparently as bloody as before, but ment. The importance attached to such inci­ they differed in recognizing no winners or dents was, in turn, simply one expression of a losers, attributing no innocence or guilt. In­ general tendency to weight moments of action stead, such occasions put a premium on a dis­ - personal arguments, triumph in battle, and play of valor and prowess in weapons; the blood other incidents of honor and shame - as the that was shed was said to "wash" the stain of building blocks of political life" (Neuschel 1989: an affront from the insulted man, and the 18). charge of having lied from his accuser. In the Both Billacois and Neuschel emphasize the last of such bastard combats presided over by a fact that in this largely oral culture, gestures, French monarch, that of the sieurs Jarnac and formulas of polite expression, and active dis­ La Chataigneraye in 1547, the latter was plays of generosity and hospitality were bur­ killed, but was judged to have preserved his dened with such a heavy political significance 6 honor (Billacois 1986: 89) • that no action escaped scrutiny and no affront, For the balance of the sixteenth century, and real or imagined, went unchallenged (Neuschel until the reign of Louis XIV began, the duel 1989: 197-208; Billacois 1986: 218-9). Political became what Billacois has called (borrowing alliances, even those reinforced by the solidar­ the phrase from Marcel Mauss) a "total social ity of co-religionnaires, foundered with ridicu­ phenomenon": an institution, a criterion of so­ lous ease, and duels between gentlemen be­ cial differentiation, a political manifestation, came universal. an esthetic, and a desacralized religious ritual The situation was further complicated by the (Billacois 1986: 7). It was a kind of "touch­ campaign of the French crown to limit the po­ stone" which expressed the multiple significa­ litical and juridical authority of the regional tions of the system of honor that regulated nobility, a campaign that reached a successful social relations and distributed power within conclusion only in the reign of Louis XIV. -the French nobility. This phenomenon coin­ Richelieu and his successors issued a series of cided with the religious civil wars, which di­ edicts punishing the duel, which they rightly vided Protestant and Catholic nobles, and with took to be an expression of the nobles' symbolic a rapid period of growth in the centralized flouting of the crown's claim to a monopoly of 7 monarchy, which promoted further cleavages violence . These were largely ignored, despite by pitting aristocratic clients of the King the willingness of the crown to carry out the against defenders of regional or local au­ death sentence. Billacois explains aristocratic tonomy. attachment to the duel in the face of this re­ The grid of personal loyalties that developed pression as a contradiction between the "situa­ in this era was predictably complicated and tion" of the nobles, who were at the summit of unstable, and alliances were unusually ephem­ society, "but who felt themselves to be strang­ eral. Kristen Neuschel has argued convinc­ ers there. The recourse to the duel was thus for ingly that the system of honor that under­ them a return to a state of nature, a nature girded these alliances made of each man a that was both edenic and conflict-ridden ... " power unto himself, so that any claim to politi­ (Billacois 1986: 209). cal autonomy was made "by virtue of their Though illegal, the duel was not uniformly personal identity" (Neuschel 1989: 15-7). If prosecuted and pardons were frequent. Esti­ one man swore loyalty to the cause of another, mates of duels and dueling fatalities are thus his steadfastness was dependent not so much educated guesses pieced together from contem­ on the fortunes of the other's cause, or his skill porary observations. The highest figures sug­ as a leader, as on his patron's formal and per­ gest as many as 10,000 deaths occurred be­ sonal demonstrations of gratitude and appre­ tween 1589-1610 in affairs of honor (Billacois ciations of his client's dignity and independ­ 1986: 114-22). By the seventeenth century ence. In her words, "Some of the events of great there were a number of printed dueling codes significance to nobles were seemingly trivial and a body of accepted procedures for regu-

8 lating duels that participants believed to have the grandeur of the classical republic and the the force of law . Transgressions of these codes virtuous bourgeois, "who was a worker and became the source of challenges by interested useful to the nation " (Pappas 1982: 35). Rous­ parties who regarded themselves to be enforc­ seau became the spokesman for and the per­ ing a legal right. The crown reinforced this sonal exemplar of virtue in the last quarter of belief in turn by only prosecuting those who the century. Under the aegis of Jean-Jacques, violated the "law" of the point d'honneur (Cue­ the concept of virtue took on a moralizing sig­ nin 1982: 30, 60). nification, the better to contrast it with the Though a nobleman who engaged in a duel heartless and licentious personal behavior of was defending his personal identity, his claims kings and aristocrats (Blum 1986: 25-7). A to independence, he was simultaneously de­ chief complaint of those attracted to this out­ fending a collective monopoly of his class. The look was the "scandal" of the point d'honneur, duel operated effectively as a barrier to social which was "regarded by enlightened spirits as intrusions from below, at least until the eigh­ one of the