Duel as a phenomenon of Russian life in the 19th century. Kill by the rules: codes of honor in the Russian Empire

18.04.2009

Russian Duel. The phenomenon of the Russian duel.

The article tells about the history and rules of the Russian duel, which for a long time was considered the most noble way to resolve the conflict.

The duel is one of the most mysterious phenomena of Russian life. Like French ballet and Polish vodka, it is one of those borrowings that quickly became national features.

"A duel is an arranged battle between two persons with a deadly weapon to satisfy the desecrated honor..." / From the history of the Russian duel /

Many times there have been attempts at a detailed historical and cultural study of the phenomenon of the Russian duel, the material for which was memoirs, letters, manifestos and decrees, as well as descriptions of the duel in Russian classical literature.

It is known that the duel as a custom came to Russia from the West. But even there it did not exist forever. The time of the origin of the classical duel in Western Europe can be attributed to the late Middle Ages, around the 14th century, when the knightly estate, the forerunner of the nobility, with its concepts of honor, in many respects alien to the commoner or merchant, finally formed and flourished. In the 16th century, duels had already assumed such a menacing scope and claimed so many lives that the kings began to fight this custom. So, during the 16 years of the reign of Henry IV in France, from 7 to 8 thousand people were killed in duels. The famous Cardinal Richelieu forbade duels on pain of death, declaring that a nobleman could only sacrifice his life in the interests of the king. Louis XIV in 1679, by a special edict, established a court of marshals to resolve all issues of honor.

But nothing helped, including the statement that the king takes the offense of everyone who refuses to fight. The nobility stubbornly avoided interference by the state and the courts in matters of honor. Recognizing the right of the king to dispose of their life and service, it rejected the right to resolve issues related to honor and dignity. Refusal to fight throughout history continued to be considered an indelible shame, forever excluding decent people who refused from society. Realizing this, the monarchs themselves seemed to be constrained, and their fight against duels was always inconsistent. A case is known when the French king Francis I himself challenged the German emperor Charles V to a duel.

The Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus, the famous commander of the first half of the 17th century, energetically pursued duels with his decrees. But when, offended by his slap in the face, the colonel of the army, unable to call the king himself, left the service and left the country, the king caught up with him at the border and himself handed him a pistol with the words: “Here, where my kingdom ends, Gustav Adolf is no longer king, and here, as an honest man, I am ready to give satisfaction to another honest man. In his words, as in a drop of water, all the duality of the attitude of most European sovereigns to the duel was reflected: as rulers of their subjects and legislators, they sought to put an end to the bloodshed, but as secular people with the same concepts of honor, they understood that they themselves would behave like this same.

A duel is just that most curious incident when morality and law constantly contradict each other, when the concept of defending honor and dignity with arms in hand collides with the invariable desire of the state to regulate these issues by legal means, with the help of the court. Already Frederick the Great looked at the duels in his army through his fingers. By the second half of the 19th century, duels were so entrenched that they were taught to be viewed as a necessary evil, prohibitions began to be lifted everywhere, in the army duels were even legalized through the courts of officer honor. France has always been the legislator of the customs and rules of the duel. In 1836, the Comte de Chateauviller published the dueling code for the first time. Later, the dueling code of Count Verger, published in 1879 and summing up the experience of duels accumulated over the centuries, became generally recognized in Europe. He was recognized as a model in Russia.

Experts distinguish between American and European duel. American duels consisted in the fact that two opponents were given weapons and they went into the forest. From that moment began their hunt for each other. It was possible to lie in wait for the enemy in an ambush, and a shot in the back was not forbidden. Because of its immorality, the American duel did not take root in Russia. In general, it must be said that the Russian duel, in terms of its conditions and features, was very different from the European one, in particular from the same French one. In France in the 19th century, duels were more ritual in nature and ended, as a rule, without bloodshed. This was facilitated by the "sparing" conditions of the dueling code. The barrier distance (the minimum distance between the lines of opening fire) was set such that it would provide a low probability of hitting. Usually 30 - 35 steps. Such desperate Russian bullies as Tolstoy the American, Dorokhov, Yakubovich, yes, what to hide, and Alexander Sergeevich with Mikhail Yuryevich, simply laughed at such an "opera" duel.

The Russians usually shot from 8 to 10 paces. There were cases - and from three! (This was called "put a gun to the forehead".) And they shot, as a rule, "to the result." And the result was either severe injury or death.

History of the Russian duel. A duel in Russia is more than a duel! "To the barrier!" What was the historical path of the duel in our Fatherland?

Presumably, the first duel in Russia can be considered a duel that took place in 1666 in Moscow between two hired foreign officers - the Scot Patrick Gordon (later Peter's general) and the Englishman Major Montgomery. But at that time, this custom had not yet penetrated among the Russians. Nevertheless, isolated precedents forced Princess Sophia, in a decree of October 25, 1682, which allowed all service people of the Muscovite state to carry personal weapons, to stipulate a ban on duels. Peter the Great, vigorously implanting European customs in Russia, hastened to prevent the spread of duels with cruel laws against them.

Chapter 49 of the Petrine Military Regulations of 1715, called “Patent on duels and initiation of quarrels”, proclaimed: “No insult to the honor of the offended can in any way belittle”, the victim and witnesses of the incident are obliged to immediately report the fact of insult to the military court; non-delivery was also punished. For the challenge itself to a duel, deprivation of rank and partial confiscation of property was supposed, for entering a duel and drawing weapons - the death penalty with complete confiscation of property, not excluding the seconds.

The “Military Article” of 1715, published as an appendix to the Peter the Great charter, in which two articles were devoted to duels, spoke even more definitely on this score. The first of them (“Article 139”) stated: “All challenges, fights and fights through cue are strictly prohibited. Thus, so that no one, no matter who he may be, high or low rank, a born local or foreigner, although another, who by words, deeds, signs or anything else was prompted and provoked to do so, would by no means dare to call his rival, below fight with him with pistols or swords. Whoever commits against this, of course, both the caller and whoever comes out, has to be executed, namely, hanged, although one of them will be wounded or killed ... then hang them by the feet after death.

The next article (“Article 140”) stipulated the same about the seconds: “If someone quarrels with someone and asks the second,” then the second “should be punished in the same way.” As you can see, the punishments for the duel were executed in a typically Petrine, mercilessly brutal style. Despite this, Peter's laws against fights, which were formally in force until 1787, have never been applied in all these seventy years. What's the matter?

And the fact that the very concept of honor in its European meaning has not yet entered the consciousness of the Russian nobility, and there were practically no duels until the second half of Catherine's reign. It should not be forgotten that Peter's innovations in relation to Western customs and mores were too superficial, for the most part, the Russian nobility in terms of upbringing and internal culture for a long time did not differ much from the common people, and the desire to wash away the insult of honor with blood in a fair fight was alien to him. In addition, the fear of reprisals from the state was still exceptionally great; until 1762, an ominous “word and deed” acted.

Therefore, when duels began to spread among the noble youth in the Catherine's era, representatives of the older generation reacted to this with unconditional condemnation. D. I. Fonvizin, in “A sincere confession in deeds and my thoughts,” recalled that his father considered the duel “a matter against conscience” and taught him: “We live under the laws, and it’s a shame, having such sacred defenders, what are the laws, to figure it out ourselves on fists or on swords, for swords and fists are one, and a challenge to a duel is nothing but the act of violent youth. And let us remember how Pyotr Grinev, the hero of Pushkin's The Captain's Daughter, was scolded for a duel with Shvabrin by his father Andrei Petrovich Grinev in his letter: rank: for you have proved that you are not yet worthy to wear a sword, which was granted to you for the defense of the fatherland, and not for duels with the same tomboys like you yourself.

Nevertheless, duels gradually penetrated more and more into the environment of noble youth. And the reason here was not so much the “spirit of violent youth”, in which law-abiding fathers reproached the children with disapproval, but the emerging sense of honor and personal dignity, which developed gradually, with the development of education and class education, and intensified with each new generation. The youth of the nobility, still faithful to the oath to the throne, did not allow the state to interfere in matters of honor. Later, this formula was succinctly and concisely expressed by General Kornilov in his life credo: "Soul - to God, heart - to a woman, duty - to the Fatherland, honor - to no one."

