to his very vitals. How much more dignity, than in the modern duellist,
do we find in Themistocles, the most gallant of the Greeks; who, when
Eurybiades, his commander in chief, in answer to some of his
remonstrances, lifted his cane over him with a menacing air, accosted
him in that noble apostrophe, 'Strike, but hear!'

"How would a man of true discernment in such a case reply to his brutal
assailant? 'I make it my boast that I can endure calamity and pain:
shall I not be able to endure the trifling inconvenience that your folly
can inflict upon me? Perhaps a human being would be more accomplished,
if he understood the science of personal defence; but how few would be
the occasions upon which he would be called to exert it? How few persons
would he encounter so unjust and injurious as you, if his own conduct
were directed by the principles of reason and benevolence? Beside, how
narrow would be the use of this science when acquired? It will scarcely
put the man of delicate make and petty stature upon a level with the
athletic pugilist; and, if it did in some measure secure me against the
malice of a single adversary, still my person and my life, so far as
mere force is concerned, would always be at the mercy of two. Further
than immediate defence against actual violence, it could never be of use
to me. The man who can deliberately meet his adversary for the purpose
of exposing the person of one or both of them to injury, tramples upon
every principle of reason and equity. Duelling is the vilest of all
egotism, treating the public, who has a claim to all my powers and
exertions, as if it were nothing, and myself, or rather an
unintelligible chimera I annex to myself, as if it were entitled to my
exclusive attention. I am unable to cope with you: what then? Can that
circumstance dishonour me? No; I can only be dishonoured by perpetrating
an unjust action. My honour is in my own keeping, beyond the reach of
all mankind. Strike! I am passive. No injury that you can inflict, shall