In those early daysⒶapparatus note duelingⒶapparatus note suddenly became a fashion in the new TerritoryⒶapparatus note of Nevada, and by 1864Ⓐapparatus note everybody was anxious to have a chance in the new sport, mainly for the reason that he was not able to thoroughly respect himself so long as he had not killed or crippled somebody in a duel or been killed or crippled in one himself.
At that time I had been serving as city editorⒺexplanatory note on Mr. Goodman’s Virginia City EnterpriseⒶapparatus note for a matter of two years. I was twenty-nine years old. I was ambitious in several ways, but I had entirely escaped the seductions ofⒶapparatus note that particular craze.Ⓐapparatus note I had had no desire to fight a duel;Ⓐapparatus note I had no intention of provoking one. I did not feel respectable, but I got a certain amount of satisfaction out of feeling safe. I was ashamed of myself; the rest of the staff were ashamed of me—but I got along well enough. I had always been accustomed to feeling ashamed of myself, for one thing or another, so there was no novelty for me in the situation. I bore it very well. Plunkett was on the staffⒺexplanatory note;Ⓐapparatus note R. M. Daggett was on the staff. These had tried to get into duels, butⒶapparatus note for the presentⒶapparatus note had failed, and were waiting. Goodman was the only one of us who had done anything to shed credit upon the paper. The rival paper was the Virginia Union.Ⓐapparatus note Its editor for a little while was Tom FitchⒶapparatus note, called the “silver-tonguedⒶapparatus note orator of Wisconsin”Ⓐapparatus note—that was where he came from. He tuned up his oratory in the editorial columns of the Union,Ⓐapparatus note and Mr. Goodman invited him out and modified him with a bulletⒺexplanatory note. I remember the joy of the staff when Goodman’s challenge was accepted by Fitch. We ran late that night, and made much of Joe Goodman. He was only twenty-four years old; he lacked the wisdom which a person has at twenty-nine, and he was as glad of being it as I was that I wasn’t. He chose Major Graves for his second (that name is not right, but it’s close enough,Ⓐapparatus note I don’t remember the Major’s name). Graves came over to instruct Joe in the duelingⒶapparatus note art. HeⒶapparatus note had been a majorⒶapparatus note under Walker, the [begin page 295] “gray-eyedⒶapparatus note man of destiny,”Ⓐapparatus note and had fought all through that remarkable man’s filibustering campaign in Central AmericaⒺexplanatory note. ThatⒶapparatus note fact gaugesⒶapparatus note the Major. To say that a man was a majorⒶapparatus note under Walker, and came out of that struggle ennobled by Walker’s praise, is to say that the Major was not merely a brave man but that he was brave to the very utmost limit of that word. All of Walker’s men were like that. I knew the Gillis family intimately. The father made theⒶapparatus note campaign under Walker, and with him one son. They were in the memorable Plaza fight, and stood it out to the last against overwhelming odds, as did also all of the Walker men. The son was killed at the father’s side. The father received a bullet through the eye. The old man—for he was an old man at the time—wore spectacles, and the bullet and one of the glasses went into hisⒶapparatus note skullⒶapparatus note and remained there—but often, in after years, when I boarded in the old man’s home in San Francisco, whenever he became emotional I used to see him shed tearsⒶapparatus note and glass, in a way that was infinitely moving. It is wonderful how glass breeds when it has a fair chance. This glass was all broken up and ruined, so it had no market value; but in the course of time he exuded enough to set up a spectacle shop with.Ⓐapparatus note There were some otherⒶapparatus note sons: Steve, George, and Jim, very young chapsⒺexplanatory note—the merest lads—who wanted to be in the Walker expedition, for they had their father’s dauntless spirit. But Walker wouldn’t have them; he said it was a serious expedition, and no place for children.
The Major was a majestic creature, with a most stately and dignified and impressive military bearing, and he was by nature and training courteous, polite, graceful, winning; and he had that quality which I think I have encountered in only one other man—Bob HowlandⒺexplanatory note—a mysteriousⒶapparatus note quality which resides in the eye; andⒶapparatus note when that eye is turned upon an individual or a squad, in warning, that is enough. The man that has that eye doesn’t need to go armed; he can move upon an armed desperado and quell him and take him prisoner without saying a single word. I saw Bob Howland do that,Ⓐapparatus note once—a slender, good-natured, amiable, gentle, kindly little skeleton of a man, with a sweet blue eye that would win your heart when it smiled upon you, or turn cold and freeze it,Ⓐapparatus note according to the nature of the occasion.
The Major stood Joe up straight; stood Steve Gillis up fifteen paces away; made Joe turn his right side towards Steve, cock his navy six-shooter—that prodigious weapon—and hold it straight down against his leg; told him that that was the correct position for the gun—that the position ordinarily in use at Virginia City (that is to say, the gun straight up in the air, then broughtⒶapparatus note slowly down to your man) was all wrong. At the word “One,”Ⓐapparatus note you must raise the gun slowly and steadily to the place on the other man’s body that you desire to convince. Then, after a pause, “two, three—fire—Stop!”Ⓐapparatus note At the word “stop,” you may fire—but not earlier. You may give yourself as much time as you please after that word. Then, when you fire, you may advance and go on firing at your leisure and pleasure, if you can get any pleasure out of it. And, in the meantime, the other man, if he has been properly instructed and is alive to his privileges, is advancing on you, and firing—and it is always likely that more or less trouble will result.
Naturally, when Joe’s revolver had risen to a level it was pointing at Steve’s breast, but the Major said “No, that is not wise. Take all the risks of getting murdered yourself, but don’t run any risk of murdering the other man. If you survive a duel you want to survive it in such a way that the memory of it will notⒶapparatus note linger along with you through the rest of your lifeⒶapparatus note and interfere with your sleep. Aim at your man’s leg; not at the knee, not above the knee; for those are [begin page 296] dangerous spots. Aim below the knee; cripple him, but leave the rest of him to his mother.”