By the time duels were spread in Russia, the formidable articles of the Petrine article, which punished by death for a duel, were thoroughly forgotten, since sixty years had passed since their publication. And before the "powers that be" there is a problem: how to deal with duels? In 1787, Catherine the Great published the "Manifesto on Combats". In it, duels were called a foreign planting; the participants in the duel, which ended bloodlessly, were punished with a fine (not excluding seconds), and the offender, “like a violator of peace and tranquility,” was exiled to Siberia for life. For wounds and murder in a duel, the 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” of 1832 and the “Charter of the Military Criminal” of 1839, published under Nicholas I, which obligated military commanders “to try to reconcile those who quarrel and provide satisfaction to the offended by collecting from the offender.”

But nothing helped! Moreover, duels in Russia were distinguished by the exceptional rigidity of the conditions of 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 in turn back at the edge of the abyss, so that in the event of a hit, the enemy would not survive (recall the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky in Princess Mary). Under such conditions, both opponents often died (as was the case in 1825 at the duel between Novosiltsev and Chernov). Moreover, the regimental commanders, formally following the letter of the law, actually encouraged such a sense of honor among the officers and, under various pretexts, were released from 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 the duel. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing knightly in it. The Duke of Wellington destroyed her 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, Griboyedov 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 disputes around the duel were transferred to its pages. Opinions were divided between supporters of the duel and its opponents. Among the first stood out jurists Lokhvitsky, Spasovich, military writers Kalinin, Shveikovsky, Mikulin; in the camp of opponents there were no less respectable names: military figure, 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 a duel appears among civilization as a symbol of the fact that a person can and should, in certain cases, sacrifice his most precious blessing - 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 waived. It has the same basis as war."

Even under Emperor Nicholas I, according to the “Code of Criminal Punishments” of 1845, responsibility for duels was significantly reduced: seconds and doctors were generally exempted 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 the preservation of noble rights upon exit. This provision once again reflected all the inconsistency of the legislation on duels. In practice, these measures were never applied either - the most common punishment for duelists was transfer to the active army in the Caucasus (as was the case with Lermontov for a duel with de Barant), and in case of death - demotion from officers to privates (as it was with Dantes after a duel with Pushkin), after which they, as a rule, were quickly restored to the officer rank.

A new milestone at this stage was to be the courts of the Society of Officers. Courts of the society of officers by that time existed in many European armies, playing the role of something like comrades' courts. In the Russian army, they have existed semi-officially since Peter the Great (since 1721). The society of officers of the regiment could issue attestations to officers and was a powerful tool of public opinion in the military environment. They flourished especially 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, turned out to be erroneous in practice, since the courts of the officers' society 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 an official status. A regulation was issued on their organization (in the Navy - since 1864 - the courts of captains, in each naval division). When drafting this provision, many suggested that the issues of resolving the duel in each specific case be left to the discretion of these courts, but this proposal was rejected. Nevertheless, the penalties for fights became more and more lenient.

So, in the definition of the Senate in the case of the duel between Beklemishev and Neklyudov in 1860, it was said: “The rank of the criminal and the degree of his 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 peculiar exclusively to educated people that the indicated circumstances appear in this case rather as 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 offended by Alexander III when he was his heir to the throne. Being in an unequal position and not being able to challenge the Tsarevich 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 himself given satisfaction to a 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. Enraged, Alexander II sharply scolded 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. The order of the military department No. 118 of May 20, 1894, and entitled: “Rules on the consideration of quarrels that occur among officers”, consisted of 6 points. The first paragraph established that all cases of officer quarrels were sent by the commander of the military unit to the court of the officers' society. The second paragraph determined that the court could either recognize the reconciliation of the officers as possible, or (in view of the severity of the insults) decide on the need for a duel. At the same time, the court decision on the possibility of reconciliation was advisory in nature, the decision on the duel was binding. The third paragraph stated that the specific conditions of the duel are 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, considers the behavior of the duelists and seconds and the conditions of the duel. Paragraph four obliged the officer who refused to duel to submit a letter of resignation within two weeks; otherwise, he was subject to dismissal without petition. Finally, paragraph five stipulated that in those military units where there are no courts of the society of officers, 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 the official permission in 1894, their number again sharply increases. For comparison: from 1876 to 1890, only 14 cases of officer duels reached the court (in 2 of them, the opponents were acquitted); from 1894 to 1910, 322 duels took place, of which 256 - by decision of the courts of honor, 47 - with the permission of military commanders and 19 unauthorized ones (none of them reached the 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, 4 generals, 14 staff officers, 187 captains and staff captains, 367 junior officers, 72 civilians participated in officer duels as opponents. Of the 99 insult duels, 9 ended in a serious outcome, 17 with a minor injury, and 73 without bloodshed. Of the 183 duels for serious insult, 21 ended in a serious outcome, 31 with a minor injury, and 131 without bloodshed. Thus, the death of one of the opponents or a serious injury ended in an insignificant number of duels - 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 duels (that is, 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 paces. The intervals between the insult and the duel 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 trial by the court of honor).

So at the beginning of our century, duels were quite common in Russia. A well-known politician, the leader of the "Union of October 17" A. I. Guchkov fought a duel "more than once, even gaining the fame of a breter (although he himself was by no means of noble origin). Ilya Ehrenburg in his memoirs" People, Years, Life "describes a 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 for which Voloshin was a great master; during the duel, Voloshin fired into the air, and Gumilyov, who considered himself insulted, missed. it was allowed into the air only if the person called to the duel fired, and not the one who called it - otherwise the duel was not recognized as valid, but only a farce, since none of the opponents endangered themselves.

Then other times came. The best representatives of the Russian intelligentsia and officers, with their scrupulous notions 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 at first generally declared to be remnants of the exploitative past. Duels were replaced by denunciations, the concept of state benefit overshadowed everything else, the nobility was replaced by the fanaticism of some and the prudence of others.

Russian duel rules. A duel in Russia is more than a duel!

The history of fights goes back to ancient times. They fought for women, for the right to own land, for revenge, and finally, just to show their strength and humiliate, or even destroy the opponent. Even in ancient times, court fights were known, which were appointed to resolve disputes over property and other issues (in particular, in Russkaya Pravda), circus gladiator fights in Ancient Rome, medieval knightly tournaments, fisticuffs in Russia. But they are not included in the concept of a classic duel. The most capacious and accurate definition of a duel, given by the Russian military writer of the beginning of the century P. A. Shveikovsky, seems to us to be the most capacious and accurate: conditions for the execution of the battle.

From this definition, the following main features of a classic duel can be distinguished:

The purpose of the duel is to satisfy the insulted honor (and not a circus performance, not a solution to a dispute, and not a contest of strength);
There are only two participants in the duel (and not “wall to wall”), that is, the offended and his offender (hence the word “duel” itself);
The means of a duel is a deadly weapon (and not fists, like those of the merchant Kalashnikov and Kiribeevich);
The presence of the rules (conditions) of a duel established by custom, mandatory for strict observance.

"The rules of the duel between Mr. Baron Georges Heckeren and Mr. Pushkin

The text of the terms of the duel between Pushkin and Dantes has reached posterity. To illustrate, here is it in full:

Opponents are placed at a distance of 20 steps from each other and 10 steps from barriers, the distance between which is 10 steps.

Opponents armed with pistols, following this sign, moving towards one another, but in no case crossing the barrier, can shoot.

Moreover, it is assumed that after the shot the opponents are not allowed to change their place, so that the one who fired first is exposed to the fire of his opponent at the same distance.

When both sides make a shot, then in case of ineffectiveness, the duel 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 remain.

The seconds are direct intermediaries in every respect between opponents on the spot.

The seconds, the undersigned and vested with full authority, ensure, each for his side, with his honor, strict observance of the conditions set forth here.

