The ancients were certainly in the habit of putting to the test the courage and dexterity12 of wrestlers in the Pancration. The combatants were obliged to present themselves several days before the fight, and to undergo a strict examination; no slave or malefactor13, nor any one related to such, being admitted to the contest. The selection of the combatants was decided14 by lot; various balls, each of which was marked with a letter, were put into a box, and the first two who drew balls of the same letter were matched against each other, and continued the struggle until one of them yielded, by holding up his finger. In this contest the prize was adjudged by umpires, amongst whom, according to Pausanias, certain ladies in disguise managed to introduce themselves, to bestow15 the palm of victory upon their favourite champion; in consequence of which it was ordered that in future the judges should sit unclothed with the victorial garlands before them.
Many of these combats were mortal, and attended with circumstances of great ferocity. At 11 first the parties fought with fists, into which were introduced balls of stone, iron, or some hard substance. The C?stus was then introduced,—a heavy glove or gauntlet of thick leather studded with nails and pellets of iron or brass16: hence fatal results were most frequent. Anacharsis the Scythian observed, that he admired how the Grecians could so much honour and encourage this exercise, when, by their laws, all violence and injury were severely17 punished. ?lian mentions a Crotonian Pancratiast who dropped down dead while they were carrying him to the judges to receive the garland. The same author relates the case of another pugilist, who, having received a blow in the mouth that knocked in all his teeth, swallowed them together with the blood that followed, in order to conceal8 from his antagonist an injury that might have induced him to continue the contest with greater ardour. Pausanias relates several extraordinary instances of the kind: one of a man named Arrachion, who had been twice crowned at the Olympic games, who fought and conquered all who entered the lists against him till but one remained, who, running violently upon him, at the same time entangled18 him with his feet, and with his hand grappled his throat, which strangled him; but, before Arrachion expired, he broke off a toe of his adversary19, which gave him such pain that he died on the spot. The judges ordered the 12 dead body of Arrachion to be crowned with the palm of victory. Two other combatants, named Creugas and Damoxenus, fought until weary with equal advantage, when it was agreed that the combat should end, and be decided by two blows on the same part; that is, he who gave the first blow, should suffer the other to return it on the same place. It fell by lot to Creugas, who struck his antagonist on the head, which almost stunned20 him; Damoxenus, afterwards, in violation21 of the conditions, seized Creugas under the ribs22, and with his nails tore out his bowels23. The victorious24 wreath was bestowed25 upon Creugas, and his treacherous26 opponent was banished27. In these combats killing28 was judged neither criminal nor punishable. Our modern boxing is little more than a continuance of this practice, which cannot possibly be said to constitute duelling, in which a personal injury is supposed, at least, to have been received by the challenging party. In modern times, as I shall shortly show, ladies have been known to fight duels29; but it appears that, if pugilistic feats5 are to be considered such, the fair sex of antiquity30 offer a flattering precedent31. Not only did Roman ladies patronize these amusements by their presence, but they themselves not unfrequently stepped into the lists; according to Tacitus, ladies of quality were of the number. Juvenal, in his sixth satire32, and Statius, have noticed the practice. It is true that 13 they did not fight “altogether naked,” as Cockburn quaintly33 expresses it, but were dressed like those who were called the Samnites, wearing a shield calculated to protect the breast and shoulders, and growing more narrow towards the bottom, that it might be used with greater convenience.
Not only were women admitted as gladiators, but dwarfs34 also were matched against each other. If we have seen nobles and knights35 of more modern times making destruction a pastime, they too could adduce the example of the ancients. Although gladiators were usually slaves or captives, yet freemen and men of rank soon put in their claims to be allowed publicly to destroy each other. Grave senators, to court the favour of their imperial masters, descended36 into the arena37. Augustus was obliged to command that none of the senatorian order should turn gladiators, and soon after laid the same restraint upon knights. These prohibitions38 were little regarded, since we find Nero exhibiting in one show four hundred senators and six hundred of the equestrian39 rank. It was chiefly during his reign40, and that of Domitian, that the ladies partook of the diversion.
Still, in the midst of this savage41 practice, we find no traces of duelling, either as an amusement or a satisfaction; and the ladies, instead of procuring42 champions to fight their quarrels, 14 very independently maintained their own rights.
In more modern times we read in chronicles of various national conflicts of a similar nature. Such was the battle called that of the Thirty, when that number of Englishmen and Frenchmen contended for superiority. Richard Bembrough, an English chief commanding the garrison43 of Plo?rmel, anxious to avenge44 the death of his comrade Thomas Dagarne, killed before Auray, had ravaged45 the surrounding country, carrying desolation into every quarter, and murdering indiscriminately traders, artisans, and labourers. The Sire de Beaumanoir, a gentleman of Britanny, asked for a conference; which being granted, he remonstrated46 with Bembrough on his conduct, reproaching him with waging a cruel and foul47 warfare48, by attacking unarmed and helpless individuals. The British captain, who considered himself insulted by these reproaches, proudly answered, that it little became him and his followers to compare themselves with Englishmen. Beaumanoir immediately challenged him to a trial of arms, which was as readily accepted by Bembrough. The place appointed for the meeting was at a certain ancient oak-tree, between Plo?rmel and Josselin; and, on the appointed day, thirty combatants appeared on each side, while all the nobility of the district crowded to the spot to witness the conflict. 15
Before giving the signal of the onset49, Bembrough, it appears, had some scruples50; as he considered that the battle would be irregular unless he had received the permission of his prince: he therefore wished to postpone51 the battle until such leave was obtained. To this proposal the sturdy Breton would not agree, but insisted upon immediately deciding which of the two was the better man, and was loved by the fairest lady; the Countess de Blois being the lady of Beaumanoir’s affection.
The conflict was desperate; and the French chronicler states that nearly all the English bit the dust, the wounded being despatched by the conquerors52. Bembrough was killed by a certain Alain de Ka?renrech, when on the point of assailing53 Beaumanoir. The latter, being grievously wounded, asked for drink, when one of his companions, the Sire de Teuteniac, charitably told him to drink his own blood, and that would quench54 his untimely thirst.2
In 1404 another combat of the same description took place, between seven French and seven English knights, before the castle of Montendre, in Saintonge; Charles VII. having selected Arnault Guillem de Barbazas to lead on the French against their antagonists55, commanded by the Lord 16 Scales. The combat took place in presence of both armies; Jean de Harpedene and the Earl of Rutland having been appointed arbiters by their respective monarchs57. Here again, according to Moreri, the French arms were triumphant58; and Barbazas was honoured with the title of the Chevalier sans reproche, and allowed to bear the fleur de lis without a bar on his escutcheon, Charles VII. moreover ordained59 that he should receive sepulchral60 honours in the church of St. Denis, and be buried by his own side.
At various periods we see sovereigns challenging each other, but reserving to themselves the option of accepting or declining the combat. Thus, Francis I, when a prisoner of Charles V, conceived himself insulted when the latter monarch56 very justly reproached him with having broken his royal word, by violating every promise which he had made to him; for, in order to obtain his liberty, the French prince made many solemn promises, amongst others the cession61 of Burgundy, which he broke so soon as he was free, on the plea of having acted under moral violence. A similar plea was adduced, during the late war, by the many French prisoners who so repeatedly broke their parole. The challenge of the French King is so curious and bombastic62, and so unbefitting a man who had just violated every law of honour, that it is worth translating.
“We, Francis, by the grace of God, &c. to 17 you, Charles, by the same grace, King of Spain, do maintain that if you accuse me of having done any act unbecoming a gentleman jealous of his honour, we tell you that you have lied in your throat so often as you may have made, or shall make, such an assertion. And, as we are determined63 to defend our honour to the end of our life, we protest that, after this declaration, in whatever place you either speak or write any matter against our honour, any delay in the combat shall, to your shame, be attributed to you, as your attending this challenge will put an end to all further correspondence.”
Charles V. did accept the challenge, and sent to the French King a herald64, bearing what was called la sureté du camp, to appoint time and place. The French monarch, however, received the messenger in the hall of the Louvre in presence of all his court and the foreign ambassadors; when, strange to say, in the exercise of his kingly power, he would not permit the herald to open his lips; thus pusillanimously65 avoiding a meeting he had so impudently66 provoked.
What made this gasconading worse than ridiculous was, the circumstance of Francis applying to Pope Clement67 VII. for absolution for having ceded68 Flanders and Artois; thus requiring absolution for the maintenance of an oath that he could not violate, without asking for a similar 18 exoneration69 for the breach70 of the solemn promise he had made to give up Burgundy. Voltaire has truly said of this rodomontade, “Tant d’appareil n’aboutit qu’au ridicule71, dont le tr?ne même ne garantit pas les hommes.”
Not unfrequently was this recourse to arms declined both in ancient and modern times. Metellus in Spain refused the challenge of Sertorius; Antigonus was defied by Pyrrhus; and Marius sent word to a Teutonic chief, who urged him to a personal trial of prowess, that, if he was tired of life, he had better hang himself.
Our Edward III. provoked Philippe de Valois to a similar trial, either in single combat, or by an action of a hundred against a hundred men; when the latter declined the meeting, alleging72 that a vassal73 could not encounter his sovereign, Edward having done homage74 to him for the duchy of Guienne: but subsequently, when the arms of Edward were triumphant, Philip expressed a desire to accept the former challenge; the victorious monarch, however, in his turn very wisely declined a meeting which would have staked the glory he had obtained on the hazard of a doubtful rencontre. To the first challenge of Edward, Philip had replied, that he offered to hazard his own person only, against both the kingdom of France and the person of its King; but that if the latter would increase the stake, and put also the kingdom of England on 19 the issue of the meeting, he would very willingly accept the challenge. Hume very justly observes, that “it was easy to see that these mutual75 bravadoes were intended only to dazzle the populace, and that the two kings were much too wise to think of executing their pretended purpose.”
Christian76 IV. of Denmark answered a defiance77 of Charles IX. of Sweden by strongly advising him to take a dose of hellebore; and Charles Gustavus, when similarly circumstanced with Frederick of Denmark, simply replied, that he only fought in good company. In our own days Gustavus IV. challenged Napoleon; and the only reply he received from the French Emperor is said to have been, that he would send him a fencing-master as a plenipotentiary, with whom he might arrange the proceeding78.
Duels, as I have before said, were unknown amongst the ancients, however acute and fastidious might have been their feelings of what is called honour, and the duties which it imposes. The lie—the blow—the most slanderous79 abuse—were not then considered a stain upon a man’s character requiring an appeal to arms in order to verify the old saying, that the dead are always in the wrong. When Eurybiades raised his stick against Themistocles, the youthful hero merely replied, “Strike, but listen to me!” Lycurgus did not deem it necessary to avenge the blow he received from Alcander, 20 although it deprived him of an eye; nor did C?sar bring Cato to account for the ridicule he heaped upon him in the senate. Agrippa, one of the bravest chiefs of Augustus, allowed the son of Cicero to throw a cup at his head; and it appears that this rude custom often prevailed at their festive80 boards.
C?sar relates that two of his centurions81, who could never agree, decided that they should both rush on the ranks of the enemy, to put each other’s valour to the test. Sophocles, being advised to prosecute82 a man who had struck him, calmly replied, “If a donkey kicked me, would you recommend me to go to law?” Indeed, the Roman law clearly stated that a blow did not dishonour,—Ictus fustium infamiam non importat.
The advocates of personal meetings have gone so far as to maintain that duels are recorded in Holy Writ1, for such they consider the murder of Abel, and the combat between David and Goliath: they have also compared the combats of the Roman gladiators to duelling,—a most absurd view of the subject, since those victims of Roman ferocity entertained no personal hostility83 towards each other; and Sully, in his Memoirs84, justly observes, that “duellists have revived the base profession of gladiators, and rendered themselves more contemptible85 and hateful than the unfortunates who bore that name.”
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
writ
|
|
| n.命令状，书面命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
warriors
|
|
| 武士，勇士，战士( warrior的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
arbiters
|
|
| 仲裁人，裁决者( arbiter的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
feats
|
|
| 功绩，伟业，技艺( feat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
followers
|
|
| 追随者( follower的名词复数 )； 用户； 契据的附面； 从动件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
conceal
|
|
| v.隐藏，隐瞒，隐蔽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
entangle
|
|
| vt.缠住，套住；卷入，连累 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
antagonist
|
|
| n.敌人，对抗者，对手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
prey
|
|
| n.被掠食者，牺牲者，掠食；v.捕食，掠夺，折磨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
dexterity
|
|
| n.(手的)灵巧，灵活 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
malefactor
|
|
| n.罪犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
bestow
|
|
| v.把…赠与，把…授予；花费 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
brass
|
|
| n.黄铜；黄铜器，铜管乐器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
entangled
|
|
| adj.卷入的；陷入的；被缠住的；缠在一起的v.使某人（某物/自己）缠绕，纠缠于（某物中），使某人（自己）陷入（困难或复杂的环境中）( entangle的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
adversary
|
|
| adj.敌手，对手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
stunned
|
|
| adj. 震惊的，惊讶的 动词stun的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
ribs
|
|
| n.肋骨( rib的名词复数 )；（船或屋顶等的）肋拱；肋骨状的东西；（织物的）凸条花纹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
bowels
|
|
| n.肠，内脏，内部；肠( bowel的名词复数 )；内部，最深处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
treacherous
|
|
| adj.不可靠的，有暗藏的危险的；adj.背叛的，背信弃义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
killing
|
|
| n.巨额利润；突然赚大钱，发大财 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
duels
|
|
| n.两男子的决斗( duel的名词复数 )；竞争，斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
precedent
|
|
| n.先例，前例；惯例；adj.在前的，在先的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
satire
|
|
| n.讽刺，讽刺文学，讽刺作品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
quaintly
|
|
| adv.古怪离奇地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
dwarfs
|
|
| n.侏儒，矮子（dwarf的复数形式）vt.（使）显得矮小（dwarf的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
knights
|
|
| 骑士； （中古时代的）武士( knight的名词复数 )； 骑士； 爵士； （国际象棋中）马 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
descended
|
|
| a.为...后裔的，出身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
arena
|
|
| n.竞技场，运动场所；竞争场所，舞台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
prohibitions
|
|
| 禁令，禁律( prohibition的名词复数 )； 禁酒； 禁例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
equestrian
|
|
| adj.骑马的；n.马术 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
procuring
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的现在分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
garrison
|
|
| n.卫戍部队；驻地，卫戍区；vt.派(兵)驻防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
avenge
|
|
| v.为...复仇，为...报仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
ravaged
|
|
| 毁坏( ravage的过去式和过去分词 )； 蹂躏； 劫掠； 抢劫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
remonstrated
|
|
| v.抗议( remonstrate的过去式和过去分词 )；告诫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
foul
|
|
| adj.污秽的；邪恶的；v.弄脏；妨害；犯规；n.犯规 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
warfare
|
|
| n.战争(状态)；斗争；冲突 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
onset
|
|
| n.进攻，袭击，开始，突然开始 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
scruples
|
|
| n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 )；顾虑，顾忌v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
postpone
|
|
| v.延期，推迟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
conquerors
|
|
| 征服者，占领者( conqueror的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
assailing
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的现在分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
quench
|
|
| vt.熄灭，扑灭；压制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
antagonists
|
|
| 对立[对抗] 者，对手，敌手( antagonist的名词复数 )； 对抗肌； 对抗药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
monarch
|
|
| n.帝王，君主，最高统治者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
monarchs
|
|
| 君主，帝王( monarch的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
triumphant
|
|
| adj.胜利的，成功的；狂欢的，喜悦的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
sepulchral
|
|
| adj.坟墓的，阴深的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
cession
|
|
| n.割让，转让 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
bombastic
|
|
| adj.夸夸其谈的，言过其实的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
herald
|
|
| vt.预示...的来临，预告，宣布，欢迎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
pusillanimously
|
|
| adv.胆怯地，优柔寡断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
66
impudently
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
clement
|
|
| adj.仁慈的；温和的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
ceded
|
|
| v.让给，割让，放弃( cede的过去式 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
exoneration
|
|
| n.免罪，免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
breach
|
|
| n.违反，不履行；破裂；vt.冲破，攻破 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
ridicule
|
|
| v.讥讽，挖苦；n.嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
alleging
|
|
| 断言，宣称，辩解( allege的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
vassal
|
|
| n.附庸的；属下；adj.奴仆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
homage
|
|
| n.尊敬，敬意，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
defiance
|
|
| n.挑战，挑衅，蔑视，违抗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
slanderous
|
|
| adj.诽谤的，中伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
festive
|
|
| adj.欢宴的，节日的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
centurions
|
|
| n.百人队长，百夫长（古罗马的军官，指挥百人）( centurion的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
prosecute
|
|
| vt.告发；进行；vi.告发，起诉，作检察官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
memoirs
|
|
| n.回忆录；回忆录传( mem,自oir的名词复数) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |