Duel works. Report at the scientific conference "the theme of the duel in Russian literature"
STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
MOSCOW CITY EDUCATION CENTER № 1499
OF THE NORTH-EASTERN 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
Duel Functions in Fiction page 8
Duel Grinev and Shvabrin pp. 9 – 12
Duel of Onegin and Lensky pp. 13 – 19
Duel Pechorin and Grushnitsky pp. 20 - 26
Introduction. Rationale for the choice of topic pp. 2 – 3
History of duels pp. 4 – 7
Main part.
Conclusion pp. 27 – 32
List of references page 33
INTRODUCTION
Ages are passing quickly
The duel will disappear until the end.
And that's for the best, perhaps...
But, my God, how difficult it will be,
Oh my God, how difficult it will be
Call the insolent to answer,
Call the insolent to the answer!
Song of Aramis from k / f
"D Artagnan and the Three Musketeers"
I need my name and honor
were inviolable in all corners of Russia.
A.S. Pushkin
The topic of my essay - "Duel in Russian literature" - I chose not by chance. The cruel (wild, cynical?) mores of our time makes us pay attention to the protection of the honor and dignity of a person.
Honor ... Unfortunately, today we do not hear this word too often. They say that it has lost its true meaning for the people of the 21st century, turning into a set of meaningless sounds. And although sometimes we pronounce it, more often - to make spectacular high-sounding speeches and give them beauty and sophistication, but, alas, we too rarely think about the deep meaning that this word denotes. But before, in the days of valiant knights and beautiful ladies, they preferred to part with 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 protect the good name (= dignity) of his family, and died, but from his words: “ And my honor was the first treasure"- did not back down ...
Today, in response to overt rudeness, we hear “practical” advice: “Don’t get involved! It will cost you more!” It turns out that you can insult a person and not bear a fair punishment. It turns out that it is possible with impunity to trample into the dirt 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 in 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 will not believe it, but I really want dueling to be revived. Probably the only way to call to account the insolent»…
Of course, it is not for me alone that unsullied 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 to work on the abstract, I set myself a number of tasks:
Learn the meaning of the word duel.
Tell about the duel as the only possible way to protect offended honor and humiliated dignity.
Determine, based on Russian classical literature, the place of dueling fights in the composition of works.
Find out whether the duel has an impact on the further fate of literary heroes.
Indicate the reasons why one of the opponents allowed deliberate violations in the duel.
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 to the last will remain standing,
As long as he can pull the trigger
And dance in the sacred battle dance ...
E. Evtushenko
The 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 the history of human tragedies, painful deaths, high impulses and moral falls.
Word " duel”, according to V.I. Dahl has two meanings:
First, broad: single combat, duel».
Second, narrower: Conditional duel, with already known rituals on call».
We find a similar interpretation of this word in the explanatory dictionary of S.I. Ozhegova: "... in a noble society: armed struggle of two opponents in the presence of seconds as a way to protect honor»; And " struggle, competition between two sides.
In its original, classical sense DUEL- This " a pair fight taking place according to certain rules, with the aim of restoring honor, removing the shameful stain caused by an insult from an offended ..., 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 time of the origin of the classical duel in Western Europe can be attributed to the late Middle Ages, around the 14th century.
The duel has its own history. Its origins are found in jousting tournaments typical of the European Middle Ages; then the knights started fights for the sake of demonstrating courage and strength - and, as a rule, in the name of the Beautiful Lady. For the most part, the opponents did not feel any enmity towards each other, moreover, they could be strangers to each other and could speak incognito, i.e. in masks. The winner was crowned with an award. It was believed that the victory is gained not by the force of arms, but by the power of truth: God himself condemns the guilty and helps the right. The defeat only served as a decisive proof of guilt and suggested further punishment in accordance with the gravity of the deed. The name of the vanquished was covered with shame and dishonor. Over time, chivalry lost its authority, but the custom of an open duel was preserved, although its function changed.
It is believed that the birthplace of the duel is Italy. For young noble Italians, the means of revenge for imaginary and real grievances increasingly became a fight with weapons in their hands, the rules of which were very far from knightly. The Italians called it the "duel in the bush" or "battle of predators." The first name indicated the seclusion of the place where the "showdown" took place. The second name reflects the essence of such a fight: fight to the death and without mercy. 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 in order to protect oneself from chopping blows.
The duel spread especially widely 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 common soldiers and university students to nobles and titled persons. Participation in the duel began to be considered good form, for young nobles it became a kind of extreme sport, dangerous entertainment, a way to attract attention. The French brought innovations to the duel, including the participation of seconds. Those, on the one hand, monitored compliance with the rules, but could also intervene in the collision. A quarrel between two arrogant nobles over a trifling matter could now develop into a real battle, in which sometimes a dozen people participated on each side. Only in the 20 years of the reign of Henry IV (1589-1610) in duels, according to contemporaries, from 8 to 12 thousand French nobles died. During the same time, 7 thousand royal "pardons" were issued to the participants in the clashes.
Motives and reasons for a duel
If the 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 - " sit on a fly's paw”, as contemporaries wrote about the duel of Baron Louis de Clermont de Amboise de Bussy. Once he got into a fight, arguing about the shape of the pattern on the curtains. And Francois de Montmorency-Boutville challenged a man to a duel just because one lady called him more dexterous than he. They fought over a place in a church, at a ball or a royal reception, arguing over whose hunting dog is better, whose lands are more fertile. The honor of a lady, for example, should always be defended. The formal reason for the duel, as a rule, was the accusation of lying.
dueling rules
Clear dueling rules did not exist, and could not exist, because. duels were forbidden by law. The first dueling rules did not particularly restrict opponents. They allowed the use of throws and grabs, kicks and punches - in a word, the whole arsenal of street fights. However, it was considered extremely vile to throw earth into the eyes of the enemy or fill his mouth with sand.
Gradually, noble ideas about nobility penetrated into the dueling code. Now victory could only be achieved by means of weapons, since a blow with a “bare hand” dishonored a nobleman. The nobility should not fight "like some bumpkins." Of course, it was forbidden to seize someone else's weapons. If the cartel was handed over by a friend of the challenger to a duel, then he became a second. He was also allowed to participate in the duel. At the same time, he was the guarantor of the honor of the one who challenged him to a duel, i.e. vouched that a duel awaited in the indicated place, and not an ambush. Therefore, if the challenge was transmitted through a lackey or a servant, the person who received it had every right to either refuse the duel, or to appoint his 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 Scot Patrick Gordon (later Peter's general) and the Englishman Major Montgomery. But at that time, this custom had not yet penetrated into the Russian environment. However, isolated cases forced Princess Sophia (sister of Peter the Great), in a decree of October 25, 1682, which allowed all service people of the Moscow State to carry personal weapons, to stipulate a ban on duels. Peter the Great, a supporter of the European way of life, sharply opposed duels, forbidding 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 in deeds and my thoughts,” recalled that his father considered the duel “ act against conscience and taught him: We live under the laws, and it is a shame, having such sacred defenders, what are the laws, to understand on our own fists or swords, for swords and fists are one, and a challenge to a duel is nothing more than an act of violent youth". Let us also recall how Pyotr Grinev, the hero of Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter", was scolded for a duel with Shvabrin by his father Andrei Petrovich Grinev in his letter: "... I am going to get to you and for your leprosy to teach you a lesson like a boy, despite your officer rank: for you have proved that you are not yet worthy to wear a sword, which was granted to you for the defense of the fatherland, and not for duels with the same tomboys like yourself».
And, nevertheless, duels gradually more and more penetrated into the environment of Russian noble youth. And the reason here was not so much " spirit of wild youth”, in which law-abiding fathers disapprovingly reproached children, how much the formed sense of honor and personal dignity, which developed gradually, with the development of education and class education, and intensified with each new generation. The youth of the nobility, still faithful to the oath and the throne, did not allow the state to interfere in matters of honor. Later, this formula was succinctly and concisely expressed by General Kornilov in his life credo: “ Soul - to God, heart - to a woman, duty - to the Fatherland, honor - to no one».
Duels reached their 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 and the “Charter of the Military Criminal” of 1839, published under Nicholas I, which obligated military commanders “ try to reconcile those who quarrel and provide satisfaction to the offended by recovering from the offender". Nicholas I himself treated duels with disgust, his words are known: “ I hate duel. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing knightly about her.". It was in the 20-40s of the XIX century that the high-profile duels of Pushkin with Dantes, Ryleev with Prince Shakhovsky, Griboedov with Yakubovich, Lermontov with Lieutenant Martynov fell.
And nothing helped the authorities in the fight against duelists! Neither a transfer to the active army in the Caucasus (as was the case with Lermontov for a duel with de Barante), nor - in the event of a fatal outcome - a demotion from officers to privates (as was the case with Dantes after a 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 fight to the death
sometimes they shot, standing alternately with their backs at the edge of the abyss, so that in the event of a hit, the enemy would not survive (recall the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky in Princess Mary).
A paradox: when the number of duels in Russia finally began to decline due 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 sharply increases. For comparison: from 1876 to 1890, only 14 cases of officer duels reached the court (in 2 of them, the opponents were acquitted); 322 duels took place between 1894 and 1910. Every year there were from 4 to 33 fights in the army (on average - 20). According to General Mikulin, from 1894 to 1910, 4 generals, 14 staff officers, 187 captains and staff captains, 367 junior officers, 72 civilians participated in officer duels as opponents. Of the 99 insult duels, 9 ended in a severe outcome, 17 were slightly injured, and 73 were bloodless. Of the 183 duels for severe insult, 21 ended in a severe outcome, 31 - with a slight injury and 131 - without bloodshed.
The duel was preserved at the beginning of the 20th century. Ilya Ehrenburg 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 for which Voloshin was a great master; during the duel, 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 one who called for the duel fired, and not the one who called - otherwise the duel was not recognized as valid, but only a farce, since none of the opponents endangered themselves.
Then other times came. The best representatives of the Russian intelligentsia and officers, with their scrupulous notions of personal honor, found themselves in a foreign land. In the proletarian state, such concepts as honor and duty were at first generally declared to be remnants of the exploitative past. Duels were replaced by denunciations, nobility was replaced by the fanaticism of some and the prudence of others.
FUNCTIONS OF THE DUEL IN ART LITERATURE
It doesn't matter that you were accidentally hurt,
It doesn't matter that you're not a bully at all,
And the important thing is that there are still duels in the world,
On which this fragile world rests.
It doesn't matter that you are not killed in the end,
It doesn't matter that your anger was in vain,
And the important thing is that there are still grievances in the world,
Forgive which the offender can not.