Repin Duel of Onegin and Lensky 1899 Pushkin Museum, St. Petersburg

The unwritten order of the duel

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. Lateness was allowed no more than 15 minutes; otherwise, the latecomer was considered to have evaded the duel. The duel usually began 10 minutes after the arrival of everyone. Opponents and seconds greeted each other with a bow. The manager elected by the seconds from his midst offered the duelists to make peace for the last time (if the court of honor recognized this as possible). In case of their refusal, the manager explained to them the conditions of the duel, the seconds marked the barriers and, in the presence of opponents, loaded pistols. When dueling with sabers or swords, the 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. All actions were performed by the opponents at the command of the manager. If during the duel one of them dropped his sword, or it broke, or the fighter fell, his opponent was obliged to interrupt the duel at the command of the steward until his opponent got up and was able to continue the duel. As a rule, a sword duel was fought until one of the opponents completely lost the opportunity to continue it - that is, until a severe or mortal wound. Therefore, after each injury, the duel was suspended, and the doctor established the nature of the wound, its severity. If during such a duel one of the opponents, despite warnings, retreated beyond the border of the battlefield three times, such behavior was counted as evading or refusing to fight a fair fight. At the end of the battle, the opponents shook hands with each other.

Pistol duels had several options.

1. Option 1. The opponents stood at a distance of 15 to 40 steps from each other and, remaining motionless, fired at the command in turn (the interval between the command and the shot should have been at least 3 seconds, but not more than 1 minute). If the insult was medium or heavy, then the offended person had the right to shoot first (but only from a distance of 40 steps, that is, the maximum), otherwise the right of the first shot was decided by lot.
2. Option 2. (relatively rare). The opponents stood with their backs to each other at a distance of 25 steps and, remaining motionless at this distance, fired continuously over their shoulders.
3. Option 3. (perhaps the most common). Opponents stood at a distance of up to 30 steps from each other and, on command, went to the barriers, the distance between which was at least 10 steps, on command, the first one fired on the move, but waited for a return shot while standing still (shooting without a command was allowed if the barriers were 15-20 steps apart, and the opponents in the starting position - up to 50 steps; but this is a relatively rare variety). With such a duel, the time for a return shot did not exceed 30 seconds, for a fallen one - 1 minute from the moment of the fall. It was forbidden to cross the barriers. A misfire was also considered a shot. The fallen one could shoot lying down (as the wounded Pushkin shot at Dantes). If during such a duel, after four shots, none of the opponents was injured, then it could be stopped.
4. Option 4. Opponents stood at a distance of 25-35 steps, located in parallel lines, so that each of them had his opponent to his right, and walked along these lines to the barriers, separated from each other by 15 steps, stopping on command and shooting.
5. Option 5. The opponents were located at a distance of 25-35 steps and, remaining motionless, fired at the same time - on the command to count "twice" or on a signal of three claps. Such a duel was the most dangerous, and both opponents often died (the duel between Novosiltsev and Chernov). At the end, the opponents shook hands with each other.

Note that these rules (at least the same distance), established by the end of the 19th century, were in many ways more humane than the usual rules of Russian duels in the first half of the 19th century. It is curious that if in the second half of the 19th century the number of duels in the Russian army clearly began to decline, then after the official permission in 1894, their number again sharply increases.

In the 16th century, there was a tendency to resolve conflict situations that arise between high-ranking persons (including crowned ones) through duels. It is known that Charles V (of Germany) threw Francis I (of the French king). Napoleon Bonaparte himself, at one time, received an invitation to take part in the Swedish King Gustav IV. History also stores information about the unfavorable outcomes of such confrontations, for example, King Henry II of France was mortally wounded in a duel with the Count of Montgomery. However, with the end, equality of estates reigned, which led to the general permission to sort things out in such a noble confrontation.

At first, duels proceeded solemnly and were a public action. In France, a duel required the approval of the king, who was present at the duel. If desired, the ruler could at any time stop what was happening with a gesture. So, if the king dropped the scepter to the ground, the confrontation immediately ended.

Dueling Code

The case that occurred in 1578, when in addition to the duelists themselves, four seconds were also involved in the duel, served as a pretext for the creation of punitive measures, as well as for the regulation of the dueling code.

Only two people take part in a duel: the offender and the one who has been insulted.

You can only claim satisfaction once.

The purpose of the duel is to increase respect for one's own honor and dignity.

If one of the duelists was late for the event by more than 15 minutes, he was considered to have evaded the duel.

Fighting was allowed only with sabers, swords, and pistols.

The right to choose, as well as the first one, is automatically given to the offended, otherwise it is decided by lot.

The seconds undertook not only to take part in the development of the strategy, but also to strictly monitor the observance of the rules.

The shooter does not have to shoot in the air.

The shooter must stand motionless at the barrier in anticipation of a reciprocal step.

In addition, it was forbidden to put on chain mail, start a duel without a signal from a second, retreat, and the like.

At the end of the battle, the opponents shook hands, and the incident was considered settled.

It should be noted that by the end of the 19th century, the dueling code had become many times more humane than the one that was typical even for the first half of the same century.

"On pistols at dawn!". Challenge thrown.
Rejecting a challenge will brand you a coward for life. You will meet at the chosen place and there will be 20 steps between you. Your dueling pistols are loaded. Some of you may be seriously injured or killed. Doctors stand nearby, ready to provide first aid, and your friends look at each other with apprehension. What is all this for?

Because you made fun of his hat.

One-on-one dueling (most often with swords or pistols) is an integral part of society, shaping the way of life of many thousands of nobles, knights, crusaders, politicians and cowboys from the Wild West. But apart from being a social phenomenon, the duel is an absurd instinct to compete and win. Men are ready to kill and die for a mere trifle.

Duel Basics

A duel is a tightly controlled form of wrestling. It gives equal chances to both men (women take part only in exceptional cases). The duel is held according to the rules in a predetermined place and at a predetermined time. The word "duel" itself comes from the Latin word "duellum", which comes from duo (two) and bellum (war).

Duels are rarely spontaneous. Usually the first participant challenges the second, who clarifies all the questions that have arisen from the second. A second is a friend of the duelist who enforces the rules, prepares weapons and ensures security during the duel. Also, the seconds before the duel should try to reconcile the parties, trying to defuse the situation that led to the duel. But often the seconds themselves fought on a par with the duelists. After the call, the seconds settle all the details of the duel, often spending several days on this.

After the duel has been announced, any weapon may be used at the discretion of the challenged or challenger, depending on the version of the rules. Dueling rules from 1777 state that “the challenged person has the right to choose weapons at his own discretion, if he is not a swordsman. In this case, the caller may refuse or offer another version of the weapon.

For a long time, the choice of weapons was limited to various types of swords. But over time, when pistols began to be used for duels, the rules began to indicate that only smoothbore pistols were allowed to be used. Rifles were forbidden, as they increased the accuracy and range of the shot. Many dueling rules are designed to reduce the chance of death or injury. For example, for this, in some collections it was required that the duelists stand with their backs to each other and turn only on a signal. This reduced the time to aim and reduced the possibility of hitting.

The losing participant had to hope for the mercy of the winner, who chose whether to let him live or kill him. At the same time, the dueling code allowed the winner to desecrate the body of the loser, for example, by cutting off the head and placing it in a public place.

Throw glove

A challenge to a duel may be made on the spot by throwing a glove in the face or on the ground before the opponent does so.

duel rules

In 1777, a committee of the Irish drew up a set of dueling rules, which became widely used in Europe and America. This led to its popularity being so great that people all over the world mistook it for the "official" dueling code. This set of rules was included in the "Midshipman's Manual" of the US Navy until the ban on dueling between naval officers in 1862.

The code included the rules of apology, thanks to which it was possible to cancel the duel, the requirements for the behavior of duel participants, the role and duties of seconds, in which cases the duel is considered over, and much more.

Apologies

An apology from the offending party can prevent a duel, but it's important to deliver it correctly. Most duels happened because one person offended the honor of another. Therefore, an apology was enough to resolve the conflict that had arisen before the duel. The duel code clearly defines the order in which apologies must be made. Rule #1 states that “The one who offended first should apologize first, although the retorts could have been more offensive. That is, the instigator must be the first to admit his guilt. At the same time, he may require explanations for the response remarks.

The Code also defines when verbal apologies are sufficient and when they are not sufficient to compensate for insults. Rule #5 states that “since fighting is unworthy of a true gentleman, any blow is considered a serious insult. It cannot be smoothed over with verbal apologies. If the offender does not want to bring the matter to a duel, then he must give the offended his cane, which will be used for striking. During the execution, he must ask for forgiveness from the victim.

duel etiquette

A duel is not a fight. This is a battle for honor. Therefore, it should be carried out in such a way as not to drop the dignity of both participants. Rule #13 describes behavior during a duel, and it is the most violated, as many duelists enter the lane with a desire to defend their honor, not to kill or maim.