worst running sores of feodalite ... " teenth century. But the criterion for entitle­ (Kelly 1980: 241; Pappas 1982: 38-40; Kiernan ment to duel was not simply noble race. Nobles 1988: 155-171). themselves rarely insisted on this criterion; Despite this apparently one-sided rhetoric on they stressed instead the requisite qualities of honor and the duel, most rich bourgeois character, life-long familiarity with arms and seemed bent on living nobly. They abandoned military service (Schalk 1986: xiv). Bourgeois "dishonorable" trades, bought fiefdoms and en­ commentary on the duel wavered between a nobling offices, and they (or their sons) took up putative disgust and open fascination. The the sword and the responsibilities this entailed mentalite of bourgeois jurists disposed them to (Lucas 1976). The dueling rate had certainly applaud any trend toward less bloody combats, declined from its height in the first third of the and to exploit the growing legalism of the duel seventeenth century, but there is evidence as a means of bringing it under state control. that the practice was ramifying within the Billacois argues that Pascal's disgust at the non-noble elite and even spreading to lower bloody prodigality of the duel is further proof of domains (Kelly 1980 : 240; Cuenin 1982: this mentalite, since he was, "In the middle 227-40; Billacois 1986: 243-45) . It seems clear class manner , in favor of economies and op­ that social promotion and the acquisition of posed to all waste" (Billacois 1986: 239) . honor were closely related in an era when the By the eighteenth century there existed crown was unusually dependent on the sale of fully articulated rival aristocratic and bour­ patents of nobility and ennobling offices for its geois discourses that celebrated and con­ income. demned the duel and the system of honor of In the last decades of the century there was which it was the symbol. Montesquieu was the a more or less concerted effort to find a legal principal apologist for an aristocratic monar­ definition that would distinguish noble from chy in which "Honor sets in motion all the non-noble, in order to preserve the rights and parts of the political system; it links them privileges that much of the elite perceived to be through its action so that each contributes to under attack. Ironically, robe nobles, partic­ the common good, while believing to follow his ularly those in the magistracy or the parle­ particular interests" (Montesquieu 1973 vol I: ments, were often the most vigorous in behalf 32). By pursuing glory in war, seeking offices of this cause. They argued for a reversal of the and preferences in peace, and defending per­ traditional formula in which virtue achieved sonal honor in private life, the nobleman both nobility, so that nobility, particularly inherited animated the state and regulated the civil so­ nobility, brought virtue, not the other way ciety of the old regime. around (Schalk 1986: 117). This strategy had It was customary for bourgeois critics of the the disadvantage, however, of making honor feudal order to oppose the idea of honor to that more vulnerable to attacks from proponents of of virtue, which evoked for many of them both virtue . In the radical phase of the French Revo-

9 lution it was commonplace for writers like Renaissance reveals a historical advance of the Mercier to contrast the principle of "public vir­ "threshhold of shame", in that readers are en­ tue" with the "feudal concept of honor", or for joined to behave at table more decorously, con­ Robespierre to proclaim a new regime "where fine spitting and nose-blowing to private mo­ distinctions arise only from equality itself. In ments, and speak in polite formulas designed our country, we wish to substitute morality for to put companions at ease (Elias 1978: 84- egoism, probity for honor, principles for con­ 160). ventions, duties for propriety, the role of rea­ Elias explains the advance of this shame son for the tyranny of fashion " (Blum 1986: threshhold as a product of enhanced "drive­ 144; Hampson in Foot 1973 : 209 and Lucas control" in individuals whose social aspirations 1988: 134-6). required them to adjust their behavior to the Shifts in discourse of this suddenness have standards of "good" society. This desire for dis­ been offered as proof that the French Revolu­ tinction also operated socially by propelling the tion reflected (or produced) decisive historical uppermost aristocratic layers of society to ruptures in cultural systems and the meanings higher and higher levels ofrefinement in man­ of their linguistic constituents. This is a posi­ ners in order to separate themselves from the tion often identified with Michel Foucault, who vulgar layers beneath. The latter historical has done studies that date important epistem­ stages of this process took place in court so­ ological breaks at the Revolution - The Birth of ciety, Elias argues, where leisured nobles com­ the Clinic and Discipline and Punish. Th e peted for preferences from all-powerful mon­ Birth of the Prison (Nye 1984: 10-15). The fact archs (Elias 1983). The model, of course, for that dueling virtually disappeared during the this court society was the Versailles of the "sun decade of the 1790's lends even greater cre­ king", who had forced the once-rebellious dence to the notion that the Revolution erased French nobility into orbits that obeyed the the aristocratic ideal of honor and replaced it laws of his own gravitational field . with a Robespierrist concept of austere politi­ This state-building process