It doesn't matter what makes you sick from a stupid posture,
It doesn't matter that you are not a master of shooting,
And the important thing is that there are still questions in the world,
Solving which is possible only in this way.
It doesn't matter if there's no reason to duel
It does not matter that the quarrel came out because of the ladies,
And the important thing is that there are still men in the world,
Who are ashamed to drag around the courts.
Leonid Filatov
Writers of the 19th century perceived the 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 senselessness and cruelty of the duel.
For what purpose did writers and poets of the century before last use the motif of a duel in their works? According to critics, the duel may have served several important functions in fiction:
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 fate of the main characters of the work.
In three works of the 19th century - novels by A.S. Pushkin "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, the 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 fates 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 GRINEV AND SHVABRIN
Take care of honor from a young age ...
A.S. Pushkin, The Captain's Daughter
Roman A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter" tells about the historical events of the late eighteenth century. At this time, Russia was engulfed by the Pugachev uprising. But the main thing for the author was not only the desire to tell about this event, but also - and this is the most important thing - to show how people behave in non-standard, extraordinary situations, at moments of the 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 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 in order 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. Following their fates, we can understand what the honor of an officer, human dignity means, and find out what reasons served as a pretext for a duel that occupies not the last (although not the main, as in "Eugene Onegin") place in this novel.
The first part tells about the childhood of Petrusha Grinev and his arrival in the Belogorsk fortress, where the upbringing of the boy was entrusted to the French tutor and serf Savelich. " I lived underage, chasing pigeons and playing leapfrog with the yard boys”, Grinev says about his childhood. The stern father sends the still very young Pyotr Andreevich 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 wild life, not thinking about tomorrow, although he is sometimes ashamed of his behavior and sometimes even asks for forgiveness from Savelich. 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 he received a good education, but for some reason he immediately arouses antipathy among readers. Perhaps one of the reasons for this dislike lies in the fact that Shvabrin was transferred to the Belogorsk fortress for " homicide"(In a duel in the capital, he stabbed a lieutenant). And another reason is that over the five years of service in the fortress, Shvabrin was never able to make real friends: it’s not for nothing that he immediately tries to establish friendly relations with the arrived 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 caustic and mocking, he tries to ridicule everything and everyone around him. That is why it becomes more and more difficult for Grinev to communicate with him: “ I saw Shvabrin every day; but hour by hour his conversation became less agreeable to me. I really did not like his constant jokes about the commandant's family, especially his sharp remarks about Marya Ivanovna».
Grinev falls in love with the daughter of the head of the fortress - Masha Mironova, writes poetry to her. And he shows his "creations" to Shvabrin. And the cunning and prudent Shvabrin criticizes these verses and laughs at them: “ Then he took a notebook from me and began mercilessly to 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 does not need an opponent. Shvabrin is a vile person. Behind Masha's back, he speaks of her as " complete fool". In fact, these dirty gossip is revenge on the girl for refusing. 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 insulted twice (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 to Shvabrin quite worthy of attention. 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 an enemy of Shvabrin. And this hostile feeling of rejection will be noticeable literally until the last pages of the novel, including during the duel.
It should be noted that the very “process” of preparing for a duel is depicted in the novel somewhat ironically, although the description of the duel itself is devoid of any kind of mockery and 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 an epigraph to the chapter "Duel", taken from a poem by Knyazhnin:
Ying if you please, stand in positivity.
Look, I'll pierce your figure!
A.S. Pushkin describes in sufficient detail the events preceding the duel. In the eyes of Petr Grinev, the preparation for the fight and the search for a second look extremely important, because he is not laughing - he goes to the barrier for the first time! But A.S. Pushkin deliberately reduces the tension of the moment with the help of bright everyday details. So, the candidate for seconds is depicted in the most “non-combat”, even home environment: Ivan Ignatich is sitting “ with a needle in hand" And " strung mushrooms for drying for the winter"! No matter how good a man this old officer is, he is completely unsuited for the role of a second. It's hard to argue with this statement. In no other work will we meet such a “domesticated”, handsome, peace-loving second. How can you not remember the bully Zaretsky, “ ataman's card gang”, but by no means a store of mushrooms for the winter. Or the scrupulous Dr. Werner from the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time". This caustic Mephistopheles (the demon of evil, as Werner called the youth on the waters behind his back) cannot be imagined with a needle in his hands!
Yes, 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 “ goggled his single eye". Why? Yes, because the old officer is a man of a different era, when the dueling code has not yet fully developed. For Ivan Ignatich, the word "duel" is a synonym for the word "fight". For an old officer, a duel is no different from a double fight during the war. Only he is senseless and unrighteous, because his own people are fighting. In his opinion, you need to fight only with enemies and in war.
Ivan Ignatich (and this fact should also be noted) absolutely does not understand the reasons that led Grinev and Shvabrin to the barrier. He changes the word "insult" to the verb " scolded 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 is in your snout, and you are in his ear, in another, in a third - and disperse; and we will reconcile you". Ivan Ignatich offers the nobleman Pyotr Grinev a peasant fistfight: “... he is in your snout, and you are in his ear, in another". The old man sincerely believes that such a showdown can end in peace: “... and we will reconcile you". For him, there is nothing worse than the murder of a person: "... Is it a good deed to stab your neighbor, I dare to 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 am not a hunter myself. Well, what if he drills you? What will it look like?"Pyotr 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 does not enter into the system of his ideas about the norms of military life. Little of, " prudent lieutenant”(as A.S. Pushkin ironically calls him) almost betrayed Grinev: he wanted to report the fight to the commandant without fail:“ Your choice, he said. “If I have to intervene in this matter, is it possible to go to Ivan Kuzmich and inform him on duty that villainy is being planned in the fort that is contrary to the state interest ... ”I was frightened and began to ask Ivan Ignatich not to say anything to the commandant; persuaded him by force; he gave me his word, and I decided to back down from him..
The duel nevertheless took place, for the honor of the nobleman was hurt. Grinev, a man of a new era, in comparison with Ivan Ignatich, could not be satisfied with verbal abuse (this was below 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 portrayed by A.S. Pushkin with a light share of mild irony. We see Pyotr Grinev in the commandant's house and we understand that this almost boy, 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 confessdidn't have that composure , which is almost always boasted by those who were in my position". But Grinev could no longer deviate 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 the duel, otherwise he would have immediately realized that the insidious Shvabrin deliberately violates many of them:
Proposes to hold a duel without seconds (" Why do we need seconds, - he told me dryly, - we can do without them.).
He insists on a second duel.
Inflicts 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, this is a vile blow).
It turns out that for Shvabrin it is more important not just to get satisfaction (i.e. satisfaction) during the duel, but to kill the enemy. Later (I will say this in passing) Shvabrin will write a secret denunciation to Grinev's parents about the fight and so (!!!) will tell about the events that Peter's father will forbid his son to even think about marriage with Marya Ivanovna.
The duel would have ended with Shvabrin bathing in the river, where the victorious Grinev drove him, if not for the sudden appearance of Savelich. And here the lack of seconds allowed Shvabrin to strike a vile blow. It seems to me that Shvabrin had no other choice. He thought that he could easily deal with a youngster in whom " did not expect to find such a dangerous opponent". However, he miscalculated: Grinev was 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 just like that, somehow ingloriously and without result: vice and evil were not punished, and virtue did not triumph. The bastard Shvabrin did not get what he deserved: he only swam in the river and sat for a while " in a bread shop under guard, and his sword lay under the castle at Vasilisa Yegorovna».
Then why is A.S. Pushkin included this episode in the novel? The duel scene played an important role in The Captain's Daughter: it helped the author to show the characters of the main characters in an extreme situation, because at the moment when you are fighting not for life, but for death, it is impossible to dissemble. At this moment, all masks are torn off a person, and we see his true face: the brave appears as a brave man, the scoundrel and scoundrel as a coward.
So, 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". It was this order that the father of the protagonist gave to his son, Pyotr Andreevich Grinev, sending him to military service. Despite youthful frivolity and inexperience, Grinev managed to remain true to his father's covenant even during the duel. The dignified behavior of the protagonist contrasts with the insidious deeds 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 antipodal heroes, they are carriers of two fundamentally different worldviews. For Shvabrin, the word "honor" is an empty phrase. He is very afraid to part with his life and is ready for anything (even meanness) for the sake of his salvation. Subsequently, as we will see, he will forget the oath given to the empress, all the ideals and traditions of the nobility will be forgotten. The duel helped us to make sure that Pyotr Grinev is a man of honor, capable of doing noble and crazy deeds in the name of love. These wonderful qualities of A.S. Pushkin especially highly valued in the old Russian nobility.
DUEL ONEGIN AND LENSKY
The duel of Onegin and Lensky is the most tragic and most mysterious episode of A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin". Why? Yes, because both duelists were not cold-blooded killers either by nature or by the current situation. Onegin - at best " a small scientist, but a pedant”, however, he is not a cold-blooded killer and swindler. There is no indication of this in the novel. Vladimir Lensky - the second participant in this duel - a naive poet and dreamer, 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 drama of a personal order, as well as the author's sincere regret about the death " young poet” force 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 puppet in the hands of a faceless duel ritual?
Thirdly, what caused the duel between the two - " let there be nothing to do!" – friends?
After all, at first everything went perfectly: Lensky introduced Onegin to the Larin family, persuaded Yevgeny to go with him to Tatyana's name day (especially since he knew nothing about Tatyana's letter to Onegin, nor about their explanation in the garden). For the sake of this, Lensky assured Yevgeny that there would be a purely family holiday in a narrow circle of “his own”, that outsiders were not expected at the name day. What is this? Innocent lie? But after all, Lensky knew perfectly well that Onegin could not stand the landlord neighbors with their miserable, tedious conversations. about haymaking, about wine, about the kennel, about your family", that, violating all decency, Onegin defiantly ignores them and openly leaves on the "Don stallion", " only along the main road will hear their homely drogues"(i.e., the sound of the wheels of the landowner's carriages). But Lensky so wanted to do something pleasant for Larin that from the bottom of his heart he deceives his friend a little and does not attach any importance to this deception. Meanwhile, with these randomly thrown words: “And no one, I’m sure!” - a conflict will begin, which will lead, in the end, 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 get “to 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, describing the "dignities" of the guests who have come to them. To see the "Tambov poet" Monsieur Triquet (a telling surname - "beaten with a stick", that is, driven out from everywhere) and hear his insignificant verses copied from the year before last year's magazine, to find out that the main character of the ball is a "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 be in the circle of such people as “county dandy Petushkov” or “Gvozdin, an excellent host, owner of poor peasants”? What could Onegin talk about with the Skotinins, who brought to the ball a whole brood of children “of all ages - from thirty to two years old”? Could he lend a hand to the retired adviser Flyanov, a man with a deadly characteristic: "A heavy gossip, an old rogue, a glutton, a bribe-taker and a jester"?
It is clear that forced communication with them should have seemed insulting to Onegin. In the eyes of a man accustomed to court balls and aristocratic parties, it was just rabble. No wonder Eugene immediately "began to draw caricatures of the guests in his soul." But perhaps most of all, Onegin was pissed off by the fact that he was put in a place of honor - "right against Tanya." So the neighbors-landlords, who had already married Lensky a long time ago, tried to decide the fate of Onegin 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 infuriate Lensky,” he did everything possible for this. And, I must say, he achieved success: Olga's 17-year-old fiancé, furious to the limit, left the ball without saying goodbye to anyone. Of course, Onegin realized that he was wrong when " the evening carelessly played a joke on timid tender love", but it was already 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 are in vain, Lensky continues to persist:
He thinks: “I will be her savior.
I will not tolerate a corrupter
Fire and sighs and praises
I tempted the young heart ... "
Yes, Onegin's joke was too evil and cruel. But the main problem is that Lensky took this joke too seriously. But be that as it may, an inappropriate joke was followed by a challenge to a duel.
It is sometimes said 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 strongly disagree with this statement. Why?
Firstly, the direct refusal to duel at the beginning of the 19th century was regarded in the noble society, as I have already said, as cowardice and as a gross violation of the code of noble honor. And Onegin was decidedly unprepared 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 be to undermine your reputation and forever lose your self-respect. Onegin was now forced to defend his honor so that he would not be called a coward.
Probably, the conflict that arose between Onegin and Lensky could have been settled if not for Vladimir's second. Lensky, considering himself humiliated, asks to become his mediator in the duel not to anyone, but to the most famous (and not from the best side!) Person in those parts - to Zaretsky. Only ignorance of people and life, only youth and inexperience could cause such a strange choice:
Zaretsky, once a brawler,
Ataman of the card gang,
The head of the rake, the tribune of the tavern ...
He used to joke funny
Able to fool the fool
And it's nice to fool a smart one,
Or obviously, or on the sly,
Though he has other things
Did not pass without science,
Even though sometimes he's in trouble
He came across as a simpleton.
He was good at arguing
Sharp and stupid answer
Sometimes prudently silent,
Sometimes prudently quarrel,
Friends quarrel young
And put them on the barrier
,
Or make them reconcile,
To have breakfast for three
ANDafter secretly defame
A funny joke, a lie
…
And such an extremely dishonorable, vile person Lensky wanted to see as his second! In my opinion, this is not just inexperience, this is outright stupidity that does not correspond to Lensky's age! What kind of friendship can we talk about at all, if you think about who Vladimir exchanged Onegin for!
In every word A.S. Pushkin about Zaretsky hate rings, and we cannot but share it. The very name of Zaretsky is reminiscent of Griboedovsky Zagoretsky and his characterization: “ he is a liar, a gambler, a thief ... Beware in his presence: carry much and do not sit down at cards - he will sell! At first, Pushkin’s characterization seems to simply continue Griboedov’s: “once a rowdy, ataman of a gambling gang, head of a rake ...” - but then Pushkin reveals the depths of abomination that even Griboyedov’s hero never dreamed of. How much can be said in two words! " Tribune tavern"! How much causticity and sarcasm in this characterization! Everything is unnatural, anti-human in Zaretsky, and we are no longer surprised by the next stanza, in which it turns out that Zaretsky’s courage “ evil", What " in the ace of the gun He knows how to hit, but:
…in battle
Once in a real rapture
He excelled, boldly into the dirt
Falling off a Kalmyk horse,
Like a drunken zyuzya, and the French
Got captured: a precious pledge!
Numerous "skills" Zaretsky - " to argue merrily, to answer sharply and stupidly, sometimes to remain silent prudently, sometimes to quarrel prudently' are vile and vile. And Lensky instructs Zaretsky to take Onegin " pleasant, noble, short challenge, orcartel". Therefore, Onegin loving the young man with all my heart", was forced to accept the challenge of Lensky.
I note that in itself a challenge to a duel or even the acceptance of a challenge did not mean at all that the duel had to take place without fail. This is where serious violations in the duel begin, which led to the 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 classic and pedant”, as A.S. ironically calls him. Pushkin did not fulfill this direct duty even when he brought the challenge to Onegin:
Zaretsky got up without explanation;
Didn't want to stay
Having a lot to do at home
And immediately went out -
not later, at the place of the duel. He preferred " friends to quarrel the young and put them on the barrier, although it was clear to everyone except eighteen-year-old Lensky that no bloody offense existed. Zaretsky seemed to deliberately ignore everything that could eliminate the bloody outcome.
It was Zaretsky who separated the opponents by 32 steps, placing barriers on " noble distance”, apparently, ten steps, or even less, and did not stipulate in the conditions of the duel that the opponents would 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 who is 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 fail for various reasons. The first - because he sees in it an opportunity to acquire scandalous fame, the second - to demonstrate contempt for the story in which he fell 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 nonchalantly. In the morning, seriously thinking about the consequences of the duel, Onegin took all possible measures to cancel this duel.
Here is how the well-known Pushkin scientist Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman comments on this situation in his articles on “Eugene Onegin” and Russian culture: “ Oneginlate for the duel place by more than an hour - 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, in a duel, social equality was required not only for opponents, but also for seconds. Not to mention thatseconds were not 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 a second . And this is a direct insult to the nobleman Zaretsky.
And of course, Onegin's plans did not include the murder of 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 participated in fights more than once), striving for a bloody outcome, would prefer to give the enemy the opportunity to shoot first, and then call him to the barrier and shoot in cold blood at a stationary target:
Your gun thenEugene
,
Never stop advancing
Became the first to quietly raise
.
Here are five more steps
And Lensky, screwing up his left eye,
He also began to aim - but just
Onegin fired
...
Yu.M. also writes about this. Lotman: " Onegin fired 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 fine“fitted” to the hand - they say that they are so comfortable in the hand, as if they serve as its natural extension, and they hit almost without a miss, but this is if you shoot from a place. On the move, even an experienced shooter will almost never hit the target.».
People familiar with dueling practice understood this very well. So, A.I. Herzen noticed that Onegin was kind to the young man, loved Lensky in his own way and, “ aiming at him, did not even want to hurt". But, since a frank shot up or to the side was contrary to the rules of a duel, Onegin, obviously, aimed at Lensky’s leg, but “ Lepage trunks fatal 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 duel.
After reading the sixth chapter of A.S. Pushkin, we were 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 a certain bravado and ostentatious composure, they obeyed once and for all the established rules. This was the main reason that the society, which Onegin despised, still turned out to be powerful over his actions and soul. Onegin was afraid to seem ridiculous, to become the subject of provincial gossip. Thus, in the duel scene, his behavior is like a pendulum: on the one hand, these are fluctuations between the natural movements of his soul, his human feelings for Lensky, and on the other, the fear of being branded as a jester and a coward, violating the conventional norms of behavior at the barrier.
What about the young poet? dead 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:
Maybe it's for the good of the world
Or at least for glory was born;
His silent lyre
Rattling, continuous ringing
I could lift it for centuries.
Poet, Perhaps, on the degrees of light
Waiting for a high level ...
After all, Pushkin himself also once wrote romantic poems, was frivolous and young. Years, life experience would have made the ardent young man wiser, more serious ... Perhaps he would have found his own way, would have met many wonderful, interesting people, his true love ...
But I hardly believe 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. In literature, there is such a technique: when the author does not know what to do next with the hero, he simply kills him. So did Dumas with D'Artagnan, so Pushkin killed Lensky in a duel. The reason is simple: Pushkin did not want to save Lensky's life and see him in twenty years as a fat and bald landowner. Remember how the novel portrays the possible fate of Lensky if he were alive?
…poet
An ordinary one was waiting for a lot.
The youth of summer would pass away:
In it, the ardor of the soul would have cooled.
He would have changed a lot.
I would part with the muses, get married,
In the village, happy and horned,
Would wear a quilted robe;
Really know life
I would have had gout at forty,
Drank, ate, missed, got fat, sickly,
And finally in your bed
I would die among the children,
Crying 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 Tatyana and Onegin, is, without a doubt, the two most powerful scenes that amaze the reader. Her fatal outcome had terrible consequences for all the heroes of the novel, abruptly changed their fates.
For the fate of Onegin, and all the other heroes of this novel (Tatyana, Olga) the duel turned out to be the starting point for a change in life. Olga suddenly loses her fiancé, and then completely leaves her home with her new husband. Tatyana realized that the duel had forever separated her from Onegin. But what about Onegin? Pushkin does not give us an account of the psychological state of the hero after the murder of Lensky: the reader can only guess about his experiences. Onegin after the murder had to immediately leave his village, " where the bloody shadow appeared to him every day". And it was apparently unsafe to stay in the village: after all, participating in a duel was equated with a serious criminal offense that threatened with serious punishment. This event was a real shock for Eugene Onegin, which marked the beginning of his rebirth, a rethinking of all life values. After the duel, Onegin leaves on a trip for three years and returns a different person. A fatal meeting with Tatyana awaited him, which aroused a deep feeling in a previously so cold soul, but that will all be later.
The duel in Pushkin's novel also plays another very important role. Lensky's death is symbolic. Lensky is a romantic, and, as a romantic, he dies when confronted with real life. Pushkin in the chapters following the description of the duel, say goodbye to romanticism. This is a sad farewell, because it is a farewell to youth. And how beautiful and fleeting youth is, romanticism is just as beautiful, 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 the mature period.
So what is the outcome of this duel? I think, for Onegin, it served as a serious, terrible, but necessary lesson for life. Valuing their chosenness and personal independence, having studied at the “ empty light"to love and cherish friendship, he caused the death of a young man, whom, in general, he did not wish evil. The inability and unwillingness to reckon with the feelings of other people turned out to be a fatal mistake for Onegin. But this could not but teach the hero what he had not been able to do before: to suffer, repent and think…
But readers could also draw the result of this duel. A.S. Pushkin draws a red threadthe thought of the senselessness and cruelty of fights, speaks of the value of every human life, refutes the simulated noble idea of honor... Although ... Although he himself went out for the honor of his wife to the barrier, he himself shot with Dantes ... And this is an insoluble paradox.
DUEL PECHORIN AND GRUSHNITSKY
I wanted to test Grushnitsky;
a spark of generosity could wake up in his soul,
And then everything would work out for the better...
M.Yu. Lermontov, "A 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 goal of the duel. In "A Hero of Our Time", more precisely - in the story "Princess Mary", this is the only way to punish a slanderer for whom there is no concept of honor.
In general, the duel in "Princess Mary" is unlike any other in Russian literature.
First, because the duel usually excludes any deceit. So, Grinev fights honestly with Shvabrin until the last moment, Onegin also shoots Lensky without deception. A duel is a terrible, tragic way of resolving disputes, and its only merit is that it assumes absolute honesty on both sides.
Secondly, here the offender is challenged to a duel not by a hero in love (like Lensky or Grinev), but by the rejected Grushnitsky, to whom the critic S. Shevyryov gave a symbolic description: “ In the full sense of the word, an empty fellow, conceited, loving without love…»
Thirdly, the cause of 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 claiming her attention. Who are these two heroes who do not want to give in 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 at the same time. From that moment, a thin crack lay between them, which, in the end, turned into an abyss.
But how unlike their desire to win Mary's attention! Grushnitsky - a provincial romantic - is seriously fond of the princess. He sees life in some kind of foggy haze. He really wants life to resemble a book novel, and certainly sentimental, 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 examine it, and what? .. Mary's name was carved in small letters on the inside, and next to it is the number of the day when she raised the famous glass.
Pechorin's eternal enemy - boredom - makes him infuriate the princess with various petty antics. He is having fun with Mary. This game gives him pleasure, just as watching the development of relations between Grushnitsky and the princess gives pleasure. It was not difficult for him to seduce Princess Mary. Only a few days passed, and the princess, who had not been able to bear Pechorin's spirit before, was the first to confess her love to him.
Grushnitsky, this parody of Pechorin, would never have been able to get 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 bright character traits as his lucky rival. Grushnitsky's pompous speeches, his irrepressible desire " drape in extraordinary feelings», « passion to recite can only make an initial impression. But magnificent phrases, like a broken record, begin to repeat themselves and become, in the end, simply unbearable.
The more the princess becomes interested in Pechorin (after all, she is much more interested in him than with an ingenuous 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 the narrow road”, comes 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 a duel he could read books, write love poems ... But no. This nonentity chooses a different place for himself on the night before the duel: 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 hand tremble. But we know that Grushnitsky has nothing to fear, nothing to worry about 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 man.
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 makes Pechorin write down in detail what he thought 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 yourself appoint these fatal six steps? You think that I will turn my forehead to you without argument... but we will cast lots!... and then... then... what if his luck outweighs him? if my star finally cheats on me?»
So, Pechorin's first feeling is the same as Grushnitsky's: a desire for revenge. " Let's switch roles», « hoax fails' is what he cares about. Pechorin, in essence, continues his game with Grushnitsky. He brought it to its logical end. But this end is extremely dangerous. Life is at stake - and, above all, his, Pechorin, life! But the hero is strikingly frivolous about his fate: “ Well? to die like this to die: a small loss to the world; yeah i'm pretty bored too". In this harsh phrase there is not even a hint of coquetry on the part of Grigory Alexandrovich. He really got bored of living in this world ...
On the night before the duel, Pechorin, as always, is terribly lonely. With bitterness, he writes in his diary: "... And there will not be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely. Some revere me worse, others better than I really ... Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a bastard. Both will be false. Is it worth living after this? and yet you live - out of curiosity: you expect something new ... Ridiculous and annoying!"The extremely frank diary of Pechorin breaks off at these words, breaks off on the night before the duel ...
On the eve of the fight, Grigory Alexandrovich " didn't sleep for a minute He couldn't write anymore. But as soon as it dawned, his nerves calmed down: I looked in the mirror; dull pallor covered my face, which kept tracesexcruciating insomnia ; Buteyes , though surrounded by a brown shadow,shone proudly and inexorably ».
Critics unanimously call Pechorin an insensitive egoist, a source of misfortune for others. But can a prudent cynic suffer until the morning from " excruciating insomnia"? To suffer not for himself - his death, as we have said, Pechorin is not afraid. Perhaps he was looking for possible ways to "re-educate" Grushnitsky? Who knows! And here " inexorable gleam of eyes"It definitely says that Pechorin nevertheless made some important decision.
Pechorin prepares for the duel soberly and calmly: “... ordering the horses to be saddled ... dressed and ran to the bath ... came out of the bath fresh and cheerful, as if he were 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, the Prince of Darkness) on the waters, is excited about the upcoming duel.
We see the road to the place of the duel again through the eyes of Pechorin. And it's natural. How can the stupid Grushnitsky, who appropriated to himself " someone else's mind”, and other people's passions, to see the beauty of the world around? Whereas Pechorin, accused by literary critics of cruelty and callousness, sincerely admires the nature of the Caucasus: “ I don't remember a bluer and fresher morning! The sun barely emerged from behind the green peaks, and the merging of the first warmth of its rays with the dying coolness of the night inspired some kind of sweet languor on all the senses...»
Everything that he sees on the way to the place of the duel pleases, amuses and revives him, and Pechorin is not ashamed to admit it: “ I remember - this time, more than ever before, I loved nature. How curiously I peered into 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, who is riding nearby, cannot imagine what Pechorin is thinking about:
« We drove in silence.
- Did you write your will? Werner suddenly asked.
- No.
- And if you are killed?
- Heirs will be found 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 concerned not with the state of mind of his friend, but with the question of a will ... It seems to me that Onegin's second was much kinder.
It is worth saying a few words about another second - a dragoon captain, Grushnitsky's second. How similar he is to Zaretsky from the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin" That character was also driven by a vile desire " friends 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. Remorse of conscience is unknown to him, the laws of honor too. Lermontov's contempt for this man is so great that he did not even give him a name: enough of his rank! The role of the dragoon captain in the duel is much more significant than it might seem at first glance. It was he who came up with and carried out this dastardly conspiracy. 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 expose Grushnitsky to ridicule and contempt if he refused to duel. So what was his true purpose? Yes, 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 insulting superiority. How good it would be to present Pechorin as a coward! But the dragoon captain did not want to get dirty himself, and it was dangerous. But Grushnitsky was the best suited for the role of "avenger for everyone": he was too stupid and, like Lensky, did not know how to understand people.
According to the duel code, the seconds were supposed to try to reconcile the opponents before the duel. The dragoon captain, like once Zaretsky, violated this law, Werner complied:
“It seems to me,” he said, “that by showing both of you a readiness to fight and by doing so paying the debt to the conditions of honor, you could, gentlemen, explain yourself and end this matter amicably.
– I'm ready, - said Pechorin».
The dragoon captain did not react in any way to the attempted reconciliation, although he was obliged to do so. Vice versa, " the captain winked 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 led him aside, where they whispered for a long time ... "
If Pechorin really chickened out – this would be 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 refuse the duel only on one condition: if Grushnitsky publicly apologized for slander. Maybe the former cadet would have done just that: in the text of the novel there are details confirming that the young man was still ashamed (“ there was some concern in his eyes», « he was embarrassed, blushed"). But next to him was a dragoon captain, and Grushnitsky was more afraid of him than Pechorin. Or rather, not the captain, but his evil tongue. How can one not recall a phrase from A.S. Griboedova: " Ah, evil tongues are worse than a gun!" The captain personifies the opinion of society, which will mock Grushnitsky with great pleasure if he refuses to duel. Therefore, Grushnitsky refuses Dr. Werner's proposal for reconciliation: “ We will shoot».
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, recalls that one of the opponents " will surely be killed". But in vain. Grushnitsky, blinded by hatred, refuses to listen to reasonable arguments. Or maybe it gives him courage to know that his opponent is unarmed ...
By the way, the conditions of the duel, worked out the day before with the help of the dragoon captain, were more than cruel: it was supposed to shoot at six paces. Grushnitsky and " the whole gang' that suited me just fine. But Pechorin is not. 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 ... Whoever is injured will certainly fly down and shatter into smithereens...»
Still, Pechorin is a very courageous person. Knowing about the mortal danger, he controls himself. Not only that, he confuses his opponents, makes them really scared: one awkward movement and you can fall off the cliff. But Grigory Alexandrovich did not just toughen the conditions of the duel: he put Grushnitsky before a choice - to kill an unarmed man or to disgrace himself. Unfortunately, Grushnitsky again failed to pass the new test of decency...
And Pechorin continues to experiment. Standing at gunpoint, he says to his adversary: 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, say to himself: I warned, 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 to admit such a vile intent?..” And yet, the 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 gun ...
« Suddenly he lowered the muzzle of his pistol and, turning white as a sheet, turned to his second.
– Coward! replied 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 was stronger. Whatever the most noble motives of Pechorin (so that conscience finally wakes up in Grushnitsky), here, on the site, this intriguer won, won meanness. Shot, as recorded by M.Yu. Lermontov, " resounded»…
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 plot failed, and he, Grushnitsky, is disgraced. Even if he had survived, rumors would have spread around the city that the former cadet had shot at an unarmed man. Which means he's a scoundrel.
Fear and impotence to fix anything torment Grushnitsky. And at that moment Pechorin morally “finishes” him: “ Doctor, these gentlemen, probably in a hurry, forgot to put a bullet in my pistol: I ask you to load it again, and!»
Grushnitsky understands with horror: Pechorin knew everything! He knew when he offered to give up slander. Knew when he stood at gunpoint. He 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 signs of the captain. He experiences only a sense of hopeless shame.
I do not see anything unexpected in the behavior of the dragoon captain: until his life was in danger, he was bold and even arrogant. But as soon as Pechorin offered him " shoot on the same terms", How " he hesitated”, and seeing a loaded pistol in Pechorin’s hands,“ spat and stamped his foot". When the plot was revealed, the dragoon captain preferred to hastily retreat.
And again I cannot but admire the nobility of Pechorin. Once again, he makes an attempt to prevent the tragedy: “ Grushnitsky, - I said: there is still time. Give up 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, benevolent tone of Pechorin humiliates even more than the rudeness of the dragoon captain. It turns out that again Pechorin won, took over; he is noble, and Grushnitsky ... The origins of the junker's anger is that next to Pechorin he always feels like a flawed, insolvent person. And painfully envious.
« 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 for us on earth...
I fired.
– Finita la comedia! I said to the doctor.
He didn't answer and turned away in horror.»…
Comedy turned tragedy. But don't you think that Werner behaves no better than a dragoon captain? At first, he did not keep 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 cravenly fled 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 duel... Yes, the slanderer is punished, but too severely - Grushnitsky died. It's a shame something else: the main "author of gossip", an 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 dry from the water. 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". Indeed, was it worth it to expend such efforts, to play with death in such a way, in order to prove the insignificance of Grushnitsky, this vengeful and envious person, prone to lies, intrigues, gossip? As a result, instead of the triumph of the winner, there is the severity of Pechorin's state of mind, understanding the irreparability of what happened, experiencing bewilderment and sad consciousness 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 than any other testifies to the inexhaustible energy and determination of Pechorin, the inflexibility of his will, 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 lush phrases”, behind which ... emptiness.
The duel episode 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 blizzard...
Only fear - to leave the challenge unanswered!
E. Evtushenko
So, we learned that a duel in Russian literature is not only a description of the duel itself, but also one of the ways to characterize the 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 to be 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 offense inflicted with the blood of the enemy in those years. Almost every Russian classic writer, no matter whose work we took, in one or another of his works gave a description of the duel, 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 to resolve issues of honor and dignity seemed to have outlived its usefulness. The method disappeared, and the theme of the duel remained to live on the pages of books.
Why? What attracted the duel of writers so much? 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 the books as an arena of a deadly battle of dissimilar characters (the romantic Lensky - the realist Onegin);
secondly, it becomes the place where opposing views on life collide (the noble Pechorin is the slanderer Grushnitsky; the man of honor Grinev is the murderer Shvabrin);
thirdly, it helps the writer to make a psychological analysis of the personality of the hero who has risen to the barrier (to check the hero for his internal integrity).
We have proved that the use of the duel scene in the works of the great Russian classics is necessary. After all, it is during the fights that the characters' characters are exposed, the masks are torn off and their true features are revealed. Detailed descriptions of duels allowed A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov to tell about the individual character traits of each of the characters and thereby supplement 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 of Pechorin's decency and courage proves that this hero is sympathetic to the author. If about Grinev A.S. Pushkin writes as a person who is able to stand up for his honor, despite the fact that he first goes to the barrier, then the writer clearly dislikes Shvabrin, because this character too often behaves meanly and lowly.
In addition, I set myself the goal of finding out whether the duel has an effect on a person. I think, undoubtedly, and this idea was traced by me in each chapter of the abstract. It seems to me that I was able to prove that a person standing between life and death (after all, no one knows in advance the final duel) cannot but change. So, after the senseless death of the enthusiastic romantic Lensky, Onegin leaves in a deep depression (he will never again overestimate human feelings). After the death of Grushnitsky, who never managed to get rid of the pernicious 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 imprint on the souls of their participants.
In my essay, I not only talked about the conditions of a duel (dueling code), which were previously established by opponents or their representatives (seconds) in compliance with a number of certain customs, but also proved that almost all fights that we can read about in classical literature, passed 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 the opponents during the fights.
Violations of the dueling rules in the description of fights
in Russian classical literature
| Work | Opponents | Breaking the rules dueling code |
||
| Pushkin A.S. | "Shot" | 1. The count eats cherries while standing at the barrier. and leaves a shot behind him. |
||
| "Eugene Onegin" | 1. Social inequality seconds. 2. Onegin is two hours late. reconciliation. |
|||
| "Stone Guest" | don guan, Don Carlos | 1. Absence 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 gun. abyss. |
|
| Kuprin A.I. | "Duel" | Nikolaev, | 1. Due to the intervention of Shurochka, Romashov dies. |
Summing up, I would like to once again dwell on the most important points of the abstract regarding the topic of the duel in Russian literature. So,
1. Cause for a duel
In three duels ("Eugene Onegin", "The Captain's Daughter", "A 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, he wanted to bring at least some variety to his life with a duel with Grushnitsky.
3. Conditions of duels, compliance with the dueling code
Between Onegin and Lensky duel was equal, but with numerous violations. Moreover, both Onegin and Zaretsky (Lensky's second) both violate the rules of the duel. The first was to cancel the scheduled duel and save the life of the young romantic Lensky, and Zaretsky, because he sees a funny story in the duel, an object of gossip and cruel jokes ... In Eugene Onegin, Zaretsky was the only duel manager, he dealt with big omissions, deliberately ignoring everything that could eliminate the bloody outcome.
In The Captain's Daughter, the absence of seconds allows Shvabrin to deliver a treacherous blow, which contradicts Grinev's notions 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. Pechorin toughens the conditions during the duel, offering to stand on the edge of the cliff.
4. The attitude of the main characters to the duel
Onegin does not believe until the last moment that the duel will take place. Only when he sees the corpse of Lensky in front of him, he realizes that he made a mistake. His conscience torments him.
Lensky, on the other hand, thinks of himself as a noble protector of the windy Olga (“ I will be her savior"). At this moment, he forgets about friendship and wishes the death of Onegin.
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 a 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: a desire for revenge. He is not afraid of a duel: “Well? To die like this: a small loss to the world; Yes, and I’m pretty bored myself ... ”- Pechorin thinks so on the night before the duel. The 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 a dragoon captain. If not for him, Grushnitsky would hardly have dared to publicly insult Pechorin, and even more so - to challenge him to a duel. Leaving the Pechorin pistol unloaded is also the idea of the dragoon captain. Fortunately, Grushnitsky had the courage to admit that the pistol 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 duel. dead sleep and woke up when it was high time to go to the place of the duel. Perhaps he did it deliberately: for being late for the duel by more than 15 minutes was considered a good reason for canceling the duel.
Grinev in The Captain's Daughter is not particularly preparing for a duel. Here is how A.S. Pushkin "... examined his sword, tried its end and went to bed... "Perhaps, confidence in the justice of his decision (to punish the offender) gave Grinev strength and calmness.
Pechorin was tormented all night before the duel without sleep, could not write, then " sat down and opened a novel by Walter Scott ... it was The Scottish Puritans". He " read at first with effort, then forgot, carried away by magical fiction... "This speaks of his composure and ability to control himself, his feelings.
6. The role of seconds
Seconds play an important role in all duels. In The 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 his 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 a conspiracy. He embodies the very public opinion that could have subjected Grushnitsky to ridicule and contempt if he had refused to duel.
Pechorin took with him a friend - Dr. Werner, a passive man. Werner did not interfere in the course of the duel.
Zaretsky in "Eugene Onegin" is like a dragoon captain: they are both cruel, indifferent people, for them the duel is nothing more than entertainment. Zaretsky, like the dragoon captain, personifies public opinion. And if Onegin tries to refuse the duel, Zaretsky will accuse him of cowardice.
Onegin's second is his servant, the Frenchman Guillo, whom Onegin calls " My friend". About Guillo, except that he " small honest' says nothing more. Onegin makes a servant his second, firstly, since there is no one else to turn to; secondly, by this he expresses his frivolous attitude to the duel; thirdly, he hopes that this choice of second will help cancel the duel.
Grinev and Shvabrin did not have seconds in The Captain's Daughter.
7. The result of the duel
The results of the duels in these three works are different. 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. M.Yu. Lermontov Pechorin kills Grushnitsky.
The duel for Onegin was the 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.
Grinev, after the duel, decides to confess his love to Marya Ivanovna and invites her to become his wife.
9. The role of the duel in a work of art
In The Captain's Daughter, the duel between Shvabrin and Grinev is needed to show people from different eras understanding of such a phenomenon as a duel.
In the novel by A.S. Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin", the main character's inability to think about other people turned into a fatal mistake (the death of a 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 is the impetus for Onegin's spiritual revival.
The duel in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" is one of the climaxes that helps readers better understand Pechorin's character.
So is the topic of my essay relevant today? Do not think that the duel is just a literary device. After all, we do not perceive the heroes of works of art only as bookish, fictional characters. Living people with real destinies suddenly stand before us. And already 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 - almost to the smallest detail describing their own death in their works. What is this? Foresight? Accident? Nobody knows. As no one can deny the fact that these two duels forever left the imprint of tragedy and fate in Russian literature ... And also - a vivid example to follow, how to defend one's honor.
Indeed, how can the concept of honor, which is given to a person once, along with a name, and which can neither be compensated nor corrected, can only become obsolete? The great Shakespeare was right when he said: Honor is my life. They have merged into one, and the honor of losing is equal to the loss of life for me.».
LIST OF USED LITERATURE
Amelina E.V. 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.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 2001. - 112 p.
Dolinina N. Let's read "Onegin" together: Essay. - St. Petersburg: "Academic project", "Lyceum", 2001. - 176 p.
Dyakonova N.Ya. From observations on Pechorin's journal. - “Rus. lit. ”, 1969, No. 4, pp. 115 - 125.
USE 2009: Literature: Handbook. - 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 ...": Rereading "Eugene Onegin": A book for teachers. - M., Enlightenment, 1993
Krichevskaya L.I. Portrait of a Hero: A Handbook for Language Teachers and Students of the Humanities. - 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 "A 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. Foreword, note. and explain. Articles by S. Bondi. M., Det. lit., 1973. - 304 p.
Pushkin A.S. Poems and prose. - M.: Olimp; LLC Firm AST Publishing House, 1999. - 640 p.
Udodov B.T. Roman M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time": A book for teachers. - M.: Enlightenment, 1989.
Shansky N.M. In the footsteps of "Eugene Onegin": A brief linguistic commentary. - M .: LLC Trade and Publishing House "Russian Word - RS", 1999. - 320 p.
REVIEW
on the essay of a student of grade 9 "B"
KUPRIYANOVA ANASTASIA ANDREEVNA
on the topic "DUEL IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE"
The work of Kupriyanova A.A. is devoted to an actual problem - the problem of protecting the honor and dignity of a person. At the present time, as the author quite rightly notes, there is a substitution of many concepts related to the moral side of the life of modern society. Kupriyanova Anastasia considers honor to be one of the most important virtues of the human soul and, using the example of Russian classics, shows the duel as one of the main ways to protect the humiliated dignity of a person. Kupriyanova A.A. aims to show the role of the duel in the formation and disclosure of the character of the hero of a literary work, in understanding the author's intention, reveals the psychological aspect of the duel.
The work has a large theoretical base - the author has reviewed 16 literature sources. The theoretical study begins with a description of the history of duels. Anastasia dwells in detail on the analysis of the motives, conditions of duels, their rules and results. After analyzing the extensive material concerning the basic requirements for the organization of duels in Russian classical literature, the author develops a summary table where he summarizes the violations of the dueling rules in various duels reflected on the pages of works of art.
The abstract brings together both the description of the duel scenes and their role in revealing the characters' characters, their influence on the fate of the heroes. The undoubted advantage of the work is the completeness of the cited literature, the student's deep knowledge of the works under study. It should also be noted that when writing Kupriyanov's essay, Anastasia demonstrated good linguistic erudition, showed solid theoretical and practical training.
Kupriyanova A.A. successfully coped with the difficult task of analyzing dueling fights as the main method of describing the inner world of the heroes of the works, showing the inconsistency of the very nature of the duel. The use of the psychological aspect of the duel in drawing up a literary portrait of the characters makes the work concrete and meaningful.
This work is of great practical importance, as it can be used as a manual for high school students as a model for structuring an essay. The work can also be recommended by students as a manual for the analysis of a literary work based on the psychological aspect when studying similar topics.
Thus, the general content outlined in the abstract allows us to conclude that the work of Anastasia Kupriyanova is an independent, complete and creative study of the place of dueling fights in the composition of literary works, their role in revealing the character of the protagonist and the way to protect his honor and dignity.
The choice of the research topic is timely and justified, its relevance both in theoretical and practical terms is beyond doubt.
Assessing Anastasia Kupriyanova's abstract 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 of the State Educational Institution of Central Education No. 1499)
1 of 23
Presentation on the topic: Duels and duelists in Russian literature
slide number 1
Description of the slide:
slide number 2
Description of the slide:
slide number 3
Description of the slide:
Relevance of the chosen topic. The previous year was marked by significant dates related to Russian literature. The 175th anniversary of the work of A.S. Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter", 180 years of "Tales of Belkin", M.Yu. Lermontov's "Hero of Our Time" 170 years. Episodes of duels are bright pages of all these works, the authors pay great attention to dueling fights and the heroes who participated in them. Such a phenomenon as a duel is not typical of our time, but the concepts of "honor", "dignity" are relevant in our time. Objective of the project. We wanted to learn the history of such a phenomenon as a duel, to deepen our knowledge of Russian writers, in whose fate the duel played a big role, to expand our vocabulary, to reveal the level of knowledge of our school students about such a national feature as a duel. Awaken interest in the literary life of the 19-20 centuries, prepare students for a deeper, meaningful perception of the works of Russian literature that will be studied in high school
slide number 4
Description of the slide:
History of the duel. There is an assumption that the first duel in Russia was a duel in Moscow between Gordon and Major Montgomery (1666). Later, the number of duels began to grow rapidly. On December 25, 1682, a decree appears that establishes the right of servicemen to carry weapons, and also prohibits fights. Peter I, despite his addiction to European orders and customs, immediately enters into a fight against duels. “The Code of Sheremetev” (1702) severely punishes even for a challenge to a duel, “Short Article” (1706) punishes with death for a duel that did not have tragic consequences .. The struggle of Peter the Great with fights gave good results. However, with the growing influence of foreigners on Russian life under Anna Ioannovna and with an eye on French fashion under Elizabeth Petrovna, fights become more frequent. Catherine II issues the "Manifesto on duels". True, after a quarter of a century of his reign. It acted for a long time, retaining its force until the publication of the Code of Laws (1832) and the Code of Military Regulations (1839). The manifesto recognized duels as alien to Russia. The challenge and exit to a duel brought on the guilty, "like disobedient to the law," the payment of a fine ("disgrace") to the judge, "whose court they despised." The offender, who started the duel and drew his sword, "like a violator of peace and tranquility", was subjected to life exile in Siberia. And here is how Emperor Nicholas I spoke: “I hate the duel. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing knightly in it. The Duke of Wellington destroyed her in the English army and did well." In the 40s and 50s of the 19th century, the flourishing, a kind of cult of duels in Russia, falls. Napoleon Bonaparte and Nicholas I were fierce opponents of duels. The French emperor believed that “no one has the right to risk his life for a quarrel, since the life of every citizen belongs to the fatherland; a duelist is a bad soldier.” Note that duels between women in Russia were rare, although they also happened.
slide number 5
Description of the slide:
Types of duels using pistols: 1) Stationary duel (duel without movement). 1. The right of the first shot was determined by lot. 2. The right of the first shot belonged to the offended. Complicated movement with stops. 3. Opposite-parallel approach.
slide number 6
Description of the slide:
Fixed duel. The right of the first shot was determined by lot. Dueling distance was chosen in the range of 15-30 steps. According to the dueling code, the first shot must be fired within one minute, but usually, by agreement between the parties, it was fired after 3-10 seconds. after the start of the countdown. If, after a specified period of time, a shot did not follow, then it was lost without the right to repeat. The return and subsequent shots were fired under the same conditions. The seconds were counted out loud by the manager or one of the seconds. A pistol misfire was counted as a perfect shot. The right of the first shot belonged to the offended. The conditions and order of shots remained the same, only the distance increased - up to 40 steps. Shooting on readiness. The right of the first shot was not established. The shooting distance was 25 steps. Opponents with pistols in their hands stood in designated places with their backs to each other. At the command "Start" or "Shoot", they turned to face each other, cocked the hammers and began to aim. Each duelist fired on readiness in a time interval of 60 seconds (or by agreement from 3 to 10 seconds). The second manager loudly counted the seconds. After counting "sixty" the command followed: "Stop".
slide number 7
Description of the slide:
Mobile duel. The starting distance was 30 paces. The distance between the barriers is at least 10 paces. Seconds took places on both sides of the barriers in pairs with a lateral removal of 10 steps. At the command "Cock" - the triggers were cocked, the pistols were raised up to the level of the head. At the command "Forward March", the duelists began to move towards the barrier. At the same time, in the interval from the starting point to the barrier, they could stop, aim and shoot. The shooter was obliged to remain in his place and wait for a return shot for 10-20 seconds. The one who fell from wounds had the right to shoot while lying down. If during the exchange of shots none of the duelists was injured, then, in accordance with the rules, the exchange of shots could occur three times, after which the duel was terminated. Initial distance up to 50 steps, barriers within 15-20 steps. At the command "To battle", the opponents cocked their hammers and raised their pistols up to head level. Movement towards each other on the command "Forward March" occurred in a straight line or in a zigzag with an amplitude of 2 steps. Duelists were given the opportunity to shoot on the move or with a stop. The shooter was obliged to stop and wait for a return shot, for the production of which 10-20 seconds were allotted (but not more than 30 seconds). A duelist who fell from a wound was given twice as much time to return a shot. The approach of the duelists took place along two parallel lines, 15 steps apart from each other. The initial positions of the duelists were located obliquely, so that at opposite points of their lines, each of them saw the enemy ahead and to his right at a distance of 25-35 steps. The seconds took up positions on the right behind their client's opponent, at a safe distance. Having taken their place on parallel lines, inherited by lot, the duelists received pistols and, at the command “Forward march”, cocked the triggers and began to move along their lines on the opposite side. For a shot, it was necessary to stop, and after it - to wait for a response in a motionless position for 30 seconds.
slide number 8
Description of the slide:
Fights with pistols. Dueling pistols ("gentleman's set") were used for the fights. The best gunsmiths were involved in the manufacture of dueling weapons. The pistols were supposed to have improved technical characteristics and appearance. The loading of pistols was carried out by one of the seconds in the presence and under the control of the others. Pistols were drawn by lot. Having received pistols, the duelists, holding them with their barrels down with the triggers not cocked, occupied the places established by lot. The seconds stood at a distance from each duelist. The steward asked the duelists: "Ready?" - and, having received an affirmative answer, commanded: "To battle." At this command, the triggers were cocked, the pistols rose up to head level. Then followed the command: "Start" or "Shoot."
slide number 9
Description of the slide:
A duel with melee weapons. The seconds prepared the places for the duel, taking into account equal opportunities for each duelist (the direction of the rays of the sun, wind, etc.). By lot, weapons and a place were played. The duelists took off their uniforms and remained in their shirts. Watches and the contents of the pockets were handed over to the seconds. The seconds had to make sure that there were no protective objects on the body of the duelists that could neutralize the blow. The unwillingness to undergo this examination was regarded as avoiding the duel. Doctors were at a distance from them. The second-manager stood in such a way as to see both the participants and the seconds. Opponents were placed against each other and the command was given: "Three steps back." The duelists were given weapons. The steward commanded: “Get ready for battle” and then: At the command of the steward, the opponents took their places, determined by lot. The seconds stood on both sides. At the command of the steward, the opponents took their places, determined by lot. The seconds became the sides of each duelist (at a distance of 10 steps). Start". If during the duel one of the duelists fell or dropped his weapon, then the attacker did not have the right to take advantage of this. If necessary, stop the fight, the manager, in agreement with the second of the opposite side, raised his edged weapons and commanded "Stop". The fight stopped. Both junior seconds continued to stay with their clients, and the elders negotiated. If the duelists continued the duel in vehemence, the seconds were required to parry the blows and separate them. When one of the duelists received a wound, the fight stopped. The doctors examined the wound and gave an opinion on the possibility or impossibility If one of the duelists violated the rules or conditions of the duel, as a result of which the opponent was wounded or killed, the seconds drew up a protocol and initiated legal prosecution of the perpetrator.
slide number 10
Description of the slide:
slide number 11
Description of the slide:
A.S. Pushkin's fatal duel On January 27 (February 8) near St. Petersburg in a copse near the Commandant's dacha, a duel took place, in which Pushkin was mortally wounded in the stomach. With a return shot, Pushkin easily wounded Dantes in the right hand. The conditions of the duel, at the insistence of Pushkin, were deadly and left no chance for both opponents to survive: the barrier separated the enemies by barely ten steps, it was allowed to shoot from any distance on the way to the barrier. Pushkin's second was his lyceum comrade Lieutenant Colonel K. K. Danzas, Dantes' second was an employee of the French embassy, Viscount d'Arshiak-Doshirak. and at the Commandant's dacha he was transplanted into a carriage sent by the elder Gekkeren. Memorial obelisk at the site of Pushkin's duel, metro station Chernaya Rechka, St. PetersburgNow, at the place of the duel, in the square at the intersection of Kolomyazhsky Prospekt and the railway line of the Sestroretsk direction (Chernaya Rechka area), a memorial obelis has been erected
slide number 12
Description of the slide:
Duels M.Yu. Lermontov The first duel took place with E. Barant. It took place on Sunday, February 18, 1840. on the Pargolovskaya road beyond the Black River with seconds A. A. Stolypin (Mongo) and Viscount Raoul d'Angles. As punishment for the first duel, Lermontov was re-exiled to the Caucasus. The second duel ended with his mortal wound. The duel between Lermontov and N. S. Martynov took place on Tuesday, July 15, 1841, near Pyatigorsk, at the foot of Mount Mashuk. Lermontov was shot dead through the chest.
slide number 13
Description of the slide:
Duel A.S. Griboedova This was a typical case of a romantic duel over rivalry. There was a quadruple duel. The duelists themselves and their seconds were shooting. The duel took place, but Griboyedov misses, the bullet passes near the head of Yakubovich. Alexander Sergeevich himself is wounded in the left palm by the first shot of his furious opponent. Yakubovich also missed, he aimed at the stomach, and hurt Griboedov's little finger. Alexander Sergeevich, as you know, was a great pianist and even composed melodies, so there are several of his charming pieces of music. So, after this duel, Alexander Sergeevich wore a special overlay on his left finger, developed his hand to the previous dexterity and still played wonderfully. According to this finger, his body, torn to pieces by fanatics, was later identified, which they dragged around the city for several more days, cruelly mocking the corpse and throwing it into a common pit. In compensation for this bloody massacre in Tehran, the Persian Shah sent the Russian Tsar a huge diamond adorned with rubies and emeralds as a gift.
slide number 14
Description of the slide:
slide number 15
Description of the slide:
A.S. Pushkin. Captain's daughter. Duel Shvabrin with Grinev. I immediately went to Ivan Ignatich and found him with a needle in his hands: on the instructions of the commandant, he was stringing mushrooms for drying for the winter. “Ah, Pyotr Andreevich! he said when he saw me. - Welcome! How did God bring you? on what matter, dare I ask?" I briefly explained to him that I had quarreled with Alexei Ivanovich, and I asked him, Ivan Ignatich, to be my second. Ivan Ignatich listened to me with attention, staring at me with his only eye. “You would like to say,” he said to me, “that you want to stab Alexei Ivanovich, and you want me to be a witness to it? Is not it? dare to ask." - Exactly. - Have mercy, Pyotr Andreevich! What are you up to! Did you quarrel with Alexei Ivanovich? Great trouble! Hard words break no bones. He scolded you, and you scold him; he is in your snout, and you are in his ear, in the other, in the third - and disperse; and we will reconcile you. And then: is it a good deed to stab your neighbor, I dare to ask? And it would be good if you stabbed him: God be with him, with Alexei Ivanovich; I am not a hunter myself. Well, what if he drills you? What will it look like? Who will be the fool, I dare to ask? The reasoning of the prudent lieutenant did not shake me. I stayed with my intention. “As you wish,” said Ivan Ignatich, “do as you please. Why am I here to be a witness? Why? People are fighting, what kind of unseen, dare I ask? Thank God, I went under the Swede and under the Turk: I had seen enough of everything. The duel between Shvabrin and Grinev is depicted ironically. The whole scene looks like a parody of a duel and the very idea of a duel.
slide number 16
Description of the slide:
A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin". Duel of Lensky and Onegin. Now the pistols have already flashed, A hammer rattles on a ramrod. Bullets go into the faceted barrel, And the trigger clicked for the first time. Toothed, securely screwed in flint cocked again. For the nearest stump Guillo becomes embarrassed. Cloaks are thrown by two enemies. Zaretsky measured thirty-two steps with excellent accuracy, Friends spread on the last trace, And each took his pistol. "Now converge." steps, Four mortal steps. Then Eugene, without ceasing to advance, Became the first to quietly raise his pistol. Here are five more steps, And Lensky, screwing up his left eye, He also began to aim - but just Onegin fired ... The appointed clock struck: the poet Silently drops the pistol , A duel for Onegin is an impetus to a new life, for Lensky - "to be a savior."
slide number 17
Description of the slide:
M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". Duel Pechorin and Grushnitsky. I stood at the corner of the platform, firmly resting my left foot on the stone and leaning forward a little so that in the event of a slight wound I would not tip back. Grushnitsky stood opposite me and, at the given sign, began to raise his pistol. His knees shook. He aimed right at my forehead. An inexplicable fury boiled in my chest. Suddenly he lowered the muzzle of the pistol and, turning as pale as a sheet, turned to his second: “I can’t,” he said in a hollow voice. “A coward! - answered the captain. The shot rang out. The bullet grazed my knee. I involuntarily took a few steps forward in order to quickly move away from the edge. “Well, brother Grushnitsky, it’s a pity that I missed,” said the captain: “now it’s your turn, stand up!” Hug me first: we won't see each other again! - They embraced; the captain could hardly help laughing: "Don't be afraid," he added, glancing slyly at Grushnitsky, "everything is nonsense in the world!... Nature is a fool, fate is a turkey, and life is a penny!" In this duel, Pechorin defends the honor of Mary, and Grushnitsky pursues selfish goals, deciding to take revenge on Pechorin.
slide number 18
Description of the slide:
I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". Duel of Bazarov and P.P. Kirsanov. “Well, excuse me, that’s until another time,” answered Bazarov, and embraced Pavel Petrovich, who was beginning to turn pale. - Now I am no longer a duelist, but a doctor, and first of all I must examine your wound. Peter! come here, Peter! where did you hide? "It's all nonsense... I don't need anyone's help," Pavel Petrovich uttered at a slow pace, "and... I must... again..." rolled over and he fainted. Bazarov passes the duel test. The episode of the duel is the most important in the ideological development of the novel. It helps to overcome the inner limitations of the characters. After the duel between them there is a simple human relationship. The morning was glorious, fresh; small motley clouds stood like lambs on a pale-clear azure ... - Are you ready? asked Pavel Petrovich. - Absolutely. - We can get together. Bazarov quietly moved forward, and Pavel Petrovich went at him, putting his left hand in his pocket and gradually raising the muzzle of his pistol ... "He's aiming right at my nose," thought Bazarov, "and how diligently he squints, robber! However, this is an unpleasant feeling. I'll become look at the chain of his watch..." Something sang sharply near Bazarov's very ear, and at the same moment a shot rang out. "I heard, so nothing," - managed to flash through his head. He took another step and, without aiming, crushed the spring. Pavel Petrovich trembled slightly and clutched his thigh with his hand. A trickle of blood flowed down his white pantaloons. Bazarov threw the pistol aside and approached his opponent. - Are you injured? he said. “You had the right to call me to the barrier,” Pavel Petrovich said, “and this is nothing. According to the condition, everyone has one more shot.
slide number 19
Description of the slide:
LN Tolstoy "War and Peace". Duel P. Bezukhov with E. Dolokhov. At the word three, he went forward with quick steps, straying from the trodden path and striding across solid snow. Pierre held the pistol, stretching his right hand forward, apparently afraid of lest he kill himself with this pistol. He diligently put his left hand back, because he wanted to support his right hand with it, but he knew that this was impossible. After walking six paces and straying off the path into the snow, Pierre looked around at his feet, again quickly looked at Dolokhov, and pulling his finger, as he had been taught, fired. Not expecting such a strong sound, Pierre flinched at his shot, then smiled at his own impression and stopped. The smoke, especially thick from the fog, prevented him from seeing at first; but the other shot he was waiting for did not come. Only Dolokhov's hurried steps were heard, and his figure appeared from behind the smoke. With one hand he held on to his left side, with the other he clutched a lowered pistol. His face was pale. The duel between Dolokhov and Bezukhov teaches us to be tolerant of people's shortcomings. "Do not judge what is fair and what is not, not everything is unambiguous and easily solved."
slide number 20
Description of the slide:
A.S. Pushkin "Shot". “I fired,” continued the count, “and, thank God, I missed; then Silvio ... (at that moment he was, really, terrible) Silvio began to aim at me. Suddenly the doors opened, Masha runs in and throws herself around my neck with a screech. Her presence gave me back all my vigor. “Honey,” I said to her, “can't you see we're joking? How scared were you! come, drink a glass of water and come to us; I will introduce you to an old friend and comrade.” Masha still couldn't believe it. “Tell me, is your husband telling the truth? - she said, turning to the formidable Silvio, - is it true that you are both joking? - “He always jokes, countess,” Silvio answered her, “once he jokingly gave me a slap in the face, jokingly shot me through this cap, jokingly gave me a miss; now I also feel like joking…” With that word, he wanted to take aim at me… in front of her! Masha threw herself at his feet. “Get up, Masha, shame on you! I shouted in fury; - And you, sir, will you stop mocking the poor woman? Will you shoot or not?" - “I won’t,” answered Silvio, “I am satisfied: I saw your confusion, your timidity; I made you shoot me, I've had enough. You will remember me. I commit you to your conscience." Here he was about to go out, but stopped at the door, looked back at the picture I had shot through, fired at it, almost without aiming, and disappeared. The wife lay in a faint; people did not dare to stop him and looked at him with horror; he went out onto the porch, called the driver and left before I had time to come to my senses.
slide number 21
Description of the slide:
Glossary of terms Duel (French duel - from Latin duellum - war), a duel (with the use of weapons) between two persons on the call of one of them. In a figurative sense - a struggle, a competition between two sides. 1) the purpose of a duel is to obtain satisfaction for an insult by force of arms * .2) there are only two participants in the duel, that is, the offended and his offender (hence the word "duel" itself); 3) means of a duel - a deadly weapon. Three types of weapons are usually used in duels: a pistol; A duel with pistols is of the following form: in one shot; before the first injury deadly duel.saber; sword. 4) the presence of the rules (conditions) of a duel established by custom, which are mandatory for strict observance. * An insult is an attack on someone's pride, dignity or honor *. courtesy that does not affect honor. severe insults, or insults of the second degree: insults to honor and dignity, defamation*.
slide number 22
Description of the slide:
* Honor is the inner moral dignity of a person, valor, honesty, nobility of soul and a clear conscience. (V.Dal) * Defamation (from Latin diffamatio "disclosure, dissemination") - the dissemination of defamatory information that may not be slanderous, or disgrace in the press; an act known to criminal law as a crime close to slander The dueling code is an informal set of rules for conducting a duel. A duel serves as a way to avenge an insult and cannot be replaced, but at the same time cannot replace judicial justice bodies that serve to restore or protect the violated rights. An insult can only be inflicted by an equal to an equal. Second - (lat. secundans - accompanying). Witness and mediator accompanying each of the opponents to the duel. The seconds are during the duel the judges of the opponents and, as such, must be of equal origin with them. A raznochintsy second may not be recognized by the opposing side. A second must possess the following mandatory qualities: 1) honesty; 2) impartiality; 3) lack of personal gain in the outcome of this case; 4) physical and mental qualities necessary for the worthy fulfillment of his appointment. Quadruple duel (fr. une partie carrée) - a duel in which their seconds shot after the opponents. Duelist - a combatant, duel, more in meaning. bully, fighter; Breter *. Breter - m. French. who is looking for an opportunity to find fault, to be challenged to a duel, who is looking for a challenge, a duelist, a bully, a fervor, a bully, a fighter. Such famous personalities as A.I. Yakubovich, K.F. Ryleev, A.A. Bestuzhev, Count F.I. Tolstoy ("American"), Prince F. Gagarin
slide number 23
Description of the slide:
Bibliography. V. Durasov - 1912 St. Petersburg "Duel Code" Yu. Lotman "Conversations about Russian culture" A.S. Pushkin "The Captain's Daughter", "Eugene Onegin", "Shot" L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace" M.N. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons"Internet resources
So duel. The antagonists enter the duel: "Cynic" Pechorin and "romantic" Grushnitsky, "ice" - Onegin and "flame" - Lensky, nihilist Bazarov and "orthodox" Kirsanov, peace-loving Pierre Bezukhov and "buoy and bully" Dolokhov.
