page_0004

THE DAUGHTERS OF ANAHUAC.

to improve faults, but to avenge them, destroying the

individual.

Honor! It is said; this idea is a very absolutist concept.

tract that not everyone appreciates in the same way. Many

Sometimes what is called praise is nothing more than rancor, while honor should be the result of the fulfillment of duty. The duel has no value in the realm of principles. Seen from these heights, it appears to us with very meager proportions. It only brings to the sphere of reasoning, remnants of chivalric ideas from the Middle Ages, and to the surface of facts, incompatible practices.

with modern culture. Mourning has some value only as a historical reality and cannot withstand philosophical and moral analysis. Let us go back for a moment to the annals of the world and

Let us look at the historical value of this pernicious custom. "The duel, as a premeditated act between two persons, is of very ancient origin, but it is only from the beginning of the 16th century that it has the character it has today. There are numerous instances that occurred in antiquity, which are recorded in sacred history, in profane history and in poetry.

The fight between David and Goliath proves that the mythical race practiced dueling in its own way. The Greeks immortalized many duels between gods and mortals, which are recorded in the Iliad. The fight between Mantius Thoreatus and a giant Gallus in the war of the Achaeans, 361 years before Christ, and many other cases, prove that the Romans knew the duel in the same way. The barbarians who invaded southern Europe,

They gave the duel its modern character, which it had

The origin of the ardor of the battle was judicial combat, whose object was to vindicate the innocent. In the rough races, where courage was held in high esteem, there was a belief that the success of the combat was proof of truth. The trial by combat was legalized in the year 501. Recognized legal in England in 1518 by the Supreme Court of Justice and abolished by Parliament in 1519. In France it was not admitted with judicial character until after 1547. Jurists and priests supported it and the monarchs were

They were their patrons and regulators. France was where the duel was most widespread and during the reign of the chivalrous Francis I, it assumed the character that it still retains today. This king established as a principle that a falsehood would never be expressed without giving satisfaction, and falsehoods or lies were divided into thirty-two kinds, each with its own peculiar way of satisfaction. The issue between him and the Emperor Charles V was one of the scandals of that century and originated from the distortion of the first

The emperor accused the king of violating his promise and offered to prove the truth of his accusation with the point of his sword. Francis replied in harsh words and offered to meet his opponent at the place he had chosen.

Carlos pointed out the banks of the Vidasoa. The king avoided the encounter that he seemed to want: the violence of the dissenters attracted a lot of attention and the bad example spread through high rank. It became customary to decide matters with the sword and since then it dates back to the

honour. Dueling became a raging passion in France. Henry IV made efforts to prevent it, but he was unable to do so. It is said that during his reign, four thousand died in duels and fourteen thousand were pardoned. He ordered that those who had fought should present their complaints

The idea of ​​dueling was to be presented to the government to be presented to the Marshals and Constables, thus trying to create the Court of Honour, which was conceived by Charles IX. Louis XIV opposed dueling and succeeded in reducing their number, although it later increased due to the wars of the Fronde. Edicts were issued and courts of honour instituted to abolish them. The Regency revived them and Louis XV tried to suppress them, but without success.

result."

Here we have the broad outline of the history of duele, and we do not want to cite what is recorded in the Pragmatics and the Codes, because we are not going to discuss it from a legal point of view. We are only going to judge it from the point of view of the principals.

eipios.

Are moral principles true or do they exist only in our imagination as a product of hard intellectual work, and can never be converted into practical solutions to serve as an example for our actions? These considerations arise in our minds when we reflect that humanity has an ideal towards the

which must advance. Good is its object and the fulfillment of duty the means of realizing human destiny, because if moral acts were reduced to a system of compensations created for the same acts and outside of whose scope nothing existed, the perspective of the future of man would be inferior in dignity to the infusoria that struggles in the ocean or to the plant that only works.

for its preservation. Mourning is contrary to the principles of natural law. Natural rights, being individual and inherent, are prior to all

I say, in relation to the condition of man, to every constitution and to every constituted power. Man cannot abdicate what does not belong to him, nor abdicate rights that are translated in their enjoyment and exercise by moral duties. One of these sacred rights is that of life, a sacred right as well as a moral and religious duty; so that when the contenders play or exin

power, which does not belong to them, they barbarously infringe the true laws of human nature. The act of the duela, therefore, cannot be equitable.

because a punishment is inflicted that is not related to the fault committed, being the former much greater than the latter. Consequently, it is more inadmissible than the law of Talion. It is contrary to justice because the latter has as its object to punish in order to produce repentance in the guilty party.

16

and amendment, qualities that all punishment must contain in order to fulfill the objective it proposes; if this were not the case, the punishment would not be a lofty act of piety but an act of revenge, and in a duel it often happens that the offended person is punished twice, since it is the result of

is dead, dragging his relatives with this terrible outcome, to the seuo of misfortune where the terrible orphanhood usually succumbs to reason, because this makes us

The duel, with respect to mortal combat on points of The opposing duke clearly sees that he who lets himself be guided by passions to flatter his variety, is an unfortunate man who does very badly using the distinction that God was pleased to grant him for