Beccaria accounts for the frequency of duelling in Italy on the following grounds:--“It was owing to the necessity of the good opinion of others, that single combat was resorted to during a state of legal anarchy. It was in vain that this practice was forbidden under pain of death; it was found impossible to check a custom founded upon sentiments which were considered dearer than life. Why do not the lower classes of society imitate the conduct of their superiors? Simply because they stand in less need of the esteem of others, than those who, from their position, are subject to more suspicion and distrust.” Filangieri follows up the argument, by maintaining, that in a duel, it is a _dolo_ (a _ruse_) on the part of the aggressor, and a _fault_ on the part of the offended, if he kills or injures his enemy, as very probably he might have avoided such a catastrophe; the offended party has only committed a _fault_, since he was compelled to fight by public opinion: it is, therefore, only those who have violated the established laws of duelling, who can be considered as guilty of assassination. The sophistry of this doctrine is worse than absurd. The history of Italy shows us, that Beccaria’s opinions on the subject were not exactly correct, for, while the upper classes challenged each other to single combat, we find other grades of society, even artists, avenging their wrongs with the stiletto. From this charge, we must, however, exonerate Michael Angelo Caravaggio, who, to avenge the insult offered to him by Arpino, who had presumed to criticise some of his productions, sent him a challenge, which was rejected on the plea of disparity of condition; when our artist, to qualify himself for future occasions of the kind, went over to Malta and got himself dubbed a knight. With this distinction, it appears that he sought endless quarrels, was obliged to fly from Malta, and killed a critic in Rome, finally ending his days in abject poverty on the high-road.