Man is an irrational being. In the animal world, everything is aimed at preserving the life of the individual and procreation of the species. The instinct of self-preservation is a powerful program that controls the behavior of any living creature. And only man, despite his animal origins, is capable of actions that sometimes directly contradict the survival strategy. Often, for the sake of abstract goals and very vague ideas, he is ready to put his health and life itself on the line. The history of mankind is replete with examples of such “illogical” behavior.
In the 15th century, a new custom arose among the European nobility - duels, the purpose of which was to protect the honor and dignity of one of the parties. Very quickly the duel turned into a way to resolve any conflict among the noble class. The history of duels began in Italy, but very quickly spread throughout Europe and the continent was swept by a real “dueling fever”, which raged for several centuries and claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. In France alone, and only during the reign of Henry IV of Bourbon (about twenty years), from six to ten thousand young nobles died in duels. This is quite comparable to losses in a major battle.
Resolving conflicts using physical force is, in fact, as old as time. It often happened that in the course of such a search for consensus, one of the parties went to a better world. However, the duel differed from an ordinary fight by strict rules that constituted special dueling codes.
The European nobility, formed on the basis of medieval knighthood, had its own ideas about personal honor. Any attack on her in the form of insult by word or action could only be washed away with the blood of the offender, otherwise the person was considered dishonored. Therefore, challenges to duels in the old days, as a rule, ended in the death or injury of one of the opponents.
In reality, the reason for the duel could have been anything, since the fact of the insult and its severity was interpreted by the “victim” himself. And the very concept of “noble honor” was understood very broadly. Anything could lead to a challenge: from revenge for a murdered relative or friend to a bad joke or an awkward gesture.
Over time, fights became fashionable. Everyone fought duels. Not only nobles, but also townspeople, soldiers, students and even crowned persons. German Emperor Charles V challenged the French King Francis I to a duel, and the Swedish King Gustav IV sent a challenge to Napoleon Bonaparte. The French king Henry II died as a result of a duel, and the Russian Emperor Paul I even proposed to abolish wars and resolve conflicts between states by holding duels between their rulers. However, such a bold idea did not find a response.
They tried to ban duels many times, the brethren were threatened with large fines, prison and even excommunication, but these measures were of little use. The fights continued until the outbreak of the First World War.
In our country, duels are treated differently. In the 19th century, two of the greatest Russian poets became their victims: Alexander Pushkin and Mikhail Lermontov.
History of duels
The name "duel" comes from the Latin word duellum, which meant legal combat. Although, it should be noted that duels were just non-judicial and illegal fights. The place of the duel was usually carefully hidden.
Many researchers emphasize the external similarity of duels with judicial duels of the Middle Ages and knightly tournaments, however, despite some similarities, we are still talking about different things. Judicial duels were an integral part of the official justice system, and tournaments can be called a way to improve the skills of a professional warrior.
The judicial duel was called “the judgment of God,” and it was by no means a bloody massacre, but rather a solemn ceremony. It was often resorted to when it was impossible to establish the truth in any other way. It was believed that in this fight the Lord would help the right and punish the criminal. Moreover, such fights did not necessarily end in the death of one of the participants. The king himself often gave the sanction for judicial duels. However, already in the late Middle Ages, attitudes towards such fights began to change. In 1358, a certain Jacques Legret, in the presence of the French king Charles VI, lost a legal battle, was found guilty and hanged. And soon they found the real criminal. There was a big scandal, after which the custom of judicial duels sank into oblivion. The church was also very critical of this practice.
The duel as we know it is not a product of the Middle Ages, but of the Renaissance. The only thing that perhaps connects judicial duels with duels is the idea of "God's judgment", which was that the Lord will help the right and protect justice.
The duel was invented by the Italians around the 14th century. At this time they were, as they say, “ahead of the rest.” In Italy, a man of a new era was born, with different ideas about honor and ways to protect it. It was the Italian nobles and townspeople who developed the custom of resolving conflicts through armed combat. The first treatises with the rules for conducting duels also appeared here; they even described the degrees of offense that must certainly be followed by a challenge.
At the same time, the heavy swords of the Middle Ages were replaced by a lighter sword, and then by a weapon that the Spaniards called espada ropera - “a sword for clothing” - intended for constant wear with a civilian suit.
The place of the duel was usually chosen somewhere outside the city; such fights were conducted with a minimum of unnecessary conventions, as harshly as possible, so they often ended in the murder of one of the participants. Such fights were called "bush fights" or "bush fights." Their participants, as a rule, used the weapons they had with them, and usually did not wear armor, because few people wore it in everyday life.
A distinctive feature of the duels of this era was that the rules of duels were very arbitrary and were often not followed at all. Sometimes seconds joined the fight, in which case it turned into a real bloodbath. In the event of a general fight, the fighter, having finished off his opponent, did not hesitate to help his comrade. An example is the famous duel between the favorites of the French king Henry III and the Duke of Guise, described in Dumas’ novel “The Countess de Monsoreau.”
Moreover, the place of the duel was not regulated; there could be cobblestones or wet grass. Therefore, the danger was no less than in a real battle. The usual duel weapon of that time was a heavy sword or rapier and a dagger (daga). They could inflict not only stab wounds, but also incised wounds. To repel enemy blows, small dueling shields or simply a cloak wrapped around the other hand were used.
Usually the calling party chose the time and place of the duel, the weapon of the duel was determined by the one who was called. There were cases when fights started instantly and took place without any seconds at all. In a fight, any technique could be used: distract the enemy’s attention, finish off an unarmed, retreating or wounded person, hit in the back. Frankly vile techniques were also used, such as wearing hidden armor under clothes.
From Italy, duels very quickly spread to other European countries. They became especially popular in France during the religious wars and the Fronde. But, if in Italy the place of the duel was usually kept secret and they tried to conduct the fights without unnecessary witnesses, then the French nobles bled each other, practically without hiding. To forgive an insult and not challenge your offender to a duel was considered an absolute “loss of face,” and no less shame awaited the one who refused the challenge.
It is believed that during the reign of Francis I in France, up to 20 thousand duels took place annually. It is clear that the number of nobles killed in duels also ran into the thousands. And it is not surprising that this situation did not suit the supreme power of European states at all.
On July 10, 1547, the last official duel took place in France. Henry II banned them after his favorite was killed in a duel. True, this did not change the situation at all, it’s just that now duels began to be carried out underground. Not only secular authorities, but also church authorities took up the fight against unnecessary bloodshed. At the Council of Trent it was announced that not only the participants or seconds of the duel, but even its spectators would be automatically excommunicated from the bosom of the church. The Church in general was very intolerant of fights and actively fought against them until the end of the 19th century. Dead duelists, like suicides, were ordered not to be buried in cemeteries.
Henry IV equated duels with an insult to His Majesty, Louis XIV issued 11 edicts against duels, and the famous Cardinal Richelieu actively fought against this phenomenon. The latter introduced the death penalty or lifelong exile as punishment for duels. In the Holy Roman Empire, fights were equated to premeditated murder with all the ensuing consequences.
Irreconcilable opponents of duels were Napoleon Bonaparte and the Russian autocrat Nicholas I. The French emperor believed that “... the life of every citizen belongs to the fatherland; a duelist is a bad soldier." Nicholas I generally considered a duel to be barbaric.
But even such draconian measures could not completely stop the fights. The nobles considered the duel their legitimate privilege, and public opinion was entirely on their side. The tradition of duels was so respected that the courts often acquitted the fighters.
Among the young nobles there were “professional duelists”, who had dozens, or even hundreds of fights and an entire personal cemetery of the dead. Being highly skilled swordsmen, they constantly provoked quarrels, considering a duel the only way to achieve personal glory. The reason for a fight could be anything: a sidelong glance, an accidental collision, a joke that you didn’t like. The duel over the cut of a cloak, described in The Three Musketeers, is an absolutely real situation for that time.
Initially, only edged weapons were used for duels, but duels with pistols appeared in the 18th century. This was a turning point. The winner of a duel with swords or rapiers was largely determined by the physical characteristics of the opponents; sometimes the outcome of the fight was predetermined. The use of firearms greatly equalized the chances of the parties.
By the middle of the 18th century, the “dueling fever” in Europe began to subside. Duels became rare, and the rules for conducting them became more streamlined. Almost all fights are now held with seconds, with a preliminary call. Sword duels, as a rule, were fought until the first wound. All this led to a significant reduction in mortality among fighters. In the middle of the 18th century, the French school of fencing reached its heyday; the main weapon of duelists became a light sword, which was impossible to deliver piercing or cutting blows.
The development of the legal system and the increasing education of the general public led to the fact that in case of offense or insult, people went to court rather than take up arms. However, even in the 19th century, duels were quite frequent, although they had lost their former bloodthirstiness.
In 1836, the first dueling code was published, its author was the Frenchman Count de Chateauvillard. In 1879, the Count Verger Codex was published and became more popular. These two books summarized the entire centuries-old experience of fights in Europe. In general, in the 19th century, the era of duels began to decline on the European continent. There were some “spikes”, but in general they could not break the general trend.
Around the middle of the 19th century, an epidemic of “journalistic” duels began. A free press had emerged in Europe, and journalists were now often challenged by the heroes of their publications.
Duels were also held in the New World. They were very unique, and it was not the kind of cowboy duel that is often shown in Westerns. The rivals received weapons and went into the forest, where they began to hunt each other. A shot in the back or an ambush were considered common techniques in American dueling.
The duel appeared in Russia much later than in the rest of Europe. The tradition of such fights in Rus' did not exist at all. And this is not surprising, since before Peter’s reforms, the country did not have a nobility of the European type - the main bearer of the idea of personal honor. Russian nobles, officers and boyars of the pre-Petrine era did not see anything wrong with filing complaints to the tsar or seeking justice in the courts in response to an insult.
At a time when “dueling fever” was already raging in Italy and France, in Russia everything was quiet and calm regarding duels, despite the rather close ties with Europe that had already been established during the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich. The first documented duel in Russia took place in 1666, its participants were two foreign officers serving in a regiment of a “foreign” formation. The results of this fight are unknown.
Emperor Peter I was the first to become concerned about duels and issued a decree that prohibited them under penalty of death. Moreover, for participating in a duel, it was prescribed to hang not only the winner, but also the loser, even if at that time he was already in the grave: “...then hang them by their feet after death.” Pyotr Alekseevich was cool, you can’t say anything.
However, duels became a truly widespread phenomenon in Russia only during the reign of Catherine II. In 1787, the Empress issued a decree that regulated punishments for participants in duels and their organizers. If the duel was bloodless, then its participants - including the seconds - could only get off with large financial fines, but Siberia awaited the instigator of the duel. For injury or death, the same punishment was prescribed as for ordinary criminal offenses.
Despite the severity of these measures, they did little to stop domestic duelists, because they were extremely rarely carried out. Duel cases rarely came to trial, and if they did, the perpetrators, as a rule, received much more lenient punishments. As in Europe, public opinion was completely on the side of the duelists.
In Russia, the peculiar flowering of the dueling tradition occurred at the end of the 18th - first half of the 19th century. The situation can be called somewhat paradoxical: at a time when the “duel fever” in Europe had practically disappeared, the number of duels in Russia increased significantly, and their cruelty increased noticeably. Some Western authors, noting the particular cruelty of the Russian duel, called it “legalized murder.”
For example, usually shooting was carried out from a distance of 15-20 steps, from which it was extremely difficult to miss (Europeans shot from 25-30 steps). There was a practice according to which the enemy shooting second could demand that his opponent come close to the barrier. In this case, he had the opportunity to shoot an unarmed person from a minimum distance. In Russia, such methods of dueling were very popular, in which the duel inevitably ended with the death of one of the opponents (“through a handkerchief”, “barrel to barrel”, “American duel”). In Europe at that time, a mistake by both opponents usually ended the matter; it was believed that in this case the honor of the participants was restored. In Russia, they often shot “until the result”, that is, until the death of one of the duelists.
Russian duels of the first half of the 19th century left a noticeable mark on Russian history. The most famous of them, of course, are the duels between Pushkin and Dantes (1837) and Lermontov and Martynov (1841), in which two of the greatest Russian poets were killed. At the same time, their killers did not become objects of public censure; high society took their side. The official punishment was also very mild: Dantes was simply expelled from Russia, and Martynov got off with three months of guardhouse and church repentance. This situation very clearly shows the attitude of Russian society of that time towards duels.
By the middle of the century, the number of duels in Russia began to decrease noticeably. However, during the reign of Alexander III, duels were actually officially permitted. Moreover, in some cases they have become mandatory for officers. This decision led to a sharp increase in the number of duels in the army.
Fights continued until the outbreak of the First World War, but with the outbreak of hostilities they were officially prohibited. One of the most famous duels of the 20th century was the duel between Gumilev and Voloshin, which took place in 1909. The cause of the duel was the poetess Elizaveta Dmitrieva. The place chosen for the fight was very symbolic - not far from the Black River in St. Petersburg. Alexei Tolstoy became the writers' second.
Fortunately, the duel ended bloodlessly. Gumilev missed, and Voloshin’s pistol misfired twice.
Women's duels
How do you imagine a typical buster? A doublet, a wide cloak, a dashing curled mustache and a wide-brimmed hat? How would you react to the fact that some of the duelists wore full skirts and were very particular about how they styled their hair? Yes, we are talking about women’s duels, which, of course, happened less often than men’s, but were by no means something out of the ordinary.
One of the most famous duels between two women took place in 1892 in Liechtenstein between Countess Kielmansegg and Princess Pauline Metternich. The young ladies did not see eye to eye on an extremely important issue: how best to decorate the hall for a musical evening. Baroness Lubińska, one of the first female doctors of medicine, was present. It was she who suggested that the rivals fight topless, but not for extra piquancy (there was already enough of that), but so as not to introduce infection into the wounds. You can argue, but such a spectacle was much cooler than modern women's fights. True, men were not allowed into women’s duels, neither as seconds, nor, especially, “to watch.” But in vain.
In general, the theme of a half-naked female duel was very popular among European artists of the 19th century, and they can be understood. Similar scenes can be seen in the paintings of the Frenchman Jean Béraud, and in Milan's Prado Museum you can admire a painting by José Ribera entitled “Women's Duel”.
That fight in Liechtenstein ended with two minor wounds to each other: in the nose and in the ear. However, not all women's duels ended so harmlessly.
The first documented fight between the fair sex dates back to 1572. It happened like this: two charming senoritas rented a room in the convent of St. Benedicta, near Milan, and closed in on her, explaining to the nuns that they urgently needed to pray. However, left alone, the ladies took out not prayer books, but daggers. When the door to the room was broken open, a terrible picture was discovered in it: one of the women was dead, and the second was dying, bleeding.
Moreover, fights between women were extremely cruel. If in duels between men of that time there was one death for about four fights, then almost every female duel led to the appearance of a corpse. It is characteristic that women practically did not follow the rules during duels.
During women's fights, standard weapons were used: swords, rapiers, daggers, daggers, and less often pistols. Our ladies did not lag behind the Europeans, introducing a sweet domestic flavor into this fun: Russian landowners Zavarov and Polesova fought with sabers. Princess Dashkova went to London, where she disagreed in a literary dispute with Duchess Foxon. The result of the quarrel was Dashkova’s punctured shoulder. There were rumors that even the future Russian Empress Catherine II, at the age of fourteen, sorted out her relationship with her second cousin in a duel. Considering Catherine’s temperament, this fact does not come as much of a surprise.
One of the most famous duelists, a real fighter in a skirt, was Madame de Maupin, a famous opera singer who shone on the stage of the Grand Opera. The number of victims of this lady goes into dozens.
Another famous women's duel is the duel between the Duchess de Polignac and the Marquise de Nesle, which took place in the Bois de Boulogne in the fall of 1624. The cause of the fight was a man. The young ladies found out which of them was dearer to the Duke of Richelieu. Not to that famous cardinal, but to his relative, the future Marshal of France, who was very susceptible to the female sex.
If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them
In Europe, Russian dueling was called “barbarism” and “a legalized form of murder.” The fact is that if in Europe the period of “dueling fever” was associated with battles with edged weapons, then in Russia preference was given to more lethal firearms.
In Europe in the first half of the 19th century, Russian dueling was called “barbarism” and “a legalized form of murder.”
All evil comes from "minions"
The tradition of dueling in Russia is an imported one. Despite the fact that since ancient times in Rus' there has been a tradition of both judicial duels to resolve disputes and duels before military battles, it has nothing to do with the duel we now know.
In Western Europe, a duel as a way of defending the honor of a nobleman appeared in Italy in the 15th century and began to spread very quickly to other countries. By the beginning of the 16th century, a duel was quite common for the noble class of Western Europe. At the same time, the lower age limit for the participants in the fight dropped to 14 years.
Despite the fact that dueling had been prohibited by both monarchs and the church since the 16th century, Europe experienced a phenomenon known as “dueling fever.”
On April 27, 1578, one of the most famous duels in history, the “duel of the minions,” took place in Tournelle Park in Paris. It was a three-on-three duel between those close to King Henry III of France (minions) and supporters of the Duke of Guise (guizars). As a result of the duel, four of the six participants in the duel died.
Despite the official ban on dueling, the French monarch did not punish the survivors, and ordered the dead to be buried in luxurious mausoleums and marble statues erected for them.
This attitude towards the “minion duel” led to a surge in the popularity of duels and even to the emergence of professional duelists who gained fame through endless duels. In this case, the reason for a duel could be any little thing, a disliked look or a dispute over clothing.
A minion is a member of the king's retinue. The word mignonne is translated from French as “tiny.” Since the 16th century, this word has been used to describe the favorites of the royal person. In English, the borrowed word minion is more neutral, meaning a devoted servant.
Peter the Great: hang those killed in duels by their feet!
At the height of the European “duel fever” in Russia, in this sense, complete calm reigned. The first duel took place here only in 1666. The rivals were the future general of Peter I, Patrick Gordon, and another mercenary officer, Major Montgomery.
In 1682, Princess Sophia signed a decree allowing service people to carry personal weapons, accompanied by a ban on fights.
In the popular film “Arapa Peter the Great,” the monarch-reformer expresses his readiness to accept a challenge to a duel for his pupil. In reality, Peter the Great, despite his commitment to European culture, had an extremely negative attitude towards duels.
One of the chapters of Peter's Military Regulations of 1715 for a challenge to a duel provided for punishment in the form of deprivation of ranks and partial confiscation of property, for entering a duel and drawing weapons - the death penalty with complete confiscation of property, not excluding seconds.
The “Military Article,” which was an explanation of the provisions of the Military Regulations, confirmed the “most severe prohibition” of challenges and fights. Moreover, hanging was envisaged even for those who... died in a duel. The corpses of such were ordered to be hung by the feet.
"Legalized form of murder"
However, until the second half of the 18th century, duels in Russia did not become widespread. However, under Catherine II, they became an increasingly popular way of sorting out relationships, especially among young people brought up in the European spirit.
In 1787, Catherine the Great, alarmed by what was happening, released the “Manifesto on Duels.” It called duels “a foreign plant”; Participants in a duel that ended bloodlessly were given a fine as a punishment (not excluding seconds), and the offender, “as a violator of peace and tranquility,” was given lifelong exile to Siberia. Wounds and murder in a duel were punishable as a similar criminal offense.
But nothing helped. The first half of the 19th century became the peak period for Russian dueling. Moreover, in Europe, where this tradition began to decline, the Russian duel was called “barbarism” and “a legalized form of murder.”
The fact is that if in Europe the period of “duel fever” was associated with battles with edged weapons, then in Russia preference was given to firearms, which led to serious outcomes many times more often.
The “noble” duel took Pushkin’s life
In Russia there was a fairly diverse list of types of duels.
The most common was the so-called “moving duel with barriers.” A “distance” (10-25 steps) was marked on the path, its boundaries were marked by “barriers”, which could be used as any objects placed across the path. The opponents were placed at an equal distance from the barriers, holding pistols in their hands with the muzzle up. At the command of the manager, the opponents began to converge - to move towards each other. You could walk at any speed, it was forbidden to step back, you could stop for a while. Having reached his barrier, the duelist had to stop. The order of shots could be specified, but more often they fired when ready, in a random order. According to Russian rules, after the first shot, one of the opponents who had not yet fired had the right to demand that the opponent go to his barrier and thus get the opportunity to shoot from a minimum distance. The famous expression “To the barrier!” This is exactly what this requirement means.
A duel from a distance of 15 steps was considered “noble”, because a fatal outcome in this case was not so likely. However, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was mortally wounded in a duel from 20 steps away.
Fight to the death
Unlike Europe, in Russia there were types of duels that terrified residents of other countries. For example, a duel “at six steps”: with this option, the opponents were located at a distance that ensured a guaranteed hit. A duel of this kind often ended in the death of both participants.
Sometimes a variant of this duel was used, in which one pistol was loaded, the duelists received the weapon by lot, after which both pulled the trigger. In this case, the “unlucky” one was practically doomed to death.
In Europe, by the beginning of the 19th century, there were no types of duels that required the death of one of the participants. In Russia, there were types of duels “to the point of death.” One of these was a duel on the edge of an abyss - a wounded person in a duel fell into the abyss and died.
Gradation by degree of insults
The reason for the duel was considered to be damage caused to the honor of the victim, as well as the honor of his family. In certain circumstances, a challenge could also occur for insulting the honor of third parties providing patronage to the challenger.
The reason for the duel could not be the infliction of any material damage. In addition, filing a complaint with the authorities deprived the offended person of the right to demand satisfaction through a duel.
There was a whole gradation of insults, according to which the insulted person received the right to demand certain conditions of the duel.
It is curious that an insult inflicted on a woman was considered one step more serious than a similar insult inflicted on a man.
Satisfaction could also be demanded from a woman who insulted a nobleman - however, such an insult was rated two levels lower than a similar one inflicted by a man. In any case, in this case, a relative of the offender would have to answer the call, and not herself.
Fight with witnesses, but without spectators
The offended person was recommended to immediately, on the spot, demand an apology in a calm and respectful tone, or immediately tell the offender that seconds would be sent to him. Next, the offended person could either send a written challenge (cartel), or challenge the offender to a duel orally, through seconds. The maximum period for a call under normal conditions was considered to be one day. Delaying a challenge was considered bad manners.
There was another important rule that said: “One insult - one challenge.” If a certain insolent person insulted several people at once, only one insulted person could challenge him to a duel. Preference was given to the one who received the most rude insult.
It was considered extremely unethical to turn a duel into a performance. In addition to the duelists, seconds and a doctor were present at the duel. The presence of friends and relatives of participants was possible, but not encouraged.
At a predetermined time, usually in the morning, opponents, seconds and a doctor arrived at the appointed place.
One of the parties was allowed to be late by 15 minutes. A longer delay was considered evasion of a duel and meant dishonor.
The fight usually began 10 minutes after everyone arrived. Opponents and seconds greeted each other with a bow.
A duel manager was appointed from among the seconds, who supervised all actions.
The seriously offended shoots first
The manager for the last time invited the duelists to reconcile. If the parties refused, he announced the rules of the duel. The seconds marked the barriers and loaded the pistols (if the duel involved the use of firearms). The rules of the duel required the participants in the duel to empty all their pockets.
The seconds took places parallel to the battle line, the doctors - behind them. The opponents performed all actions at the command of the manager.
If during a sword fight one of them dropped his sword, either it broke, or the fighter fell, his opponent was obliged to interrupt the duel at the command of the manager until his opponent stood up and was able to continue the duel.
In a pistol duel, the degree of insult inflicted was of great importance. If the insult was moderate or severe, then the insulted person had the right to shoot first, otherwise the right to fire the first shot was determined by lot.
Right to Replacement
The rules of the duel allowed for the replacement of its participant with a person representing his interests. This was possible if we were talking about a woman, a minor, a man over 60 years old, or having an illness or injury that put him in a clearly unequal position with the enemy.
A woman’s honor could be defended either by a man from among her immediate blood relatives, or by her husband, or by her companion (that is, by the one who accompanied the woman at the time and place where the insult was inflicted), or, upon expression of such a desire, by any man present when insulted or later finds out about it and considers it necessary for himself to stand up for this woman.
At the same time, only a woman who had impeccable behavior from the point of view of social norms could receive the right to protection of honor. If a lady had become famous for her excessively free behavior, the challenge in her defense was not considered valid.
The surviving duelists became friends
The rules of the duel prohibited fights with close relatives, which included sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, and brothers. Duels with first and second cousins were considered completely acceptable.
If, as a result of the duel, both opponents remained alive and conscious, then they were supposed to shake hands and the offender was supposed to apologize (in this case, the apology no longer affected his honor, since it was considered restored by the duel, but was a tribute to ordinary politeness). At the end of the duel, honor was considered restored, and any claims of the opponents against each other regarding the former insult were considered invalid.
It was believed that the duelists who survived the battle were supposed to become friends or, at a minimum, continue to maintain normal relations. Re-challenging the same person to a duel was possible only in the most extraordinary cases.
How Minister Vannovsky created a renaissance of the Russian duel
Throughout almost the entire 19th century, Russian monarchs passed laws aimed at banning duels. Emperor Nicholas I said: “I hate duels. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing chivalrous about her. The Duke of Wellington destroyed it in the English army and did well.” At the same time, he significantly reduced the liability for duels. The “Criminal Punishment Code” approved in 1845 completely exempted seconds and doctors from liability, and the participants in the fight faced 6 to 10 years of imprisonment in a fortress while retaining their noble rights.
In practice, the punishment was even milder - most often those guilty of even a deadly duel were limited to a few months in prison and a slight demotion in rank.
By the end of the 19th century, the popularity of duels in Russia began to decline. However, in 1894, at the instigation of the Minister of War Pyotr Vannovsky, in order to strengthen morale in the army, duels were not only legalized, but in some cases became mandatory for officers.
The logical result was a sharp increase in the number of duels. If in the period from 1876 to 1890 in Russia only 14 cases of officer duels came to trial, then in 1894 – 1910 322 duels took place. Moreover, over 250 of them were carried out by decision of the officers' honor courts, which were given the right to order fights. Only 19 turned out to be unauthorized duels, without the permission of their superiors, and not a single participant was brought to justice.
Of the 322 duels of this period, 315 took place with pistols and only 7 with melee weapons. Most of the fights between 1894 and 1910 ended bloodlessly or with minor injuries, and only 30 ended in the death or severe injuries of the duelists.
Rifle fights: how Russian emigrants died
Not only military men, but also politicians and cultural figures fought in duels at the beginning of the 20th century. The leader of the Union of October 17, Alexander Guchkov, was an avid duelist; the duel between the Silver Age poets Nikolai Gumilyov and Maximilian Voloshin is known.
The institution of Russian duel ceased to exist after the October Revolution of 1917, along with other attributes of class society.
In the White Army, and then among the Russian emigration, until the 1930s, another original type of duel was popular - a duel with Mosin rifles. At the same time, the destructive power of this weapon made death almost inevitable. For desperate people, such a duel became a kind of “noble” way of suicide.
Russian duel
Reconstruction of a classic Russian duel with noble swords.
Film The Duelist (2016) – trailer
Duel
DUEL-And; and.[French duel]
1. In a noble society: an armed duel by challenging one of the opponents in the presence of seconds under predetermined conditions (as a way of protecting personal honor). Lethal d. Conditions of the duel. Call to d. Fight a duel. D. with pistols, with swords. // About a shootout between two sides. Tankovaya village Artillery preparation moved to the fire station.
2. Competition, competition between two sides. Chess village D. two recognized acting talents. Correspondence duel(About a dispute between two people. // About an argument between two people. Verbal, d.
◁ Dueling, oh, oh. D rules. D. pistol.
duel(French duel, from Latin duellum - war), a duel (with the use of weapons) between two persons upon the challenge of one of them. In a figurative sense - a struggle, a competition between two sides.
DUELDUEL (French duel, from Latin duellum - war), a duel (with the use of weapons) between two persons upon the challenge of one of them. In a figurative sense - a struggle, a competition between two sides.
The history of duels (fights) is closely connected with society’s ideas about ways to defend honor. Tacitus (cm. TACITUS) testifies to the custom of the ancient Germans to resolve quarrels with weapons. But duels were of particular importance to the medieval knights of Europe. In France, a dueling code was developed, borrowed from other countries, where it was reworked according to local customs. In almost all countries, duels were prosecuted by law, and at the same time, public opinion condemned avoidance of duels. The right to duel was recognized only by nobles.
The first duels in Russia took place at the end of the 18th century. Peter I (cm. PETER I the Great), despite his passion for European orders and customs, immediately began to fight this phenomenon. According to the “Sheremetev Code” (1702), even a challenge to a duel was severely punished; the “Short Article” (1706) prescribed the death penalty for the participants in the duel, even if it did not have tragic consequences.
Subsequently, in accordance with the “Military Regulations” (1715), persons were punished not only for challenging and participating in a duel, but also for those who did not report this fact to the military court. For a challenge to a duel, the duelist was deprived of his rank, a fine was charged, and part of his property was confiscated. Seconds were also punished for entering a duel.
Under Anna Ioannovna (cm. Anna Ivanovna) and Elizaveta Petrovna (cm. ELIZAVETA Petrovna) fights become more frequent. Catherine II (cm. CATHERINE II) issues the “Manifesto on Duels” (1787), according to which duels were recognized as “a foreign plant for Russia.” Nevertheless, it was not possible to eradicate duels.