By grace of these truly wise and excellent instructions, Joe tumbled his man downⒶapparatus note with a bullet through his lower leg, which furnished him a permanent limp. And Joe lost nothing but a lock of hair, which he could spare better then than he could now. For when I saw him here in New YorkⒶapparatus note a year ago, his crop was gone; he had nothing much left but a fringe, with a dome rising above.
About a year later I got my chance. But I was not hunting for it. Goodman went off to San Francisco for a week’s holiday, and left me to be chief editor. I had supposed that that was an easy berthⒶapparatus note, there being nothing to do but write one editorial per day;Ⓐapparatus note but I was disappointed in that superstition. I couldn’t find anything to write an article about,Ⓐapparatus note the first day. Then it occurred to me that inasmuch as it was the 22dⒶapparatus note of April, 1864, the next morning would be the three-hundredth anniversary of Shakspeare’sⒶapparatus note birthday—and what better theme could I want than that? I got the CyclopediaⒶapparatus note and examined it, and found out who ShakspeareⒶapparatus note was and what he had done, and I borrowed all that and laid it before a community that couldn’t have been better prepared for instruction about ShakspeareⒶapparatus note than if they had been prepared by art. There wasn’t enoughⒶapparatus note of what ShakspeareⒶapparatus note had done to make an editorial of the necessary length, but I filled it out with what he hadn’t done—which in many respects was more important and striking and readable than the handsomest things he had really accomplishedⒺexplanatory note. But next day I was in trouble again. There were no more ShakspearesⒶapparatus note to work up. There was nothing in past history, or in the world’s future possibilities, to make an editorial out of,Ⓐapparatus note suitable to that community; so there was but one theme left. That theme was Mr. Laird, proprietor of the Virginia Union.Ⓐapparatus note His editor had gone off to San Francisco too, and Laird was trying his hand at editing. I woke up Mr. Laird with some courtesies of the kind that were fashionable among newspaper editors in that region, and he came back at me the next day in a most vitriolic way. He was hurt by something I had said about him—some little thing—I don’t remember what it was now—probably called him a horse-thief, or one of those little phrases customarily used to describe another editor. They were no doubt just, and accurate, but Laird was a very sensitive creature, and he didn’t like it. So we expected a challenge from Mr. Laird, because according to the rules—according to the etiquette of duelingⒶapparatus note as reconstructed and reorganized and improved by the duelistsⒶapparatus note of that region—whenever you said a thing about another person that he didn’t like, it wasn’t sufficient for him to talk back in the sameⒶapparatus note offensive spirit: etiquetteⒶapparatus note required him to send a challenge; so we waited for a challenge—waited all day. It didn’t come. And as the day wore along, hour after hour, and no challenge came, the boys grew depressed. They lost heart. But I was cheerful; I felt better and better all the time. They couldn’t understand it, but IⒶapparatus note could understand it. It was my make that enabled me to be cheerful when other people were despondent. So then it became necessary for us to waive etiquette and challenge Mr. Laird. When we reached that decision, they began to cheer up, but I began to lose some of my animation. However, in enterprises of this kind you are in the hands of your friends; there is nothing for you to do but to abide by what they consider to be the best course. Daggett wrote a challenge for me, for Daggett had the language—the right language—the convincing language—and I lacked it. Daggett poured out a stream of unsavory epithets upon Mr. Laird, charged with a vigor and venom of a strength calculated [begin page 297] to persuade him;Ⓐapparatus note and Steve Gillis, my second, carried the challenge and came back to wait for the return. It didn’t come. The boys were exasperated, but I kept my temper. Steve carried another challenge, hotter than the other, and we waited again. Nothing came of it. I began to feel quite comfortable. I began to take an interest in the challenges myself. I had not felt any before; but it seemed to me that I was accumulating a great and valuable reputation at no expense, and my delight in this grew and grew, as challenge after challenge was declined, until by midnight I was beginning to think that there was nothing in the world so much to beⒶapparatus note desired as a chance to fight a duel. So I hurried Daggett up; made him keep on sending challenge after challenge. Oh, well, I overdid it: Laird acceptedⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note I might have knownⒶapparatus note that that would happen—LairdⒶapparatus note was a man you couldn’t depend on.
The boys were jubilant beyond expression. They helped me make my will, which was another discomfort—and I already had enough. Then they took me home. I didn’t sleep any—didn’t want to sleep. I had plenty of things to think about, and less than four hours to do it inⒶapparatus note—because five o’clock was the hour appointed for the tragedy, and I should have to use up one hour—beginning at four—in practisingⒶapparatus note with the revolver and finding out which end of it to level at the adversary. At four we went down into a little gorge, about a mile from town, and borrowed a barn doorⒶapparatus note for a mark—borrowed it of a man who was over in California on a visit—and we set the barn doorⒶapparatus note up and stood a fence-rail up against the middle of it, to represent Mr. Laird. But theⒶapparatus note rail was no proper representativeⒶapparatus note of him,Ⓐapparatus note for he was longer than a rail and thinner. Nothing would ever fetch him but a line shot, and then as likeⒶapparatus note as not he would split the bullet—the worst material for duelingⒶapparatus note purposes that could be imagined. I began on the rail. I couldn’t hit the rail; then I tried the barn door; butⒶapparatus note I couldn’t hit the barn doorⒶapparatus note. There was nobody in danger except stragglers around on the flanks of that mark. I was thoroughly discouraged, and I didn’t cheer up any when we presently heard pistol-shotsⒶapparatus note over in the next little ravine. I knew what that was—that was Laird’s gang out practisingⒶapparatus note him. They would hear my shots, and of course they would come up over the ridge to see what kind of a record I was making—see what their chances were against me. Well, I hadn’t any record; and I knewⒶapparatus note that if Laird came over that ridge and sawⒶapparatus note my barn doorⒶapparatus note without a scratch on it, he would be as anxious to fightⒶapparatus note as I was—or as I had been at midnight, before that disastrous acceptance came.
