A Question of Official Precedence

A quarrel which led to a duel originated in London and was caused by a dispute over the question as to which of the gentlemen’s wives should have precedence on social and official occasions. – Public domain image of Count Franz Deym, Austrian Ambassador and Duelist

  Dueling Over a Question of Etiquette 

VIENNA, Dec. 31.– Count Franz Deym, the Austrian Ambassador to Great Britain, and Count de Lutzow, Secretary of the Austrian Embassy in London, fought a duel near this city to day. Pistols were the weapons selected for the encounter. Several shots were exchanged without effect, neither of the men being hit. The quarrel which led to the duel originated in London and was caused by a dispute over the question as to which of the gentlemen’s wives should have precedence on social and official occasions.– The New York Times, January 1, 1891

🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette and Mistaken Notions

“The Englishman traveled to the town where his victim’s widowed mother lived, and at the end of a two hours’ conversation, he convinced her of his sincere regret and his wish to serve her. She admitted that her son had not died through his fault, but through the mistaken notions of honor current among the youth of Germany.”  What a shame that the Englishman could not exhibit self-discipline and keep his criticism and thoughts to himself. A young fool’s life could have been saved until he could at least grown up a bit and learned from his mistakes.    
“The Code Of Honor—A Duel In The Bois De Boulogne, Near Paris,” wood engraving after Godefroy Durand, Harper's Weekly, 1875, Public Domain... For more on the etiquette of duels, click here

A Young Fool’s Duel 

and an Etiquette Critic’s Remorse

At Heidelberg an English friend once dined at the table d’hôte, and being seated right opposite a young man who wore the badge of a “corps” across his breast, he could not help noticing the extraordinary manner in which the young man took his meal. At first he admired him for the skillful manner in which he managed his knife, which incessantly passed from his plate to his mouth, heavily laden as it was with green peas. But when the student, having finished his meat, took up his gravy with the knife, the Englishman began to feel his blood boil within him. 

Pudding with apple-sauce followed, and the student operated with his dessert knife just as he had done with the larger knife. But the Englishman could control himself no longer. In a hoarse whisper, he addressed his vis-a-vis, saying: “You will cut your mouth open if you don’t leave off eating gravy with your knife.” The student looked up and answered: “What is that to you? I can cut my mouth open to my ears, for all you have a right to interfere.” “Oh nonsense,” said the Englishman, coolly; “you can’t expect a decent person to let you butcher yourself at dinner!” “Oh, but I can, though, and you shall see! Dummer Junge!” With that the student rose and left the room. 

‘Dummer Junge!’ (meaning ‘stupid fellow’) signifies as much as a challenge. When the student’s seconds came to arrange details with the Englishman he was terribly surprised at the serious consequences of what he had deemed a most natural remark. He offered to apologize, and begged them to remember that he knew nothing of German customs and had believed himself in the right But the seconds declared their friend would accept no apology, and they even hinted that the Englishman had probably been told that his opponent was a first-rate fencer, the pride of Heidelberg. 

Of course when matters took this turn, the Englishman spoke in a very different tone, and everything was arranged for a duel with pistols, he being no fencer. He spent a dreadful night, because he was told that the young student was in such a foaming rage that his only desire was to see his opponent lie dead on the ground. The Englishman did all in his power to have the matter arranged, but be did not succeed, and on his way to the trysting-place he said to his seconds: “It is a dreadful shame that I should have to kill this young man because he does not know the proper use of his knife and fork. Still it would be just as unfair to let him kill me.” 

The Englishman intended firing in the air if he had the second shot, but chance was averse to him. He had the right to shoot first —the aim was deadly; the young Teuton fell without a groan. Next day the Englishman traveled to the town where his victim’s widowed mother lived, and at the end of a two hours’ conversation, he convinced her of his sincere regret and his wish to serve her. She admitted that her son had not died through his fault, but through the mistaken notions of honor current among the youth of Germany.— Vienna Correspondent, London Times, 1883

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Etiquette, Insults and Duels

“Prior to its demise a ‘Royal Code of Honor’ existed and was adhered to by dueling Principals and Seconds. The code stated, ‘No duel can be considered justifiable, which can be declined with honor, therefore, an appeal to arms should always be the last resource.’” according to historian, Geri Walton – Dueling is said to have thrived for nearly three hundred years, but it’s believed the practice ended in 1852, the year of the last recorded English duel. Dueling was outlawed in France in the 17th century, but it stopped very few men. It's estimated that between 1685 and 1716, French officers alone, fought in as many as 10,000 duels, which led to over 400 deaths. Dueling in the US was not uncommon in the West and South, even after 1859, when 18 states had outlawed the practice, but it became a thing of the past in the United States by the early 1900’s.

Defending One’s Honor

The much-talked-of duel between Prince Henry of Orleans and the Count of Turin was fought in Paris at 5 o'clock yesterday morning. It is of little interest to Americans whether the Frenchman or the Italian was the victor in this combat, but it shows conclusively that the matter was a more serious affair than the comments of the English press would imply.

The usual mode of dueling in France, which consists of using sharp-pointed florettes on which buttons are attached one and a half inches from the point, was entirely set aside and rapiers were used instead. Rapier and saber duels are considered in Europe, fully as dangerous as pistol duels, and it cannot, therefore, be said that this affair was anything but a mortal combat.

According to the Code of Honor acknowledged in all Continental armies, no officer of one array is allowed to say anything to a representative of the press detrimental to the honor of another army. Prince Henry, when making his famous criticism of the Italian army in Abyssinia, knew full well that he was committing a breach of etiquette which could not result in anything but a challenge from a representative from the insulted army.

The Italian honor having thus been vindicated, the little episo will be talked of for a few days in France and Italy, and then be entirely forgotten. That any international or even diplomatic controversy should arise from this affair is entirely out of the question, even if Prince Henry should be so unfortunate as to pay with his life for his indiscretion. – San Francisco Call, 1897

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia