'
The subject of duelling was introduced[631] JOHNSON. 'There is no case
in England where one or other of the combatants _must_ die: if you have
overcome your adversary by disarming him, that is sufficient, though you
should not kill him; your honour, or the honour of your family, is
restored, as much as it can be by a duel. It is cowardly to force your
antagonist to renew the combat, when you know that you have the
advantage of him by superior skill. You might just as well go and cut
his throat while he is asleep in his bed. When a duel begins, it is
supposed there may be an equality; because it is not always skill that
prevails. It depends much on presence of mind; nay on accidents. The
wind may be in a man's face. He may fall. Many such things may decide
the superiority. A man is sufficiently punished, by being called out,
and subjected to the risk that is in a duel.' But on my suggesting that
the injured person is equally subjected to risk, he fairly owned he
could not explain the rationality of duelling.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 20.
When I awaked, the storm was higher still. It abated about nine, and the
sun shone; but it rained again very soon, and it was not a day for
travelling. At breakfast, Dr. Johnson told us, 'there was once a pretty
good tavern in Catherine-street in the Strand, where very good company
met in an evening, and each man called for his own half-pint of wine, or
gill, if he pleased; they were frugal men, and nobody paid but for what
he himself drank.
Pages:
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269