Now just at this moment, a little bird, no bigger than a sparrow, flew along by and lit on a sage-bush about thirty yards away. Steve whipped out his revolver and shot its head off. Oh,Ⓐapparatus note he was a marksman—much better than I was. We ran down there to pick up the bird, and just then, sure enough, Mr. Laird and his people came over the ridge, and they joined us. And when Laird’s second saw that bird, with its head shot off, he lost color, he faded,Ⓐapparatus note and you could see that he was interested. He said,
“WhoⒶapparatus note did that?”
BeforeⒶapparatus note I could answer, Steve spoke up and said quite calmly, and in a matter-of-factⒶapparatus note way,Ⓐapparatus note
“ClemensⒶapparatus note did it.”
TheⒶapparatus note second said,Ⓐapparatus note “Why, that is wonderful. How far off was that bird?”
Steve said,Ⓐapparatus note “Oh, not far—about thirty yards.”
TheⒶapparatus note second said,Ⓐapparatus note “Well,Ⓐapparatus note that is astonishing shooting. How often can he do that?”
SteveⒶapparatus note said languidly,Ⓐapparatus note “Oh, about four times out of five?”Ⓐapparatus note
[begin page 298]I knew the little rascal was lying, but I didn’t say anything. The second said,Ⓐapparatus note “WhyⒶapparatus note that is amazingⒶapparatus note shooting;Ⓐapparatus note I supposed he couldn’t hit a church.”
He was supposing very sagaciously, but I didn’t say anything. Well, they said good morning. The second took Mr. Laird home, a little tottery on his legs, and Laird sent back a note in his own hand declining to fight a duel with me on any terms whatever.
Well, my life was saved—saved by that accident. I don’t know what the bird thought about that interposition of Providence, but I felt very, very comfortable over it—satisfied and content. Now, we found out, later,Ⓐapparatus note that Laird had hit hisⒶapparatus note mark four times out of six, right along. If the duel had come off, he would have so filled my skinⒶapparatus note with bullet-holes that it wouldn’t have held my principles.
By breakfast-timeⒶapparatus note the news was all over townⒶapparatus note that I had sent a challenge and Steve Gillis had carried it. Now that would entitle us to two years apiece in the penitentiary, according to the brand-new lawⒺexplanatory note. JudgeⒶapparatus note NorthⒺexplanatory note sent us no message as coming from himself, but a message came from a close friend of his. He said it would be a good idea for us to leave the TerritoryⒶapparatus note by the first stage-coach. This would sail next morning, at four o’clock—and in the meantime we would be searched for, but not with avidity; and if we were in the TerritoryⒶapparatus note after that stage-coach left, we would be the first victims of the new law. JudgeⒶapparatus note North was anxious to have some object-lessonsⒶapparatus note for that law, and he would absolutely keep us in the prison the full two years. He wouldn’t pardon us out to please anybody.Ⓐapparatus note
Well, it seemed to me that our society was no longer desirable in Nevada; so we stayed in our quarters and observed proper caution all day—except that once Steve went over to the hotel to attend to another customer of mine. That was a Mr. Cutler. You see Laird was not the only person whom I had tried to reform during my occupancy of the editorial chair. I had looked around and selected several other people, and delivered a new zest of life into them through warm criticism and disapproval—so that when I laid down my editorial pen I had four horse-whippings and two duels owing to me. We didn’t care for the horse-whippings; there was no glory in them; they were not worth the trouble of collecting. But honor required that some notice should be taken of that other duel. Mr. Cutler had come up from Carson City, and hadⒶapparatus note sent a man over with a challenge from the hotel. Steve went over to pacify him. Steve weighed only ninety-five pounds, but it was well known throughout the TerritoryⒶapparatus note that with his fists he could whip anybody that walked on two legs, let his weight and science be what they might. Steve was a Gillis, and when a Gillis confronted a man and had a proposition to makeⒶapparatus note the proposition always contained business. When Cutler found that Steve was my second he cooled down; he became calm and rational,Ⓐapparatus note and was ready to listen. Steve gave him fifteen minutes to get out of the hotel, and half an hour to get out of town or there would be results. So that duel went off successfully, because Mr. Cutler immediately left for CarsonⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note a convinced and reformed man.
I have never had anything toⒶapparatus note do with duels since. I thoroughly disapprove of duels. I consider them unwise, and I know they are dangerous. Also, sinful.Ⓐapparatus note If a man should challenge me now, I wouldⒶapparatus note go to that man and take him kindly and forgivinglyⒶapparatus note by the hand and lead him to a quiet retired spot,Ⓐapparatus note and kill him. Still, IⒶapparatus note have always taken a great interest in other people’s duels. One always feels an abiding interest in any heroic thing which has entered into his own experience.
[begin page 299]In 1878, fourteen years after my unmaterializedⒶapparatus note duel, Messieurs FourtouⒶapparatus note and Gambetta fought a duel which made heroes of both of them in France, butⒶapparatus note made them ratherⒶapparatus note ridiculous throughout the rest of the world. I was living in Munich that fall and winter, and I was so interested in that funny tragedyⒶapparatus note that I wrote a long account of it, and it is in one of my books, somewhere—an account which had some inaccuracies in it, but as an exhibition of the spirit of that duel, I think it was correct and trustworthyⒺexplanatory note. And when I was living in Vienna, thirty-fourⒶapparatus note years after my ineffectual duel, my interest in that kind of incident was still strong; and I find here among my AutobiographicalⒶapparatus note manuscripts of that day a chapterⒶapparatus note which I began concerning it, but did not finish. I wanted to finish itⒶapparatus note but held it open in the hope that the Italian AmbassadorⒶapparatus note, M. Nigra, would find time to furnish me the full history of SignorⒶapparatus note Cavallotti’sⒶapparatus note adventures in that lineⒺexplanatory note. But he was a busy man; there was always an interruption before he could get well started; so my hope was never fulfilled. The following is the unfinished chapterⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
As concerns dueling. ThisⒶapparatus note pastime is as common in Austria to-day as it is in France. But with this difference, that here in the Austrian States the duel is dangerous, while in France it is not. Here it is tragedy, in France it is comedy; here it is a solemnity, there it is monkey-shines; here the duelistⒶapparatus note risks his life, there he does not even risk his shirt. Here he fights with pistol or sabre, in France with a hair-pinⒶapparatus note—a blunt one. Here the desperately wounded man tries to walk to the hospital; there they paint the scratch so that they can find it again, lay the sufferer on a stretcher, and conduct him off the field with a band of music.
