757. Can duelling be considered as coming under the head of lawful self-defence?

"No; it is murder, and an absurdity worthy of barbarians. When civilisation is more advanced and more moral, men will see that duelling is as ridiculous as the combats which were formerly regarded as ‘the judgement of God.'"

758. Can duelling be considered as murder on the part of him who, knowing his own weakness, is pretty sure of being killed?

"In such a case it is suicide."

– And when the chances are equal, is it murder or suicide?

"It is both."

In all cases, even in those in which the chances are equal, the duellist is guilty; in the first place, because he makes a cool and deliberate attack on the life of his fellow-man, and in the second place, because he exposes his own life uselessly, and without benefit to any one.

759. What is the real nature of what is called the point of honour in the matter of duels?

"Pride and vanity; two sores of humanity."

– But are there not cases in which a man's honour is really at stake, and in which a refusal to fight would be an act of cowardice?

"That depends on customs and usages; each country and each century has a different way of regarding such matters. But when men are better, and more advanced morally, they will comprehend that the true point of honour is above the reach of earthly passions, and that it is neither by killing, nor by getting themselves killed, that they can obtain reparation for a wrong."

There is more real greatness and honour in confessing our wrong-doing if we are in the wrong, or in forgiving if we are in the right; and, in all cases, in despising insults which cannot touch those who are superior to them.