So, the rule says that shooting in the air is not allowed. The challenge is only given in case of a real insult, but there must be an attempt to apologize before the duel begins. Therefore, it is unacceptable to turn such an action into a game or entertainment for children, this is a dishonor for both participants.

Since the mere fact of a duel is sufficient to satisfy, duelists may announce in advance the use of dummy bullets, shooting into the air, or some non-dangerous part of the opponent's body. The dueling code is against such behavior.

This is necessary in order to avoid vehemence in solving the case.

Seconds

The duties of seconds are described in rules No. 18 and No. 21, according to which “seconds load weapons in the presence of each other. Seconds should try to reconcile the parties before the duel and after firing a sufficient number of shots.

The dueling code allows for the intervention of seconds in the course of the duel. But this is a very specific situation and is regulated by rule No. 25: “If desired, and with the consent of the seconds, a duel between them is possible. Moreover, it must be held at the same time, and they must stand on a line perpendicular to the line of the main duelists.

The end of the duel

A duel to the death is not desirable from a code point of view, as it is a duel to restore honor, not to kill. Nevertheless, such an outcome is allowed.

The code offers five options for ending the duel: to death, to first blood, to loss of consciousness, disarmament, or after the aggressor does not ask for forgiveness. Rule #22 unequivocally defines the end of a duel as "any serious injury that may cause the hands to tremble or interfere with movement."

Perhaps the most important rule of the code does not determine the dueling process itself, but those segments of the population that can sort things out in a duel. In medieval Europe, the duel was an action for men of noble birth. Although fights broke out among commoners that could be attributed to duels, in fact, only persons of noble origin could be participants in a duel. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons was the economic component. Swords were too expensive for a peasant. In addition, the duel separated the upper strata of the population from the lower. Many countries had laws forbidding duels between commoners, and the aristocrats were often required to take part in them.

Duel between nobles

The duel is directly intertwined with the concept of honor. Nevertheless, the medieval concept of honor is strikingly different from the modern one. If now the word means a good quality and positive aspects of a person, then earlier it was associated with origin. Thus, if your family had merit to the ruling dynasty, they had a title, then, regardless of your behavior, you were an honest person.

Noble origin imposed strict requirements for the protection of one's honor. Any attempt to doubt her had to end in a challenge. In addition, the honor of the family for several generations in the past was subject to protection. At the same time, you could lose your honor at any moment. Most often this followed because of an accusation of cowardice. The easiest way to avoid the accusation of cowardice and the subsequent loss of honor was to challenge on any occasion and accept all the challenges offered to you. Otherwise, the enemy could tell everyone around about your act, inform the church and his friends about it. The consequences of such an act were different, often the family lost the favor of the monarch, the coward was deprived of the right to vote, excommunicated from the church, or could be imprisoned. Therefore, it was easier to die in a duel than to refuse it and live without honor.

The peculiarity of noble origin was that the nobles did not work. Working or buying and selling was unacceptable for a nobleman and could be a reason for loss of honor. The main income of noble families was rent from land plots. Therefore, most of the time the nobles indulged in boredom. Because of this, over time, dueling from a defense of honor grew into a sporting event. If there were no reasons for the call, then they themselves insulted others. Sometimes a simple collision in a crowd or lack of courtesy was considered the basis for a duel. If there was a lady in the company, then her honor was considered such a fragile concept that any insufficiently polite treatment could serve as an accusation of dishonor and become a reason for being challenged to a duel.

The winner was considered better than the loser. Personal qualities were not important, the very fact of winning a duel was considered sufficient reason for this. And he was considered the best in everything. He was more honest, smarter, wiser and was a god to the loser.

Duel among commoners

Commoners also took part in duels. In the early stages, this was how guilt or innocence was determined. Until the 12th century, to prove innocence, one could pass a test of innocence, one of the options was a judicial duel. The opponent in this case was the accuser or a special fighter appointed by the court. In the event of the victory of the defendant, all charges were dropped, since it was believed that God protected him.

Many duelists challenged for practical reasons. For a man confident in his skill, this was the solution to any problem. Debts can be repaid by simply killing the creditor. Land disputes were easily resolved by dueling. Competitors in work or politics can be eliminated with the sword, not in elections with votes.

In pre-war Missouri, political duels became the norm. In his work "Dueling and the Roots of Violence in Missouri," Dick Steward emphasizes the following: "The immediate goal (of the duel) was to eliminate a political competitor." The duel has become one of the instruments of political disputes. The first governor of California, Peter Burnett, spoke of politics in Missouri in this way: "It is desirable to kill your political competitors in order to surely eliminate them from your path."

Duel evolution

The duel is closely intertwined with the knightly competitions of the Middle Ages. The creation and development of the dueling code may be related to the knightly codes of honor used by noble warriors. A knightly tournament is a duel on horseback, the formal rules of which require participants of noble birth. Before the start of the battle, both knights met in the center and raised the visor of their helmets, revealing their identity. Such an action guaranteed the noble birth of the participants. Currently, this gesture has grown into a military salute.

The appearance of firearms on the battlefield led to the disappearance of knights in heavy armor, as it did not provide protection from bullets. Therefore, massive swords were no longer needed, light bladed weapons began to develop, which made it easier to handle.

When there was a shift in emphasis to light swords, duelists appeared who practiced fencing not because of duels, but as a sport. There were competitions for the number of touches with the tip of the weapon to the enemy. Since injuries occurred quite often, the Italians began to place protection on the edges of the blades. This made it possible to protect the fighters. And until now, the art of fencing, with some restrictions, is practiced in sports.

When pistols became more popular, they even more significantly influenced the nature of duels. Dueling availability has changed as pistols are cheaper than swords. Therefore, in order to participate in a pistol duel, there was no need to purchase a sword and costly training from an Italian fencing master. Fights have become available to all segments of the population.

In the United States, doctors, newspaper editors, politicians, and lawyers have fought duels time after time. This finally opened access to the duel to everyone. Fights did not lose their popularity throughout Europe and the United States until the twentieth century.

Death duel

The duel did not die suddenly. In fact, the first attempts to ban the duel were long ago. Christian leaders did not like duels, as they clearly violated one of God's commandments. In addition, such a solution to the conflicts that arose deprived them of a certain share of power, which they did not want to lose. The confrontation between the church and the duel lasted for many centuries, until the final death of the latter. Monarchs and military leaders were also against duels, as young nobles could become officers in the army, and not die just like that.

In 1800, many politicians, writers and judges actively opposed the duel. Mark Twain, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were against duels, considering them a waste of life. Laws have been passed against dueling in many countries, but over the years, juries have found no corpus delicti in a duel.

The death of the duel was due to a combination of cultural factors. It was popular for many centuries, because it was available only to the noble class and served as a striking difference between the upper strata of society and the lower. When it became available to everyone, it lost this function. And at the same time, the destructive nature of the duel began to cause public discontent. In addition, the bloody wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as the American Civil War and the First World War in Europe, made people think about the mass death of the younger generation. So the duel began to lose its appeal in many sections of society.

Now duels still exist, but in less bloody forms. In its purest form, the one-on-one duel turned into boxing and wrestling, they inherited the spirit of the duel, and the art of fencing was reborn into a sports discipline. Almost any face-to-face meeting is guided by the rules of etiquette, which can be considered a legacy of dueling. At the same time, she can be anywhere: at the poker table, in the corporate hall, on the tennis court or in video games ...

In October 2002, George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein were asked to resolve their differences in a duel. Of course, this was not taken seriously. It's a pity. Look, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. Alas! The times of fair fights are reliably written off in the archive.

However, not everyone was delighted with the ancient tradition of duels. The remarkable Russian journalist A.S. Suvorin wrote: “How I seethed with indignation against this shameful and vile murder, which is called a duel. Is the outcome of a duel a judgment of God, and not an accident or the skill of a shooter?

Let's try to answer this question.

XV century. Italy. The origin of duels

The classical duel in Western Europe originated in the late Middle Ages, around the 14th century. The birthplace of the duel was Italy, where street fights like those described in Romeo and Juliet often raged on the streets of cities. Young noble Italians more and more often chose battle alone with weapons in their hands as a means of revenge for imaginary and real insults. In Italy, such fights were called fights of predators or a fight in the bushes, because they usually fought to the death and in a secluded place, usually in some kind of copse. The duel participants met alone, armed only with a sword and a daga (a dagger for the left hand) and entered into a duel until one of them fell dead. The number of duels grew rapidly, and the prohibitions of the Church soon followed, finally formalized by the decisions of the Council of Trent. The Council in 1563, with the aim of completely banishing from the Christian world the disgusting custom, introduced by the cunning of the devil, in order to lead the soul to death by the bloody death of the body, determined the punishment for duelists as for murder, and, moreover, excommunication from the church and deprivation of Christian burial. However, it had no effect. Moreover, the duels easily crossed the Alps and began their solemn procession through Europe.

XVI-XVII century. classical period. France. First duel fever

The French nobles and military, who became acquainted with the duel during the Italian Wars (1484-1559), became grateful students of the Italians.

In France, the duel quickly became fashionable both in the capital and in the provinces. Participation in the duel began to be considered good form, for young people it has become a kind of extreme sport, a way to attract attention, a popular entertainment! As a result, the duel quickly migrated from secluded places, as was customary in Italy, to the streets and squares of cities and to the halls of palaces, including the royal one. At first, there were no clear dueling rules. The provisions of knightly treatises were valid only in theory, since in those days a military man or a nobleman who read books was the exception rather than the rule. For them, in the words of one of his contemporaries, the sword served as a pen, the blood of their opponents as ink, and their bodies as paper. Therefore, an unwritten code for the settlement of fights gradually took shape. Any noble who was insulted could challenge the offender to a duel. It was also allowed to call in defense of the honor of relatives and friends. A challenge (cartel) could be issued in writing or verbally, in person or through an intermediary. Since the 70s of the 16th century, they preferred to do without special formalities, and it could take several minutes from a challenge to a duel. Moreover, such a duel, immediately following an insult and a challenge, was regarded by public opinion as more prestigious and noble.

The reason for the call could be the most insignificant. Quite quickly, a specific type of duel lovers appeared - breters, everywhere looking for a reason for a duel, who love to risk their own lives and send opponents to the next world. Sung by Alexandre Dumas in the novel The Countess de Monsoro, Louis de Clermont de Bussy d'Amboise (quite a historical figure) was just one of those. Once he fought, arguing about the shape of the pattern on the curtains, and deliberately defended a position far from the truth, deliberately provoking the interlocutor. Often duels were caused by rivalry on the love front. Usually such a duel was an ordinary revenge, albeit furnished with due finesse. Cartels were received by those who managed to achieve a profitable appointment, a prestigious award, and receive an inheritance. There were fights over the best place in the church, at a royal reception or a ball, over a dispute about the merits of horses, hunting dogs. The main rule of duels was simple: having received an insult, you can immediately send a challenge, but then the right to choose a weapon belongs to the enemy. However, there was a loophole: in order to keep this right for himself, the offended provoked the offender to challenge. To do this, in response to the insult, he himself accused the interlocutor of lies and slander. According to Etienne Pasquier, an outstanding lawyer of that time, even lawyers did not invent as many tricks in litigation as duelists invented them, so that the choice of weapons belonged to them. Refusal to duel was impossible. Without damage to honor, only people over 60 years old could refuse to duel. The minimum age for participation in fights was determined at 25 years old, but in fact they fought already from 15-16. If a nobleman wears a sword, he must be able to defend his honor with it. Illness and injury could also be considered a good reason for refusing to fight. True, some theorists argued: if one of the opponents does not have an eye, the second is obliged to blindfold himself, if there is no limb, bandage the corresponding one to his body, etc. Persons of royal blood were forbidden to call for a duel - their life belonged to the country. Fights between relatives, between a lord and a vassal, were condemned. If the conflict was considered by the court, then it was no longer possible to resolve it by a duel. It was humiliation in the eyes of the world to demand a duel with a commoner. According to tradition, between the persons who fought in a duel, only friendly relations should arise after the duel. Calling the person who defeated you in the previous fight and left your life was like starting a duel with your own father. This was allowed only if the winner boasted of victory, humiliated the vanquished. As a weapon in French duels, swords were used, sometimes supplemented with a dagger in the left hand, less often there were fights only on daggers or with two swords. Usually they fought without chain mail and cuirasses, they often took off their outerwear - camisoles and tunics, remaining in the same shirts or with a bare torso. So they got rid of the robes that hindered movement and at the same time showed the enemy the absence of hidden armor. Most often, duels of that period ended in the death or serious injury of one of their participants. To spare the enemy was bad form, and to surrender was humiliation. Rarely did anyone show nobility, allowing them to pick up a weapon knocked out of their hands or to rise from the ground after being wounded - more often they killed someone who fell to the ground and was disarmed. However, this behavior was largely due to the very heat of the battle, and not cruelty. A quarrel between Ashon Muron, the nephew of one of the marshals of France, and the elderly captain Matas took place in 1559 on a hunt in Fontainebleau. Muron was young, hot and impatient. He drew his sword and demanded to fight immediately. An experienced military man, Captain Matas not only knocked out the sword from the young man, but also read him a lecture on the benefits of fencing skills, noting that it was not worth attacking an experienced fighter without knowing how to fight. This he decided to limit himself to. When the captain turned away to get into the saddle, the enraged Muron hit him in the back. Muron's family ties allowed this matter to be hushed up. Tellingly, when discussing the duel in secular salons, the nobles wondered how an experienced captain could allow such imprudence, and did not condemn the dishonorable blow. The French kings were at first present at the most famous fights. However, their position changed rather quickly. In 1547, the Chevaliers de Jarnac and de la Chatenierie met in a duel. Jarnac's sword struck de la Chatenierie - the most famous fighter of his time and the favorite of the king in the knee and the fight was stopped. Chatenieri was very angry, did not allow himself to be bandaged, and died three days later. Henry II abolished the obligatory presence of the king in duels and even began to condemn them. However, the first royal prohibitions did not lead to the disappearance of duels, but, on the contrary, to an increase in their number, and now chain mail hidden under the shirt and group attacks were used. It was then that seconds appeared who monitored compliance with the rules and, if necessary, could intervene. But in 1578 there was a duel, after which the seconds also began to fight among themselves. At the court of King Henry III there were several young nobles who were favored by the king. All of them distinguished themselves in the military field, dressed provocatively, appreciated entertainment and gallant (and not only) adventures. For their appearance and behavior, they received the nickname "minions" (handsome). In The Countess de Monsoro, Dumas told the story of the minions in his own way. We will tell you what really happened.

The conflict began with a private quarrel between one of the minions, Jacques de Levy, Comte de Quelus, and Charles de Balzac d'Entrague, Baron de Dune. The cause of the quarrel was a certain lady who was interested in both of them. During a conversation with a rival, Kelyus, as if jokingly, told d'Antrague that he was a fool. d'Entragues, also laughing, replied that Quelus was lying. The opponents arrived at Turnel Park by five o'clock in the morning, each accompanied by two friends. One of Antrag's seconds, Ribeyrac, as was customary, tried to reconcile the rivals, but Quelus's second Mogiron rudely interrupted him and demanded an immediate fight with him. After that, the two remaining seconds, Livaro and Schomberg, began to fight for the company. Mogiron and Schomberg died on the spot, Ribeyrac died a few hours after the fight. Livaro was crippled - the sword cut off his cheek cleanly - and died two years later in another duel. Antrag escaped with a light wound in his hand. Kelyus fought for his life for several days, but died from many wounds. This duel had two very important consequences. Firstly, it became the first group duel, after which the fights of the seconds along with the duelists began to come into fashion. Secondly, the king, although he issued several acts against duels, ordered the bodies of the dead minions to be buried in beautiful mausoleums and erected wonderful marble statues over them. And the French nobility understood this position of the king accordingly: fighting, of course, is forbidden, but, in fact, super honorable. Thus began the real "dueling fever". The ordinance of 1579, issued by the king at the insistence of the Estates General, threatened to punish the duel as an insult to majesty and a violation of the peace, but blood flowed like a river in defiance of all prohibitions. Only in the 20 years of the reign of Henry IV (1589-1610), according to contemporaries, from 8 to 12 thousand nobles died in duels (and some modern historians cite a figure of 20 thousand). However, the royal treasury was always empty, and therefore, instead of the punishment imposed by the ordinances, the surviving duelists were granted "royal forgiveness". During those years, more than 7 thousand such papers were issued, and they brought to the treasury about 3 million livres in gold only on notary registration. In such conditions, when it became fashionable and prestigious to fight, the reasons for the duel quickly became smaller. “I fight just because I fight,” the legendary Porthos used to say. It was the same in real life! Let's say four worthy chevaliers go to meet another four (only two out of eight have a reason for conflict). Suddenly one of the first four cannot appear - let's say he has a stomach ache. The remaining three go to the appointed place, and they come across a completely unfamiliar nobleman, hurrying about his business. They greet him and say: “Worthy sir! We are in a difficult position: there are four of them, and we are three. The odds are not in our favor. Could you help us?" And the rules of courtesy of that time required the stranger to answer that he had been honored, and that he and his sword were completely at the service of those asking for help. And he went along with the trinity and entered into battle with a man whom he had not even heard anything about until that moment. The struggle of kings against duels entered a new phase under Cardinal Richelieu. The edict of 1602 threatened the heaviest punishment (death penalty and complete confiscation of property) indifferently to both participants and seconds and those present. Despite such strictness of the law, the number of duels almost did not decrease. In the reign of Louis XIV, eleven edicts against dueling were issued, but even in his reign, royal pardons were issued to almost everyone. The last French duels were already held with the use of new firearms, although at first there were some oddities here. Viscount Turenne and Count Guiche started shooting with arquebuses. The accuracy of the shots was low: two horses and one spectator were unlucky - they were killed. And the duelists, as if nothing had happened, having reconciled, moved on their way.

XIX century: the decline of dueling in Europe

In the 19th century, dueling in Europe became the exception rather than the rule. Having survived the revolution, France perceived duels of honor as an old class prejudice that collapsed into oblivion along with the Bourbon monarchy. In the Empire of Napoleon Bonaparte, duels also did not take root: the Corsican personally despised them, and when the Swedish king Gustav IV sent him a challenge, he answered: “If the king certainly wants to fight, I will send to him as an authorized minister any of the regimental fencing teachers.” Reasons for dueling were still, at times, ridiculously insignificant. For example, in 1814 in Paris, the famous duelist Chevalier Dorsan had three duels in one week. The first took place because the enemy "looked askance at him", the second because the lancer officer "looked too boldly" at him, and the third because the familiar officer "did not look at him at all"! By the middle of the 19th century, Germany remained the only Western European country where laws still allowed duels. By the way, Germany has become the birthplace of the famous student duels on honed Schlegers (rapiers). Dueling brotherhoods, which were formed at each university, regularly held fights, however, more like sports. For 10 years from 1867 to 1877, several hundred duels took place only in small universities - Giessen and Freiburg. They almost never had a fatal outcome, as all sorts of precautions were taken: the duelists put on special bandages and bandages on their eyes, neck, chest, stomach, legs, arms, and the weapons were disinfected. According to one doctor in Jena, who attended 12,000 duels between 1846 and 1885, there were no deaths.

Another trend of the 19th century was the laying down on paper of dueling traditions and rules, i.e. drafting dueling codes. The dueling code was first published by the Comte de Chateauvilleart in 1836. Later, the dueling code of Count Verger, published in 1879 and summarizing the experience accumulated over the centuries, became generally recognized in Europe.

Duel in Russia

For three centuries, blood was shed in Western Europe, swords flashed and shots rattled in duels of honor. But in Russia it was quiet. The first duel here took place only in 1666. And even then between foreigners who are in the Russian service. They were officer Patrick Gordon, a Scot, later a teacher and colleague of Tsar Peter, and Major Montgomery, an Englishman. In 1787, Catherine the Great published the "Manifesto on Combats". The duel in it was condemned as a foreign plantation. For wounds and murder in a duel, the punishment was imposed as for the corresponding intentional crimes. If the duel ended bloodlessly, then the duel participants and seconds were fined, and the offender was exiled to Siberia for life. Anyone who found out about the duel was obliged to report it to the authorities. And doctors were strictly forbidden to treat wounds received on "French nonsense."

And at the dawn of the 19th century, during the reign of Alexander I, when the dueling custom entered the sunset in Europe, Russia began its own dueling fever. "I challenge you!" sounded all over the place. Staff Captain Kushelev had been waiting six years for the opportunity to duel with Major General Bakhmetyev. Once he beat with a stick the young Kushelev, who had just entered the service in the guard. Although he was only 14 years old, Kushelev did not forget and did not forgive the offense. They agreed to shoot "to the fall", but both missed. Bakhmetiev apologized, the incident was over, but the story did not end there. One of the seconds, Venanson, as required by law, informed the military governor of St. Petersburg about the duel. The court took place. They decided to hang Kushelev, Bakhmetiev and three seconds to deprive them of their ranks and noble dignity. But the emperor had to approve the verdict. And Alexander I took and canceled the decision of the court. The emperor punished Kushelev with the deprivation of the title of chamber junker, ordered Venanson to be imprisoned for a week in a fortress, and then sent to the Caucasus, the rest were completely released. As a result, Venanson, the only one who acted according to the law, suffered the most. The emperor took the side of public opinion, not the law.

Insults that led to duels were conventionally divided into three categories:

1) Light; the insult concerns the non-essential aspects of the personality. The abuser made unflattering remarks about appearance, habits, or mannerisms. The offended could only choose the type of weapon

2) Moderate; the insult was abusive. Then the offended could choose the type of weapon and the type of duel (to first blood, to a severe wound, to death)

3) Heavy; insult by action. A slap or cuff and other assault, as well as very serious accusations from the offender. The victim could choose the type of weapon, the type of duel and set the distance.

In Russia, duels, as a rule, were held with pistols. Initially, they used European rules. So, a duel with fixed arrows was common. It was an alternate exchange of shots no more than a minute later. The order was determined by lot. Sometimes in such a duel, at the beginning, opponents were placed with their backs to each other. On command, both of them turned around and fired either in turn, or whoever was faster. The distance in such fights was from 15 to 35 steps, but the seconds could agree on less. The duel with "barriers" is the most common. Opponents were placed at a distance of 35-40 steps. A line was drawn in front of each of them, it could be marked with a flag, a cane, an abandoned overcoat. This mark was called the "barrier". The distance between the barriers was 15-20 paces. On the command "forward!" the duelists advanced towards them, cocking their guns. The weapon should have been held upside down. Speed ​​- any, you can not stand and retreat, you can stop for a while. Any participant could make the first shot. But after the first shot, that duelist who had not yet fired could demand that his opponent reach his mark. This is where the famous expression “to the barrier!” comes from. The second shot, therefore, took place at a minimum distance. Duel on parallel lines is the rarest. Two lines were drawn at a distance of 15 steps from each other. The opponents walked each along their own line, the distance gradually decreased, but its minimum was set by the distance between the lines. The order of firing is arbitrary, the speed of movement and stopping, too. However, there were also purely Russian inventions, such as the “over the scarf” duel, when the opponents stood in front of each other at a distance of a scarf stretched diagonally, and only one of the two pistols was loaded by lot, the barrel-to-barrel duel is exactly the same, only both pistols are loaded; and the "American duel", when the exchange of shots was replaced by suicide by lot.

The most famous Russian duelist was Count Fyodor Tolstoy, nicknamed the American. In duels, 11 people fell from his hand, and according to some information, even 17. By the way, he was punished for the duel only once. The murder of guards officer A.I. Naryshkin cost him a short imprisonment in the fortress and demotion to the soldiers. But then the war with Napoleon began, and Tolstoy was able to prove himself as a brave fighter. In one year from a soldier, he rose to the rank of colonel! But the fate of Fyodor Tolstoy punished more severely than the authorities. The name of each one killed in a duel was recorded by the American in his synodic. He had 12 children, almost all died in infancy, only two daughters survived. With each child's death in the synodic, a short word appeared in front of the name of the person killed in a duel: "kvit". According to legend, after the death of the 11th child, when the names ran out, Tolstoy said: "Thank God, at least my curly-haired gypsy baby will be alive." Praskovya's daughter, the "gypsy girl", really survived. Dueling tales of those times are no less fascinating than modern stories of hunters or fishermen. There were also many tales about Tolstoy. So they said that one day he had an argument on a ship with a naval officer. Tolstoy sent a cartel to the sailor, but he said that the American shoots much better, and demanded that the chances be equalized. Tolstoy suggested a duel "barrel to barrel", and the sailor believed that it was more honest to fight in the water until one drowned. Tolstoy did not know how to swim, and the sailor declared him a coward. Then the American grabbed the offender and rushed overboard with him. Both floated out. But the sailor had a heart attack and died.

They also say that one day a good friend of his in desperation turned to the American with a request to be his second. The next day he was to shoot himself, and he feared for his life. Tolstoy advised his friend to sleep well and promised to wake him up. When the friend woke up in the morning, he realized that the time for the duel had already come and, frightened that he overslept, rushed to Tolstoy's room. He slept without hind legs. When the friend pushed the American aside, he explained to him that the day before he had gone to his friend's opponent, insulted him, obtained a challenge and had fired with him an hour ago. “Everything is in order, he was killed,” the American explained to his comrade, rolled over on the other side and continued to sleep. By the way, in 1826, a duel between Tolstoy and Pushkin almost happened, she was upset by a whole series of coincidences. And so, who knows, maybe the life of the poet, a frequent participant in duels, would have been interrupted earlier.

Kings, presidents and politicians in duels

In 1526, things almost came to a duel between the two most powerful monarchs in Europe. The Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V, called the King of France Francis I a dishonorable man. He answered with a challenge. It did not come to a duel, but this incident greatly raised the duel's authority among the masses.

The Russian Emperor Paul I challenged all the monarchs of Europe to a duel, publishing a challenge in a Hamburg newspaper - his seconds were to be generals Kutuzov and Palen. The latter, by the way, somewhat later personally killed the emperor. But not in a duel, but as a conspirator.

The Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus, the famous commander of the first half of the 17th century, energetically pursued duels with his decrees. But when, offended by his slap in the face, the colonel of the army, unable to call the king himself, left the service and left the country, the king caught up with him at the border and himself handed him a pistol with the words: “Here, where my kingdom ends, Gustav Adolf is no longer king, and here, as an honest man, I am ready to give satisfaction to another honest man.

But the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm I considered it a humiliation for himself to accept a challenge from a certain major. He put in his place an officer of the guard, who defended the honor of the monarch. Formally, the king was absolutely right, but in society he was not approved.

In Russia, one officer was insulted by Alexander III, while still a crown prince. The officer could not challenge the heir to the throne to a duel, so he sent him a note demanding a written apology, otherwise threatening to commit suicide. The Tsarevich did not react. After 24 hours, the officer fulfilled his promise exactly and shot himself. Emperor Alexander II sharply scolded his son and ordered him to accompany the officer's coffin at the funeral.

As for the famous uncrowned politicians, many of them were also involved in duels. So, in 1804, US Vice President Aaron Burr decided to run for governor of New York. Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury, publicly accused him of being unreliable. A challenge followed. Burr mortally wounded Hamilton and was put on trial. He did not go to prison, but his reputation was ruined. Now only a few remember him, and a portrait of Hamilton is known to many - he is on a 10-dollar bill. In 1842, Abraham Lincoln anonymously took the liberty of insulting Democrat James Shields. He wrote that he was "as much a liar as he is a fool." Shields was able to find out who the author was. In Illinois, duels were banned, and rivals were forced to travel to the neighboring state of Missouri to duel. However, the seconds managed to persuade Lincoln to apologize, and Shields to accept the apology.

The anarchist revolutionary Bakunin challenged Karl Marx to a duel when he spoke disparagingly of the Russian army. Interestingly, although Bakunin, as an anarchist, was an opponent of any regular army, he stood up for the honor of the Russian uniform, which he wore in his youth, as an artillery ensign. However, Marx, who in his youth fought with swords with students of the University of Bonn more than once and was proud of the scars on his face, did not accept Bakunin's challenge, since his life now belonged to the proletariat!

Some curious cases in duels

200 years ago, a young widow of San Belmont was insulted by a rake. He did not want to fight a woman, and she had to disguise herself as a man and find an independent reason to call. At the duel, she knocked out his sword and only then revealed the secret - he was defeated by a woman. The enemy was doubly ashamed.

A popular French anecdote was the story of a duel between two officers. One of them was late for a duel, and his second told the enemy: "Lieutenant McMahory asked me to tell you that if you are in a hurry, you can start without him."

Once in England two lords gathered to fight. Before the start of the duel, one of the participants declared injustice: the opponent was much fatter. He immediately suggested marking the contours of the opponent on himself and not counting hits outside the marked zone. The touched opponent refused the duel.

In many variations, an anecdote is told about the most famous theatrical duel, changing the names of the participants and the title of the play. The bottom line is that after several unsuccessful attempts during the performance to kill the character in a duel, his partner ran up to him and kicked him with anger. Saving the situation, the actor shouted: "My God, his boot is poisoned!". Then he dropped dead.

And, finally, the legendary "American duel" with the participation of Alexandre Dumas. Having quarreled with a certain officer, he was forced to accept his conditions for a duel. One loaded revolver, a hat, and in the hat there are two pieces of paper with the inscriptions "death" and "life". Whoever pulls out "death" must shoot himself. "Death" drew Dumas. After saying goodbye to his friends, he retired to the next room. A shot rang out. Opening the door, the seconds saw Dumas unharmed in the room, who said: “Missed!”

Exotic Duels

In 1645, in London, a duel took place in a dark basement on cleavers. In the end, the opponents were simply tired - the cleavers were heavy - and made up.

Young Frenchmen Peak and Grandper fought for the heart of the prima donna of the royal opera. When it came to the duel, these brave guys decided to fight not on earth, but in heaven. Both took to the skies in balloons. At an altitude of 200 m, the balls approached at a distance of aimed fire. The grandper fired his ramrod gun first, and hit the shell of the opponent's ball. The aircraft caught fire and went down like a stone. It turned out on sinful earth - the beauty fled abroad with a third admirer.

No less exotic was the duel between two English officers in India. The British sat for several hours in a dark room, where they launched a spectacle snake. In the end, the cobra still bit one of the duelists.

A very strange duel almost took place in Russia with the participation of the legendary adventurer and hoaxer Count Cagliostro. Cagliostro called the doctor of the heir to the throne of the future Paul I a charlatan. The life doctor challenged him to a duel. The count chose two pills as weapons, one of which will be stuffed with poison. However, the doctor refused such a "duel".

In France, there were duels on billiard balls, canes, razors and even crucifixes. And in Russia, the bailiff Tsitovich and staff captain Zhegalov fought on heavy copper candelabra. Tsitovich chose this "weapon" because he did not know how to fence or shoot with a pistol.

It is said that Hemingway, as a correspondent on the Italian front during the First World War, was challenged to a duel and offered terms and weapons: twenty paces and hand grenades.

There are cases when women also participated in duels. And sometimes defending the honor of men. In 1827, in France, Madame Chateroux learned that her husband had received a slap in the face, but did not demand satisfaction. Then she herself challenged the offender to a duel and seriously wounded him with a sword. And the opera singer Maupin generally had a reputation as a real brute. She had a very unbridled disposition and took lessons from the best fencing teacher at that time. At one of the receptions, Maupin insulted one of the ladies. She was offered to leave the hall, but she set the condition that all men dissatisfied with her behavior should leave with her. There were three daredevils, and all of them, one by one, were stabbed to death by the opera fury. Louis XIV, very uncompromisingly disposed to duels, admiring Maupin's courage, pardoned her.

The tradition of the duel in Russia is imported. Despite the fact that since ancient times in Russia there was a tradition of both judicial duels to resolve disputes and duels before the battles of the troops, it has nothing to do with the duel we now know.

In Western Europe, the duel as a way to protect 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, the duel was quite common for the nobility of Western Europe. At the same time, the lower limit of the age of the participants in the fight dropped to 14 years.

