Quick Index Board Index Home FAQ Site Map
Written by Kristina F
(2/21/2013 9:11 p.m.)
in consequence of the missive, Ah yes -- but I don't think humiliation was necessary, either, penned by kathleen (elder)
Once again, my message was intended in response to Adrian's comment that Brandon would not necessarily have been interested in killing Willoughby, but would have wanted to "defeat" him in some manner. I was pointing out that, barring one of the participant's injury, death, humiliation, or apology, there appears to be no clear way to determine if a defeat has occurred in a duel. Thus, assuming that Willoughby did NOT apologize for wrongdoing or cheat in some way (I simply cannot see him apologizing, but I might not put it past him to cheat), the duel in S&S would likely have been without a clear victor.
The link you posted about legal consequences is interesting, but it raises more questions. I was under the impression that missing one's shot on purpose or refusing to shoot, as I assume would have to happen if one had absolutely NO intention of killing one's opponent, was considered very dishonorable behavior in a duel. If indeed duelists often faced serious legal consequences for killing an opponent, then why would the action of deliberately missing one's shot be held in such contempt? Again, I don't comprehend this. I have always assumed that both Brandon and Willoughby met with the intention of killing the other, and only the inaccuracy of dueling pistols prevented this from happening (i.e., each man aimed and missed). Again, the laws may well have been on the books, but weren't MOST duelists still given little more than a slap on the wrist for their illegal actions? I suppose I will have to search the archives for this information....
I am aware that the links are for others on this board, as well, so I certainly didn't mean to imply that they were solely for my benefit.
Sense & Sensibility is maintained by Barbara with WebBBS 3.21.