Nicholas I was a fierce opponent of duels. (cm. NICHOLAY I Pavlovich), who considered them a manifestation of barbarism. Despite the sharply negative attitude of the Russian emperor towards this phenomenon, the number of duels grew. As a result of the fights, the great Russian poets Pushkin and Lermontov died.
Only Nicholas II (cm. NICHOLAY II Alexandrovich) allowed duels for Russian officers, and, moreover, in case of insult, the officer was obliged to fight in a duel.
encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009 .
Synonyms:See what a “duel” is in other dictionaries:
Duel, and... Russian word stress
- (French duel, Latin duellum, from bellurn war). Duel. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. DUEL is a duel between 2 opponents, for the sake of public opinion, which believes that in some cases... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language
DUEL, duels, women. (French duel). A duel that takes place according to certain rules, a battle between two opponents upon the challenge of one of them. A duel between someone and someone. Duel of Pushkin with Dantes. Fight a duel with someone. Call... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
Cm … Synonym dictionary
duel- and, f. duel m., German Duell, it. duello. A duel that took place with the use of weapons between two opponents upon the challenge of one of them. BAS 2. A duel, single combat, a battle between two, or many especially with swords, or with pistols in ... ... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language
- (duel, one on one, one on each side). Wed. The duel is ugliness, absurdity, barbarity, a remnant of the Middle Ages, we repeat all this, and with complete conviction, but what is better: to remain forever with a brand on the forehead, or to take the risk... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
- (duel) a medieval institution, which directly arose from the practice of private wars and is an ennobled form of self-inflicted revenge, developed among the knightly feudal nobility. In the XVI-XVII centuries. D. is prohibited in Western Europe and is equivalent to ... Legal dictionary
- (French eduel, from Latin duellum war), a duel (with the use of weapons) between two persons upon the challenge of one of them under predetermined conditions. In a figurative sense, a struggle, a competition between two sides... Modern encyclopedia
- (French duel from Latin duellum war), a duel (with the use of weapons) between two persons upon the challenge of one of them. In a figurative sense, a struggle, a competition between two sides... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
DUEL, and, women. 1. Same as duel (1 value). Call to the village. Killed in a duel. 2. transfer A struggle, a competition between two sides. Chess village, Slovesnaya village, Artilleriyskaya village (shootout). | adj. dueling, aya, oe (to 1 value). Dueling pistols... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Women martial arts, duel; In general, it is customary to call a duel a conditional duel, with already known rituals, on call. Dueling, related to a duel. Duelist husband martial artist, fighter, more in the meaning. bully, fighter; Breter. Dictionary… … Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
Presumably the first duel in Russia can be considered a duel that took place in 1666 in Moscow between two hired foreign officers - the Scotsman Patrick Gordon (later Peter's general) and the Englishman Major Montgomery. But at that time this custom had not yet penetrated among Russians. Nevertheless, isolated precedents forced Princess Sophia to stipulate a ban on fights in her decree of October 25, 1682, which allowed all service people of the Moscow state to carry personal weapons. Peter the Great, energetically instilling European customs in Russia, hastened to prevent the spread of duels with cruel laws against them.
Chapter 49 of Peter’s Military Regulations of 1715, called “Patent on duels and starting quarrels,” proclaimed: “No insult to the honor of the offended person can in any way belittled,” the victim and witnesses to the incident are obliged to immediately report the fact of insult to the military court; failure to report was also punishable. The challenge to a duel itself was punishable by deprivation of rank and partial confiscation of property; for entering a duel and drawing a weapon - the death penalty with complete confiscation of property, not excluding seconds.
The “Military Article” of 1715, published as an appendix to Peter’s regulations, stated even more clearly on this score, in which two articles were devoted to duels. The first of them (“article 139”) stated: “All challenges, fights and duels through cue are most strictly prohibited. Thus, so that no one, no matter who he is, of high or low rank, born local or foreigner, although anyone else, who was prompted and excited by words, deeds, signs or anything else, does not at all dare to challenge his rival, below in a duel with him, fight with pistols or with swords. Whoever does anything against this, of course, both the caller and the one who comes out, will be executed, namely hanged, although any of them will be wounded or killed... then after death they will be hanged by their feet.”
The next article (“Article 140”) stipulated the same thing about seconds: “If someone quarrels with someone and begs the second,” then the second “should be punished in the same way.” Like VidicT, the punishments for the fight were meted out in the typically Peter the Great, mercilessly cruel style. Despite this, Peter’s laws against combat, which were formally in force until 1787, were never applied in all these seventy years. What's the matter?
And the fact is that the very concept of honor in its European meaning had not yet entered the consciousness of the Russian nobility, and there were practically no duels until the second half of Catherine’s reign. We should not forget that Peter’s innovations in relation to Western customs and morals were too superficial; for the most part, the Russian nobility in terms of education and internal culture for a long time was not much different from the common people, and the desire to wash away the violation of honor with blood in a fair fight was alien to it. In addition, there was still exceptionally great fear of reprisals from the state; until 1762, the ominous “word and deed” was in effect.
Therefore, when duels began to spread among noble youth in Catherine’s era, representatives of the older generation reacted to this with unconditional condemnation. D.I. Fonvizin in “A sincere confession of my deeds and my thoughts” recalled that his father considered a duel “a matter against conscience” and taught him: “We live under laws, and it is a shame, having such sacred defenders, to figure out what the laws are for ourselves with fists or with swords, for swords and fists are one thing, and a challenge to a duel is nothing more than the action of wild youth.” And let us remember how Pyotr Grinev, the hero of Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter,” was reprimanded by his father Andrei Petrovich Grinev for his duel with Shvabrin in his letter: “... I’m going to get to you and teach you a lesson for your pranks like a boy, despite your officer’s rank: for you have proven that you are still unworthy to wear a sword, which was granted to you for the defense of the fatherland, and not for duels with the same tomboys as you yourself.”
Nevertheless, duels gradually penetrated more and more among noble youth. And the reason here was not so much the “spirit of exuberant youth,” which law-abiding fathers disapprovingly reproached their children for, but rather the emerging sense of honor and personal dignity, which developed gradually, with the development of education and class upbringing, and intensified with each new generation. The noble youth, still faithful to the oath and the throne, did not allow the state to interfere in matters of honor. Later, General Kornilov succinctly and succinctly expressed this formula in his life credo: “The soul is for God, the heart is for a woman, duty is for the Fatherland, honor is for no one.”
By the time duels became widespread in Russia, the formidable articles of Peter the Great’s article, which punished death for a duel, had been thoroughly forgotten, since sixty years had passed since their publication. And the “powers that be” are faced with a problem: how to deal with duels? In 1787, Catherine the Great published the “Manifesto on Duels.” In it, duels were called a foreign plant; Participants in a duel that ended bloodlessly were given a fine as a punishment (not excluding seconds), and the offender, “as a violator of peace and tranquility,” was given lifelong exile to Siberia. For wounds and murder in a duel, punishment was imposed as for the corresponding intentional crimes. The duel reached its apogee in the first half of the 19th century. The prohibition of duels was reaffirmed in the Code of Criminal Laws published under Nicholas I in 1832 and the Military Criminal Charter of 1839, which obligated military commanders to “try to reconcile those quarreling and provide the offended with satisfaction by exacting punishment from the offender.”
But nothing helped! Moreover, duels in Russia were distinguished by the exceptionally strict conditions of the unwritten codes: the distance ranged from 3 to 25 steps (most often 15 steps), there were even duels without seconds and doctors, one on one, they often fought to the death, sometimes they shot while standing one by one with his back at the edge of the abyss, so that if he gets hit, the enemy does not survive (remember the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky in “Princess Mary”). Under such conditions, both opponents often died (as happened in 1825 in the duel between Novosiltsev and Chernov). Moreover, regimental commanders, formally following the letter of the law, actually themselves encouraged such a sense of honor among officers and, under various pretexts, released those officers who refused to fight in a duel.
