The sword had been quite sufficient for its gory tasks, but over the course of the eighteenth century the dueling pistol began to replace it, a switch that romantics like Burton lamented as "an ugly exchange of dull lead for polished steel." During the transition, people sometimes used both at once. In 1690, in Ireland, the high sheriff of Country Down had an argument with a neighbor over dinner, and they fought with sword and pistol: One was run through with a sword and the other was shot. Both died. Sometimes, if the pistols misfired, the combatants threw them away and whipped out their reliable swords.

Slashing and killing a man with a sword offered visceral pleasures not found in guns. It was a physical experience. You held the sword in your hand and felt the flesh of your enemy give way under its point. As Lewis Carroll gleefully put it,

Your arm quivered to the crunch of bone and cartilage, and knew the spongy resistance of lung or bowel. His blood, probably mixed with yours, splashed your shoes. His face was close; you could see his eyes.

Another advantage of sword over pistol was that the damage done was directly related to the gravity of the occasion. In a casual matter, you could swoop in with the upward-cutting manchette blow that disabled his sword arm, ending the encounter and leaving him with nothing but a bruised elbow. Swords did what they were told to do. You could defend yourself with a sword and parry a thrust; the only way to parry a gun is to shoot the man who's shooting it. A sword was always a sword, but pistols often misbehaved or misfired. The skillful swordsman could inflict as much or as little damage as he wanted, but pistol duels were fraught with accident and surprise. You could kill an old friend who'd laughed at the wrong moment, instead of merely flicking a drop of blood from his arm and then taking him out for a drink. Or you could hit the wrong target, which never happened with swords: In one duel in France, both parties fired simultaneously and simultaneously killed each other's seconds.

When you'd killed a man with your personal sword and not by some proxy impersonal bullet, your soul had killed his. When the victor claimed the sword of the fallen as his right and broke it over his knee, killing him in effigy, generations quivered. When Lee handed his sword to Grant at Appomattox, strong men wept. Some say Grant wept.

With guns, the satisfaction was remote. You stood well separated by the agreed-on paces. Shoot your man and he crumples and falls, his weapon drops from his hand, but as far as your own hand knows he might have been struck by lightning. You didn't press the bullet into his chest; it flew there by itself, mechanically. You were distanced from the action, like the pilot of a high-altitude bomber.

Guns were good at death, loud and sudden, but swords held out the bright dream of power, power over a man on his back, begging for mercy, and you with the tip of your blade at his throat. And considered as pure potency, as a sort über-penis, surely the three-foot sword was more satisfying than the nine-inch pistol. Edged blades left visible scars, those shiny white weals in the flesh that wrote the permanent record of courage: "Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars / And say, these wounds I had on Crispin's Day." Old bullet wounds were usually invisible under clothes, since few lived to walk around with a bullet's mark on the face, but a visible sword scar was a badge for the scarred one—he had fought—and gave the man who inflicted it the pleasure of knowing he'd left his mark, plain for the world to see.