Dueling & Manners

Shakespeare's works are too much neglected in our time, considering the wealth they have to offer us. I applaud Hollywood's (limited) effort to re-introduce them, with the release of Hamlet (both with Mel Gibson and with Kenneth Brannagh in the title role), King Lear with Ian Holm of Bilbo Baggins fame, Much Ado About Nothing with Denzel Washington and Keanu Reaves, etc. Even the hip-hop version of Romeo and Juliet was a noble effort to remake the bard's grand romantic tragedy in a form appealing to a modern audience, perhaps to strike in the young an interest in these masterpieces even at the cost of striking much of the genius from the work itself.

To the student of politics, Shakespeare's plays provide insightful commentary. Even Harry Jaffa, one of the greatest political minds of our time, finds much to learn from King Lear and its portrayal of a united England at peace under a monarchy.

But perhaps one reason why we neglect Shakespeare is that he gives us a window into a time very different from ours socially - very different and utterly abhorrent to our culture-manufacturers. The setting for many of his plays is a time in which honor and propriety were admired and respected, noted as much in their absence as in their practice. His is a description of the honorable in black and white.

It's not that the good guys and bad guys are easy to spot in Shakespeare. Often his great characters do bad things, and his henchmen repent of their evil deeds. But Shakespeare makes obvious the good and evil that men do: the evil is shown in all its ugliness as it destroys those around it, and the good is given the honor which we all recognize is due.

My friend Khaosx is a smart guy - and rather outspoken! He wrote some time back a rant that struck a chord with me:

It is entirely possible that the decline of manners in this country can be directly traced back to the fact that we no longer allow dueling.

Hmm...That reminded me of Senator Zell Miller's response to Chris Matthews' cowardly attacks and ungentlemanly treatment of Michelle Malkin: "You are not going to do to me what you did to that young lady the other day, browbeating her to death...I wish we lived in the day that I could challenge you to a duel."

It also reminds me of the code of manly honor of Shakespeare's day. For example: King Lear's truest and most loyal friend was the Earl of Kent. In reply to the disrespectful - even treasonous - treatment of the king, Kent challenges one of the rogues to a duel. When the knave refuses, Kent, with sword drawn but refusing to assault the fellow one-sidedly, continues to goad him to a fair duel by calling him to draw his sword and defend his honor. But the knave refuses still. When questioned by a standerby, Kent explains that he is outraged "that such a slave as this should wear a sword who wears no honesty."

In my copy of the play, the side-note explains that Kent is saying this fellow "wears the symbol of manhood without being honorable," and I think that sums it up nicely. As Khaosx observes, we would be inclined to mind our manners if we knew we might be called to defend our behavior as honorable.

A sword worn by a gentleman in service of the king or a nobleman was an honor earned, not a weapon purchased. Any man who engaged in dishonorable behavior disgraced the symbol and was apt to be challenged by men who, intent on defending honor from such disgrace, wanted that symbol stripped from such renegades.

We live in a day when we can behave rudely with no fear of consequences. We can slander, berate, curse and otherwise abuse without having to answer for it. When there are no consequences for betraying a standard, the standard disappears. Shakespeare shows us a standard our culture would rather not be measured by.