At the end of a French duel the pair hug and kiss and cry, and praise each other’s valor; then the surgeonsⒶapparatus note make an examination and pick out the scratched one, and the other one helps him ontoⒶapparatus note the litter and pays his fare; and in return the scratched one treats to champagne and oysters in the evening, and then “the incident is closed,” as the French say. It is all polite, and gracious, and prettyⒶapparatus note and impressive. At the end of an Austrian duel the antagonist that is alive gravely offers his hand to the other man, utters some phrases of courteous regret, then bids him good-byeⒶapparatus note and goes his way, and that incident also is closed. The French duelistⒶapparatus note is painstakinglyⒶapparatus note protected from danger, by the rules of the game. His antagonist’s weapon cannot reach so far as his body; if he get a scratch it will not be above his elbow. But in Austria the rules of the game do not provide against danger, they carefully provide for it, usually. Commonly the combat must be kept up until one of the men is disabled; a non-disabling slash or stab does not retire him.
For a matter of three months I watched the Viennese journals, and whenever a duelⒶapparatus note was reported in their telegraphic columns I scrap-booked it. By this record I find that duelingⒶapparatus note in Austria is not confined to journalists and old maids,Ⓐapparatus note as in France, but is indulged in by military men, journalists, students, physicians, lawyers, members of the legislature, and even the Cabinet,Ⓐapparatus note the Bench and the police. DuelingⒶapparatus note is forbidden by law; and so it seems odd to see the makers and administrators of the laws dancing on their work in this way. Some months ago Count BadeniⒶapparatus note, at that time chiefⒶapparatus note of the Government, fought a pistol-duel here in the capital city of the Empire with representative Wolf, and both of those distinguished Christians came near getting turned out of the Church—for the Church as well as the State forbids duelingⒶapparatus note Ⓔexplanatory note.
In one case, lately, in Hungary, the police interfered and stopped a duel after the first innings. This was a sabre-duelⒶapparatus note between the chief of police and the city attorney. Unkind things were said about it by the newspapers. They said the police remembered their duty uncommonly well when their own officials were the parties concerned in duels. But I think [begin page 300] the underlings showed good bread-and-butter judgment. If their superiors had carved each other well, the public would have askedⒶapparatus note Where were the police? and their places would have been endangered; but custom does not require them to be around where mere unofficial citizens are explaining a thing with sabres.
There was another duel—a double duel—going on in the immediate neighborhood at the time, and in this case the police obeyed custom and did not disturb it. Their bread and butter was not at stake there. In this duel a physician fought a couple of surgeons, and wounded both—one of them lightly, the other seriously. An undertaker wanted to keep people from interfering,Ⓐapparatus note but that was quite natural again.Ⓐapparatus note
Selecting at random from my record, I next find a duel at TarnopolⒶapparatus note between military men.Ⓐapparatus note An officer of the Tenth Dragoons charged an officer of the Ninth Dragoons with an offence against the laws of the card-table. There was a defect or a doubtⒶapparatus note somewhere in the matter, and this had to be examined and passed upon by a CourtⒶapparatus note of Honor. So the case was sent up to LembergⒶapparatus note for this purpose. One would like to know what the defect was, but the newspaper does not say. A man here who has fought many duels and has a graveyard, says that probably the matter in question was as to whether the accusation was true or not; that ifⒶapparatus note the charge was a very grave one—cheating, for instance—proof of its truth would rule the guilty officer out of the field of honor; the Court would not allow a gentleman to fight with such a person. You see what a solemn thing it is; you see how particular they are; any little careless actⒶapparatus note can lose you your privilege of getting yourself shot, here. The Court seems to have gone into the matter in a searching and careful fashion, for several months elapsed before it reached a decision. It then sanctioned a duel and the accused killed his accuser.
Next I find a duel between a prince and a major; first with pistols—no result satisfactory to either party; then with sabres, and the major badly hurt.
Next, a sabre-duel between journalists—the one a strong man, the other feeble and in poor health. It was brief; the strong one drove his sword through the weak one, and death was immediate.
Next, a duel between a lieutenant and a studentⒶapparatus note of medicine. According to the newspaper report these are the details. The student was in a restaurant one evening;Ⓐapparatus note passing along, he halted at a table to speak with some friends; near-byⒶapparatus note sat a dozen military men; the student conceived that one of these was “staring”Ⓐapparatus note at him; he asked the officer to step outside and explain. This officer and another one gathered up their caps and sabres and went out with the student. Outside—this is the student’s account—the student introduced himself to the offending officer and saidⒶapparatus note “YouⒶapparatus note seemed to stare at me;”Ⓐapparatus note for answer, the officer struck at the student with his fist; the student parried the blow; both officers drew their sabres and attacked the young fellow, and one of them gave him a wound on the leftⒶapparatus note arm; then they withdrew. This was Saturday night. The duel followed on Monday, in the military riding-school—the customary dueling-groundⒶapparatus note all over Austria, apparently. The weapons were pistols. The dueling-termsⒶapparatus note were somewhatⒶapparatus note beyond custom in the matter of severity,Ⓐapparatus note if I may gather that from the statement that the combat was fought “unter sehr schweren BedingungenⒺexplanatory note”Ⓐapparatus note—to witⒶapparatus note, “DistanceⒶapparatus note, fifteenⒶapparatus note steps—with threeⒶapparatus note steps advance.”Ⓐapparatus note There was but one exchange of shots. The student was hit. “He put his hand on his breast, his body began to bend slowly forward, then collapsed in deathⒶapparatus note and sank to the ground.”