was a crucial cal virtue (Kelly 1980: 251-253; Best 1980: stage in the evolution of the sentiment of 18-36). But neither the duel nor honor dis­ shame, which first arose, according to Elias, as appeared. Both underwent changes that a natural human response to the persistent adapted them more smoothly to the require­ threat of physical violence common in pre-mod­ ments of bourgeois society. These changes, ern societies . Honor might have been the name moreover, had long been underway in France; given to the efforts men made to defend them­ the Revolution simply gave them an institu­ selves and keep shame at bay. As the state tional and legal environment in which they gained a monopoly on the exercise of violence, could prosper. the diminished threat to personal security en­ It will be helpful at this point to consider the couraged the internalization of shame, so that historical evolution of bourgeois sensibility in violent impulses were progressively regulated broad perspective. A very useful starting-place and repressed by a social superego rather than is Norbert Elias ' remarkable The Civilizing exploding in bloody rituals, executions , perso­ Process. Elias' masterwork is an ambitious ef~ nal combat, and the like (Elias 1982: 292-300). fort to apply the phylogenetic "law" of evolu­ The bourgeoisie acquired its distinctive sen­ tionary biology to an account of European so­ sibility as a consequence of two things. First, cial evolution since the late middle ages. The out of a desire for social advancement bour­ relentlessly deterministic qualities of Elias' geois individuals emulated the manners and work are not to everyone's taste, but it offers a comportment of the aristocratic strata within schematic picture of the interaction between the scope of their ambition. They thus con­ social and psychic structures that stresses the tributed to the upward spiral of refinement in importance of codes of politeness and courtesy. manners until the Revolution destroyed the Elias maintains that an analysis of handbooks court and hence the motor for the whole pro­ on courtesy and manners published since the cess. Elias holds it was this historical interpen-

10 etration that made the French bourgeoisie cause this tradition, for one , had never truly unique, because it allowed them to continue died (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983). The sec­ "the models, the drive-patterns, and the forms ond process, which encouraged members of the of conduct of the courtly phase more undeviat­ bourgeoisie to place a high premium on self­ ingly than any other bourgeois class in Eu­ control and the regulation of instinct, helped rope" (Elias 1982: 319). make bourgeois sociability unusually tense Elias lays great stress on the assimilation of and complicated, notwithstanding the gener­ aristocratic manners by bourgeois milieux. He ally democratic attitude that prevailed toward does, however, acknowledge a second mecha­ participation in its rituals. nism that distinguishes them from the nob­ There are two things the historian encoun­ lesse, and which divides their social world up ters on examining the forms of male bourgeois into separate "professional" and "private" social relations. First, codes of honor had a spheres. As he explains it: clear impact on the forms of politesse observed by upper class men in settings varying from "In courtly society, and partly in English so­ the public arena of politics to the private social ciety too, this division of human existence into circle. Secondly, honor codes provided the professional and private spheres does not exist. usages to follow when conflicts arose between As the split becomes more general a new phase men over breaches of polite form or more seri­ begins in the civilizing process; the pattern of ous matters. The duel that sometimes resulted drive control that professional work necessi­ played a complex role in male society, serving tates is distinct in many respects from that as exemplum, a symbol of solidarity, and as a imposed by the function of courtier and the marker on the boundaries of social cleavages. game of courtly life. The exertion required by Evaluations of honorability allowed bourgeois the maintenance of bourgeois social existence, men to discipline the unscrupulous or the way­ the stability of the super-ego functions, the ward and present a solid image to their clients intensity of the drive control and drive-trans­ and to the rest of respectable society. formation demanded by bourgeois professional In all these matters the criterion of honor­ and commercial functions, are in sum consid­ ability played both an inclusive and exclusion­ erably greater, despite a certain relaxation in ary role . The presumption of honor allowed a in the sphere of social manners, than the corre­ man full relations of equality with his peers, sponding social personality structure required but there were formidable barriers placed in by the life of a courtly aristocrat" (Elias 1982: the path of a man who was judged to be with­ 307). out this quality, either on account of his hum­ ble social origins or, worse, through having 8 This is, in general, a very useful analysis of the forfeited his honor in shameful acts . A man in French bourgeoisie because it recognizes that this latter condition, a jurist wrote in 1890, two overlapping processes were at work in might "survive yet physically, to his discredit, shaping the mentalite of its members. The first but he exists no longer for society, because that of these may have generated the nostalgia