The theme of a duel in Russian literature of the 19th century. The motif of a duel in the works of Russian classics of the 19th century
STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
CITY OF MOSCOW EDUCATION CENTER No. 1499
NORTHEASTERN ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT
ABSTRACT
DUEL
IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE
9th grade students "B"
Kupriyanova Anastasia Andreevna
Scientific director
teacher of Russian language and literature
V.A. Goldaevskaya
Moscow – 2011
Functions of a duel in fiction p. 8
Duel of Grinev and Shvabrin pp. 9 – 12
Duel of Onegin and Lensky pp. 13 – 19
Duel of Pechorin and Grushnitsky pp. 20 – 26
Introduction. Rationale for choosing a topic pp. 2 – 3
History of duels pp. 4 – 7
Main part.
Conclusion pp. 27 – 32
References page 33
INTRODUCTION
The centuries are passing quickly,
The duel will disappear until the end.
And this is for the best, perhaps...
But, my God, how difficult it will be,
Oh, my God, how difficult it will be
Call the insolent person to account,
Call the insolent person to account!
Aramis' song from the film
"D'Artagnan and the Three Musketeers"
I need my name and honor
were inviolable in all corners of Russia.
A.S. Pushkin
I chose the topic of my essay – “Duel in Russian Literature” – not by chance. The cruel (wild, cynical?) morals of our time force us to pay attention to the protection of human honor and dignity.
Honor... Unfortunately, today we don’t hear this word too often. They say that it has lost its true meaning for people of the 21st century, turning into a set of meaningless sounds. And although sometimes we pronounce it, more often - to make pompous speeches effective and give them beauty and sophistication, but, alas, we too rarely think about the deep meaning that this word denotes. But earlier, in the times of valiant knights and beautiful ladies, they preferred to give up their lives rather than lose honor. Why remember the noble king Richard the Lionheart and his faithful squire Ivanhoe! One hundred and seventy years ago A.S. Pushkin went to the barrier to defend the good name (=dignity) of his family, and died, but from his own words: “ And the first treasure was my honor“- didn’t give up...
Today, in response to overt rudeness, we hear “smart” advice: “Don’t mess with me! It will be more expensive for yourself!” It turns out that you can insult a person and not suffer a fair punishment. It turns out that you can, with impunity, trample into the mud the names of those who, for a number of reasons, cannot stand up for themselves and fight back. So we see every day monstrous pictures of moral degradation: women are not given a seat on public transport, old people are not helped to carry heavy bags, in response to a fair remark a stream of foul language rushes...
When I see such humiliating scenes, I want to shout: “Come back, noble time!” Maybe someone won't believe it, but I really want duels to be revived. This is probably the only way." call the insolent person to account»…
Of course, it is not for me alone that untarnished honor is the most important dignity of the human soul and constitutes the main value of human life. I want to believe that there are a thousand times more people for whom this word is full of deep meaning than those for whom it has lost its value.
When starting work on the abstract, I set myself a number of tasks:
Learn the meaning of the word "duel".
Talk about a duel as the only possible way to defend insulted honor and humiliated dignity.
Determine, based on Russian classical literature, the place of duels in the composition of works.
Find out whether the duel has an impact on the future fate of literary heroes.
Outline the reasons why one of the opponents committed deliberate violations in the duel.
To prove that the sense of honor cannot become obsolete and cannot be replaced by any other modern concepts.
HISTORY OF DUEL FIGHTS
Surely none of us will give up
And will remain standing until the last,
As long as he can pull the trigger
And dance in the sacred battle dance...
E. Yevtushenko
A duel is one of the most mysterious phenomena of Russian life. Like French ballet and Italian opera, it is one of those borrowings that very quickly became a Russian national feature. The history of the Russian duel of the 18th – 19th centuries is a history of human tragedies, painful deaths, high impulses and moral failures.
Word " duel", according to V.I. Dahl, has two meanings:
The first, broad one: “ Martial arts, duel».
Second, narrower: “ Conditional duel, with already known rituals of challenge».
We find a similar interpretation of this word in the explanatory dictionary of S.I. Ozhegova: “... in noble society: armed struggle between two opponents in the presence of seconds as a way of defending honor"; And " struggle, competition between two sides".
In its original, classical understanding DUEL- This " a pair fight that takes place according to certain rules, with the goal of restoring honor, removing the shameful stain caused by an insult from the offended person..., playing a socially significant role».
It is known that the duel as a custom came to Russia from the West. But even there it did not exist forever. The origins of the classical duel in Western Europe can be dated back to the late Middle Ages, around the 14th century.
The duel has its own history. Its origins are found in knightly tournaments, typical of the European Middle Ages; then the knights started fights to demonstrate courage and strength - and, as a rule, in the name of the Beautiful Lady. For the most part, the opponents did not experience any hostility towards each other; moreover, they could be strangers to each other and could act incognito, i.e. wearing masks. The winner was crowned with an award. It was believed that victory was achieved not by the force of arms, but by the power of truth: God himself condemns the guilty and helps the right. Defeat only served as decisive evidence of guilt and implied further punishment in accordance with the severity of the crime. The name of the vanquished was covered with shame and dishonor. Over time, knighthood lost its authority, but the custom of open combat remained, although its function changed.
It is believed that the birthplace of the duel is Italy. For young noble Italians, the means of avenging imaginary and real grievances increasingly became combat with weapons in their hands, the rules of which were very far from knightly ones. The Italians called it a "bush fight" or a "predator fight." The first name indicated the privacy of the place where the “showdown” took place. The second name reflects the essence of such a battle: fight to death and without mercy. The opponents met without witnesses. No protective equipment was provided: the duelists were armed only with a sword and a “daga” (a dagger for the second hand). However, it was not forbidden to wrap a cloak around the hand to protect against slashing blows.
The duel became especially widespread in France during the civil wars and the Fronde. The duel quickly became fashionable both in the capital and in the provinces. Everyone fought - from professional commoner soldiers and university students to nobles and titled persons. Participation in a duel began to be considered good manners; for young nobles it became a kind of extreme sport, dangerous entertainment, a way to attract attention. The French introduced innovations to the fight, including the participation of seconds. Those, on the one hand, monitored compliance with the rules, but could also intervene in the clash. A quarrel between two arrogant nobles over a trivial matter could now escalate into a real battle, sometimes involving a dozen people on each side. During only 20 years of the reign of Henry IV (1589-1610), according to contemporaries, from 8 to 12 thousand French nobles died in duels. During the same time, 7 thousand royal “pardons” were issued to participants in the clashes.
Motives and reasons for a duel
If a nobleman believed that his honor or the honor of his loved ones had been insulted, then he could send the offender a written challenge (cartel) or convey it orally: both personally and through a second. The reason for the call could also be the most insignificant - “ fit on a fly's leg", as contemporaries wrote about the duel of Baron Louis de Clermont de Amboise de Bussy. One day he got into a fight over the shape of a pattern on the curtains. And Francois de Montmorency-Boutville challenged a man to a duel only because one lady called him more dexterous than him. They fought over a place in a church, at a ball or at a royal reception, arguing over whose hunting dog was better, whose lands were more fertile. The honor of a lady, for example, should always be defended. The formal reason for a duel, as a rule, was the accusation of lying.
Dueling rules
Clear dueling rules did not exist, and could not exist, because... duels were prohibited by law. The first dueling rules did not particularly limit opponents. They allowed the use of throws and grabs, kicks and punches - in a word, the entire arsenal of a street fight. However, it was considered extremely vile to throw dirt into an enemy’s eyes or fill his mouth with sand.
Gradually, noble ideas about nobility penetrated into the dueling code. Now victory could only be achieved through weapons, since a blow with a “bare hand” dishonored a nobleman. It was not proper for the nobility to fight “like some louts.” Of course, the seizure of someone else's weapons was prohibited. If the cartel handed over a friend of the challenger to a duel, then he became a second. His participation in the duel was also allowed. At the same time, he was the guarantor of the honor of the one who challenged the duel, i.e. guaranteed that a duel and not an ambush awaited in the indicated place. Therefore, if the challenge was transmitted through a lackey or servant, the person who received it had every right either to refuse the fight or to appoint its place himself.
Duel in Russia
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. However, isolated cases forced Princess Sophia (sister of Peter the Great) 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, a supporter of the European way of life, sharply opposed duels, prohibiting them with cruel laws. But, unfortunately, he could not stop the “duel avalanche” that swept the country.
Representatives of the older generation reacted to duels with condemnation. D.I. Fonvizin, in “A sincere confession of deeds and my thoughts,” recalled that his father considered a duel “ matter against conscience" and taught him: " We live under laws, and it is a shame, having such sacred defenders, what the laws are, to figure it out ourselves with fists or swords, for swords and fists are one thing, and a challenge to a duel is nothing more than the action of exuberant youth" Let us also 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 of wearing a sword, which was granted to you for the defense of the fatherland, and not for duels with the same brats as you yourself».
And, nevertheless, duels gradually penetrated more and more among the Russian noble youth. And the reason here was not so much " spirit of exuberant youth“, for which law-abiding fathers disapprovingly reproached their children, as was the formation of a 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 concisely expressed this formula in his life credo: “ Soul - to God, heart - to a woman, duty - to the Fatherland, honor - to no one».
The duel reached its apogee (highest point) in the first half of the 19th century. The prohibition of duels was reaffirmed in the “Code of Criminal Laws” of 1832, published under Nicholas I, and the “Military Criminal Charter” of 1839, which obligated military commanders to “ try to reconcile those who are quarreling and provide satisfaction to the offended by recovering from the offender" Nicholas I himself regarded duels with disgust; his words are known: “ I hate dueling. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing chivalrous about her" It was 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 Lieutenant Martynov took place.
And nothing helped the authorities in the fight against the duelists! Neither a transfer to the active army in the Caucasus (as was the case with Lermontov for the duel with de Barant), nor - in the event of a death - demotion from officers to privates (as was the case with Dantes after the duel with Pushkin). Moreover, duels in Russia were characterized by exceptionally harsh conditions:
the distance ranged from 3 to 25 steps (most often 15 steps),
There were even duels without seconds and doctors, one on one,
often fought to the death,
sometimes they shot, standing alternately with their backs at the edge of the abyss, so that if they were hit, the enemy would not survive (remember the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky in “Princess Mary”).
Paradox: when the number of duels in Russia finally began to decline thanks to tough government measures, in 1894, at the very end of the reign of Alexander III, duels were... officially allowed! As a result, their number again increases sharply. 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. 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 wound and 73 with no bloodshed. Of the 183 duels involving serious insult, 21 ended with a serious outcome, 31 with a slight injury and 131 with no bloodshed.
The duel continued at the beginning of the 20th century. Ilya Erenburg in his memoirs “People, Years, Life” describes a duel between two famous poets - Nikolai Gumilyov and Maximilian Voloshin, the reason for which was one of the pranks that Voloshin was a great master at; During the fight, Voloshin fired into the air, and Gumilyov, who considered himself insulted, missed. By the way, a shot in the air was allowed 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, 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, nobility was replaced by the fanaticism of some and the prudence of others.
FUNCTIONS OF A DUEL IN FICTION
It doesn't matter if you were accidentally hit,
It doesn't matter that you're not a badass at all,
But the important thing is that there are still duels in the world,
On whom this fragile world rests.
It doesn't matter that you aren't killed in the end,
It doesn't matter that your anger was wasted,
But the important thing is that there are still grievances in the world,
The offender cannot be forgiven.
It doesn't matter that you feel sick from a stupid pose,
It doesn’t matter that you’re not an expert at shooting,
But the important thing is that there are still questions in the world,
This is the only way to solve problems.
It doesn't matter that there is no reason for a duel,
It doesn't matter that the quarrel was over the ladies,
But the important thing is that there are still men in the world,
Who are ashamed to wander around the courts.
Leonid Filatov
Writers of the 19th century perceived a duel as the only and in many ways natural way to defend their honor, their noble and officer dignity. However, very often in the works of this time one can still trace the idea of the meaninglessness and cruelty of a duel.
For what purpose did writers and poets of the century before last use the duel motif in their works? According to critics, in fiction the duel could serve several important functions:
Firstly, the duel as an element of the composition of a work of art most often determined the climax (highest point of development) of the book.
Secondly, the duel served as a turning point in the destinies of the main characters of the work.
In three works of the 19th century - novels by A.S. Pushkin’s “The Captain’s Daughter” and “Eugene Onegin”, as well as in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” - the theme of the duel sounds with particular force. In these books, a duel acts as a kind of “litmus test”, a psychological test for honor and conscience, nobility and decency. With its help, the behavior of the main characters in this extreme situation is analyzed, it “breaks” the destinies and characters of the characters, makes them treat others differently (in an adult way, or what?) and value other people’s lives. Let's take a closer look at three duels, where the heroes go to the barrier, defending the honor of the Beautiful Ladies.
DUEL OF GRINEV AND SHVABRIN
Take care of your honor from a young age...
A.S. Pushkin, "The Captain's Daughter"
Roman A.S. Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter" tells about historical events of the late eighteenth century. At this time, Russia was engulfed in the Pugachev uprising. But the main thing for the author was not only the desire to talk about this event, but also - and this is the most important thing - to show how people behave in non-standard, extraordinary situations, in moments of highest tension, including during a duel.
It was not by chance that Pushkin chose the proverb as the epigraph to the book: “ Take care of your honor from a young age" Some of the heroes follow this rule all their lives, while others are ready to sacrifice principles, dignity and honor to save their lives. The main characters of the work are two officers who, by the will of fate, found themselves in the Belogorsk fortress. By following their destinies, we will be able to understand what the honor of an officer, human dignity means, and find out what reasons served as the reason for the duel, which occupies not the last (although not the most important, as in Eugene Onegin) place in this novel.
The first part tells about the childhood of Petrusha Grinev and his arrival at the Belogorsk fortress, where the boy’s upbringing was entrusted to the French tutor and serf Savelich. " I lived as a teenager, chasing pigeons and playing leapfrog with the yard boys“- says Grinev about his childhood. Still very young, Pyotr Andreevich is sent by his stern father to serve the Fatherland. Moreover, to serve not as was customary among the nobles of that time - in St. Petersburg, among the secular nobility, balls, billiards and champagne, but to serve for real - in the godforsaken Belogorsk fortress, which was located on the border of the Kyrgyz steppes.
Having left his home, Grinev leads a riotous lifestyle, without thinking about the future, although he is sometimes ashamed of his behavior and sometimes even asks Savelich for forgiveness. But the events that took place in the Belogorsk fortress forced him to rethink his way of life, to find new values and goals for himself.
In the fortress, Grinev meets Shvabrin. Almost nothing is known about his life, only that he ended up in the fortress because of a duel. Shvabrin is smart, perhaps received a good education, but for some reason he immediately evokes antipathy among readers. Perhaps one of the reasons for this dislike lies in the fact that Shvabrin was transferred to the Belogorsk fortress for “ murder"(stabbed a lieutenant to death in a duel in the capital). And another reason is that during his five years of service in the fortress, Shvabrin was never able to make real friends: it is not without reason that he immediately tries to establish friendly relations with the arriving Grinev. Shvabrin is undoubtedly more educated than Grinev; he was even familiar with the work of V.K. Trediakovsky (the greatest poet of those years). Shvabrin is sarcastic and mocking, he tries to ridicule everything and everyone around him. That is why it is becoming more and more difficult for Grinev to communicate with him: “ I saw Shvabrin every day; but hour by hour his conversation became less pleasant for me. I really didn’t like his usual jokes about the commandant’s family, especially his caustic remarks about Marya Ivanovna».
Grinev falls in love with the daughter of the fortress commander, Masha Mironova, and writes poetry to her. And shows his “creations” to Shvabrin. And the cunning and calculating Shvabrin criticizes these verses and laughs at them: “ Then he took the notebook from me and began to mercilessly analyze every verse, every word, mocking me in the most caustic way».
The reason for this caustic behavior is more than simple. The thing is that Shvabrin is also in love with Masha, he once wooed her, but was refused. Therefore, he has no need for a rival. Shvabrin is a vile person. Behind Masha’s back, he refers to her as “ a complete fool" Essentially, this dirty gossip is revenge on the girl for her refusal. But how can a nobleman, an officer, take revenge on a weak girl? This does not correspond to the noble code of honor. According to A.S. Pushkin and his hero Pyotr Grinev, a nobleman who takes revenge on a woman is not worthy of respect. Therefore, Grinev, being twice insulted (for himself and for Masha), challenges Shvabrin to a duel.
It seems surprising to the reader that such a simple girl as Masha Mironova could arouse Shvabrin’s interest. Obviously, Masha’s modest grace, sensitivity and tenderness seemed quite worthy of attention to Shvabrin. Masha’s refusal hurts Shvabrin’s pride and makes it impossible to continue any relationship with her. Needless to say, the happy lover Pyotr Grinev quickly becomes Shvabrin’s enemy. And this hostile feeling of rejection will be noticeable literally until the last pages of the novel, including during the fight.
It should be noted that the “process” of preparing for the duel itself is depicted somewhat ironically in the novel, although the description of the duel itself is devoid of any mockery or even a hint of it (after all, a duel is a fight for the honor of a lady, there is no time for jokes!). The irony begins with the epigraph to the chapter “Duel”, taken from Knyazhnin’s poem:
If you please, get into position.
Look, I'll pierce your figure!
A.S. Pushkin describes in sufficient detail the events preceding the duel. In the eyes of Pyotr Grinev, preparation for the fight and the search for a second look extremely important, because he has no time for laughter - this is his first time going to the barrier! But A.S. Pushkin deliberately reduces the tension of the moment with the help of bright everyday details. Thus, the candidate for second is depicted in the most “non-combat”, even home environment: Ivan Ignatich sits “ with a needle in hand" And " strings mushrooms to dry for the winter"! No matter how good a man this old officer may be, he is completely unsuited to the role of a second. It's hard to argue with this statement. In no other work will we encounter such a “domesticated,” handsome, peace-loving second. How can one not remember the brigade Zaretsky, “ Ataman's gambling gang”, but by no means a harvester of mushrooms for the winter. Or the scrupulous Doctor Werner from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". It is impossible to imagine this sarcastic Mephistopheles (the demon of evil, as Werner was called behind his back by the youth on the waters) with a needle in his hands!
And the reaction to Grinev’s proposal to play the responsible role of a second caused Ivan Ignatich to have a more than strange reaction: he “ opened his only eye" Why? Yes, because the old officer is a man of a different era, when the dueling code had not yet been fully developed. For Ivan Ignatyich, the word “duel” is a synonym for the word “fight”. For an old officer, a duel is no different from a doubles fight during the war. Only it is senseless and unrighteous, because they are fighting among their own people. In his opinion, you need to fight only with enemies and in war.
Ivan Ignatich (and this fact also needs to be noted) absolutely does not understand the reasons that led Grinev and Shvabrin to the barrier. He changes the word “insult” to the verb “ got into a fight" and makes a logical conclusion for himself (but not for Grinev!): " Great trouble! Hard words break no bones. He scolded you, and you scold him; he hits you in the snout, and you hit him in the ear, in another, in the third - and go your separate ways; and we will make peace between you and me" Ivan Ignatich offers the nobleman Pyotr Grinev a peasant fist fight: “... he hits you in the snout, and you hit him in the ear, in the other" The old man sincerely believes that such a showdown could end peacefully: “... and we will make peace between you and me" For him, there is nothing worse than killing a person: “... Is it a good thing to stab your neighbor, I dare ask?? Although, it should be noted, he is much kinder to Grinev than to Shvabrin: “ And it would be good if you stabbed him: God be with him, with Alexei Ivanovich; I'm not a fan of it myself. Well, what if he drills you? What will it be like?“Peter Grinev had to explain to the old man why this duel was needed: “ I somehow began to explain to him the position of a second, but Ivan Ignatich still could not understand me" The old officer cannot understand the meaning of the duel, because it is not part of his system of ideas about the norms of military life. Little of, " prudent lieutenant“(as A.S. Pushkin ironically calls him) almost betrayed Grinev: he wanted to definitely report the fight to the commandant: “ “Your will,” he said. “If I’m going to interfere in this matter, why not go to Ivan Kuzmich and inform him, out of duty, that a crime is being planned in the fort that is contrary to the government’s interests...” I got scared and began to ask Ivan Ignatich not to tell the commandant anything; I persuaded him by force; he gave me his word, and I decided to break it.".
The duel still took place, because the honor of the nobleman was hurt. Grinev, a man of a new era compared to Ivan Ignatich, could not be satisfied with verbal abuse (this was beneath the dignity of an officer), and even more so with a fist fight. in the snout and ear».
The evening before the fight is also depicted by A.S. Pushkin with a slight dose of soft irony. We see Pyotr Grinev in the commandant’s house and understand that this almost boy, just recently promoted to officer, is humanly afraid of a duel: “ Itried to seem cheerful and indifferent, so as not to give any suspicion and avoid annoying questions; but I confess that Ididn't have that composure , which is almost always boasted by those who were in my position" But Grinev could no longer retreat from his plan, since this would give Shvabrin the right to call him a coward.
As already mentioned, for Grinev this duel was the first in his life, for Shvabrin it was one of a series of similar fights (for one he was sent from the capital to the Belogorsk fortress). Young Grinev, it seems to me, was not very familiar with the laws of dueling, otherwise he would have immediately realized that the insidious Shvabrin was deliberately violating many of them:
He proposes to conduct the fight without seconds (“ “Why do we need seconds,” he told me dryly, “we can manage without them.”).
Insists on a second duel.
He delivers a treacherous blow with a sword in the back, while Grinev is called out by a servant (such a blow is not worthy of a nobleman, a man of honor and dignity, it is a vile blow).
It turns out that for Shvabrin it is more important not just to receive satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction) during a duel, but to kill the enemy. Later (I’ll say this in passing) Shvabrin will write a secret denunciation to Grinev’s parents about the fight and will tell about the events in such a way (!!!) that Peter’s father will forbid his son to even think about marriage with Marya Ivanovna.
The fight would have ended with Shvabrin bathing in the river, where the victorious Grinev had driven him, if not for the sudden appearance of Savelich. And here the lack of seconds allowed Shvabrin to strike a sneaky blow. It seems to me that Shvabrin had no other choice. He thought that he could easily deal with the young man, in whom “ I didn’t expect to find such a dangerous opponent" However, he miscalculated: Grinev turned out to be not only happier than his rival in love, the young officer “ was stronger and more agile» Shvabrina.
I am sincerely sorry that this duel ended exactly like that, somehow ingloriously and inconclusively: vice and evil were not punished, and virtue did not triumph. The bastard Shvabrin didn’t get what he deserved: he just took a swim in the river and sat for a while.” in a bread store under guard, and his sword lay under lock and key with Vasilisa Yegorovna».
Then why does A.S. Did Pushkin include this episode in the novel? The duel scene played an important role in The Captain's Daughter: it helped the author show the characters of the main characters in an extreme situation, because at that moment when you are fighting for life and death, it is impossible to be disingenuous. At this moment, all masks are torn off from a person, and we see his true face: the brave one appears as a brave man, the scoundrel and scoundrel as a coward.
This means that it is not in vain that the epigraph to the story “The Captain’s Daughter” by A.S. Pushkin put the proverb “ Take care of honor from a young age" This is exactly the order the protagonist’s father gave to his son, Pyotr Andreevich Grinev, sending him to military service. Despite his youthful frivolity and inexperience, Grinev managed to remain faithful to his father’s covenant even during the duel. The dignified behavior of the protagonist contrasts with the insidious actions of Shvabrin, who too often behaves meanly and selfishly, forgetting about honor and duty.
After analyzing the duel scene, we realized that Grinev and Shvabrin are antipodean heroes, they are bearers of two fundamentally different worldviews. For Shvabrin, the word “honor” is an empty phrase. He is very afraid of losing his life and is ready to do anything (even meanness) to save himself. Subsequently, as we will see, they will forget the oath given to the empress, all the ideals and traditions of the nobility will be forgotten. The duel also helped us to be convinced that Pyotr Grinev is a man of honor, capable of performing noble and crazy deeds in the name of love. These wonderful qualities of A.S. Pushkin was especially highly regarded by the ancient Russian nobility.
DUEL OF ONEGIN AND LENSKY
The duel between Onegin and Lensky is the most tragic and most mysterious episode of the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin". Why? Yes, because both duelists were not cold-blooded killers either by character or by the current situation. Onegin - at best " a learned fellow, but a pedant“However, he is not a cold-blooded killer and thieves. There is no indication of this in the novel. Vladimir Lensky, the second participant in this fight, is a naive poet and dreamer, and also does not give the impression of an inveterate shooter. But the tragic ending of the absurd event, experienced by the hero of the novel as a personal drama, as well as the author’s sincere regret about the death “ young poet” force us to take a closer look at the sixth chapter of the novel. This raises three questions:
Firstly, what is the reason for such inexplicable behavior of Eugene Onegin before and during the duel?
Secondly, why does Onegin, an independent and even daring personality, recognize the behavior imposed on him by Zaretsky, lose his will and become a doll in the hands of a faceless duel ritual?
Thirdly, what was the reason for the duel between the two - “ let there be nothing to do! – friends?
After all, at first everything worked out as well as possible: Lensky introduced Onegin to the Larin family, persuaded Evgeny to go with him to Tatyana’s name day (especially since he knew nothing about Tatyana’s letter to Onegin, or about their explanation in the garden). For this reason, Lensky assured Evgeny that it would be a purely family holiday in a narrow circle of “his own”, that no strangers would be expected at the name day. What is this? White lies? But Lensky knew very well that Onegin could not stand his neighbor-landowners with their wretched, boring conversations." about haymaking, about wine, about the kennel, about his relatives"that, violating all decency, Onegin defiantly ignores them and openly rides off on the Don stallion," as soon as along the main road one hears their home noises"(i.e. the sound of the wheels of landowners' carriages). But Lensky so wanted to please Larin that he, from the bottom of his heart, deceives his friend a little and does not attach any significance to this deception. Meanwhile, from these randomly thrown words: “And, no one, I’m sure!” - a conflict will begin, which will ultimately lead to the death of Lensky, to the tragedy of Onegin, to the misfortune of Tatyana...
It is not difficult to imagine what it was like for Onegin to suddenly find himself “at a huge feast”, to feel all the vulgarity and insignificance of the local “elite” society gathered at the Larins’. A.S. Pushkin, we remember, does not spare colors when describing the “merits” of the guests who came to them. See the “Tambov poet” Monsieur Triquet (the telling surname is “beaten with a stick”, i.e. kicked out from everywhere) and hear his insignificant couplets copied from the magazine before last year, find out that the main character of the ball is the “company commander”, who reported that the music sent “himself” by the colonel - it was too much for Onegin! And what was it like for him to find himself in the circle of such persons as “the district dandy Petushkov” or “Gvozdin, an excellent owner, the owner of poor men”? What could Onegin talk about with the Skotinins, who had brought a whole brood of children “of all ages - from thirty to two years old” to the ball? Could he shake hands with retired councilor Flyanov, a man with a murderous characterization: “A heavy gossip, an old rogue, a glutton, a bribe-taker and a buffoon”?
It is clear that forced communication with them must have seemed offensive to Onegin. In the eyes of a person accustomed to court balls and aristocratic receptions, they were just rabble. No wonder Evgeniy immediately “began to draw caricatures of the guests in his soul.” But perhaps most of all, Onegin was infuriated by the fact that he was seated in a place of honor - “directly opposite Tanya.” So the neighboring landowners, who had long ago married Lensky, tried to decide Onegin’s fate themselves, without asking the latter. On the feelings of Eugene, as well as on the feelings of the birthday girl (and she, poor thing, in love with Onegin, almost fainted!). Such a “nervous” scene seemed vulgar and provincial to Onegin.
Of course, Onegin's revenge was unjustifiably cruel. “Vowing to enrage Lensky,” he did everything possible to achieve this. And, I must say, he achieved success: Olga’s 17-year-old groom, furious to the extreme, left the ball without saying goodbye to anyone. Of course, Onegin realized that he was wrong when “ the evening casually made fun of timid, tender love“, but it was too late, since Lensky’s reaction was completely inadequate. He, a romantic maximalist, a man of extremes, suddenly imagined that Onegin had decided to seriously seduce his bride. Even after making sure that his fears were in vain, Lensky continues to persist:
He thinks: “I will be her savior.
I will not tolerate the corrupter
Fire and sighs and praises
Tempted a young heart..."
Yes, Onegin's joke was too evil and cruel. But the main problem is that Lensky gave this joke too serious meaning. But be that as it may, the inappropriate joke was followed by a challenge to a duel.
Sometimes they say that Onegin should not have accepted Lensky’s challenge, that he was afraid of the condemnation of the very society that he so strongly and deeply despised. I absolutely cannot agree with this statement. Why?
Firstly, direct refusal to duel at the beginning of the 19th century was regarded in noble society, as I have already said, as cowardice and as a gross violation of the code of noble honor. But Onegin was absolutely not ready for this humiliation.
Secondly, taken by surprise by the sudden arrival of Lensky’s second, Mr. Zaretsky, Onegin automatically gave an answer (“ always ready") to the sent call. To refuse a duel would mean to undermine your reputation and forever lose your self-respect. Onegin was now forced to defend his honor so as not to be called a coward.
Probably, the conflict that arose between Onegin and Lensky could have been resolved if not for Vladimir’s second. Lensky, considering himself humiliated, asks not just anyone to become his mediator in the duel, but the most famous (and not from the best side!) person in those parts - Zaretsky. Only ignorance of people and life, only youth and inexperience could have caused such a strange choice:
Zaretsky, once a brawler,
Ataman of the gambling gang,
The head is a rake, a tavern tribune...
He used to taunt funny
He knew how to fool a fool
And it’s nice to fool a smart person,
Either obviously, or on the sly,
Although he has other things
Didn't pass without science,
Even though sometimes I get into trouble
He came across like a simpleton.
He knew how to argue cheerfully,
Answer sharply and stupidly,
Sometimes it is prudent to remain silent,
Sometimes it’s prudent to quarrel,
Encourage young friends to quarrel
And put them on the barrier
,
Or force them to make peace,
For the three of us to have breakfast,
ANDthen secretly dishonor
A funny joke, a lie
…
And Lensky wanted to see such an extremely dishonest, vile person as his second! In my opinion, this is not just inexperience, this is outright stupidity, inappropriate for Lensky’s age! What kind of friendship can we even talk about, if you think about who Vladimir exchanged Onegin for!
In every word A.S. Pushkin's hatred of Zaretsky rings out, and we cannot help but share it. The very name of Zaretsky reminds of Griboyedov’s Zagoretsky and his characterization: “ He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief... Be careful in front of him: he’s a big deal and don’t play cards - he’ll sell you!“At first, Pushkin’s characterization seems to simply continue Griboyedov’s: “once a brawler, chieftain of a gambling gang, head of a rake...” - but then Pushkin reveals depths of abomination that even Griboyedov’s hero never dreamed of. So much can be said in a few words! " Tavern tribune"! How much causticity and sarcasm there is in this description! Everything is unnatural, inhumane in Zaretsky, and we are no longer surprised by the next stanza, in which it turns out that Zaretsky’s courage “ angry", What " in an ace from a pistol"he knows how to hit, but:
…into battle
Once in a real rapture
He distinguished himself, boldly into the mud
Falling off a Kalmyk horse,
Like a drunk Zyuzya, and the French
Got captured: a precious pledge!
Numerous “skills” of Zaretsky – “ have fun arguing, respond sharply and stupidly, sometimes remain prudently silent, sometimes prudently quarrel" - vile and vile. And Lensky instructs Zaretsky to take Onegin “ pleasant, noble, short challenge, ilcartel". Therefore Onegin, " loving the young man with all my heart", was forced to accept Lensky's challenge.
I would like to note that the mere challenge to a duel or even the acceptance of the challenge did not mean at all that the duel had to take place. This is where serious violations in the duel begin, which led to tragedy - the death of the young romantic Vladimir Lensky.
In particular, Lensky’s second was obliged to do everything possible to reconcile the opponents. But Zaretsky, " in duels, a classic and a pedant", as A.S. ironically calls him. Pushkin did not fulfill this direct obligation even when he brought the challenge to Onegin:
Zaretsky stood up without explanation;
I didn’t want to stay any longer
Having a lot to do at home,
And immediately he went out, -
not later, at the place of the fight. He preferred " friends to quarrel between young people and put them on the barrier,” although it was clear to everyone except eighteen-year-old Lensky that there was no bloody grudge. Zaretsky seemed to deliberately ignore everything that could eliminate the bloody outcome.
It was Zaretsky who separated the opponents by 32 steps, placing barriers at “ noble distance”, apparently ten steps, or even less, and did not stipulate in the conditions of the duel that the opponents should stop after the first shot. Thus, our “expert” in dueling ethics behaves not so much as a supporter of the strict rules of dueling art, but as a person extremely interested in a scandalous, noisy, and in relation to a duel, a fatal outcome. I want to make a reservation right away: both Zaretsky and Onegin violate the rules of the duel. But they violate it for various reasons. The first - because he sees in it an opportunity to gain scandalous fame, the second - to demonstrate contempt for a story in which he fell into against his own will and in the seriousness of which he does not believe.
It seems to me that Onegin really believed that the duel (at least with a fatal outcome) would not take place: after all, there were no special grounds for it. Therefore, on the night before the duel, unlike Lensky, he slept carelessly. In the morning, having seriously thought about the consequences of the duel, Onegin took all possible measures to have this duel cancelled.
This is how the famous Pushkin scholar Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman comments on this situation in his articles about “Eugene Onegin” and Russian culture: “ Oneginwas more than an hour late to the duel site - according to all dueling rules, a delay of more than a quarter of an hour was not allowed - the duel was considered not to have taken place. Onegin was already directly risking his honor - he could be accused of being a coward; finally, the duel required social equality not only of opponents, but also of seconds. Not to mention the fact thatno seconds were appointed , that is,there was no one to negotiate the terms of the duel – a direct violation! - Onegin right on the spotoffered his French servant as seconds . And this is a direct insult to the nobleman Zaretsky.”
And of course, Onegin’s plans did not include killing Lensky. That is why he fired first, while approaching the enemy (and not standing in one place!). Meanwhile, a real duelist (and we can assume that Onegin took part in duels more than once), striving for a bloody outcome, would prefer to give the opportunity to first shoot the enemy, and then call him to the barrier and shoot in cold blood at a stationary target:
Your gun thenEugene
,
Without ceasing to advance,
He was the first to quietly raise
.
Here are five more steps taken,
And Lensky, squinting his left eye,
I also began to aim - but just
Onegin shot
...
Yu.M. also writes about this. Lotman: " Onegin shot on the move - not because he was afraid of the enemy's shot - he was in a hurry to lose his right to the first shot, and in the most unfavorable circumstances for himself. Lepage's pistols are wonderful“fitted” to the hand - they say they fit so comfortably in the hand, as if they serve as a natural extension of it, and they hit almost without missing, but that’s if you shoot from a standing position. On the move, even an experienced shooter will almost never hit the target».
People familiar with dueling practice understood this perfectly well. So, A.I. Herzen noticed that Onegin treated the young man with reverence, loved Lensky in his own way and, “ aiming at him, I didn’t even want to hurt him" But, since an open shot upwards or to the side was contrary to the rules of a duel, Onegin obviously aimed at Lensky’s leg, but “ Lepage fatal trunks“This time they played a cruel joke: the gun misfired. It is no coincidence that Onegin was so shocked by the tragic outcome of the fight.
After reading the sixth chapter of the novel by A.S. Pushkin, we are convinced that the duel in the Onegin era had a strict ritual. The people participating in it did not act of their own free will, despite some bravado and ostentatious composure, they obeyed the rules established once and for all. This was the main reason that society, which Onegin despised, nevertheless turned out to have power over his actions and soul. Onegin was afraid to seem funny, to become the subject of provincial gossip. Thus, in the duel scene, his behavior is like a pendulum: on the one hand, there are fluctuations between the natural movements of his soul, his human feelings for Lensky, and on the other, the fear of being branded a buffoon and a coward by violating the conventional norms of behavior at the barrier.
And what about the young poet, “ died in the prime of life"? What could Vladimir Lensky have done for the world if he had not been killed in a duel? A.S. Pushkin, saying goodbye to Lensky, also thought about his possible fate: handsome, young, an admirer of Kant... Lensky could eventually become a philosopher, scientist or poet:
Perhaps he is for the good of the world
Or at least he was born for glory;
His silent lyre
Loud, continuous ringing
In centuries I could lift it.
Poet, Perhaps, in the degrees of light
A high level awaited...
After all, Pushkin himself also once wrote romantic poems and was frivolous and youthful. Years and life experience would have made the ardent young man wiser, more serious... Perhaps he would have found his way, met many wonderful, interesting people, his true love...
But I have a hard time believing in such a happy outcome. Yes and A.S. Pushkin too, because the author still kills Lensky, and does not give him life. Why? The answer is simple. There is such a technique in literature: when the author does not know what to do next with the hero, he simply kills him. This is what Dumas did with D'Artagnan, this is how Pushkin killed Lensky in a duel. The reason is simple: Pushkin did not want to save Lensky’s life and see him twenty years later as a fat and bald landowner. Remember how the novel depicts Lensky's possible fate if he remained alive?
…poet
The ordinary one was waiting for his destiny.
The youthful summers would have passed:
The ardor of his soul would cool.
He would change in many ways
I would part with the muses, get married,
In the village, happy and horny,
I would wear a quilted robe;
I would really know life
I would have gout at the age of forty,
I drank, ate, got bored, got fat, grew weaker,
And finally in my bed
I would die among children,
Whining women and doctors.
It seems to me that A.S. Pushkin acted, in a way, quite humanely (if that word fits here) by killing Lensky at a young age...
The duel, like the last meeting of Tatiana and Onegin, are, without a doubt, the two most powerful scenes that amaze the reader. Its fatal outcome had terrible consequences for all the heroes of the novel and radically changed their destinies.
For the fate of Onegin, and all the other heroes of this novel (Tatiana, Olga) the duel turned out to be the starting point for a life change. Olga suddenly loses her fiancé, and then leaves her home with her new husband. Tatyana realized that the duel separated her from Onegin forever. And what about Onegin? Pushkin does not give us an account of the hero’s psychological state after the murder of Lensky: the reader can only guess about his experiences. After the murder, Onegin had to immediately leave his village, “ where a bloody shadow appeared to him every day" And it was apparently unsafe to stay in the village: after all, participation in a duel was equated to a serious criminal offense that threatened with serious punishment. This event was a real shock for Evgeny Onegin, marking the beginning of his rebirth and rethinking of all life values. After the duel, Onegin goes on a trip for three years and returns a different person. A fateful meeting with Tatyana awaited him, awakening a deep feeling in a previously so cold soul, but that would all happen later.
The duel in Pushkin’s novel also plays another very important role. Lensky's death is symbolic. Lensky is a romantic, and like a romantic, he dies when confronted with real life. Pushkin in the chapters following the description of the duel, says goodbye to romanticism. Farewell is sad - because it is farewell to youth. And just as beautiful and fleeting youth is, so is romanticism, but it is short-lived - maturity comes, and with it realism, which became for Pushkin the main artistic direction in his poetry and prose of his mature period.
So what is the result of this duel? I think, for Onegin it served as a serious, terrible, but necessary lesson for life. Valuing one’s chosenness and personal independence, having studied at “ empty light"to love and value friendship, he caused the death of a young man, to whom, in general, he did not wish harm. The inability and unwillingness to take into account the feelings of other people turned into a fatal mistake for Onegin. But this could not help but teach the hero what he had not been able to do before: to suffer, repent and think…
But readers could also learn from this duel. A.S. Pushkin draws a red threadthe idea of the meaninglessness and cruelty of fights speaks of the value of every human life, refutes the feigned noble idea of honor... Although... Although he himself went to the fence for his wife’s honor, he himself shot with Dantes... And this is an insoluble paradox.
DUEL OF PECHORIN AND GRUSHNITSKY
I wanted to test Grushnitsky;
a spark of generosity could awaken in his soul,
and then everything would work out for the better...
M.Yu. Lermontov, "Hero of Our Time"
In contrast to the role of the duel in the novel “Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin, Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov speaks of a different purpose of the duel. In “A Hero of Our Time,” or more precisely, in the story “Princess Mary,” this is the only way to punish a slanderer for whom the concept of honor does not exist.
In general, the duel in “Princess Mary” is unlike any other in Russian literature.
Firstly, because a duel usually excludes any treachery. So, Grinev fights with Shvabrin honestly until the last moment, Onegin also shoots at Lensky without deception. A duel is a terrible, tragic way to resolve disputes, and its only advantage is that it presupposes absolute honesty on both sides.
Secondly, here it is not the hero in love (like Lensky or Grinev) who challenges the offender to a duel, but the rejected Grushnitsky, to whom the critic S. Shevyrev gave a significant description: “ In the full sense of the word, an empty fellow, vain, loving without love…»
Thirdly, the reason for the duel was not love. Here the duel is based on a vile conspiracy based on the desire to disgrace the name of an honest and deeply decent person.
But let's start in order.
So, the plot of this story is based on a classic love triangle: she (the Beautiful Lady) and two officers vying for her attention. Who are these two heroes who do not want to yield one iota to each other in the fight for the beauty’s heart? These are Pechorin and Grushnitsky, former colleagues who came to the waters after being wounded. They saw Princess Mary almost simultaneously. From that moment on, a thin crack lay between them, which eventually turned into an abyss.
But how different their desire to achieve Mary’s attention is! Grushnitsky, a provincial romantic, is seriously infatuated with the princess. He sees life in some kind of foggy haze. He really wants life to resemble a book novel, and certainly a sentimental one, with sighs, tears, sobs and pleas. Imitating the heroes of popular books, he even buys a ring and carves a symbolic inscription inside it: “ I began to look at it, and what?.. Mary’s name was carved in small letters on the inside, and next to it was the date of the day when she raised the famous glass.”
Pechorin's eternal enemy - boredom - forces him to infuriate the princess with various petty antics. He is having fun with Mary. He enjoys this game, just as he enjoys watching the development of the relationship between Grushnitsky and the princess. It was not difficult for him to seduce Princess Mary. Only a few days passed, and the princess, who previously could not stand Pechorin, was the first to confess her love to him.
Grushnitsky, this parody of Pechorin, would never have been able to achieve such frank confessions either from Mary or from any other woman. He lacks assertiveness and self-irony. He is too soft, too mediocre and narrow-minded. He does not have such striking character traits as his lucky rival. Grushnitsky’s pompous speeches, his irrepressible desire “ to be draped in extraordinary feelings», « passion to recite"can only make an initial impression. But pompous phrases, like a broken record, begin to repeat themselves and, in the end, become simply unbearable.
The more the princess becomes interested in Pechorin (after all, she is much more interested in him than with the simple-minded boy), the wider the gap between him and Grushnitsky becomes. The situation is heating up, mutual hostility is growing. Pechorin's prophecy that they will someday " collide on a narrow road", is coming true: Grigory Alexandrovich was forced to challenge the former cadet to a duel for vile slander.
The behavior of Pechorin and Grushnitsky on the eve of the duel deserves attention.
Grushnitsky, since we called him a romantic, a lover of sentimental novels, before the duel he could read books, write love poems... But no. This nonentity chooses a different place for himself on the night before the fight: he goes to a restaurant. Why? After all, this is extremely imprudent and very dangerous: in the morning, a person who has not had enough sleep may have a trembling hand. But we know that Grushnitsky has nothing to fear, no need to worry for his life: only his pistol will be loaded... Did his conscience torment him the night before the duel? Unknown. He will appear before us in the morning, ready to shoot, and in fact, to kill an unarmed person.
M.Yu. It is not for nothing that Lermontov does not talk in detail about Grushnitsky’s behavior: everything is clear with the scoundrel. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary. But the author forces Pechorin to write down in detail what he was thinking about and what he felt on the fateful night: “ A! Mr. Grushnitsky! you will not succeed in your hoax... we will switch roles: now I will have to look for signs of secret fear on your pale face. Why did you prescribe these fateful six steps yourself? You think that I will offer my forehead to you without a dispute... but we will cast lots!.. and then... then... what if his happiness wins out? what if my star finally cheats on me?»
So, Pechorin’s first feeling is the same as Grushnitsky’s: the desire for revenge. " Let's switch roles», « the hoax will fail" - that's what he cares about. Pechorin, in essence, continues his game with Grushnitsky. He brought it to its logical conclusion. But this end is extremely dangerous. Life is at stake - and, above all, his, Pechorin's, life! But the hero is amazingly frivolous about his fate: “ Well? to die like that: the loss for the world is small; and I'm pretty bored myself" In this harsh phrase there is not even a hint of coquetry on the part of Grigory Alexandrovich. He was really tired of living in this world...
On the night before the duel, Pechorin, as always, is terribly alone. He writes bitterly in his diary: “... And there will not be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely. Some consider me worse, others better than I really am... Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a scoundrel. Both will be false. After this, is life worth the trouble? but you always live out of curiosity: you expect something new... It’s funny and annoying!“Pechorin’s extremely frank diary ends with these words, ends on the night before the duel...
On the eve of the fight, Grigory Alexandrovich “ didn't sleep for a minute", he could not write any more. But as soon as it was dawn, his nerves calmed down: “ I looked in the mirror; dull pallor covered my face, which kept tracespainful insomnia ; Buteyes , although surrounded by a brown shadow,shone proudly and inexorably ».
Critics unanimously call Pechorin an insensitive egoist, a source of misfortune for those around him. But can a prudent cynic suffer until the morning from “ painful insomnia"? Pechorin is not afraid to suffer not for himself - his own death, as we have already said. Maybe he was looking for possible ways to “re-educate” Grushnitsky? Who knows! And here " relentless glare of the eyes” definitely indicates that Pechorin nevertheless made some important decision.
Pechorin prepares for the duel soberly and calmly: “... having ordered the horses to be saddled... got dressed and ran to the bathhouse... came out of the bath fresh and cheerful, as if he was going to a ball" Amazing! Pechorin is calm, knowing that his gun is not loaded. Such composure is a trait of strong people. Even Werner (Pechorin’s second), nicknamed Mephistopheles (the devil, Prince of Darkness) on the waters, is excited about the upcoming fight.
We again see the road to the place of the duel through the eyes of Pechorin. And this is natural. How can the stupid Grushnitsky, who appropriated to himself and “ someone else's mind", and other people's passions, to see the beauty of the world around us? While Pechorin, accused by literary scholars of hard-heartedness and callousness, sincerely admires the nature of the Caucasus: “ I don’t remember a morning more blue and fresh! The sun barely appeared from behind the green peaks, and the merging of the first warmth of its rays with the dying coolness of the night brought a kind of sweet languor to all the senses...»
Everything that he sees on the way to the place of the duel pleases, amuses and enlivens him, and Pechorin is not ashamed to admit it: “ I remember - this time, more than ever before, I loved nature. How curiously I peered at every dewdrop fluttering on a wide grape leaf and reflecting millions of rainbow rays! how greedily my gaze tried to penetrate into the smoky distance!»
But all this joy, greedy enjoyment of life, delight, admiration - all this is hidden from prying eyes. Werner, riding next to him, cannot imagine what Pechorin is thinking about:
« We drove in silence.
-Have you written your will? - Werner suddenly asked.
- No.
- What if you are killed?
- The heirs will find themselves.
- Don’t you have friends to whom you would like to send your last farewell?..
I shook my head».
It is strange that Dr. Werner (a man of the most humane profession) at this moment is not concerned about the state of mind of his friend, but about the question of the will... It seems to me that Onegin’s second was much kinder.
It is worth saying a few words about another second - the dragoon captain, Grushnitsky's second. How similar he is to Zaretsky from the novel by A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin"! That character was also driven by a vile desire." friends to quarrel young" Zaretsky is disgusting, hateful to us, but he also begins to look almost like a noble knight if we compare him with Grushnitsky’s second – dragoon captain. He knows no remorse, no laws of honor. Lermontov’s contempt for this man is so great that he didn’t even give him a name: he’s had enough of his rank! The role of the dragoon captain in a duel is much more significant than it might seem at first glance. It was he who came up with and carried out this vile plot. He advised Grushnitsky not to load the second pistol. Why did the captain do this? Maybe he felt sorry for the young officer? Nothing happened! He would be the first to subject Grushnitsky to ridicule and contempt if he refused the duel. So what was his true goal? Just to have fun for the sake of boredom, to take revenge on the “upstart” Pechorin, whom everyone on the waters envied: some secretly, some openly. Many, including the dragoon captain, could not forgive this man for his offensive superiority. How nice it would be to imagine Pechorin as a coward! But the dragoon captain didn’t want to “get dirty” himself, and it was dangerous. But Grushnitsky was the best suited for the role of “avenger of all”: he was too stupid and, like Lensky, did not know how to understand people.
According to the dueling code, seconds were supposed to try to reconcile the opponents before the fight. The dragoon captain, like Zaretsky once, violated this law, Werner complied:
“It seems to me,” he said, “that by both showing your readiness to fight and paying off the debt to the conditions of honor, you, gentlemen, could explain yourself and end this matter amicably.
– “I’m ready,” said Pechorin».
The dragoon captain did not react in any way to the attempt at reconciliation, although he was obliged to do so. Vice versa, " the captain blinked at Grushnitsky", trying to convince him that Pechorin is a coward – and therefore ready for reconciliation. Then in general " took him by the arm and took him aside, where they whispered for a long time..."
If Pechorin really chickened out – this would have been a salvation for Grushnitsky: both in the literal sense (he would have remained alive) and figuratively (he would not have shot at an unarmed person). But Pechorin was ready to abandon the duel only on one condition: if Grushnitsky publicly apologizes for slander. Maybe the former cadet would have done just that: the text of the novel contains details confirming that the young man was still ashamed (“ there was some concern in his gaze», « he was embarrassed and blushed"). But next to him was a dragoon captain, and Grushnitsky was more afraid of him than of Pechorin. Or rather, not the captain, but his evil tongue. How can one not recall a phrase from the comedy by A.S. Griboyedova: “ Ah, evil tongues are worse than a pistol! The captain personifies the opinion of society, which with great pleasure will mock Grushnitsky if he refuses the duel. Therefore, Grushnitsky refuses Dr. Werner’s proposal for reconciliation: “ We'll shoot each other».
Here we must pay tribute to Pechorin’s patience and his desire to save the life of the naive romantic Grushnitsky, who fell under the bad influence: Grigory Alexandrovich once again tries to appeal to the conscience of the slanderer, reminds that one of the opponents “ will certainly be killed" But in vain. Grushnitsky, blinded by hatred, refuses to listen to reasonable arguments. Or maybe the knowledge that his opponent is unarmed gives him courage...
By the way, the conditions of the duel, worked out the day before with the help of the dragoon captain, were more than cruel: they were supposed to shoot at six steps. Grushnitsky and " the whole gang“This was quite satisfactory. But Pechorin is not there. Grigory Alexandrovich now specifically insists on even more severe conditions. He demands that each of the opponents stand on the very edge of the cliff: “... thus, even a slight wound will be fatal... Anyone who is wounded will certainly fly down and be smashed to pieces...»
Still, Pechorin is a very courageous man. Knowing about the mortal danger, he controls himself. Moreover, he confuses his opponents, makes them truly afraid: one awkward move and you can fall off a cliff. But Grigory Alexandrovich tightened the conditions of the fight for a reason: he put Grushnitsky before a choice - to kill an unarmed man or disgrace himself. Unfortunately, Grushnitsky again failed to pass the new test of integrity...
And Pechorin continues to experiment. Standing at gunpoint, he tells his opponent: “ If you don't kill me, I won't miss! - I give you my word of honor" This phrase again has a double purpose: for the third time to test Grushnitsky and for the third time to calm his conscience. So that later, if the young man is killed, he can say to himself: I warned you, I did everything possible...
Grushnitsky, of course, had no idea about the hidden meaning of Pechorin’s words. He had another concern. Tormented by conscience, " He blushed; he was ashamed to kill an unarmed man... but how could he admit to such vile intent??..” And yet there is fear of the dragoon captain and the danger of being branded a coward in the eyes of “ water society"did their job: he began to raise the pistol...
« Suddenly he lowered the muzzle of the pistol and, turning white as a sheet, turned to his second.
– Coward! - answered the captain.
The shot rang out».
Let's pay attention at what moment the shot rang out: not immediately, but after the contemptuous remark of the dragoon captain - “ Coward! Again – Dragoon captain! Grushnitsky was already ready to listen to the voice of conscience, he was ready to abandon the dishonest plan. But again the dragoon captain turned out to be stronger. Whatever the noblest motives of Pechorin (so that conscience would finally awaken in Grushnitsky), here, on the site, this intriguer won, won meanness. The shot, as recorded by M.Yu. Lermontov, " rang out»…
It seems to me that at this moment Grushnitsky’s conscience no longer torments him. Now he most likely regrets that he did not kill Pechorin. The conspiracy failed, and he, Grushnitsky, was disgraced. Even if he had remained alive, rumors would have spread throughout the city that the former cadet had shot at an unarmed man. Which means he's a scoundrel.
Fear and powerlessness to fix anything torment Grushnitsky. And at this second Pechorin morally “finishes off” him: “ Doctor, these gentlemen, probably in a hurry, forgot to put a bullet in my pistol: I ask you to load it again, and thoroughly!»
Grushnitsky understands with horror: Pechorin knew everything! He knew when he proposed to abandon the slander. I knew when I was standing at gunpoint. Knew when he asked if his conscience was saying anything!
The dragoon captain is trying to get out of a sensitive situation: he screams, protests, insists. But Grushnitsky doesn’t care anymore. " Confused and gloomy", he does not respond to the captain's signs. He feels only a feeling of hopeless shame.
I don’t see anything unexpected in the behavior of the dragoon captain: until his life was in danger, he was brave and even impudent. But as soon as Pechorin offered him “ shoot under the same conditions", How " he hesitated", and seeing a loaded pistol in Pechorin's hands, " spat and stomped his foot" When the plot was revealed, the dragoon captain chose to hastily retreat.
And again I can’t help but admire Pechorin’s nobility. For the umpteenth time he makes an attempt to prevent a tragedy: “ Grushnitsky, I said: there is still time. Refuse your slander, and I will forgive you everything; you failed to fool me, and my pride is satisfied - remember, we were once friends».
But Grushnitsky’s calm, friendly tone humiliates Pechorin even more than the rudeness of the dragoon captain. It turns out that Pechorin won again, took over; he is noble, and Grushnitsky... The origins of the cadet’s anger are that next to Pechorin he always feels like a flawed, insolvent person. And painfully jealous.
« His face flushed, his eyes sparkled.
– Shoot! - he answered. - I despise myself, but I hate you. If you don’t kill me, I’ll stab you at night from around the corner. There is no place on earth for the two of us...
I fired.
– Finita la comedy! - I told the doctor.
He did not answer and turned away in horror»…
The comedy turned into tragedy. But don’t you think that Werner behaves no better than a dragoon captain? At first, he did not restrain Pechorin when he stood at gunpoint. Now that the murder had been committed, the doctor turned away and betrayed Pechorin. As a dragoon captain, Werner cowardly ran away from responsibility. I condemn this unfortunate Mephistopheles and sympathize with Pechorin, who is doomed to proud loneliness among weak-willed people.
It is difficult to say whether justice wins in this fight... Yes, the slanderer was punished, but too severely - Grushnitsky died. Another thing is offensive: the main “author of gossip”, the intriguer – Dragoon captain managed to avoid retribution. He, the organizer of the conspiracy, the “inventor” of the vile conditions of the duel, the “teacher of meanness” of Grushnitsky, remained as if he had nothing to do with it - he came out unscathed. Pechorin is not happy either. This victory did not bring him any satisfaction: “ The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me" In fact, was it worth spending such efforts, playing with death like that, in order to prove the insignificance of Grushnitsky, this vindictive and envious person, prone to lies, intrigue, and gossip? As a result, instead of the triumph of the winner, there is the severity of Pechorin’s mental state, understanding the irreparability of what happened, experiencing bewilderment and the sad realization that he again turned out to be an “instrument of execution”...
Then why M.Yu. Did Lermontov need this episode? It seems to me that the duel scene, more clearly than any other, testifies to Pechorin’s inexhaustible energy and determination, the inflexibility of his will, and the desire to defend his self-esteem at all costs. And this episode also speaks of the insane loneliness of Grigory Alexandrovich among people, “ for all occasions" having " ready-made fluffy phrases", behind which... there is emptiness.
The episode of the duel performed another important function in the novel: thanks to the duel scene, we saw the heroes as they really are, without masks.
CONCLUSION
A duel in Russia is more than a duel!
Not a long Siberian snowstorm...
Only fear is to leave the challenge unanswered!
E. Yevtushenko
So, we learned that a duel in Russian literature is not only a description of the fight itself, but also one of the ways of characterizing heroes, specially highlighted by the writer among all other details. A duel, no matter what classification it belongs to, focuses the reader’s attention on what seems to the writer the most important or characteristic in a person, in his qualities and actions.
At the end of the 18th – 19th centuries, a duel (“ armed struggle between two opponents in the presence of seconds") was perceived by the nobles as the only possible way to protect honor and dignity. In the absence of laws protecting the individual, there were simply no other ways for a decent person to protect his good name and wash away the insult caused by the blood of his enemy in those years. Almost every one of the Russian classic writers, no matter whose work we took, gave a description of a duel in one or another of his works, while comprehending and evaluating the duel in his own way. The writers of the 20th century were no exception, when the duel as a way of resolving issues of honor and dignity seemed to have outlived its usefulness. The method disappeared, but the theme of the duel remained to live on the pages of books.
Why? What was so attractive about the duel of writers? How did the fight scene help and still help readers understand the author's intention or the image of the hero?
The theme of the duel is interesting to writers, first of all, because it:
firstly, it appears in books as an arena of mortal combat between dissimilar characters (the romantic Lensky - the realist Onegin);
secondly, it becomes the place where opposing views on life collide (the noble Pechorin - the slanderer Grushnitsky; the man of honor Grinev - the murderer Shvabrin);
thirdly, it helps the writer to make a psychological analysis of the personality of the hero who stood up to the barrier (to check the hero for his internal integrity).
We have proven that the use of a duel scene in the works of great Russian classics is necessary. After all, it is during fights that the characters’ personalities are revealed, their masks are torn off and their true traits are revealed. Detailed descriptions of duels allowed A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov to talk about the individual character traits of each of the heroes and thereby complement their characteristics.
More than once in the novels the attitude of A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov to life and to heroes. For example, having somewhat mentioned the meanness and vanity of Grushnitsky, M.Yu. Lermontov expressed his negative attitude towards this character. On the contrary, the story about Pechorin’s decency and courage proves that the author is sympathetic to this hero. If about Grinev A.S. While Pushkin writes about a person who is able to stand up for his honor, despite the fact that he is coming to the barrier for the first time, the writer clearly does not like Shvabrin, since this character too often behaves meanly and basely.
In addition, I set myself the goal of finding out whether a duel has an effect on a person. I think, undoubtedly, and this idea was traced by me in each chapter of the essay. It seems to me that I was able to prove that a person standing between life and death (after all, no one knows the ending of the duel in advance) cannot help but change. So, after the senseless death of the enthusiastic romantic Lensky, Onegin leaves in deep depression (he will never again look down on human feelings). After the death of Grushnitsky, who was unable to get rid of the harmful influence of the dragoon captain at the last moment, Pechorin became even more disappointed in the people. Even those duels that end relatively well leave a deep mark on the souls of their participants.
In my essay, I not only talked about the conditions of a duel (duel code), which were established in advance by opponents or their representatives (seconds) in compliance with a number of specific customs, but also proved that almost all fights that we can read about in classical literature, took place with more or less serious violations of the dueling code. This fact is confirmed by the table below, in which I tried to point out the main violations committed by opponents during fights.
Violations of dueling rules when describing fights
in Russian classical literature
| Work | Opponents | Violation of norms dueling code |
||
| Pushkin A.S. | "Shot" | 1. The Count eats cherries while standing at the barrier. but leaves the shot behind him. |
||
| "Eugene Onegin" | 1. Social inequality seconds. 2. Onegin is two hours late. reconciliation. |
|||
| "The Stone Guest" | Don Guan, Don Carlos | 1. Lack of seconds. |
||
| "Captain's daughter" | 1. The duel takes place without seconds. |
|||
| Lermontov M.Yu. | "Hero of our time" | Pechorin, Grushnitsky | 1. Grushnitsky and dragoon The captain is trying to load only one pistol. abyss. |
|
| Kuprin A.I. | "Duel" | Nikolaev, | 1. Due to Shurochka’s intervention, Romashov dies. |
To summarize, I would like to once again dwell on the most important points of the essay regarding the topic of duels in Russian literature. So,
1. Reason for a duel
In three duels (“Eugene Onegin”, “The Captain’s Daughter”, “Hero of Our Time”) one of the heroes coming to the barrier acts as a noble defender of the girl’s honor. But if Pechorin and Grinev actually defend the honor of Mary and Masha from insults (the girls were really offended), then Lensky challenges Onegin to a duel over a trifle (what happened at the ball during Tatyana’s name day could not serve as a serious reason for such bloody duel).
2. Reasons for the duel
The reasons for duels in all the works under consideration are completely different. Onegin could not resist public opinion and was forced to go to the barrier so that the gossip Zagoretsky would not discredit his good name (Eugene could be accused of cowardice). Grinev truly loves Marya Ivanovna, so he cannot allow Shvabrin to insult her honor. Pechorin is bored in this world; with his duel with Grushnitsky, he wanted to add at least some variety to his life.
3. Conditions of duels, compliance with the dueling code
The duel between Onegin and Lensky was equal, but with numerous violations. Moreover, Onegin and Zaretsky (Lensky’s second) both violate the rules of the duel. The first - to cancel the scheduled duel and save the life of the young romantic Lensky, and Zaretsky - because he sees in the duel a funny story, a subject of gossip and cruel pranks... In "Eugene Onegin" Zaretsky was the only manager of the duel, he conducted the matter with great omissions, deliberately ignoring everything that could eliminate the bloody outcome.
In The Captain's Daughter, the absence of seconds allows Shvabrin to strike a treacherous blow, which contradicts Grinev's concepts of honor.
In the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” Grushnitsky violated the laws of duels: he was going to kill a virtually unarmed person. During the duel, Pechorin tightens the conditions, offering to stand on the edge of a cliff.
4. The attitude of the main characters towards the duel
Onegin does not believe until the last moment that the duel will take place. Only when he sees Lensky's corpse in front of him does he realize that he has made a mistake. His conscience is tormenting him.
Lensky thinks of himself as a noble defender of the flighty Olga (“ I'll be her savior"). At this moment he forgets about friendship and wishes Onegin death.
Grinev is not afraid of death. He wants to punish the scoundrel Shvabrin for the offense inflicted on Masha.
Shvabrin, who ended up in the Belogorsk fortress for killing a man in a duel, was tired of the calm, peaceful life in the “home” garrison. Therefore, he easily agrees to a duel with Grinev. In which he does not expect to see a serious opponent. His goal is to kill his opponent in a duel, because... Shvabrin is also in love with Masha.
Pechorin’s first feeling is the same as Grushnitsky’s: the desire for revenge. He is not afraid of a duel: “Well? To die like this: the loss for the world is small; and I’m pretty bored myself...” – this is what Pechorin thinks on the night before the fight. A duel for him is entertainment from boredom and at the same time a secret desire to teach the presumptuous Grushnitsky a lesson.
Grushnitsky became a puppet in the hands of the dragoon captain. If it weren’t for him, Grushnitsky would hardly have dared to publicly insult Pechorin, much less challenge him to a duel. Leaving Pechorin's pistol unloaded was also the idea of the dragoon captain. Fortunately, Grushnitsky had the courage to admit that the gun was not loaded, but did not have the willpower to ask Pechorin for an apology.
5. Behavior before a duel
Not believing that the duel would take place, Onegin slept the night before the fight " dead sleep" and woke up when it was high time to go to the place of the duel. Perhaps he did this deliberately: for being late for the duel by more than 15 minutes was considered a valid reason for canceling the duel.
Grinev in The Captain's Daughter does not particularly prepare for a duel. This is how A.S. writes about it. Pushkin "... examined his sword, tried its end and went to bed..." Perhaps the confidence in the fairness of his decision (to punish the offender) gave Grinev strength and calm.
Pechorin suffered without sleep the whole night before the duel, could not write, then “ sat down and opened Walter Scott's novel... it was "The Scottish Puritans"" He " At first I read with effort, then I forgot, carried away by magical fiction..." This speaks of his composure and ability to control himself and his feelings.
6. The role of seconds
Seconds play an important role in all duels. In “A Hero of Our Time,” it is the dragoon captain who becomes the organizer of the conspiracy against Pechorin. It was he who persuaded Grushnitsky not to load the pistols. It was he who, with the help of Grushnitsky, wanted to take revenge on Pechorin for considering himself superior to those around him. The role of a dragoon captain in a duel is much more dangerous than it might seem. He not only came up with and carried out the conspiracy. He personifies the very public opinion that could subject Grushnitsky to ridicule and contempt if he refused the duel.
Pechorin took with him a friend - Doctor Werner, a passive man. Werner did not interfere in the duel.
Zaretsky in Eugene Onegin is similar to a dragoon captain: they are both cruel, indifferent people, for them a duel is nothing more than entertainment. Zaretsky, like the dragoon captain, personifies public opinion. And if Onegin tries to refuse the fight, Zaretsky will accuse him of cowardice.
Onegin’s second is his servant, the Frenchman Guillot, whom Onegin calls “ My friend" About Guillo, besides the fact that he " honest guy", nothing more is said. Onegin makes a servant his second, firstly, since there is no one else to turn to; secondly, by this he expresses his frivolous attitude towards the duel; thirdly, he hopes that such a choice of a second will help cancel the duel.
Grinev and Shvabrin did not have seconds in The Captain's Daughter.
7. Result of the duel
The results of the duels in these three works are different. At A.S. Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin” the duel ends with the death of Lensky, in “The Captain’s Daughter” Shvabrin, violating the dueling code of honor, vilely wounds Grinev. At M.Yu. Lermontov Pechorin kills Grushnitsky.
The duel for Onegin served as an impetus for a new life. Feelings awaken in him, and he begins to live not only with his mind, but also with his soul.
Pechorin understands that Grushnitsky’s death did not change anything either in the world around him or in himself. Pechorin is only once again disappointed in life and feels devastated.
After the duel, Grinev decides to confess his love to Marya Ivanovna and invites her to become his wife.
9. The role of a duel in a work of fiction
In The Captain's Daughter, the duel between Shvabrin and Grinev is needed to show people's understanding of different eras of such a phenomenon as a duel.
In the novel by A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" the protagonist's inability to think about other people turned into a fatal mistake (the death of the young poet). But it was the duel that taught him what he had not been able to do before: to suffer, to repent, to think... Therefore, Lensky’s death turns out to be the impetus for Onegin’s spiritual revival.
The duel in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” is one of the culminating moments that helps readers better understand Pechorin’s character.
So is the topic of my essay relevant today? Do not think that a duel is just a literary device. After all, we do not perceive the heroes of works of art only as book, fictional characters. Living people with real destinies suddenly stand before us. And in a completely different way we evaluate the fact that the two greatest poets of the “golden age” of Russian literature - A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov - died in a duel. Both described their own death almost to the smallest detail in their works. What is this? Foresight? Accident? Nobody knows this. Just as no one can deny that these two duels forever left the imprint of tragedy and fate in Russian literature... And also a vivid example to follow of how to defend one’s honor.
In fact, how can the concept of honor become obsolete, which is given to a person once, along with his name, and which can neither be compensated nor corrected, which can only be preserved? The great Shakespeare was right when he said: “ Honor is my life. They have grown into one, and losing the honor is for me the same as losing life».
LIST OF REFERENCES USED
Amelina E.V. We are preparing for the literature exam. - M.: Onyx; Peace and Education, 2007.
Gurevich A.M. The plot of "Eugene Onegin". To help teachers, high school students and applicants. - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2001. - 112 p.
Dolinina N. Let’s read “Onegin” together: Essay. - St. Petersburg: “Academic Project”, “Lyceum”, 2001. - 176 p.
Dyakonova N.Ya. From observations of Pechorin's journal. - “Rus. lit.”, 1969, No. 4, pp. 115 – 125.
Unified State Exam 2009: Literature: Directory. - M.: Eksmo, 2009.
Karpushin S.V., Kovaleva E.S., Terentyeva A.V. A.S. Pushkin: the beginning of all beginnings. Life, creativity, era. - Smolensk: Rusich, 1999. - 624 p.
Kozhevnikov V.A. “All life, all soul, all love...”: Re-reading “Eugene Onegin”: A book for teachers. - M., Education, 1993
Krichevskaya L.I. Portrait of a hero: A manual for literature teachers and students of humanities universities. - M.: Aspect Press, 1994.
Lermontov M.Yu. Poems; Poems; Masquerade; Hero of our time. - M.: Artist. Lit., 1985. - 415 p.
Manuilov V.A. Roman M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". A comment. Ed. 2nd, add. L., “Enlightenment”, 1975.
Pisarev D.I. Works in four volumes. T. 3. - State Publishing House of Fiction, 1956.
We write essays based on the novel in verse by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin". - M.: Gramotey, 2007.
Pushkin A.S. Eugene Onegin. A novel in verse. Preface, note. and will explain. Articles by S. Bondi. M., Det. lit., 1973. - 304 p.
Pushkin A.S. Poems and prose. - M.: Olimp; LLC “Firm “Publishing House AST”, 1999. - 640 p.
Udodov B.T. Roman M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”: A Book for Teachers. - M.: Education, 1989.
Shansky N.M. In the footsteps of “Eugene Onegin”: A brief linguistic commentary. - M.: LLC “Trading and Publishing House “Russkoe Slovo - RS”, 1999. - 320 p.
REVIEW
for an essay by a 9th grade student “B”
KUPRIYANOVA ANASTASIA ANDREEVNA
on the topic “DUEL IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE”
Work by Kupriyanova A.A. is devoted to an actual problem - the problem of protecting the honor and dignity of a person. At present, as the author quite rightly notes, many concepts relating to the moral side of life in modern society are being replaced. Kupriyanova Anastasia considers honor one of the most important virtues of the human soul and, using the example of Russian classics, shows a duel as one of the main ways to protect the humiliated dignity of a person. Kupriyanova A.A. sets the goal of showing the role of the duel in the formation and revelation of the character of the hero of a literary work, in understanding the author’s intention, and reveals the psychological aspect of the duel.
The work has a large theoretical basis - the author reviewed 16 literature sources. The theoretical study begins with a description of the history of the origin of duels. Anastasia dwells in detail on the analysis of the motives, conditions of duels, their rules and results. Having analyzed extensive material concerning the basic requirements for organizing duels in Russian classical literature, the author develops a summary table that summarizes violations of dueling rules in certain duels, reflected on the pages of works of fiction.
The abstract brings together into a single whole both the description of the dueling scenes and their role in revealing the characters’ characters and their influence on the fate of the heroes. The undoubted advantage of the work is the completeness of the cited literature and the student’s deep knowledge of the works being studied. It should also be noted that when writing Kupriyanova’s essay, Anastasia demonstrated good linguistic erudition and showed solid theoretical and practical training.
Kupriyanova A.A. successfully coped with the difficult task of analyzing duels as the main method of describing the inner world of the heroes of works, showing the inconsistency of the very nature of the duel. Using the psychological aspect of the fight when drawing up a literary portrait of characters makes the work concrete and meaningful.
This work has great practical significance, as it can be used as a manual for high school students as an example of structuring an essay. The work can also be recommended by students as a tool for analyzing a literary work based on the psychological aspect when studying similar topics.
Thus, the general content set out in the abstract allows us to conclude that the work of Anastasia Kupriyanova represents an independent, complete and creative study of the place of duels in the composition of literary works, their role in revealing the character of the main character and the method of protecting his honor and dignity.
The choice of research topic is timely and justified; its relevance in both theoretical and practical terms is beyond doubt.
Assessing Anastasia Kupriyanova’s essay as a whole, I would like to once again emphasize its undoubted and indisputable research and practical merits.
REVIEWER ______________ (Palaeva Lira Ilfatovna, Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Deputy Director for Educational Work, State Educational Institution Central Educational Institution No. 1499)
Project goals: To study the history of the duel, its origins. Study the history of the duel, its origins. Determine what role the duel plays in literary works. Determine what role the duel plays in literary works. Present research materials at an open lesson on the topic “Duel in Russian literature of the 19th century.” Present research materials at an open lesson on the topic “Duel in Russian literature of the 19th century.”
Solutions: Studying literature about the duel and its history. Studying literature about the duel and its history. Studying materials about the duels of A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov. Studying materials about the duels of A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov. Search for works that describe a duel. Observing what role the duel plays and whether it complies with the dueling code. Search for works that describe a duel. Observing what role the duel plays and whether it complies with the dueling code.
Duel [fr.duel 
From the history of duels. Since ancient times (in ancient Greek myths - the duel between Paris and Menelaus). Since ancient times (in ancient Greek myths - the duel between Paris and Menelaus). Particularly widespread in the Middle Ages (knightly fights). Particularly widespread in the Middle Ages (knightly fights). Since the 15th century, in Spain, Italy, France, and then in other European countries, a duel arose as a duel with the goal of satisfaction (satisfaction) for an insult or insult to honor. Since the 15th century, in Spain, Italy, France, and then in other European countries, a duel arose as a duel with the goal of satisfaction (satisfaction) for an insult or insult to honor.
The first duels in Russia in the 18th century. Certain rules of the duel (duel code): By mutual agreement. By mutual agreement. Using bladed or firearms (saber, sword, pistol). Using bladed or firearms (saber, sword, pistol). In the presence of witnesses (seconds). In the presence of witnesses (seconds). According to predetermined conditions. According to predetermined conditions. The reason is a challenge from one person to another for an insult. The reason is a challenge from one person to another for an insult. The goal is to obtain satisfaction (satisfaction) by force of weapons. The goal is to obtain satisfaction (satisfaction) by force of weapons. A duel can only take place between equals. A duel can only take place between equals. After a quarrel, opponents were not supposed to communicate. After a quarrel, opponents were not supposed to communicate. A written challenge (cartel) was transmitted through seconds. A written challenge (cartel) was transmitted through seconds. The seconds are obliged to find ways to reconcile and monitor compliance with the conditions of the duel. The seconds are obliged to find ways to reconcile and monitor compliance with the conditions of the duel. Breter - (obsolete) a person who is ready to fight a duel for any reason, a brawler, a bully. Breter - (obsolete) a person who is ready to fight a duel for any reason, a brawler, a bully.
M.Yu.Lermontov Duel. In Pyatigorsk, at one of the evenings in the Verzilin family, Lermontov’s joke offended Martynov, a stupid and painfully proud man. The poet accepted the challenge, firmly deciding not to shoot his comrade. Lermontov was killed on July 15, 1841. In Pyatigorsk, at one of the evenings in the Verzilin family, Lermontov’s joke hurt Martynov, a stupid and painfully proud man. The poet accepted the challenge, firmly deciding not to shoot his comrade. Lermontov was killed on July 15, 1841.
A.S. Pushkin “The Captain's Daughter” A duel with Shvabrin, who is distinguished by a cynical, rude attitude towards the girl, is introduced into the work to show Grinev’s desire to defend the honor and dignity of his beloved. The work introduces a duel with Shvabrin, who is distinguished by a cynical, rude attitude towards the girl, in order to show Grinev’s desire to protect the honor and dignity of his beloved. In the novel we see a collision of two eras. In the novel we see a collision of two eras. The author shows a murder covered up with dueling terminology. The author shows a murder covered up with dueling terminology.
A.S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” All the details of this action are shown in detail. In the duel between Onegin and Lensky, everything is clear, everything is thought out. Duelists use the best dueling pistols of that time, made by the French master Lepage. However, Lensky's second Zaretsky, a breter, and Onegin both break the rules. Onegin was more than an hour late for the duel, and Zaretsky made no attempts to reconcile the opponents. All the details of this action are shown in detail. In the duel between Onegin and Lensky, everything is clear, everything is thought out. Duelists use the best dueling pistols of that time, made by the French master Lepage. However, Lensky's second Zaretsky, a breter, and Onegin both break the rules. Onegin was more than an hour late for the duel, and Zaretsky made no attempts to reconcile the opponents.
M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” The novel shows deception during a duel. There was an agreement between Grushnitsky and the second that Pechorin’s pistol would not be loaded. This duel is dishonorable. A duel designed to defend honor serves to aggravate dishonor. After the duel, Pechorin is constantly tormented by the thought that out of passion, just wanting to tempt fate, he killed Grushnitsky.
Duel. Illustration by M. Vrubel for the novel “Hero of Our Time.” Black watercolor
I.S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons” During Turgenev’s time, duels gradually began to become a thing of the past. The novel shows that not all the rules of the fight are observed, but they are trying to follow them. The duel looks ironic. In the novel, the duel is a turning point: after the duel, Bazarov goes to his parents and dies there. During Turgenev's time, duels gradually began to become a thing of the past. The novel shows that not all the rules of the fight are observed, but they are trying to follow them. The duel looks ironic. In the novel, the duel is a turning point: after the duel, Bazarov goes to his parents and dies there.
Sinkwine. 1 line. Topic or subject (one noun) 2nd line. Description of the item (2 adj. or adverb) 3 line. Characteristics of the action of the object (3 verbs). 4 line. A phrase of 4 significant words expressing the author’s attitude to the subject. 5 line. A synonym that generalizes or expands the meaning of a topic or subject (one word).
Duel. Dangerous, prohibited. It is necessary to call, prepare, shoot. A duel is a defense of noble honor. Murder. (Oskina Valentina) Duel. Cruel, illegal. Pushes, kills. Upholding honor and dignity. Suicide. (Khizbulaeva Zukhra) Duel. Fierce, courageous. Defends, protects, reconciles. A duel that defends honor. Suicide. (Prokofieva Ekaterina)
Duel. Bloody, fair. They go out, shoot, kill. Duels often happen over trifles. Destruction of fate. (Alexey Makhnov) Duel. Dangerous, deadly, tragic. Makes you suffer, confronts you with death, influences fate. A duel means a competition between two sides. Duel. (Bibyakova Flyura) Duel. Illegal, heartless. They shoot, survive, die. It's a pointless thing to die in vain. Suicide. (Belova Ksenia)
Duel. Cruel, noble. Pushes, kills. Why is all this needed? Struggle. (Petrova Yulia) Duel. Bloody, terrible. Confronts, strikes, protects. A way to protect noble honor. Death. (Usov Sergey) Duel. Noble, but unnecessary. Confronts, strikes, defends honor. Even if you don't want to, you have to. Fight (competition). (Andrey Kolesnikov)
The duel originated in the 16th century as a way of personal settling scores. This out-of-the-ordinary ritual continued to exist even during the Age of Enlightenment, which glorified reason. The tradition of the duel was not destroyed by the Great French Revolution, which broke a lot.
It is known that in Europe in the 19th century, dueling was widespread. The exception was England, where fist fights were allowed, but fights with a sword or pistol were prohibited.
Each country has its own dueling traditions. The French used swords as weapons, and at the first drop of blood the duel stopped. After all, the purpose of this fight is to defend honor, and not to commit murder. At the same time, the Germans fought a duel much less often, but their competitions were more bloody. (One French critic likened the German duel to a clash of mechanisms.) Some well-established rules of the duel are also known. For example, pistol fighting takes place at dawn, sword fighting at sunset. However, historical literature does not provide sufficient detail on this topic. And to understand how the duel transformed over time, it is best to turn to fiction.
I had no idea how many works referenced the duel tradition in European literature until I came across John Leigh's study (Touché: The Duel in Literature, Harvard University Press, 2015). The duel was reflected in poetry (“Eugene Onegin”), novels (“The Three Musketeers”), and plays (“Sid”). And not only romantic, but also rational discourse presents scenes of duels. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Heinrich Heine, even Goethe themselves went out to duel. Maupassant, who called the duel “the last of our stupid traditions,” wrote a famous short story on this topic and also participated in the duel. Fans of Jules Verne will certainly remember the duel scene on the train from the novel Around the World in 80 Days. However, few people know that Victor Hugo was criticized for the enchanting depiction of a duel in one of his theater plays.
Russian literature, of course, abounds in tragic examples of duels. Pushkin did not limit himself to the duel scene in his famous poem “Eugene Onegin” (it is impossible to imagine the poem without it), but he himself died in a duel. The dramatic fate of this Russian classic was described in the poem “The Death of a Poet” by Lermontov, who a few years later would be killed in a duel with one shot. It can be said that this romantic attitude towards the tradition of dueling fed the poet’s blood.
The most colorful duel story in our literature tells how Yahya Kemal ( Turkish poet, writer of the 20th century - approx. lane) challenged two of his colleagues to a duel - Yakup Kadri and Falih Rıfkı. As Kadri recalls, one day a young man found him in his office at work and handed him a letter with “strange” content: “Send seconds, choose a weapon.” Later it turned out that Falih Ryfki received exactly the same letter. So, Yahya Kemal invited two of his friends to a duel. Fortunately, the challenge was not taken seriously and the duel did not take place.
While I was reading Touché, I came across the recently published indictment of the investigation into the anti-corruption operations of December 17-25 ( in this act, the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey is regarded as an attempted coup, behind which stands the Gülen Jamaat - approx. lane). This document noted: “The “parallel state” challenged the real state to a duel. Who said that there is no tradition of dueling in this country? Judging by the fact that this conclusion resembles not so much a legal text as a poorly written science fiction novel, we considered it necessary to draw attention to it within the framework of this article.
Çetin Altan said that in our lands there is no tradition of dueling, but rather it is about “ambushing” instead of a fair fight ( Turkish writer, journalist - approx. lane). These words, of course, contain an Orientalist view, but some truth is undeniable. Without a doubt, the meaning of the duel is incomprehensible to us.
For example, cowards and criminals are not challenged to a duel: they will not follow the rules, they will be concerned about saving lives, not honor. A true duelist throws down the gauntlet because he prefers death to a shameful life. He does not resort to cunning when appointing seconds, and agrees to the chosen weapon. Duelists are courageous, they can only hurt each other.
Perhaps the best lines about the duel were written by Cemal Süreya ( Turkish poet, writer of the 20th century - approx.): “A duel is always something more. It's more than pain. This is more than death and the fear of death." There is no place in a duel for someone who does not look his counterpart in the eyes. As literature teaches us, a duel occurs only between noble people.
Duel as a tragedy: "Eugene Onegin" and "Hero of Our Time"
In the 1960s - early 1970s. writer Andrei Bitov created the novel “Pushkin’s House”, first published in the West in 1978. One of the chapters of the novel depicts a parody, “buffoonish” duel between two heroes-philologists - Leva Odoevtsev, a native of an aristocratic family, and his antagonist and evil genius Mitishatiev . Two enemy-friends are employees of the Leningrad Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House), in the premises of which the duel takes place: Odoevtsev and Mitishatiev “shoot” with museum pistols, of course, without bullets and gunpowder. For credibility and credibility, Mitishatiev inserted a smoking cigarette into the trunk of one of them. Both “combatants” were drunk (it happened during the November holidays), the “duel” ended successfully.
The chapter of “The Pushkin House”, dedicated to the fake duel, opens with a long series of epigraphs - from the poetry of Baratynsky and Pushkin’s “The Shot” to Fyodor Sologub’s novel “The Little Demon” (1902). The first epigraphs (Baratynsky, Pushkin, “Hero of Our Time” by Lermontov) talk about real fights, about a bloody “matter of honor.” Then there are some increasingly strange duels ("Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev, "Demons" by Dostoevsky, "Duel" by Chekhov). Either the heroes don’t know the rules, or they approach the fight with deadly irony. This spectacular series of epigraphs ends with a quarrel from Sologub’s novel, where instead of the summoning ritual there is vulgar abuse, and “Lepage’s fatal trunks” (“Eugene Onegin”) are replaced with a well-aimed spit in the face:
“I don’t care about you,” Peredonov said calmly.
-You won’t spit! – Varvara shouted.
“But I’ll spit it out,” said Peredonov.
“A pig,” Varvara said quite calmly, as if the spit had refreshed her... “Really, a pig.” Hit him right in the face...
“Don’t yell,” said Peredonov, “guests.”
In the literary history of the Russian duel there are three interconnected episodes: the duel of Onegin with Lensky, the duel of Pechorin with Grushnitsky and the duel of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov with Yevgeny Bazarov. The first two “cases” are serious, the third duel is a parody. (It is no coincidence that Bitov quotes the description of the duel from “A Hero of Our Time” and immediately after that turns to a scene from Turgenev’s novel.)
The duel from Pushkin's novel in verse is strange, but this strangeness does not exclude the tragedy of what is happening
Onegin brought his French servant Guillot as a second to the duel with Lensky. By choosing a servant to play the role of his second, Eugene boldly violated the unwritten dueling code: duels, as matters of honor, took place only between nobles (the first duels with the participation of commoners date back only to the middle of the 19th century), and the seconds also had to belong to the noble class. It happened, by the way, that some time after the end of one duel, the former seconds converged on a new duel. A. S. Griboedov had a chance to take part in such a duel: in November 1817, he was a second of Count A. P. Zavadovsky in a duel with V. V. Sheremetev (the exchange of shots ended with Sheremetev being mortally wounded), less than a year later he himself shot with the second the late A.I. Yakubovich and was wounded in the arm.
Onegin’s demonstrative violation of dueling rules is obviously no coincidence: Pushkin’s hero not only shows disrespect for Lensky’s second, a nobleman, retired officer Zaretsky: in this way, Eugene may be trying to prevent the duel. If Zaretsky had been more scrupulous and less bloodthirsty, he would have called off the duel.
The servant appears as a second (and the only one!) at the duel between Kirsanov and Bazarov: “The morning was glorious, fresh;<…>fine dew fell on the leaves and grass, shining silver on the cobwebs<…>". When the servant, valet Peter, approached, "Bazarov<…>revealed to Peter what fate he expected from him. The educated footman was scared to death, but Bazarov reassured him with the assurance that he would have nothing to do but stand at a distance and watch, and that he would not be subject to any responsibility. “Meanwhile,” he added, “think about the important role that awaits you!” Peter spread his arms, looked down and, all green, leaned against the birch tree."
The choice of Onegin, who made a servant, a “hired lackey” (Yu.M. Lotman), a second, was insulted by Lensky’s second, Zaretsky. “Even though he’s an unknown person, // But he’s certainly an honest guy,” answered Evgeniy. In Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” another duelist, Bazarov, who, obviously, not by chance, is also called Evgeniy, calmly explained to Pyotr Petrovich Kirsanov the essence of the matter, and his words resemble the explanation given by Onegin to Zaretsky: “He is a man who stands at the height of modern education , and will fulfill his role with everything necessary in such cases comme il faut.” Zaretsky, a nobleman, but in no way claiming, unlike Kirsanov, to be a special aristocracy, “bit his lip” with dissatisfaction, but did not dare to enter into an argument with Onegin. And Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, who recognizes himself as a bearer of aristocratic traditions, agreed with Bazarov’s arguments without a shadow of a doubt.
“Would you like to load it?” asked Pavel Petrovich, taking pistols out of the box.
No, you charge, and I will measure the steps. “My legs are long,” Bazarov added with a grin. One two Three…"
The fresh morning, when a strange duel takes place between Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov, brings to mind the description of another “pre-duel” morning - from the novel “A Hero of Our Time”: “I don’t remember a bluer and fresher morning.<…>How curiously I peered into every dewdrop fluttering on a wide grape leaf and reflecting millions of rainbow rays<...>"- Pechorin so greedily peers at objects, at the details of the natural world that surround him and, perhaps, that he sees for the last time. The nihilist Bazarov, who does not know how to surrender to the contemplation of nature, is constantly possessed by the thought of the absurdity, the absurdity of what will soon happen : “What a comedy we pulled off! Learned dogs dance like that on their hind legs.” Apparently, Evgeny remembered Khlestakov’s servant Osip, who admired these four-legged artists of St. Petersburg theaters.
Bazarov sarcastically drops “I deign” in response to his opponent’s eloquent remark: “Deign to choose.” But Kirsanov is serious, as he says: “I do not deny the strangeness of our fight, but I consider it my duty to warn you that I intend to fight seriously.”
In Lermontov’s novel, the scene of action is as follows: “The area on which we were supposed to fight depicted an almost regular triangle. They measured six steps from the protruding corner and decided that the one who would be the first to meet enemy fire would stand at the very corner with his back to the abyss; if he will not be killed, then the opponents will change places."
The fight should take place at six steps, that’s what Pechorin and Grushnitsky decided. The conditions are deadly!.. Pavel Petrovich in “Fathers and Sons” suggests a greater distance: “a barrier of ten steps.” Bazarov is ironic:
“-Ten steps? That’s right, we hate each other at this distance.
“You can have eight,” noted Pavel Petrovich.
It’s possible, why not!
Shoot twice; and just in case, everyone should put a letter in his pocket in which he blames himself for his death.
“I don’t agree with this,” said Bazarov. “It sounds a little like a French novel, something is implausible.”
The size of the distance as a measure of the hatred of rivals - in Lermontov this is indeed the case. (Of the three literary duels, the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky is the only one in which both participants consciously lead the matter to a bloody conclusion.) And in Turgenev, Bazarov destroys the entire meaning of this measure with one sarcastic remark.
Continue reading
“Hero of our time”: “Grushnitsky began to approach and, at a given sign, began to raise his pistol. His knees were shaking. He aimed straight at my forehead.
An inexplicable rage began to boil in my chest."
And now "Fathers and Sons". Very similar: “He’s aiming right at my nose,” thought Bazarov, “and how diligently he squints, the robber!”
Not only Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, but also Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov, is not lacking in masculinity, as even such a reader and critic, who did not sympathize with Turgenev’s nihilist, as M.N., admitted. Katkov: “In no situation does he seem funny or pathetic; he comes out of everything with some dignity. His courage is<…>courage is not fake, but completely natural. He remains completely calm under the bullet, and the author, not content with the impression of external appearance, makes us look into his soul, and we really see that the death that swept over his head made no more impression on him than a buzzing fly" (M. N. Katkov. Turgenev’s novel and his critics (1862) // Criticism of the 60s of the 19th century. M., 2003. P. 141).
Lermontov's novel again: Grushnitsky shot. “The shot rang out. The bullet grazed my knee. I involuntarily took a few steps forward to quickly move away from the edge.” Now it’s Pechorin’s turn. He aimed accurately and did not miss.
And here is "Fathers and Sons". Bazarov “stepped again and, without aiming, pressed the spring. Pavel Petrovich trembled slightly and grabbed his thigh with his hand. Streams of blood flowed down his white trousers.”
Bazarov hurried to the wounded man. “-All this is nonsense... I don’t need anyone’s help,” said Pavel Petrovich with emphasis, “and... I need... again... - He wanted to pull his mustache, but his hand weakened, his eyes rolled back, and he lost consciousness.” .
Duel as a farce and duel as nonsense: "Fathers and Sons" and "War and Peace"
"Finita la comedy!" - Pechorin summed up what happened with these words. A comedy, or rather a parody, a travesty of fights from “Eugene Onegin” and from “A Hero of Our Time” is actually the third duel - the duel of Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov with Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Pushkin killed Lensky, Lermontov sent Grushnitsky to his forefathers. (These characters, we note in parentheses, are similar not only in the sad ending of their short lives: both are young, both suffer from the youthful disease of romance and exaltation; both are called “-skiy/tskiy,” and both fell victims of a friend’s hand.) And Turgenev regretted Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov: shot him in a semi-soft place with a Bazarov pistol, and only... Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, a man of the thirties, is the same age as Pechorin. And he behaves like Lermontov’s character: like Grigory Alexandrovich, he dresses elegantly, like Pechorin and Grushnitsky combined, he wants to kill his rival. He aims at the forehead (“at the nose,” - the nihilist Bazarov reduces the dramatic pathos of the scene) at the enemy, like Grushnitsky, but receives a slight wound in the leg, like Pechorin. Only Pechorin's light wound ("scratch") was dangerous, for he stood on the edge of the merciless Caucasian abyss and even from a minor wound could fall down. And behind Kirsanov are Russian birch trees: if I don’t want to fall, you won’t hurt yourself. And the wound is kind of funny: not the knee was scratched, like Pechorin’s, but the thigh was hit by a bullet. And it was not a combat officer, who was Grushnitsky, who fired, but a “shtafirka”, medic Bazarov. And Pavel Petrovich, who was in military service in the past, missed... After which, like a seventeen-year-old young lady, he fell - not into a mountain crevice. To faint.
The duel between Onegin and Lensky is actually a meaningless event. The overly jealous Vladimir is to blame. He called Onegin, but he had nothing to do: “But wildly secular enmity // Afraid of false shame.” If Onegin had refused the duel, he would have been known as an insignificant coward.
It’s not the same with Pechorin and Grushnitsky: the hatred of a bad copy for the original and the hatred of the original for a parody of it is strong. But upon calm reflection, Pechorin asks the question: why does he cherish hatred for this insignificant half-boy?
Onegin did not want a duel and did not intend to kill his opponent; Pechorin strove for a duel and shot his opponent not by accident. However, despite this difference, both recognized the duel as a cultural institution, as a ritual, as a matter of honor. Meanwhile, Bazarov answers Pavel Petrovich’s question about his attitude towards the duel in a completely different way, without any beating around the bush. “Here’s my opinion,” he said, “from a theoretical point of view, a duel is absurd; but from a practical point of view, it’s a different matter.” Another, because otherwise Evgeniy is threatened with blows from Kirsanov’s stick.
The figure of the “witness”, Peter’s valet, adds a particularly comic element to what is happening. True, Onegin also brought a servant with him. But, as has already been said, with intent, it is true, to upset the fight. If Zaretsky had been more pedantic in the execution of dueling rules, Lensky would have married Olga Larina, would have worn a quilted robe and written brilliant poetry...
And Turgenev has a strange, indeed absurd duel: one of the rivals, contrary to the dueling code, is not equal to the other. Bazarov may be a nobleman (his father had to serve the hereditary nobility, which commentators on Turgenev’s novel usually forget), but his sense of self and self-awareness is by no means noble. But defending honor in a duel is characteristic of a nobleman. Kirsanov despises the “plebeian” Bazarov, but challenges him to a duel, as if he were his equal. The nihilist Bazarov sees the absurdity in the duel, but participates in this ritual. No one dies, and one of the two rivals ends up in the role of a patient, and the other - a doctor.
Your time has passed, gentlemen aristocrats, the duel has turned into a farce! And what kind of fights there were before: Onegin against Lensky, Pechorin against Grushnitsky!.. And the names were so sonorous, literary. And Onegin’s name - “Eugene” - in Greek “noble”, his nobility emphasizes...
In "Fathers and Sons" there is a dueling farce on stage, and the backdrop is a parody of literary settings from Pushkin's novel in verse and from Lermontov's novel in prose.
A case that stands out is the duel in “War and Peace” by L. N. Tolstoy. An “absolutely civilian” man, Pierre Bezukhov, seriously wounds a professional duelist, Breter Dolokhov, who misses his opponent, although the confused Count Bezukhov does not even try to shield himself from the pistol shot and turn sideways to the enemy. Turgenev was also wounded by a military man, Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, by a civilian, medic Bazarov. In "Fathers and Sons" the unexpected outcome of the duel is intended to testify to the death of the duel as a ritual of a passing era. In "War and Peace" the duel is interpreted differently. It is absurd in its own way, meaningless, but not as an archaic phenomenon, but like any ritual, like any action endowed with exclusively symbolic meaning. Like an opera, the strangeness of which is initially keenly felt by Tolstoy’s “natural heroine” Natasha Rostova. The unexpected outcome of the duel in the context of the novel appears as indisputable evidence of the role of Fate: Fate, under the guise of chance, directs Pierre’s bullet and deflects Dolokhov’s bullet from him, just as it destined the defeat of the Russians at Austerlitz and is preparing the fall of Napoleon in the future. In the world of Tolstoy's novel, Fate, or Providence, writes the script not only for the “big History”, but also for the events of private life. And it determines what true defeat or victory is. Count Bezukhov, who only recently hated Dolokhov, should, it would seem, feel satisfaction. But no: “Pierre grabbed his head and, turning back, went into the forest, walking entirely in the snow and uttering incomprehensible words out loud.
-Stupid... stupid! Death... lies... - he repeated, wincing" (vol. 2, part 1, chapter V).
© All rights reserved
The duel as a social phenomenon of an entire era is one of the problems raised in classical literature. In order to give it an objective assessment today, one should perceive this phenomenon from the standpoint of the characteristics of the era, the moral and aesthetic values of the time.
Writers of the 19th century perceived a duel as the only and in many ways natural way to defend their honor, their noble and officer dignity. However, very often in the works of this time one can trace the idea of the meaninglessness and cruelty of a duel.
In the novel “Eugene Onegin,” a duel becomes a phenomenon that contradicts the hero’s inner world. Only society’s idea of honor forces Evgeniy, “loving the young man with all his heart,” to still accept Lensky’s challenge:
And here is public opinion!
Spring of honor, our idol!
And that's what the world revolves on.
Before the duel, Onegin slept peacefully all night, in contrast to Lensky. Evgeniy is late to the place of the fight, which demonstrates his attitude towards this event: this is not indifference, but a reluctance to destroy an innocent person because of an empty formality. By lot, Onegin gets to shoot before Lensky. He kills the young poet. This event was a real shock for the hero, marking the beginning of his rebirth, a rethinking of all life values.
Thus, in his novel, Pushkin reflects on human relationships, talks about the value of life, about the meaninglessness of the invented and feigned noble idea of \u200b\u200bhonor.
M. Yu. Lermontov gives a different description of the duel. In “A Hero of Our Time,” this is the only way to punish the slanderer Grushnitsky, a man for whom the concept of honor does not exist. At first, Pechorin was ready to give up his shot if his opponent admitted his guilt. But Grushnitsky refuses: “Shoot! - he answered, “I despise myself, but I hate you!” If you don’t kill me, I’ll stab you at night from around the corner. There is no place for the two of us on earth!..” Pechorin shoots and kills Grushnitsky.
In Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” the cause of the duel between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a clash in the life positions of two generations. Pavel Petrovich, as a representative of the passing century, cannot accept Bazarov’s views. He feels that dramatic changes are taking place in society, and such a concept as “continuity of generations” is disappearing. Arguing with a young man does not give the desired result. Pavel Petrovich cannot shake Bazarov's moral foundations. The conflict between generations results in a duel. Bazarov emerges as the winner: he wounds Kirsanov, but immediately helps him himself. This duel becomes a symbolic duel between two generations, but it ends in nothing. Turgenev shows that this dispute should be resolved peacefully, through compromise, not hostility.
The duel in the works of the 19th century is presented from different sides, which indicates an ambiguous attitude towards this phenomenon by Russian writers.