Despite the fact that both monarchs and the church banned dueling 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 the Tournel Park in Paris. It was a three-on-three duel between the courtiers of the king of France. Henry III(minions) and supporters of the Duke of Guise (guisars). As a result of the duel, four of the six participants in the duel were killed.

Despite the official ban on duels, the French monarch did not punish the survivors, and ordered the dead to be buried in luxurious mausoleums and marble statues were placed on 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 earned fame for themselves by endless duels. In this case, any trifle, a disliked look or a dispute over clothes could become the reason for a duel.

Peter the Great: hang those killed in duels by their feet!

In the midst of the European "dueling fever" in Russia, complete calm reigned in this sense. The first duel here took place only in 1666. Rivals were the future general Peter I Patrick Gordon and another mercenary officer, Major Montgomery.

In 1682 Princess Sophia signed a decree allowing servicemen to carry personal weapons, accompanied by a ban on duels.

In the popular film "Moor of 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 the Petrine Military Regulations of 1715 for a challenge to a duel provided for punishment in the form of deprivation of rank 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 position 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. Their corpses were ordered to be hung by the feet.

"Legitimized form of murder"

However, until the second half of the 18th century, duels in Russia did not take on a mass character. However, when Catherine II they are becoming an increasingly popular way to sort things out, especially among young people brought up in a European spirit.

In 1787, Catherine the Great, alarmed by what was happening, issued a "Manifesto on fights." In it, duels were called "foreign planting"; the participants in the duel, which ended bloodlessly, were punished with a fine (not excluding seconds), and the offender, “like a violator of peace and tranquility,” was exiled to Siberia for life. For wounds and murder in a duel, it was appointed as a similar criminal offense.

But nothing helped. The first half of the 19th century was the peak period for the Russian duel. At the same time, in Europe, where this tradition began to decline, the Russian duel was called "barbarism" and "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 firearms, which led to serious outcomes many times more often.

"Noble" duel took the life of Pushkin

In Russia, there was a rather diverse list of types of duels.

The most common was the so-called "mobile duel with barriers." A “distance” (10-25 steps) was marked on the path, its boundaries were marked with “barriers”, which could be any objects placed across the path. 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. It was possible to go at any speed, it was forbidden to move back, you could stop for a while. Having reached his barrier, the duelist had to stop. The order of shots could be negotiated, but more often they fired on readiness, in random order. According to Russian rules, after the first shot, the opponent who had not yet fired had the right to demand that the opponent go to his barrier and thus be able to shoot from a minimum distance. The famous expression "To the barrier!" just means such a requirement.

A duel from a distance of 15 steps was considered "noble", because the option of a fatal outcome in this case was not so likely. However, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was mortally wounded in a duel with 20 steps.

Fight to the death

Unlike Europe, in Russia there were types of duels that terrified the inhabitants of other countries. For example, a duel "for six steps": with this option, the opponents were located at a distance that provides 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 weapons by lot, after which both pulled the trigger. In this case, the "unlucky" was practically doomed to death.

In Europe, by the beginning of the 19th century, there were no types of duels that provided for the obligatory death of one of the participants. In Russia, there were types of duels "to the death." One of these was the duel on the edge of the abyss - the wounded in the duel fell into the abyss and died.

Gradation according to the degree of insults

The reason for the duel was the damage done to the honor of the victim, as well as the honor of his family. In certain circumstances, the call could also occur for insulting the honor of third parties who provide patronage to the caller.

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 of the right to demand satisfaction with the help of a duel.

There was a whole gradation of insults, according to which the offended 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 one, but inflicted on a man.

Satisfaction could also be demanded from a woman who insulted a nobleman - however, such an insult was rated two steps lower than a similar one inflicted by a man. In any case, it would be the offender's relative, not herself, who would have to answer the call.

Fight with witnesses, but no spectators

It was recommended that the offended person 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. Further, the offended 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 a day. Delaying with a challenge was considered bad form.

There was another important rule that said: "One insult - one challenge." If a certain insolent person insulted several people at once, only one offended person could call him to a duel. Preference was given to the one who got the most gross insult.

It was considered extremely unethical to turn the duel into a performance. In addition to the duelists, the duel was attended by seconds and a doctor. The presence of friends and relatives of the 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 for 15 minutes. A longer delay was considered avoiding a duel and meant dishonor.

The duel usually began 10 minutes after the arrival of everyone. Opponents and seconds greeted each other with a bow.

From among the seconds, a duel manager was appointed, who supervised all actions.

Heavily offended shoots first

The steward offered the duelists to reconcile for the last time. In case of refusal of the parties, he voiced the rules of the duel. The seconds marked the barriers and loaded the pistols (if the duel was with 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. All actions were performed by the opponents at the command of the manager.

If during the duel with swords one of them dropped the sword, or it broke, or the fighter fell, his opponent was obliged to interrupt the duel at the command of the steward until his opponent got up and was able to continue the duel.

In a duel with pistols, the degree of insult inflicted was of great importance. If the insult was medium or heavy, then the offended person had the right to shoot first, otherwise the right of the first shot was determined by lot.

Right to a replacement

The rules of the duel allowed the replacement of its participant by a person representing his interests. This was possible if it was a woman, a minor, a man over 60 years old, or having an illness or injury that puts him in a clearly unequal position with the enemy.

The honor of a woman could be defended either by a man from among the closest blood relatives, or by a husband, or by a companion (that is, one who accompanied the woman at the time and place where the insult was inflicted), or, if so desired, by any man who was present when insulted or later found out about him 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 defend her honor. If the lady managed to become famous for her excessively free behavior, the challenge in her defense was not considered valid.

A pair of pistols in the XIX century. was kept in many noble houses in case of a duel. Photo: commons.wikimedia.org

The surviving duelists became friends

Dueling rules forbade fights with close relatives, which included sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, brothers. Duels with cousins ​​and second cousins ​​were considered quite acceptable.

If, as a result of the duel, both opponents remained alive and conscious as a result, then they were supposed to shake hands with each other, the offender - to apologize (in this case, the apology no longer offended his honor, since it was considered restored by the duel, but was a tribute to ordinary courtesy). At the end of the duel, honor was considered restored, and any claims of opponents to each other about the former insult were invalid.

It was believed that the duelists who survived the battle should have become friends, or at least continue to maintain normal relations. The repeated challenge of the same person to a duel was possible only in the most extraordinary cases.

How Minister Vannovsky staged a renaissance of the Russian duel

For almost the entire 19th century, Russian monarchs passed laws aimed at banning fights. Emperor Nicholas I said: “I hate the duel. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing knightly in it. Duke of Wellington destroyed her in the English army and did well. At the same time, he significantly reduced the responsibility for duels. Approved in 1845, the "Code of Criminal Punishments" completely exempted seconds and doctors from liability, and the participants in the duel were threatened with 6 to 10 years in prison with the preservation of noble rights.

In practice, the punishment was even milder - most often the perpetrators, even in a deadly duel, were limited to several 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 suggestion of the Minister of War Peter Vannovsky, in order to strengthen morale in the army, duels were not just 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 court, then in 1894-1910 322 duels took place. At the same time, over 250 of them were held by decision of the courts of officer honor, which were given the right to appoint fights. Unauthorized duels, without the permission of the chiefs, turned out to be only 19, and not a single participant was held accountable.

Of the 322 duels of this period, 315 took place with pistols and only 7 with edged weapons. Most of the fights of 1894-1910 ended in bloodless or light wounds, and only 30 ended in death or serious wounds of the duelists.

Rifle fights: how Russian emigrants died

At the beginning of the 20th century, duels fought not only the military, but also politicians, as well as cultural figures. The leader of the Union of October 17 was an avid duelist Alexander Guchkov, a duel between the poets of the Silver Age is known Nikolai Gumilyov and Maximilian Voloshin.

The institute of the Russian duel ceased to exist after the October Revolution of 1917, along with other attributes of a class society.

In the White Army, and then among the Russian emigration, until the 1930s, another original type of duel was popular - a duel on Mosin rifles. At the same time, the lethal force of this weapon made a lethal outcome almost inevitable. For desperate people, such a duel became a kind of “noble” way of suicide.