for society will have no dealings with him in the the manners and usages of an aristocratic way future , nor ask him to do anything of a produc­ of life that has continued to stir the imagina­ tive nature" (Worms 1890: 146). tion of a substantial portion of the French mid­ It is hardly necessary to say that the crite­ dle classes since the Revolution. Since dueling rion of honor utterly excluded women from all and the point d'honneur were a firmly-estab­ of these venues; for most of the nineteenth lished tradition of the old regime nobility, their century they were barred from the [all-male] later emulation by middle-class men should professions, the [all-male] clubs and organiza­ not surprise us. Thus the growth of interest in tions, and, for a longer period, from the arena the duel in the second half of the nineteenth of political life, where public utterances were century does not exactly meet the criterion of credible only to the extent that a man was A. J. Hobsbawm's "invention of tradition", be- willing to physically defend them against chal-

11 b lenge. A woman could not trade on her private process consisting of successive judgements sexual honor to gain a foothold in the sphere of that men made about themselves and others in public life. Though a sexual misstep might tar­ light of consistency of behavior. One con­ nish her social reputation, it was the honor of a sidered whether or not actions corresponded to woman's husband or father that was damaged stated intentions or expectations, and weighed by her indiscretions. this in turn against one's situation in the In the world of bourgeois sociability, a re­ world. Sincerity, candor [franchise], and markable continuum existed between honor­ loyalty [loyaute] were thus the measures of ability and the deceptive rigors of male poli­ men's honor, and these were measured in tesse. Maurice Agulhon has written that the words and deeds, for which good form was a new bourgeois cercle "opposed itself to the convenient if occasionally misleading short­ [aristocratic] salon as a new form of purely hand (Worms 1890: 15-17; Terraillon 1912; masculine sociability against a sociability that Barthou 1923: 52). There was, in this impor­ included both men and women" (Agulhon tant respect, a remarkable similarity in the 1977: 52). The bourgeois "circle" proliferated in evaluations of honor men made about one an­ Paris and the provinces during the Restora­ other in the old regime and in the modern era. tion, offering upper-middle class men a setting Inevitably, men were judged by other men to for discreet conversation, reading, and light have departed in some way from behavior that recreation. The forms of politeness observed in was expected of them. If such a judgement was such settings were in keeping with the social made in public, even if it took the form of an egalitarianism of the new regime. A leading observation rather than a rebuke, the man manual of the era proclaimed that in social life, under scrutiny might have felt his honor had "all men are equal, as in the first article of the been put in question. He then had three civil code" (Raisson 1853: 41; Emeric 1821: 23). choices: he might ignore his "accuser", thereby A condition for being admitted to this realm risking being judged a coward, a man without of equality was mastery of a quality of man­ honor; he might call his accuser a "liar", an ners beyond the attainments of the masses, insult that impugned the accuser's honor, thus but a typical statute for one of these circles also transferring the decision to take more drastic insisted that admission be contingent on a action to the latter; or he might simply send his man's prior "honorable existence" and on his card [cartel] or his seconds [temoins], demand­ 0 willingness to abide by a "most rigorous poli­ ing satisfaction from his antagonist in a dueF . tesse which excludes injurious remarks having The modern duel, as in the old regime, was the object of wounding the self-esteem or repu­ thus a natural extension of the received forms tation of someone" (Agulhon 1977: 40-43). governing polite male society; it adjudicated Thus, the use of respectful forms of address, a disputes arising from breaches of these forms, care in avoiding certain inflammatory topics, and "saved" the honor of men who obeyed its and sensitivity to another man's personal dig­ rules and acted with courage and sang-froid. nity were the ways bourgeois men affirmed Arguing from mostly British sources, Michael their own honorable behavior and acknowled­ Curtin has noted that in the era around 1800 9 ged the honor of other men • "etiquette" books replaced the older tradition of The emphasis placed here on politeness and "courtesy" books as primers for the upwardly good form appears to disregard the content of mobile. In the older genre, aimed largely at honor, the aspects of character that, after all, masculine readers, "individuals were con­ made a man honorable. But to look for certain sidered volatile, not vulnerable", while the new intrinsic qualities in the honorable man is to genre addressed female audiences, and dealt miss the point that attributions of honor were primarily with domestic arrangements and the made about men on the basis of public actions comportment ofladies (Curtin 1985: 420-422). that could be squared with previous observa­ Etiquette books appeared in France at about tions. Honor was not an ontological essence the same time, but the tradition of courtesy men possessed by nature; it was attributed in a books was vigorously maintained in the form of