It is pathetic. There are other duels in my list, but I find in each and all of them one and the same ever-recurring defect—the principals are never present, but only their sham representatives. The real principals in any duel are not the duelistsⒶapparatus note themselves, but their families. They do the mourning, the suffering, theirs is the loss and theirs the misery. They [begin page 301] stake all that, the duelistⒶapparatus note stakes nothing but his life, and that is a trivial thing compared with what his death must cost those whom he leaves behind him. Challenges should not mention the duelist;Ⓐapparatus note he has nothing much at stake, and the real vengeance cannot reach him. The challenge should summon the offender’s old gray mother, and his young wife and his little children,—these, or any to whom he is a dear and worshipedⒶapparatus note possession—and should say, “You have done me no harm, but I am the meek slave of a custom which requires me to crush the happiness out of your hearts and condemn you to years of pain and grief, in order that I may washⒶapparatus note clean with your tears a stain which has been put upon me by another person.”
The logic of it is admirable: a person has robbed me of a penny; I must beggar ten innocent persons to make good my loss. Surely nobody’s “honor” is worth all that.
SinceⒶapparatus note the duelist’sⒶapparatus note family are the real principals in a duel,Ⓐapparatus note the State ought to compel them to be present at it. Custom,Ⓐapparatus note also, ought to be so amended as to require it; and without it no duel ought to be allowed to go on. If that student’s unoffending mother had been present and watching the officer through her tears as he raised his pistol, he—why, he would have fired in the air. We know that. For we know how we are all made. Laws ought to be based upon the ascertained facts of our nature. It would be a simple thing to make a dueling-lawⒶapparatus note which would stop duelingⒶapparatus note.
As things are now, the mother is never invited. She submits to this; and without outward complaint, for she, too,Ⓐapparatus note is the vassal of custom,Ⓐapparatus note and custom requires her to conceal her pain when she learns the disastrous news that her son must go to the dueling fieldⒶapparatus note, and by the powerful force that is lodged in habit and custom she is enabled to obey this trying requirement—a requirement which exactsⒶapparatus note a miracle of her, and gets it. LastⒶapparatus note January a neighbor of ours who has a young sonⒶapparatus note in the army was wakened by this youth at three o’clock one morning, and she sat up in bed and listened to his message:
“I have come to tell you something, mother, which will distress you, but you must be good and brave, and bearⒶapparatus note it. I have been affronted by a fellow-officerⒶapparatus note, and we fight at three this afternoon. Lie down and sleep, now, and think no more about it.”
She kissed him good night and lay down paralysedⒶapparatus note with grief and fear, but said nothing. But she did not sleep; she prayed and mourned till the first streak of dawn, then fled to the nearest church and implored the Virgin for help; and from that church she went to another and another and another; church after church, and still church after church,Ⓐapparatus note and so spent all the day until three o’clock on her knees in agony and tears; then dragged herself home and sat down,Ⓐapparatus note comfortless and desolate, to count the minutes, and wait,Ⓐapparatus note with an outward show of calm, for what had been ordained for her—happiness, or endless misery. Presently she heard the clank of a sabre—she had not known before what music was in that soundⒶapparatus note—and her son put his head in and said:Ⓐapparatus note
“XⒶapparatus note was in the wrong, and he apologizedⒶapparatus note.”
So that incident was closed; and for the rest of her life the mother will always find something pleasant about the clank of a sabre, no doubt.
In one of my listed duels—however, let it go, there is nothing particularly striking about it except that the seconds interfered. And prematurely, too, for neither man was dead. This was certainly irregular. Neither of the men liked it. It was a duel with cavalry sabres, between an editor and a lieutenant. The editor walked to the hospital, the lieutenant was carried. In this country an editor who can write well is valuable, but he is not likely to remain so unless he can handle a sabre with charm.
The following very recentⒶapparatus note telegram shows that also in France duels are humanely stopped as soon as they approach the (French) danger-point:
[begin page 302](Reuter’s Telegram.)Ⓐapparatus note
PARIS, March 5.
TheⒶapparatus note duel between Colonels Henry and Picquart took place this morning in the Riding School of the Ecole Militaire, the doors of which were strictly guarded in order to prevent intrusion. The combatants, who fought with swords, were in position at ten o’clock.
AtⒶapparatus note the first re-engagementⒶapparatus note Lieut.-ColonelⒶapparatus note Henry was slightly scratched in the forearmⒶapparatus note, and just at the same moment his own blade appearedⒶapparatus note to touch his adversary’s neck. Senator Ranc, who was Colonel Picquart’s second, stopped the fight, but as it was found that his principal had not been touched, the combat continued. A very sharp encounter ensued, in which Colonel Henry was wounded in the elbow, and the duel then terminatedⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
After which, the stretcher and the band. In lurid contrast with this delicate flirtation,Ⓐapparatus note weⒶapparatus note have this fatalⒶapparatus note duel of day before yesterday in ItalyⒺexplanatory note, where the earnest Austrian duel is in vogue.Ⓐapparatus note I knew CavallottiⒶapparatus note slightly, and this gives me a sort of personal interest in his duel. I first saw him in Rome several years ago. He was sitting on a block of stone in the Forum, and was writing something in his note-book—a poem or a challenge, or something like that—and the friend who pointed him out to me said, “That is CavallottiⒶapparatus note—he has fought thirty duels; do not disturb him.” I did not disturb himⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
May 13, 1907. It is a long time ago. CavallottiⒶapparatus note—poet, orator, satirist, statesman, patriot—was a great man, and his death was deeply lamented by his countrymen—Ⓐapparatus notemany monuments to his memory testify to this. In his duels he killed several of his antagonists and disabled the rest. By nature he was a little irascible.Ⓐapparatus note Once when the officials of the library of Bologna threw out his books the gentle poet went up there and challenged the whole fifteen! His parliamentary duties were exacting, but he proposed to keep coming up and fighting duels between trains until all those officials had been retired from the activities of life. Although he always chose the sword to fight with, he had never had a lesson with that weapon. When game was called he waited for nothing, but always plunged at his opponent and rained such a storm of wild and originalⒶapparatus note thrusts and whacks upon him that the man was dead or crippled before he could bring his science to bear. But his latest antagonist discarded science, and won. He held his sword straight forward like a lance when CavallottiⒶapparatus note made his plunge—with the result that he impaled himself upon it. It entered his mouth and passed out at the back of his neck. Death was instantaneousⒺexplanatory note.Ⓐapparatus note
1864 (TS2-SLC)
serving as city editor . . . for a matter of two years] See the Autobiographical Dictation of 9 January 1906.
Plunkett . . . R. M. Daggett was on the staff] J. R. (Joe) Plunkett was a native of New York who had migrated to California in 1852 and to Nevada Territory in 1860, settling in Virginia City, where he was a miner and an editorial writer for the Territorial Enterprise. Rollin M. Daggett (1831–1901), also from New York, had been a journalist in San Francisco, founding the weekly Golden Era (1852) and the daily Evening Mirror (1860). Moving to Virginia City in 1862, he became a partner in a mining stock brokerage and also a part-time reporter for the Enterprise. In 1864 he joined the paper’s editorial staff and in 1874 succeeded Goodman as editor-in-chief. Later he served as a Republican congressman from Nevada (1879–81) and U.S. minister resident to Hawaii (1882–85) (Marsh, Clemens, and Bowman 1972, 467 n. 27; Wright 1893; 17 Sept 1864 to Wright, L1, 310–11 n. 3).
Goodman was the only one . . . Tom Fitch . . . modified him with a bullet] Thomas Fitch (1838–1923), born and raised in New York City, had been a Milwaukee newspaper editor and a California newspaper editor, lawyer, and assemblyman before relocating to Virginia City in 1863. That year he became the editor of the Virginia City Union. The details of his dispute with Goodman are not known. On 1 August 1863 Virginia City police foiled their first attempt at a duel, an incident Clemens reported for the Enterprise of 2 August and for the San Francisco Morning Call of 2 August and 6 August. On 28 September 1863 the two editors succeeded in dueling, in California, so as to avoid prosecution under Nevada territorial law (see the note at 298.12–13). Fitch was wounded in the right leg below the knee, but survived to employ his famed powers of oratory as Washoe County, Nevada, district attorney (1865–66) and as a Republican congressman from Nevada (1869–71). Clemens may have written the 29 September 1863 Enterprise report of the duel (see ET&S1, 262–66; L1: 26 May 1864 to OC, 300 n. 3; 11 Nov 1864 to OC, 319 n. 4).
He had been a major under Walker . . . campaign in Central America] In 1855 William Walker (1824–60), a physician, lawyer, and journalist, led a small volunteer military force on an expedition to assist a revolutionary faction in Nicaragua. In 1856 the government he established was recognized by the United States, and Walker had himself inaugurated as president. In 1857, however, after less than a year in office, he was defeated by an alliance of Central American countries and forced to leave Nicaragua. He made an abortive attempt to return that same year, and another in 1860 that ended with his death by firing squad in Honduras.
I knew the Gillis family . . . Steve, George, and Jim, very young chaps] Stephen E. Gillis (1838–1918) was one of Clemens’s closest Nevada friends. A typesetter by training, he was the foreman of the Territorial Enterprise when Clemens joined the paper in 1862. Gillis remained principally in Virginia City, working as a news editor on the Enterprise and then on the Virginia City Chronicle, until 1894. He then moved to Jackass Hill, California, where he lived with his brothers James (1830–1907) and William (1840–1929), both of them miners and friends of Clemens’s. Clemens was visiting Jim and Billy Gillis on Jackass Hill and in Angels Camp when, in February 1865, he first heard a version of the “Jumping Frog” tale that he made, and that made him, famous (see AD, 11 Jan 1906, note at 261.21–24). Late in 1864 and again in 1865 he lived with Steve and Billy Gillis and their father, Angus (1800–1870), in San Francisco. The brother who died campaigning with William Walker was Philip H. Gillis (1834–56). According to the family genealogy assembled by Billy Gillis in 1924, there was no brother named George ( L1: 21 May 1864 to Laird, 291–92 n. 3; 25 Sept 1864 to JLC and PAM, 313–14 n. 3; 28 Sept 1864 to OC and MEC, 316 n. 3; link note following 11 Nov 1864 to OC, 320–22; 26 Jan 1870 to Gillis, L4, 35–39; N&J1, 63–90; William R. Gillis to H. A. Williams, 31 May 1924, photocopy in CU-MARK courtesy of Peter A. Evans; for more on Jim Gillis, see AD, 26 May 1907).
Bob Howland] Clemens met Robert Muir Howland (1838–90), a native of New York State, in Carson City, Nevada Territory, in 1861. Howland was a mine superintendent and a mine and foundry owner in Aurora who also served as the town marshal. In 1864 he was appointed warden of the territorial prison at Carson City, and in 1883 became a U.S. deputy marshal for California. In chapter 21 of Roughing It he appears briefly, but dramatically, as Bob H——, who, during a windstorm, springs “up out of a sound sleep,” knocks over his fellow boarders’ live spider collection, and shouts, “Turn out, boys—the tarantulas is loose!” Clemens and Howland remained friendly, corresponding regularly, until Howland’s death ( RI 1993, 145; 29 Oct 1861 to Phillips, L1, 142 n. 2).
Goodman went off to San Francisco . . . things he had really accomplished] On 18 March 1864, writing from Virginia City, Clemens informed his sister that he was filling in as editor of the Enterprise because “Joe Goodman is gone to the Sandwich Islands” (18 Mar 1864 to PAM, L1, 275). In chapter 55 of Roughing It he gave an account of his stint as Goodman’s replacement that did not explicitly mention an editorial on Shakespeare:
Mr. Goodman went away for a week and left me the post of chief editor. It destroyed me. The first day, I wrote my “leader” in the forenoon. The second day, I had no subject and put it off till the afternoon. The third day I put it off till evening, and then copied an elaborate editorial out of the “American Cyclopedia,” that steadfast friend of the editor, all over this land. The fourth day I “fooled around” till midnight, and then fell back on the Cyclopedia again. The fifth day I cudgeled my brain till midnight, and then kept the press waiting while I penned some bitter personalities on six different people. The sixth day I labored in anguish till far into the night and brought forth—nothing. The paper went to press without an editorial. The seventh day I resigned. On the eighth, Mr. Goodman returned and found six duels on his hands—my personalities had borne fruit. ( RI 1993 , 377–78)
Goodman actually returned to Virginia City on 8 April 1864, well before Shakespeare’s birthday. There is no evidence that there were any challenges awaiting him (18 Mar 1864 to PAM, L1 , 280 n. 15).