At the same time, Nicholas I personally treated duels with disgust; his words are known: “I hate duels. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing chivalrous about her. The Duke of Wellington destroyed it in the English army and did well.” But it was precisely in the 20-40s of the 19th century that the high-profile duels of Pushkin with Dantes, Ryleev with Prince Shakhovsky, Griboedov with Yakubovich, Lermontov with de Barant and Martynov took place.
With the advent of relative freedom of the press in Russia in the second half of the 19th century, the controversy surrounding the duel transferred to its pages. Opinions were divided between supporters of the duel and its opponents. Among the first were the jurists Lokhvitsky, Spasovich, and the military writers Kalinin, Shveikovsky, Mikulin; in the opposing camp there were no less respectable names: military leader, teacher and writer General M.I. Dragomirov, military lawyer Shavrov. The point of view of the supporters of the duel was most clearly expressed by Spasovich: “The custom of the duel is among civilization as a symbol of the fact that a person can and should, in certain cases, sacrifice his most precious good - life - for things that, from a materialistic point of view, have no meaning and meaning: for faith, homeland and honor. That is why this custom cannot be compromised. It has the same basis as war.”
Even under Emperor Nicholas I, according to the “Criminal Punishment Code” of 1845, liability for duels was significantly reduced: seconds and doctors were generally exempt from punishment (unless they acted as instigators), and the punishment for duelists no longer exceeded - even in the event of death one of the opponents - imprisonment in a fortress from 6 to 10 years with retention of noble rights upon release. This provision once again reflected the inconsistency of the legislation on duels. In practice, these measures were never applied - the most common punishment for duelists was transfer to the active army in the Caucasus (as was the case with Lermontov for the duel with de Barant), and in the event of death - demotion from officers to privates (as was the case with Dantes after the duel with Pushkin), after which they, as a rule, were fairly quickly restored to officer rank.
The courts of the society of officers were to become a new milestone at this stage. Officer society courts by that time existed in many European armies, playing the role of something like comradely courts. In the Russian army they existed semi-officially from the time of Peter the Great (since 1721). The Society of Regimental Officers could issue certifications to officers and was a significant instrument of public opinion in the military environment. They especially flourished under Alexander I, after 1822, when the emperor himself, when analyzing the conflict between the court of the society of officers and the regiment commander, sided with the former. But in 1829, Nicholas I saw in the very fact of the existence of independent officer corporations, endowed with considerable rights, a means of undermining military discipline and banned their activities everywhere. Nevertheless, this measure, at first glance reasonable, in practice turned out to be erroneous, since the courts of the society of officers were a powerful means of moral, educational influence. Therefore, during the period of the “great reforms” of the 60s, they were (in 1863) restored and acquired official status. A regulation was issued on their structure (in the navy - since 1864 - courts of captains, in each naval division). When developing this provision, many proposed to delegate to the discretion of these courts the issues of resolving a duel in each specific case, but this proposal was rejected. Nevertheless, the punishments for fights became more and more lenient.
Thus, the Senate’s ruling in the case of the duel between Beklemishev and Neklyudov in 1860 stated: “The title of the criminal and his degree of education cannot have any influence in judging cases of duels (usually, when considering criminal cases, the education and good origin of the criminal were an aggravating circumstance. - V. X.), because this crime is so connected with a concept characteristic exclusively of educated people that the indicated circumstances seem in this case to be rather a reason explaining, and therefore reducing, crime.” There were also tragicomic cases. One of them is described in his “Notes of a Revolutionary” by Prince P. A. Kropotkin. A certain officer was insulted by Alexander III even when he was heir to the throne. Being in an unequal position and unable to challenge the crown prince himself to a duel, the officer sent him a note demanding a written apology, otherwise threatening suicide. If the heir had been more sensitive, he would have apologized or given satisfaction to the person who did not have the opportunity to call him. But he didn't. After 24 hours, the officer fulfilled his promise exactly and shot himself. The angry Alexander II sharply reprimanded his son and ordered him to accompany the officer’s coffin at the funeral.
Finally, in 1894, at the very end of the reign of Alexander III, fights were officially allowed. Order No. 118 of the military department dated May 20, 1894, entitled: “Rules on the resolution of quarrels that occur among officers,” consisted of 6 points. The first point established that all cases of officer quarrels were sent by the commander of the military unit to the court of the officers' society. Point two determined that the court could either recognize the possibility of reconciliation between the officers, or (due to the severity of the insults) rule on the need for a duel. At the same time, the court decision on the possibility of reconciliation was advisory in nature, while the decision on the duel was mandatory. Point three stated that the specific conditions of the duel were determined by the seconds chosen by the opponents themselves, but at the end of the duel, the court of the society of officers, according to the protocol presented by the senior second-manager, considered the behavior of the duelists and seconds and the conditions of the duel. Point four obliged the officer who refused the duel to submit a request for resignation within two weeks; otherwise, he was subject to dismissal without request. Finally, paragraph five stipulated that in those military units where there are no officers’ society courts, their functions are performed by the commander of the military unit himself.
If in the second half of the 19th century the number of duels in the Russian army clearly began to decline, then after official permission in 1894 their number again sharply increased. For comparison: from 1876 to 1890, only 14 cases of officer duels came to trial (in 2 of them the opponents were acquitted); from 1894 to 1910, 322 duels took place, of which 256 were decided by courts of honor, 47 with the permission of military commanders and 19 unauthorized (none of them reached a criminal court). Every year there were from 4 to 33 fights in the army (on average - 20). According to General Mikulin, from 1894 to 1910 the following took part in officer duels as opponents: 4 generals, 14 staff officers, 187 captains and staff captains, 367 junior officers, 72 civilians. Of the 99 insult duels, 9 ended with a serious outcome, 17 with a slight injury and 73 with no bloodshed. Of the 183 serious insult duels, 21 ended with a serious outcome, 31 with a slight wound and 131 with no bloodshed. Thus, a small number of fights ended in the death of one of the opponents or serious injury - 10-11% of the total. Of all 322 duels, 315 took place with pistols and only 7 with swords or sabers. Of these, in 241 matches (i.e. in 3/4 of the cases) one bullet was fired, in 49 - two, in 12 - three, in one - four and in one - six bullets; the distance ranged from 12 to 50 steps. The intervals between the insult and the fight ranged from one day to... three years (!), but most often - from two days to two and a half months (depending on the duration of the case review by the court of honor).
So at the beginning of our century, duels were a fairly common occurrence in Russia. The famous political figure and leader of the “Union of October 17th” A.I. Guchkov fought a duel “more than once, even gaining the glory of being a brigand (although he himself was by no means of noble origin). Ilya Erenburg in his memoirs “People, Years, Life” describes the duel between two famous poets - Nikolai Gumilyov and Maximilian Voloshin - in the pre-revolutionary years, the reason for which was one of the practical jokes that Voloshin was a great master at; during the duel, Voloshin fired into the air, and Gumilyov, who considered himself insulted, missed. By the way, the shot was allowed into the air only if the person challenged to the duel fired, and not the one who called - otherwise the duel was not recognized as valid, but only as a farce, since none of the opponents exposed themselves to danger.
