Duels are "an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules", and are much more common place in a Georgette Heyer novel. Blink and you'll miss it, but Sense and Sensibility does contain a duel between Colonel Brandon and Willoughby. Screenwriter Andrew Davies added this scene to the 2008 BBC adaptation.

 

“One meeting was unavoidable…I could meet [Willoughby] in no other way. Eliza had confessed to me, though most reluctantly, the name of her lover; and when he returned to town, which was within a fortnight after myself, we met by appointment, he to defend, I to punish his conduct. We returned unwounded, and the meeting, therefore, never got abroad.

​

Duels were mostly fought with swords in the 17th and 18th century. The swords were thin like fencing foils (not like something out of Game of Thrones!). However, in the late 18th and 19th century, duels started to use duelling pistols.

 

There is no clear evidence in Sense and Sensibility of which method Colonel Brandon and Willoughby chose. Although it has been suggested by many that they used pistols, as against a trained soldier, Willoughby would have wanted the duel to swing more in his favour, and indeed when we first meet Willoughby he is carrying a gun and Sir John Middleton describes him early in the novel as a "decent shot". 

​

Duels were not just a scrap or a fight between men and dignity was expected from all involved. It was more about a gentleman's honour and there was also a code, which was drawn up by a committee of Irishmen in 1777. The code became so popular worldwide that it was seen as the "official" rules for duelling. 

 

The rules included the steps of an apology, which might call off the duel; proper duelling etiquette in terms of dignified behaviour; the role of seconds; and what constitutes the end of a duel. To give you a flavour of the rules, the below outlines who should apologize first, which I have struggled to get my head around. 

 

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offence, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retory by a subsequent apology.

 

Although neither Colonel Brandon or Willoughby were injured from their duel, I cannot imagine Willoughby apologising for his treatment of Colonel Brandon's ward. Though duellists were encouraged in the rules to sleep on their wounded pride before engaging in a duel so they maintained a calm demeanor. 

 

By the Regency, duelling had long been illegal, though this did not deter the tradition of gentlemen defending their honour. So if a person was killed during a duel, it was considered murder. However, most juries were reluctant to convict duelists and would judge it on if the duel seemed to have been conducted fairly. The punishment for murder in the era was hanging. There were around 1000 duels documented between 1785 and 1845, with an estimated 15% resulting in a fatality. 

 

Most duels took place at dawn to avoid discovery and any interruption from authorities. The low lighting level would also make it more difficult for an opponent to hit their target. Pistols were unreliable at the time and most duels would commonly allow one shot. If neither was hit and the challenger was satisfied, the duel would be over. However, if the challenger was not satisfied, the pistol duel might continue until the other was wounded or killed. I wonder how we would have felt if Colonel Brandon had managed to successfully injure Willoughby. 

​

I was quite shocked to find in my research that there were cases of women duelling, though extremely rare. One duel between Lady Almeria Braddock and Mrs Elphinstone was recorded in 1792 which was quite scadalous!  The duel became known as the "Petticoat duel" as it was apparently over a backhanded compliment that Mrs Elphinstone gave Lady Almeria on a visit.