Evolution of Dueling Etiquette: From Medieval Rigor to Renaissance Sensibilities in France

As time progressed, elements of ceremony and formality began to infiltrate the dueling practice^[1]. This is exemplified by instances where combatants sought permission from higher authorities, such as kings or lords, to stage a duel^[1]. Challenges were formally delivered, and seconds were employed to ensure fair play—or at least, adherence to a certain code^[1]. The story of the Baron des Guerres and the Lord de Fendilles illustrates this transition, where they 'applied to King Henry to appoint them a place for combat'^[1]. This seeking of approval and adherence to set procedures marks a shift from the raw, unregulated combat of previous eras.

The Renaissance brought with it a renewed interest in classical ideals, which subtly influenced the perception of dueling^[1]. There was now some emphasis on generosity and behaving respectfully toward the opponent, but also an increased use of quasi-religious reflection^[1]. However, this was often superficial, as 'the quasi-religious reflections which he has ready for all suitable occasions are mainly ornamental'^[1]. While figures like Bayard were held up as paragons of chivalry, there was also a pervasive acceptance of 'artful and cold-blooded assassination thinly disguised by a few artificial formalities'^[1]. This duality reflects the complex moral landscape of the time, where outward piety often masked ruthless behavior.

The evolving etiquette placed greater significance on the roles of seconds and umpires^[1]. These individuals were responsible for ensuring that the duel was conducted fairly and according to established rules^[1]. They examined weapons, ensured combatants adhered to the agreed-upon conditions, and even intervened to prevent excessive brutality^[1]. 'The seconds were then examined by the seconds to see if they had any arms or charms concealed under their clothes or on their persons'^[1]. However, even with these precautions, disputes often arose, requiring the umpire to make difficult judgments, as seen in the contested duel between De Guerres and Fendilles^[1].

Despite the increasing formalization, the concept of 'fair play' remained fluid and often self-serving^[1]. While some duelists, like the aforementioned Azevedo, demonstrated unusual generosity, others sought to exploit any advantage, however dishonorable^[1]. Brantome notes that 'there were punctilious people who raised considerable dispute about that. For example, it might be said that if, either through ignorance, forgetfulness, or any reason, you left your enemy’s arms on the field, you had no right to send and demand them afterwards'^[1]. This suggests a growing tension between the ideals of chivalry and the pragmatic pursuit of victory.

Brantome illustrates that Spanish bravado and artificial wit had influence^[1]. The book mentions violent and deadly incidents, with Caravajal the Cruel having killed 'a hundred men with his own hands in one battle'^[1]. It also raises questions about the means employed in duels, as it was said 'that he (M. Vitaux) killed his men unfairly'^[1]. This reflects on the relaxed moral code that allowed the end to justify the means.

By the late sixteenth century, the romanticized notions of chivalry were increasingly at odds with the realities of dueling^[1]. While figures like Bayard were still admired, the era was marked by treachery and a decline in genuine piety^[1]. As Brantome notes, 'the spirit of chivalry, of the piety animating men like Bayard, had practically died out of society before the death of Brantome'^[1]. This shift is evident in the increasing acceptance of deceit and cunning in duels, blurring the lines between honorable combat and outright assassination.

Throughout the sixteenth century, the duel remained a paradoxical institution, caught between the decaying ideals of chivalry and the brutal realities of a society steeped in violence^[1]. While efforts were made to regulate and civilize the practice, it often served as a stage for personal vendettas, political maneuvering, and displays of ruthless ambition^[1]. Brantome’s work offers a glimpse into this complex world, where honor and violence were inextricably intertwined, and where the line between a gentleman and a cold-blooded killer was often perilously thin^[1].