Then different times came. The best representatives of the Russian intelligentsia and officers, with their scrupulous concepts of personal honor, were thrown overboard by the revolution and found themselves in a foreign land. In the proletarian state, such concepts as honor and duty were initially declared relics of the exploitative past. Duels were replaced by denunciations, the concept of state benefit overshadowed everything else, nobility was replaced by the fanaticism of some and the prudence of others.
Back forward
Attention! Slide previews are for informational purposes only and may not represent all the features of the presentation. If you are interested in this work, please download the full version.
Goals:
- To form an idea of the duel as a phenomenon of Russian life, about the history of duels, and about the rules for conducting duels.
- develop the ability to observe, analyze, compare, and draw conclusions.
- cultivate a sense of responsibility, intolerance to humiliation, injustice, the ability to defend one’s opinion, and defend the honor of loved ones.
Equipment:
- Reproductions: “A. Pushkin with his wife at the court ball in front of the mirror” Artist N.P. Ulyanov; “Natalia Nikolaevna Pushkina” Artist A.P. Bryullov; “Pushkin’s Duel with Dantes” Artist A.A. Naumov; “Duel of Onegin with Lensky” Artist I.E. Repin.
- Presentation “Duel as a phenomenon of Russian life of the 19th century”
- A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin"
During the classes
AND: Today in the lesson we will talk about the duel as a phenomenon of Russian life of the 19th century, about the tradition of dueling, the goals, and the rules of the Russian duel.
- Let us once again return to the tragic events of January 1837, when a duel took place between Pushkin and Dantes.
- We will pay attention to the depiction of a duel in the works of A.S. Pushkin.
- Let's answer the question: What was the duel in XIX century: a brutal murder or a fair fight? Slide No. 2
AND: History of duels, i.e. duels goes back to ancient times. They fought over women, for the right to own land, for revenge, and finally, just to show their strength and humiliate, or even destroy their opponent. Even in ancient times, circus fights of gladiators in Ancient Rome, medieval knightly tournaments, and fist fights in Rus' were known. But they are not included in the concept of a classic duel. We think the most succinct and accurate definition of a duel was given by the early-century Russian military writer P. A. Shveikovsky: “A duel is an agreed-upon fight between two persons with a deadly weapon to satisfy outraged honor, in compliance with certain conditions established by custom regarding the place, time, weapons and the general circumstances of the battle.” Slide No. 3
From this definition we can isolate the following main features of a classical duel:
- target duels- satisfaction of outraged honor (and not a circus performance, not a resolution of a dispute, and not a contest of strength); Slide No. 4
- there are only two participants in the duel(and not “wall to wall”), i.e. the offended and his offender (hence the very word “duel”); Slide No. 5
- means of dueling- lethal weapons (not fists); Slide No. 6
- availability of customary rules (conditions) duels that must be strictly observed Slide No. 7
L: Let us explain to ourselves the meaning of some words related to the topic of our lesson: Slide No. 8
duelist- participant in a duel;
second– an intermediary accompanying each of the participants in the duel, its witness;
cartel– a letter challenging a duel;
satisfaction- satisfaction for insult to honor;
breter- bully, brawler, bully, avid duelist
AND: The duel is considered the prerogative of men; they met in mortal combats because of hurt honor, or for the ladies of their hearts. But this opinion is very erroneous. Women were also not averse to fighting each other, moreover, duels between them were not so rare and for the most part much bloodier and more sophisticated.
For some reason, the most legendary women's duel is considered to be the duel between the Marquise de Nesle and the Countess de Polignac in the fall of 1624. Not sharing the favor of the Duke of Richelieu (who a little later became a cardinal), the ladies, armed with swords and inviting seconds, went to the Bois de Boulogne, where they fought. The duel ended in victory for the countess, who wounded her rival in the ear. This duel was not anything special, but thanks to Richelieu, whose notes mention this incident, and the memories of the duelists themselves, it left a mark on history.
Peter the Great hastened to prevent the spread of duels in Russia with cruel laws against them. Slide number 9. Peter's Military Regulations of 1715, called “Patent on duels and starting quarrels,” proclaimed: “All challenges, fights and duels are most severely prohibited. Thus, so that no one, no matter who he is, of high or low rank, born local or foreigner, although anyone else, who was prompted and excited by words, deeds, signs or anything else, does not at all dare to challenge his rival, below in a duel with him, fight with pistols or with swords. Whoever does anything against this, of course, both the caller and the one who comes out, will be executed, namely hanged, although any of them will be wounded or killed... then after death they will be hanged by their feet.”
Therefore, there were practically no duels in Russia until the second half of Catherine’s reign. When duels began to spread among noble youth in Catherine's era, representatives of the older generation reacted to this with unconditional condemnation.
L: Let us remember how Pyotr Grinev, the hero of Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter,” was reprimanded by his father Andrei Petrovich Grinev for his duel with Shvabrin in his letter: “... I’m going to get to you and teach you a lesson for your pranks like a boy, despite your officer rank : for you have proven that you are still unworthy to wear a sword, which was granted to you for the defense of the fatherland, and not for duels with the same tomboys as you yourself.”
AND: However, duels gradually penetrated more and more among noble youth. The Russian nobleman of the 18th – early 19th centuries lived and acted under the influence of two opposing regulators of social behavior. As a loyal subject, a servant of the state, he obeyed orders. The incentive to obey was the fear of punishment overtaking the disobedient. But at the same time, as a nobleman, a man of class, he was subject to the laws of honor. The incentive for submission here is shame.
Later, this formula was succinctly and concisely expressed by General L.G. Kornilov in his life credo: “The soul is for God, the heart is for a woman, duty is for the Fatherland, honor is for no one.” Slide No. 10
Danger, coming face to face with death, become cleansing agents that remove the insult from a person. The offended person himself must decide (the correct decision indicates the degree of his knowledge of the laws of honor): is the dishonor so insignificant that in order to remove it, it is enough to demonstrate fearlessness - to show readiness for battle (reconciliation is possible after the challenge and its acceptance - by accepting the challenge, the offender thereby shows , which considers the enemy to be his equal and therefore rehabilitates his honor) or the iconic depiction of combat (reconciliation occurs after the exchange of shots or sword blows without any bloody intentions on either side). If the insult was more serious, one that should be washed away with blood, the duel may end with the first wound (whose does not matter, since honor is restored not by causing damage to the offender or taking revenge on him, but by the fact of shedding blood, including one’s own). Finally, the insulted person may qualify the insult as fatal, requiring the death of one of the participants in the quarrel to be removed. A person who is too easy to reconcile may be considered a coward, and an unjustifiably bloodthirsty person may be considered a thief.
L: The view of a duel as a means of protecting one’s human dignity was not alien to Pushkin. During the Kishinev period, Pushkin found himself in the offensive position of a young civilian man surrounded by people in officer uniforms who had already proven their undoubted courage in the war. This explains his exaggerated scrupulousness during this period in matters of honor and almost brute behavior. A typical example is the duel with Lieutenant Colonel S.N. Starov. The challenge to the poet was made not by any of the junior officers, but on their behalf by the regiment commander Starov, who was 19 years older than Pushkin and significantly exceeded him in rank. It was obviously assumed that Pushkin would be afraid of the duel and would make a public apology. But Pushkin accepted the challenge with dignity. When they arrived at the duel site, a snowstorm with a strong wind interfered with the aim, the opponents fired the first shot, and both missed; another shot, and again a miss; then the seconds decisively insisted that the duel be cancelled. There was no personal enmity between the shooters, and the impeccable observance of the ritual during the duel aroused mutual respect in both. This, however, did not prevent a secondary exchange of shots and, if possible, a second duel. But a day later reconciliation took place quickly.