That theme was Mr. Laird . . . Laird accepted] The dispute between James L. Laird and Clemens occurred in May 1864, not in March–April while Clemens was the substitute editor of the Territorial Enterprise. It had at its heart an exchange of inflammatory columns in the Virginia City Union and the Enterprise, the latter written by Clemens, about funds raised in Nevada Territory for the U.S. Sanitary Commission, which aided sick and wounded Union soldiers (for full details, including Clemens’s challenge to Laird and the response, see 20 May 1864 to MEC through 28 May 1864 to Cutler, L1, 287–301).
two years apiece in the penitentiary . . . brand-new law] This law was not “brand-new” in May of 1864. It was section 35 of “An Act concerning Crimes and Punishments,” which had been passed on 26 November 1861. It established a penalty of from two to ten years’ imprisonment for both the sending and delivering of a challenge (26 May 1864 to OC, L1, 300 n. 2).
Judge North] John W. North (1815–90) was an associate justice of the territorial supreme court from 1862 to 1864 ( L1: 29, 30, and 31 Jan 1862 to MEC, 145–46 n. 2; 13 Apr 1862 to OC, 189 n. 12).
That was a Mr. Cutler . . . immediately left for Carson] William K. Cutler, whose wife, Ellen, was president of the Carson City committee that had raised funds for the U.S. Sanitary Commission, had been offended by some of Clemens’s remarks in the Territorial Enterprise and had written to him in protest. Clemens responded defiantly on 28 May 1864, inviting Cutler to challenge him to a duel. It is not known whether Cutler obliged or, if he did, how much of the present account is accurate. What is known is that Clemens himself abruptly departed Nevada Territory on 29 May 1864 (see L1: 23 May 1864 to Cutler, 296–97; 25 May 1864 to OC and MEC, 297–99; 26 May 1864 to OC, 299–301; 28 May 1864 to Cutler and the link note that follows, 301–3).
In 1878 . . . I think it was correct and trustworthy] On 21 November 1878, two French politicians, the Republican Léon Gambetta (1838–82) and the Bonapartist Marie François Oscar Bardy de Fourtou (1836–97), fought a duel in which shots were exchanged but no one was injured. In 1880 Clemens ridiculed the encounter in “The Great French Duel,” chapter 8 of A Tramp Abroad. One of his “inaccuracies” was his claim that his “long personal friendship with M. Gambetta” resulted in his acting as Gambetta’s second “under a French name,” which accounted “for the fact that in all the newspaper reports M. Gambetta’s second was apparently a Frenchman” (New York Times: “The Latest Foreign News,” 22 Nov 1878, 1; “General Foreign News,” 23 Nov 1878, 1; “Belligerents of the Day,” 7 Dec 1878, 1; Child 1887, 521–24).
Italian Ambassador, M. Nigra . . . Signor Cavallotti’s adventures in that line] Constantino Nigra (1828–1907) was the Italian ambassador to Vienna from 1885 to 1904, one of several diplomatic posts he held. Felice Carlo Emmanuele Cavallotti (1842–98) was an Italian politician, author, and journalist known for fighting duels (see the notes at 302.14 and 302.30–33).
the unfinished chapter] The sixteen-page manuscript of his “unfinished chapter” was pasted onto the pages of the typescript. Entitled “Dueling,” it was written in Vienna on 8 March 1898; Paine published it in 1923 in Europe and Elsewhere (SLC 1898a).
Some months ago Count Badeni . . . the State forbids dueling] On 25 September 1897, Kasimir Felix Badeni (1846–1909), the Galician-born Austrian premier, fought a duel with Karl Hermann Wolf (1862–1941), a German Nationalist leader who had called him a “Polish pig.” Badeni suffered a superficial wound to his right wrist. Although dueling was illegal and considered a mortal sin by the church, neither man was prosecuted or excommunicated (New York Times: “Premier Badeni Wounded,” 26 Sept 1897, 5; “The Badeni-Wolff Duel,” 27 Sept 1897, 5; “Count Badeni Not to Be Punished,” 28 Sept 1897, 7; Dolmetsch 1992, 67).
unter sehr schweren Bedingungen] Under very severe conditions.
duel between Colonels Henry and Picquart . . . the duel then terminated] French army colonels Georges Picquart (1854–1914) and Hubert-Joseph Henry (1846–98) were among the principal figures in the Dreyfus Affair, a long controversy that began with the 1894 rigged conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus (1859–1935), a Jew victimized by anti-Semitic elements in the army and the press, for passing secret information to Germany. Picquart discovered that Dreyfus was not responsible for the treason and came to his defense, despite official warnings to conceal the discovery. In February 1898 Picquart and Henry testified for and against Émile Zola, respectively, in Zola’s trial for libel for his writings in support of Dreyfus. During testimony Henry called Picquart a liar, which resulted in their 5 March 1898 duel. Henry subsequently confessed to forging much of the evidence against Dreyfus and then, on 31 August 1898, committed suicide. Picquart, whose defense of Dreyfus had led to his dismissal from the army, was reinstated when Dreyfus was finally exonerated in 1906. Arthur Ranc (1831–1908) was a French politician, novelist, and writer on history and politics (“Col. Picquart Wins a Duel,” New York Times, 6 Mar 1898, 7).
fatal duel of day before yesterday in Italy] Clemens alludes to the 6 March 1898 duel in Rome in which Felice Cavallotti was killed by a political and journalistic adversary. Sources differ as to whether it was his thirty-second or thirty-third duel (“Roman Duel Ends Fatally,” New York Times, 7 Mar 1898, 1).