12 dueling manuals, suggesting that the lines be­ must qualify by any measure as a violent en­ tween male and female society were more counter. sharply drawn there than in England. More­ The bourgeois nature of the modern duel is over, the English duel expired in the 1840's, apparent also from its highly legalistic quality. leaving Englishmen only the courts as a reme­ Though the duel was not illegal under statu­ dy for personal satisfaction (Simpson 1988). tory law, there was a considerable nineteenth­ l One cannot, however, treat the continuation century jurisprudence which punished duelers f of the duel in France as a "survival" tout court, who violated the "laws" of the duel by acts of an "adventitious prop" for an aristocracy out of "disloyalty" or "treachery". The trials that re­ the mainstream of modern life (Kiernan 1988: sulted when this occurred clearly reveal that 261). Dueling was democratized in the course dueling manuals served as the quasi-legal of the century, so that by the 1880's most bour­ reference books for dueling-ground propriety, geois men had access to the duel if they wished and noted duelers and fencing-masters did to learn its rituals, a development in keeping duty as expert witnesses. Dueling was thus a with the principle of social equality. This is not legally protected domain regulated by private to say that the duel did not continue to demar­ law; public authorities intervened only on ap­ cate class lines, as it had in the old regime. One peal. Predictably, from the appearance of the could refuse to deal with a man who was in­ first of the nineteenth-century dueling ma­ digne or socially unsuitable without fear so nuals in 1836 to the last in 1906, there is a long as one's peers also regarded him as such, gradual growth in their size, in their reliance but as class barriers became blurred or more on precedent and other legal principles, and in easily surmounted in the nineteenth century the development of an increasingly elaborate the pool of honorable men enlarged apace. protocol, the observance of which protected A corollary of the belief that the duel was an each dueler from the charge of capricious or aristocratic survival is the conviction that disloyal conduct, and thus from prosecution dueling declined and finally disappeared, as it (Chatauvillard 1836; Tavernier 1885; Du­ did in Britain, because it was shunned by the verger de Saint Thomas 1887; Letainturier­ now-dominant and peace-loving middle Fradin 1890; Croabbon 1894; Bibesco and Fery classes. One of the problems with the numbers d'Esclands 1900; Bruneau de Laborie 1906). In on dueling is the absence of criminal statistics, these duels, honor was declared satisfied if two either from the time of Richelieu to the Revolu­ balls were exchanged at thirty paces, whether tion, when the duel, though illegal, was sporad­ or not either man was struck, or, in the case of ically punished, or after the enactment of the the epeeduel, which was by far the most com­ Napoleonic code, which did not recognize duel­ mon, if some blood was shed and one of the ing as a criminal offense. Our best guess is that men was declared to be at a disadvantage. the number had fallen to about 100 per year in In effect, men dueled to protect their honor the last years of the old regime, a rate that was in matters where they could not obtain satis­ maintained into the 1830's, with about a third faction at law, or where the publicity of a trial ) of these fatal (Chesnais 1981: 126). These would reveal unwanted private details, espe­ f numbers may have fallen slightly over the cially in affaires de coeur. For example, a new next thirty years, but in the late sixties there Press law on slander and libel of 1881 set out t was an explosive increase in duels to between penalties most men regarded as derisory, in­ 400 and 500 per year. This rate, with some adequate satisfaction for the impugnment of fluctuation, was continued until World War I honor and reputation. Frenchmen attacked in (Desjardins 1890; Thimm 1896; Tarde 1892). the press, Parisians in particular, shunned the The Elias thesis on the historical decline of courts and flocked to the dueling grounds, brutality is right in one respect: late-century where no man was dishonored who showed duels were rarely fatal. But the prospect of courage, sang-froid, and a thorough knowl­ I facing three feet of naked steel or a ball fired edge of the code of the duel. In the 1840's the r from an unrifled pistol was a daunting one, and literary critic Jules Janin had argued that the

13 b duel was necessary in civilization because "it "panache", which he called "the modesty of he­ makes of each of us a strong and independent roism", in which "to make jokes in the face of power .. . ; it takes up the cause of justice the danger is the supreme act of politeness, a del­ moment the Jaw abandons it; alone it punishes icate refusal to yield to the tragic ... " (Halkin what the laws are unable to punish, scorn and 1949: 443). insult (Bibesco and Fery d'Esclands 1900: In a sense the duel was a rite of passage, 131-2). though one of an exclusive kind. It created for The duel prospered in the social and political its participants a liminal moment when, in the conditions of the early Third Republic (1870- face of possible injury or death, they were sus­ 1914) . After twenty years of repression in the pended between hoI).or and dishonor, depend­ Second Empire, the rise in dueling rates re­ ing on how their nerves and luck held out . To flects the deeper political meaning attached to live and to have shown sang-froid affirmed a the duel in this era. The duel served to drama­ kind of corporate male solidarity that built tize and symbolically represent the principal durable bonds, even between antagonists, who, ideological components of Republican ideology as often as not, clasped hands warmly only - liberty and equality - and therefore helped moments after trying to cripple or kill one an­ universalize and popularize the civic virtues of other. But, as Victor Turner has pointed out, Republicanism (Nye 1990). Any man, no mat­ the experience of communitas that accompa­ ter what his class or income, could in theory nies the liminal rite of passage is offset by a fight a duel, and each man was held fully re­ dialectic in which hierarchy and structure sponsible for his actions. On the other hand , at reassert their rights (Turner 1969: 94-97) . least in principle, no man could decline to fight Some fail the rites, and are barred from the with a legitimate challenger at the risk of pub­ community. Others do not know the rites, so lic shame and ridicule. A world which recog­ they are excluded by their ignorance, as were nized no social boundaries in the delivery or the lower-class men, peasants, and factory acceptance of dueling challenges was a male workers for whom the rituals of the duel were a social universe of perfect individualism and mystery. Still others did not qualify by nature equality. Codes of honor have always possessed for the rite. Jews fought duels in the nine­ this radical potential. It was Huizinga who teenth century in the teeth of vociferous oppo­ wrote that "the idea of chivalry implied, after sition (Birnbaum 1989: 230-237). There is no 11 all, two ideas ... namely that true nobility is record of a woman having fought one • based on virtue and that all men are equal" Despite the clearly discriminatory nature of (Huizinga 1954: 63-4). the modern duel, the men who favored retain­ Cloaked as it might have been in glorious ing this ancient ritual were neither unregener­ chivalric trappings and a rhetoric of demo­ ate old-regime nobles nor political reaction­ cratic individualism, the modern duel was aries. They were solid, respectable bourgeois nonetheless a strategy of social advance like whose progressive outlook was joined to patri­ many others. It benefitted fledgling politicians, otism in the manner of the buoyant liberalism junior officers, ambitious journalists, and un­ of the nineteenth century. By engaging in af­ published authors, the most common kind of fairs of honor as principals or seconds, or by duelers. This mode of self-promotion was not merely speaking in public in favor of this man­ without its perils. A man had to choose his ner of resolving differences, men could express causes carefully, so as not to die over a trifle or their identity with an historic French ritual, be regarded as a bully. But the popularity of claim their right to membership in a demo­ the duel clearly reveals the high social ex­ cratic civil order, and display their manliness change rate in French culture of physical cour­ in a public drama fascinating to their contem­ age and a kind of manliness that celebrated poraries. grace under pressure. On his entry into the Academie Frarn;aise just before the war, Ed­ mond de Rostand praised the glories of French

14 Elias, Norbert 1983: The Civilizing Process. Volume III. The Court Society . New York . References Gilman Sander, L. 1985: Differenc e and Pathology: Agulhon, Maurice 1977: Le cercle dans la France Stereotypes of Sexuality, Race, and Madness. Ith­ bourgeoise, 1810-1848. Paris. aca. Alletz, Edouard 1837: De la democratie nouvelle. Ou Gilmore, David 1987: Aggression and Community. des moeurs et de la puissance des classes moyennes Paradoxes of Andalusian Culture. New Haven, en France. Paris. Conn . Barthou , Louis 1923: La politique. Paris. Girouard, Mark 1982: Chivalry and the Engli sh Best, Geoffrey 1982: Honour among Men and Na­ Gentleman. Oxford. tions. Toronto. Goblot, Edmond 1925: Labarriere et le niveau. Etude Bibesco, Georges and d'Esclands, Fery 1900: Con­ sociologique sur la bourgeoisie fran<;aise moderne. seils pour les duels. Paris. Paris. Billacois, Fran~ois 1986: Le duel dans la societe fran­ Godefroy, Frederic (ed.) 1885: Dictionnaire de l'an­ <;aisedes xvi'-xvii" siecles. Essai de psychosocio­ cienne langue franr;aise et de taus ses dialectes du logie historique. Paris. ix' au xv• siecle. Paris. Birnbaum, Pierre 1989: Un mythe politique: "La re­ Halkin, Leon E. 1949: "Pour une histoire de l'hon­ publique juive". Paris. neur". In: Annal es E.S.C. 4: 433-444. Bloch, Maurice and Jean H . Bloch 1980: "Women Hampson, Norman 1973: "La patrie" . In: Colin Lucas and the Dialectics of Nature in Eighteenth Cen­ (ed.): The Political Culture of the French Revolu­ tury Thought". In Carol P. MacCormack and Mari­ tion. Oxford: 199-212. lyn Strathern (eds.): Nature, Culture and Gender. Hobsbawn , Eric and Terence Ranger 1983: The In­ Cambridge: 25-41. vention of Tradition. New York. Blum, Carol 1986: Rouss eau and the Republic of Huguet, Edmond 1980: Dictionnair e de la langue Virtue. The Language of Politics in the French fran<;aisedu seizieme siecle. Volume IV. Paris. Revolution. Ithaca, New York. Huizinga, Johann 1954: The Waning of the Middle Brandes, Stanley 1981: "Like a Wounded Stag: Male Ages. New York. Sexual Ideology in an Andalusian Town". In Jordanova , Ludmilla 1980: "Natural Facts: A Histor­ Sherry Ortner and Harriet Whitehead (eds.): ical Perspective on Science and Sexuality". In: Sexual Meanings. Cambridge: 216-239. Carol, P. MacCormack and Marilyn Strathern Campbell, J. K. 1964: Honour, Family, and Patron­ (eds.): Nature, Culture and Gend er. Cambridge: age. A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a 42-69. Greek Mountain Village. Oxford. Keen Maurice 1984 : Chivalry. New Haven. Caplan, Pat 1987: "Introduction". In Caplan (ed.): Kelly, George Armstrong 1980: "Duelling in Eigh­ The Cultural Construction of Sexuality. London: teenth-Century France: Archaeology, Rationale , 1-30. Implications". In: The Eighteenth-Century 21: Castan, Yves 1974: Honn ete et relations sociales en 236-254. Languedoc (1715-1780). Paris. Kiernan, V. G. 1988: The Duel in European History. Chautauvillard [Marquis de] 1836: Essai sur le duel. Honour and the R eign of Aristocracy. London. Paris. Laborie, Bruneau [de] 1906: Les lois du duel. Paris. Chesnais, J.C. 1981: Histoire de la violence. Paris. Littre, Emile 1863: Dictionnaire de la langue fran­ Claverie, Elisabeth and Pierre Lamaison 1982. L'im­ <;aise.Volume III. Paris. possible mariage. Violence en Gevaudan au 17', 18' Lucas, Colin 1976: "Nobles, Bourgeois and the Ori­ et 19' siecles. Paris. gins of the French Revolution". In: Douglas John­ Croabbon, A. 1894: Le science de point d'honneur. son (ed.): French Society and the R evolution. Cam­ Commentaire raisonne sur l'offense. Paris . bridge: 94-103. Cuenin, Micheline 1982: Le duel sous l'ancien re­ Lucas , Colin (ed.) 1988: The Political Culture of the gime. Paris . French Revolution. Oxford. Curtin, Michael 1985: "A Question of Manners: Sta­ MacCormack, Carol P. and Marilyn Strathern (eds.) tus and Gender in Etiquette and Courtesy". In: 1980: Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge. Journal of Modern History; 395-423. Mayer, Arno 1981: The Persistence of the Old Re­ Desjardins, Emile 1890: Annuaire de duel. Paris. gime. New York . Duverger de St. Thomas [Comte de] 1887 : Nouveau Montesquieu, Baron [de] 1973: L'esprit des lois. code de duel. Paris. Volume I. Paris . Emeric 1821: Nouveau guide de la politesse. 2nd ed., Morel, Henri 1964 : "La fin du duel judiciaire en Paris. France et naissance du point d'honneur". In: Revu e Elias, Norbert 1978: The Civilizing Process. Volume historique du droit franr;ais et etranger: 574-639. I. The History of Manners, trans. Edmund Neuschel, Kristen 1989: Word of Honor. Interpreting Jephcott . New York. Noble Culture in Sixteenth-Century France. Elias, Norbert 1982: The Civilizing Process . Volume Ithaca. II. Power and Civility. New York. Nye, Robert A. 1984: Crime, Madn ess and Politics in

15 hr Modern Franc e. The Medical Concept of National Verdier, Yvonne 1979: Far;ons de dire far;ons de faire. Decline. Princeton. La laveuse, la couturier e, la cuisiniere. Paris. Nye , Robert A. 1989a: "Sex Difference and Male Wilson, Stephen 1988: "Infanticide, Child Abandon­ Homosexuality in French Medical Discourse" . In : ment and Female Honour in Nineteenth-Century Bulletin of the History of Medi cine 63: 32-51. Corsica". In: Comparativ e Studies in Society and Nye, Robert A. 1989b: "Honor, Impotence, and Male History 30: 762-783. Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century French Medi­ Worms, Emile 1890: Les attentats a l'honneur. Paris. cine". In: French Historical Studies 16: 48-71. Nye, Robert A. 1990: "Fencing, The Duel and Repub­ lican Manhood in the Third Republic". In: Journal of Contemporary History 25: 365- 377. Notes Ortner. Sherry and Harriet Whitehead (eds.) 1981: 1. Th e clearest account I have found on this dis­ Sexual Meanings. The Cultural Construction of tinction is one by the anthropologist Harriet Gender and Sexuality. Cambridge. Whitehead. She writes: "When I speak of cul­ Pappas, John 1982: "Le campagne des philosophes tural construction of gender, I mean simply the contre l'honneur". In: Studie s in Voltaire and the ideas that give social meaning to physical dif­ Eighteenth Century 205: 31-44 . ferences between the sexes, rendering two Peristiany, J. G. 1961: Honour and Shame. Th e biological classes, male and female, into two so­ Values of Mediterranean Society. Chicago. cial classes, men and women, and making the Pitt-Rivers, Julian 1961: The People of the Sierra. social relationships in which men and women Chicago. stand toward each other appear reasonable and Pitt-Rivers, Julian 1968: "Honor" . In: The Interna­ appropriate" (Ortner and Whitehead 1981: 83). tional Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences . New Other strong statements in behalf of the "cul­ York. tural construction of gender " may be found in Pitt-Rivers, Julian 1977: The Fate of Schechem . Es­ (Caplan 1987: 1-30 and Scott 1986: 1053-75). says in the Anthropology of the Mediterran ean. 2. Both anthropologists and historians have em­ Cambridge. ployed these binary terms to understand socie­ Raisson, Horace 1853: Code civil . Manuel complet de ties (Ortner and Whitehead 1981; Campbell la politesse, de ton, des manier es, de la bonne com­ 1964; Gilman 1985; Bloch and Bloch and Jorda­ pagnie. 14th ed., Paris . nova in MacCormack and Strathern 1980: Richelieu [Cardinal] 1961 : Political Testament, 25-41; 42-69 ). trans. Henry B. Hill. Madison, Wisconsin. 3. Among the Sarakatsani, argues J. K. Campbell, Schalk, Ellery 1986: From Valor to Pedigree. Ideas of an man "must be well-endowed with testicles Nobility in France in the Sixt eenth and Sev en­ and the strength that is drawn from them (1964: teenth Centurie s. Princeton. 