“I have always respected you, Colonel, and therefore accepted your offer,” said Pushkin.
And they did well, Alexander Sergeevich,” answered S.N. Starov, by this you have further increased my respect for you, and I must tell the truth that you stood up to bullets just as well as you write well.
These words of sincere greeting touched Pushkin, and he rushed to hug Starov. Careful observance of the ritual of honor equalized the position of a civilian youth and a combat lieutenant colonel, giving them an equal right to public respect.
AND: The unwritten order of the duel was as follows. At a predetermined time (usually in the morning), opponents, seconds and a doctor arrived at the appointed place. Delay was allowed no more than 15 minutes; otherwise, the latecomer was considered to have evaded the duel. The fight usually began 10 minutes after everyone arrived. Opponents and seconds greeted each other with a bow. The steward, chosen by the seconds from among himself, suggested that the duelists make peace for the last time (if the court of honor recognized this as possible). If they refused, the manager explained to them the conditions of the fight, the seconds marked the barriers and loaded the pistols in the presence of the opponents. When dueling with sabers or swords, opponents undressed from the waist down to their shirts. Everything was supposed to be taken out of the pockets. The seconds took places parallel to the battle line, the doctors - behind them. The opponents performed all actions at the command of the manager. If during the duel one of them dropped his sword, either it broke, or the fighter fell, his opponent was obliged to interrupt the duel at the command of the manager until his opponent stood up and was able to continue the duel. As a rule, a sword duel was fought until one of the opponents completely lost the ability to continue it - that is, until he was seriously or fatally wounded. Therefore, after each wound, the fight was suspended, and the doctor established the nature of the wound and the degree of its severity. If during such a duel one of the opponents, despite warnings, retreated three times outside the battlefield, such behavior was counted as evasion or refusal of a fair fight. At the end of the fight, the opponents shook hands with each other.
L: The fate of a man very much depends on the woman with whom he has connected his life. Pushkin and his fate are no exception. On February 18, 1831, in Moscow, in the Church of the Great Ascension on Malaya Nikitskaya, Pushkin married the beautiful Natalya Nikolaevna Goncharova. She was nineteen years old. Slide number 11
They said that the first poet of Russia married the first Russian beauty. In the meeting of his genius with her beauty there was a life catastrophe, because their union contained something absolute. To encroach on her honor meant, in his eyes, to encroach on the honor of his Muse.
Natalya Nikolaevna wanted to have fun, she liked balls at which she was the first beauty. At one of the balls she met Dantes. Handsome, tall, with an attractive smile, Dantes easily played the role of a “carefree, kind fellow,” but in reality he was dry, selfish and calculating. Dantes chose Pushkin's wife, who was at the zenith of social success, as the subject of his harassment, and began a rude and persistent persecution. Dirty rumors spread. Slide No. 12
A real secular conspiracy began against Pushkin. Even his friends thought that the poet was behaving unreasonably: overly aggressive, not inclined to reconciliation and concessions. But Pushkin could not do it any other way; he loved to emphasize his 600-year-old nobility, but internally he was devoid of aristocracy. In fact, it was the accumulated pain of human dignity, which was not protected by anything except pride and the willingness to die.
Pushkin was not a man who could be defeated by circumstances. He chose direct combat with the enemy - face to face, breaking all the shackles with which his enemies and intriguers had so diligently entangled him. He made the final decision and sent a letter that was terrible in its offensive essence, cutting off the possibility of reconciliation and leaving the only way out - a duel.
AND: The conditions of the duel, signed by the seconds of Pushkin and Dantes, were as cruel as possible (the duel was designed to lead to death).
Slide No. 13
- Opponents stand at a distance of 25 steps from each other and 5 steps (for each) from the barriers, the distance between which is 10 steps.
- Opponents armed with pistols can shoot at this sign, moving towards each other, but in no case crossing the barrier.
- Moreover, it is accepted that after the shot the opponents are not allowed to change place so that the one who fired first would be exposed to the fire of his opponent at the same distance.
- When both sides fire a shot, then in case of ineffectiveness the fight is resumed as if for the first time: the opponents are placed at the same distance of 20 steps, the same barriers and the same rules are maintained.
- Seconds are indispensable mediators in any explanation between opponents at the battlefield.
- The seconds, the undersigned and vested with full powers, ensure, each for his own side, with his own honor, strict compliance with the conditions stated here. Slide No. 14
Excerpt from the film “Pushkin’s Last Duel”
L: A person for whom life is more valuable than honor sees only misfortune in death. Preservation of life becomes the highest value. It is impossible to understand Pushkin from these positions. He strove for victory and freedom. He gained victory by defending his honor, disgracing and branding Dantes and Heeckeren, who were forced, surrounded by general contempt, to leave Russia. And death gave him a moment of high freedom.
Pushkin died not defeated, but a winner. Pushkin did not allow himself to be made into a toy in the hands of others, a victim of gossip, whims and other people's calculations. He wrested the initiative from the hands of his persecutors and played the game according to his own plan. Being a victim is not in his nature. Whatever step he took in life, everything went to his advantage: the indifference of his parents, one exile and another, cholera, and even death. He was not hanged or exiled to Siberia for life - he died like an ordinary nobleman. He courageously accepted terrible physical torment and did not want to moan, so as not to frighten Natalya Nikolaevna. He did not become a killer, which some still regret. Defending the honor of a woman, the honor of the family, his dignity as a husband, a nobleman and a Russian poet, he did not kill, but died himself. He refused the revenge proposed by his second Danzas on his killer: “peace, peace,” he said. And this was the same logic of his fate. A person who listened to “God’s voice” and aroused good feelings could not die with anger in his soul and a thirst for revenge. He died not as a great poet, but as a great man.
AND: The court sentenced Dantes to death over the duel, but decided to petition for a mitigation of this punishment. The court's verdict was approved by the Highest on March 18, 1837: Dantes was demoted to private and the next day, March 19, he was sent to the border, accompanied by a gendarmerie non-commissioned officer. In the so-called big world, many condoled not about the death of the poet, but about the expulsion of the adventurer; many, on the contrary, were convinced that by expulsion Nicholas I wanted to save Dantes’ life, since among the Russian liberal youth there could be avengers for Pushkin.
L: In chapter 6 of “Eugene Onegin” » Pushkin depicted the duel between Lensky and Onegin. The conditions of this duel, to our surprise, were very cruel, although there was clearly no reason for mortal enmity here.
Slide No. 15
What are the reasons for this duel? A random quarrel is only a pretext for a duel, but its reason is much deeper: Lensky, with his naive view of the world, cannot withstand a collision with life. Onegin, in turn, is unable to resist generally accepted morality. The quarrel between Onegin and Lensky is entered into by a force that can no longer be reversed - the force of “public opinion.” The bearer of this force is Zaretsky
Honor, duty, patriotism - all this is inaccessible to Zaretsky. He is ready to be captured again, just to get drunk again in debt from a French restaurateur! Zaretsky’s numerous skills - “to argue cheerfully, to answer sharply and stupidly, sometimes to remain prudently silent, sometimes to quarrel prudently” - all these skills are vile, vile, but they are valued by the society in which Pushkin has to live.
Why can’t O. and L. reconcile?(11th stanza)
The duel begins. Who is shooting - friends or enemies?
Pushkin's attitude to the duel between Onegin and Lensky. Stanza 32 (Read the passage)
Summarizing. Opinion exchange.« What was the duel inXIXcentury: a brutal murder or a fair fight? Slide No. 16
Homework.
Justify your view of the duel in writing.
Loading...