I did not disturb him] Clemens’s “Dueling” manuscript ends here; there was no additional text in the first typed version of this dictation. But the presence of pinholes on the last leaf indicates that there was originally a newspaper clipping appended: below these words on the second, revised typescript, the following instruction is typed: “Here insert—and translate—the German article about Cavallotti’s duels.” When Clemens later read this second typescript he canceled the instruction and below it wrote the paragraph that follows, dated 13 May 1907. It is possible that the added paragraph includes his own paraphrase of the unidentified “German article.”
He held his sword . . . Death was instantaneous] According to the New York Times, when the duel began, Cavallotti “attacked his opponent vigorously”:
The first two engagements were without result, but in the third Signor Cavallotti received a thrust in the throat that severed his jugular. At first it was thought he was injured only slightly, but the gravity of the wound was perceived on his putting his hand to his mouth. He withdrew it covered with blood, and thereafter he could not utter a word. . . . Signor Cavallotti expired in ten minutes without speaking again. (“Roman Duel Ends Fatally,” 7 Mar 1898, 1)
Source documents.
TS1 (incomplete) Typescript, leaves numbered 134–48 (most of 149 is missing), made from Hobby’s notes and revised: ‘Friday . . . and trust-’ (294 title–299.6).MS “Dueling,” MS of 16 leaves written in Vienna in March 1898, attached to pages 150–65 of TS1: ‘As concerns . . . disturb him.’ (299.14–302.19).
Clipping Clipping from an unidentified newspaper, attached to the MS: ‘(Reuter’s . . . then terminated.’ (302.1–12).
TS2 Typescript, leaves numbered 276–96, made from the revised TS1 and the MS (with the attached clipping) and further revised.
TS4 Typescript, leaves numbered 537–62, made from the revised TS1 and the MS.
NAR 8pf Galley proofs of NAR 8, typeset from the revised TS2 and further revised, ViU (the same extent as NAR 8).
NAR 8 North American Review 183 (21 December 1906), 1217–24: ‘Friday . . . kill him.’ (294 title–298.40).
NAR 22pf (lost) Galley proofs of NAR 22, typeset from the revised TS2 and further revised (conjecturally); now lost.
NAR 22 North American Review 186 (September 1907), 13–17: ‘I have . . . was instantaneous.’ (298.40–302.33).
Most of page 149 of TS1 was discarded by Paine when he edited the dictation for MTA . He preserved only three lines from the top of the page, pasting them to the bottom of page 148. Hobby incorporated the revisions that Clemens made on TS1 into TS2, and they were incorporated into TS4 as well. TS4 has no authority for the text that survives in TS1 or MS. Where TS1 is missing, however, TS4 was collated, because TS2 and TS4 derive independently from TS1 and therefore either may incorporate authorial readings not present in the other. TS2 and TS4 agree, confirming the readings of the missing portion of TS1.
Paine reviewed TS2 for possible publication in the NAR, deleting the marginal date ‘1864’ and adding a query about spacing the text transcribed from the MS in the second part. Clemens revised TS2, restoring the date and noting that the MS text could be set as regular text or as an extract. (This was the first NAR installment to print such a marginal date.) The dictation was divided into two installments: NAR 8 and NAR 22; page 289 of TS2 was cut in two, and only the top piece was submitted for NAR 8. Harvey wrote ‘9th instalment’ at the top after the TS2 printer’s copy was received at the NAR. The installment later became NAR 8 when the selections previously scheduled for that installment were postponed until NAR 12 (see the Textual Commentary for “John Hay”). When NAR 8 was in galley proofs, on 10 December 1906, David Munro wrote to Clemens, who was in Washington on copyright business:
I am in distress over one of the first four pages of the new instalment of the Autobiography, and the printer expects me to send them to the press tomorrow. That is why I pursue you to Washington.
On page 1218, Joe Goodman challenges Tom Fitch to duel and “modifies” him.
On page 1219, we expect the Major to stand Joe up against Tom Fitch. But Joe is stood up with Steve Gillis and “modifies” Steve. What I would know at this last moment is if that is a slip of the pen. If it is, will you do me the great kindness to telegraph me at our expense in the words “Change the names,” which I shall consider as authorization to substitute Tom Fitch for Steve Gillis and Tom for Steve in the description of the duel.
If it is all right as it stands, please telegraph me the words “Let it stand.”
I am, no doubt, stupid in making this inquiry, but, honor bright, stupidity is one of the prime qualifications of an editor, for he represents the stupidity of the people. (Munro to SLC, CU-MARK)
Clemens drafted a response on the verso of Munro’s letter: “Make page twelve-twenty read ‘Joe tumbled Fitch down next morning with a bullet’ etc.” Munro adopted Clemens’s revised text in NAR 8, but it has been rejected here as an unnecessary refinement that the author did not initiate (see the entry for ‘his man down’ at 296.2).
The second part of this dictation, based largely on an MS written in Vienna in 1898, was not published until September 1907, in NAR 22, where it was combined with excerpts from the ADs of 10 October and 20 Dec 1906. The MS was written in black ink on torn half sheets of heavy cream-colored wove paper, measuring 5⅝ by 8⅞ inches. The readings of the unidentified clipping that Hobby transcribed with the MS are adopted, and the accidental variants she introduced in TS2 are not reported. Clemens made his last revisions on the TS2 printer’s copy in May 1907: on the last page he canceled a typed note—‘(Here insert—and translate—the German article about Cavalotti’s duels. Pinned to first copy of this autobiography.)’—and appended a paragraph in his own hand about the Italian duelist Cavallotti, dating it 13 May 1907. At one time, however, Clemens had apparently planned to pair the second part of this dictation with an excerpt from the AD of 9 January 1906. On the last page of TS2 of the earlier dictation he wrote the fictitious dateline ‘Dictated March 12, 1906’ (see the Textual Commentary for AD, 9 Jan 1906). He sent that page to the NAR with the bottom piece of page 289 of the present dictation, and the fictitious dateline was adopted in NAR 22. Collation reveals a substantive change between TS2 and NAR 22 that is deemed an authorial revision on the lost NAR 22pf: ‘deadly’ was altered to ‘fatal’ (at 302.14); the NAR reading has been adopted here.
Marginal Notes on TS2 Concerning Publication in the NAR