270). Stanley Brandes argues similarly for the Schneider, Robert A. 1984: "Swordplay and State­ men of Andalusia (Ortner and Whitehead 1981 : making. Aspects of the Campaign against the Duel 230) . Gilmore summarizes the relation between in Early Modern France" . In: Charles Bright and machismo and genitalia thusly: "A macho, then, Susan Harding (eds.): Statemaking and Social is a virile, sexually insatiable stud. Potent as a Movements. Essays in History and Theory. Ann bull, lascivious as a billy goat, he unhesitatingly Arbor, Michigan: 265-296. obeys the comands of the cojones (testicles)" Scott, Joan 1986 : "Gender: A Useful Category of (1987: 132). Historical Analysis". In: American Historical Re­ 4. Some very interesting anthropological and his­ view 91: 1053-1075. torical work has been done in France using old Segalen, Martine 1983: Love and Power in the folklore collections, testamentary records, judi­ Peasant Family. Chicago. cial records, and oral history. These provide the Simpson, Antony 1988: "Dandelions on the Field of historian some information about the way sys­ Honor: Dueling, the Middle Classes , and the Law tems of honor, vengeance, and the sexual divi­ in Nineteenth-Century England" . In : Criminal sion of labor operated in traditional societies . Justice History 9: 99-155. Though these examples are not historically ger­ Speier, Hans 1969: Social Order and the Risks of mane to aristocratic and bourgeois concepts of War. Cambridge . honor, they are important because they reveal Tarde, Gabriel 1892: Etudes penales et sociales. Pa­ that France has until recent times shared in the ris. Mediterranean traditions of "honor and shame" Tavernier , Adolph e 1885: L'art du duel. Paris. societies, and that in all these examples sex has Terraillon, Eugene 1912: L'honneur. Sentiment et been a crucial determinant of gender roles (Se­ principe moral . Paris. galen 1983; Castan 1974; Claverie and Lamai­ Thimm, Carl A. 1896: A Complete Bibliography of son 1982; Verdier 1979; Wilson 1988). Fencing and Dueling. London . 5. The thesis that displays of honor are largely Turner Victor 1969: The Ritual Process. Structure vestigial and aristocratic (or aristocratizing) has and Anti-Structure. Ithaca. been presented most recently in V. G. Kiernan

16 (1988). But see also Mayer (1981) and Girouard this, but require instead that we treat everyone (1982). alike .. . " (1925: 15). Certain "shameful" acts 6. Henri II was the king who presided over this were, however, inexcusable, including civil duel. Billacois devotes a brilliant chapter to its crimes and certain sexual "crimes" or perver­ analysis. He argues it was the last public duel in sions, which automatically excluded individuals France and the first duel of the point d'honneur from honorable status (Nye 1989a, 1989b). principally because Henri II, who had just as­ 9. In the words of a contemporary, "Politeness is sumed the throne, refused to conciliate the two the simulacrum oflove of one's neighbor, a tacit in an essentially futile difference, or hurl his truce between all-consuming self-esteem and the baton into the dueling terrian to end the conflict silence of egoism, an involuntary respect for hu­ before its bloody conclusion. He thus abdicated man dignity. It has been invented to reestablish royal intervention in a genre of dispute that be­ in this world the appearances of equality (Alletz came thereafter wholly private and unregulated 1837 vol I: 107). by the state. There is sentiment for dating the 10. The legalistic features of the modern duel are cleavage between honor and victory to the re­ obvious in this terminology. In the old regime, a mark of Henri II's predecessor, Fran~ois I, who is cartel was an often lengthy list of charges said to have proclaimed after his defeat at the against an adversary, replaced in the nineteenth battle of Pavia in 1525, "All is lost save honor" century by a man's calling card. Temoin means (Balkin 1949). "witness", a modern transformation of the older 7. This is discussed by Schneider (Bright and "second", who was expected to fight alongside his Harding 1984). Richelieu confided to his political champion, unlike his modern counterpart, who testament that "Frenchmen hold their lives in was expected to defend the rights of his client contempt .. . They have fancied that it was more and enforce the rules of the point d'honneur. glorious to violate such edicts, demonstrating by 11. In an incident in September, 1890, the feminist so extravagent a gesture that they valued honor journalist Severine wrote an article in the paper above life itself' (Richelieu 1961: 22). Gil Blas which the Boulangist politician, A. Mer­ 8. In the classic analysis of the modern French meix, deemed insulting. He issued a challenge to bourgeoisie, Edmond Goblot treats bourgeois so­ Severine's editor, Georges de la Bruyere, who ciety as a structure of "barriers" and "levels", was badly wounded in the subsequent duel. As­ which regulate access to the class and guarantee tie de Valsayre, the permanent secretary for the uniformity of behavior and outlook. For Goblot, most important voting rights league for women, the polite signs of "consideration" are crucial to published an angry denunciation of Severine, the sense of equality that reigns on the "level". arguing that she had betrayed her responsibility There may exist "enormous differences in worth to women by behaving in such a way as to re­ [in individuals] if one goes to the bottom of quire a man to come to her defense. See things; however, usages do not permit us to do L'Escrime Fran<;aise (Sept. 5, 1890).

2 Ethnologia Europea 21,1 17