These duels have different outcomes: from the tragic outcome of the duel between Onegin and Lensky to the tragicomic denouement of the duel between Bazarov and Kirsanov. But they all occur because their actors are internally contradictory. People are driven to a duel not only (and not so much) by the insult inflicted by the future enemy, but by the lack of peace and harmony within oneself. All initiators of duels are people who doubt their own rightness, hesitate. You can even say that they are going to a duel in order to somehow assert themselves in their rightness.
Duel: - a line beyond which the unknown, perhaps even death. A person standing at such a line cannot but change. Onegin leaves in a deep depression (he will never bored and haughtily evaluate human feelings); Pechorin becomes even more embittered. Even those duels that end relatively well leave a deep imprint on the souls of their participants. The astonished reader sees tears in the eyes of the player and Dolokhov's bully and suddenly finds out that he "... lived with his mother and hunchbacked sister and was the most tender son and brother." After the duel, the atheist Pierre Bezukhov suddenly turns to the Masons for advice and consolation, and Bazar's convinced NIHILISM suddenly breaks into small pieces before love - Anna Sergeevna Odintsova.
It is terrible to die in the prime of life from a bullet from a random enemy, often defending not even one's own honor, but who knows what: an incorporeal idea (like Bazarov), someone else's good name, or one's own glory as a fearless brave man (like Grushnitsky). And a person is afraid to look beyond the line separating the phantom world from the real one. The fear of "a country from which no one has returned" makes the duel participants stay awake at night, thinking like Lermontov's hero:. “Why did I live, for what purpose was I born?”. The answer to this question sounds different in the mouths of the romantically in love poet Lensky and the tired, deceived wife and friend Pierre Bezukhov.
It would seem that it is just a literary device designed to “test” the hero for internal integrity and harmony. But no. Living people with real destinies suddenly stand before us. And already in a completely different way you perceive the fact that two of the greatest poets - Pushkin and Lermontov - died in a duel. Both - almost to the smallest detail describing their own death in their works. What is it - foresight, chance, predestination, finally? Nobody knows. As no one can deny that these two duels forever left in Russian literature the imprint of tragedy and fate, peculiar only to it.
So fiction, suddenly breaking the fragile line that separates it from reality, breaks into life, leaving vague anxiety in the hearts and souls. Together with the heroes of our favorite works, we stand at the muzzle of a dueling pistol, feeling a slight chill in our chest. So the duel...
The duel originated in the 16th century as a way of personal settling scores. This ritual that went beyond the boundaries of rationality continued to exist even in the Enlightenment, which glorified the mind. The tradition of the duel was not destroyed by the Great French Revolution, which broke a lot.
It is known that the duel was widespread in Europe in the 19th century. The exception was England, where fisticuffs were allowed, but fights with a sword or pistol were prohibited.
Each country has its own duel traditions. The French used swords as weapons, and at the first drop of blood the duel stopped. After all, the purpose of this duel is to protect honor, and not to commit murder. At the same time, the Germans were much less likely to duel, but their competitions were more bloody. (One French critic likened the German duel to a duel of mechanisms.) Some well-established duel rules are also known. For example, pistol fights take place at dawn, sword fights at sunset. However, the historical literature does not provide enough detail on this subject. And in order to understand how the duel has been transformed over time, it is best to turn to fiction.
How many references we have to the dueling tradition in European literature I had no idea 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 ("Three Musketeers"), plays ("Sid"). And not only romantic, but also rational discourse presents duel scenes. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Heinrich Heine, even Goethe have been dueling themselves. Maupassant, who called the duel "the last of our foolish traditions," wrote a well-known novel on the subject and also participated in the duel. Fans of Jules Verne will certainly remember the train duel scene from Around the World in 80 Days. What few people know, however, is that Victor Hugo was criticized for his charming depiction of a duel in one of his theatrical plays.
Tragic examples of the duel, of course, abound in Russian literature. Pushkin did not limit himself to the duel scene in his famous poem "Eugene Onegin" (it is impossible to imagine a 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 to the tradition of the duel nourished the blood of the poet.
The most colorful duel story in our literature tells how Yahya Kemal ( Turkish poet, writer of the 20th century - approx. per.) challenged two of his colleagues to a duel - Yakup Kadri and Falih Rıfkı. As Kadri recalls, one day a young man caught him in his office at work and handed him a letter of "strange" content: "Send seconds, choose weapons." Later it turned out that Falih Ryfky had 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 reading Touché, I came across the recently published indictment in the case of the investigation of anti-corruption operations on December 17-25 ( in this act, the 2013 corruption scandal in Turkey is regarded as an attempted coup d'état, behind which is the Gülen Jamaat, - ed. per.). This document noted: “The “Parallel State” challenged the true state to a duel. Who said that in this country there is no tradition of dueling?” 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 pay attention to it within the framework of this article.
The fact that in our lands there is no tradition of dueling, but rather, it is about "ambushing" instead of a fair duel, said Çetin Altan ( Turkish writer, journalist per.). In these words, of course, there is an orientalist view, but there is also an undeniable element of truth. 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 abide by the rules, they will be worried about saving lives, not honor. The true duelist throws down the gauntlet because he prefers death to shameful life. He does not resort to trickery, 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 Sureya ( Turkish poet, writer of the 20th century - approx.): “A duel is always something more. It's more than pain. It is more than death and the fear of death." There is no place in a duel for someone who does not look into the eyes of his counterpart. As literature teaches us, the duel occurs only between noble people.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
Municipal educational institution
secondary school No. 5
TOquestionOduelVRussianliterature
The duel is one of the most mysterious phenomena of Russian life. "A duel is an arranged battle between two persons with a deadly weapon to satisfy the outraged honor ..." / From the history of the Russian duel /
Many times there have been attempts at a detailed historical and cultural study of the phenomenon of the Russian duel, the material for which was memoirs, letters, manifestos, decrees and descriptions of the duel in Russian classical literature. The duel, as a custom, came to Russia from the West. But even there it did not exist forever. The time of the origin of the classical duel in Western Europe can be attributed to the late Middle Ages, around the 14th century. At this time, the knightly estate, the forerunner of the nobility, was finally formed and flourished, with its concepts of honor, in many respects alien to the commoner or merchant. A duel is just that most curious incident when morality and law constantly contradict each other and when the concept of defending honor and dignity with arms in hand collides with the invariable desire of the state to regulate these issues by legal means, with the help of the court. It must be borne in mind that the Russian duel, in terms of its conditions and characteristics, was very different from the European one, for example, from the French one. In France in the 19th century, duels were more ritual in nature and usually ended without bloodshed.
This was facilitated by the "sparing" conditions of the dueling code. The barrier distance (the minimum distance between the lines of opening fire) was set such that it would provide a low probability of hitting, 30 - 35 steps. Such desperate Russian bullies as Tolstoy the American, Dorokhov, Yakubovich, and Alexander Sergeevich and Mikhail Yuryevich simply laughed at such an "opera" duel. Russians usually shot from 8-10 steps, there were cases - and from three! (This was called "put a pistol to the forehead".) And they shot, as a rule, "to the result", they were recognized either as a severe wound or death. A duel is a type of aggressive behavior. It has maintained a high cultural status for several centuries. And as an act of violence sanctioned by society, duel falls into the same category as war and the death penalty, but differs in essential ways. Like war, dueling was seen as a last resort - ugly and cruel and sometimes inevitable. Like the death penalty, the duel was a ritualized act of violence that society for the most part had to put up with, like war and the death penalty, the duel was meant to punish the transgressor and restore justice. However, the duel was not a confrontation between two states, like a war, and not a person and a state, like the death penalty, but two personalities. Therefore, it was largely outside the sphere of influence of the state. The duel served, first of all, the self-determination of the noble class and individuals - first the nobles, and then representatives of other classes - to assert their independence from the state, and most of all - to determine and protect their personal space.
Almost every Russian classic writer, from Pushkin to Kuprin, in some of his works gives a description of the duel, while comprehending and evaluating it in his own way. This "dueling" tradition of Russian literature was noted by V.V. Nabokov: "it was a kind of duel described by almost every Russian novelist and almost every Russian novelist of noble birth."
At the word "duel" one can imagine a duel between two gentlemen, frozen against each other with pointed swords or pistols in their hands. Who are these two gentlemen - hussars or musketeers? Usually, duel is associated with eras for which the concepts of honor, word of honor, and dignity were paramount; The significance of the duel in culture is undoubtedly great. In Russia, this, first of all, occupies the so-called "golden age" of the heyday of Russian culture and the great geniuses of world magnitude, who made a huge contribution to the treasury of human achievements, but who, nevertheless, were not spared by the fate of fate, the temptation to test their luck in a duel .
There are three interconnected episodes in the literary history of the Russian duel: Onegin's duel with Lensky, Pechorin's duel with Grushnitsky, and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov's duel with Yevgeny Bazarov. The first two "cases" are serious, the third duel is a parody. So, the antagonists enter the duel: "Cynic" Pechorin and "romantic" Grushnitsky, "ice" - Onegin and "flame" - Lensky, nihilist Bazarov and "orthodox" Kirsanov, peace-loving Pierre Bezukhov and "buoy and bully" Dolokhov. As you can see, these duels have different outcomes: from the tragic outcome of the duel between Onegin and Lensky to the tragicomic denouement of the duel between Bazarov and Kirsanov. But all of them occur because their characters are internally contradictory, people are pushed to a duel not only (and not so much) by the insult inflicted by the future enemy, but by the lack of peace and harmony within oneself. All the initiators of duels are people who doubt their own righteousness, hesitate. You can even say that they are going to a duel in order to somehow assert themselves in their rightness. Duel: - a line beyond which the unknown, perhaps even death. A person standing at such a line cannot but change. Onegin leaves in a deep depression (he will never bored and haughtily evaluate human feelings); Pechorin becomes even more embittered. Even those duels that end relatively well leave a deep imprint on the souls of their participants. The astonished reader sees tears in the eyes of the player and Dolokhov's bully and suddenly finds out that he "... lived with his mother and hunchbacked sister and was the most tender son and brother." After the duel, the atheist Pierre Bezukhov suddenly turns to the Freemasons for advice and consolation. Bazar's convinced NIHILISM is suddenly broken into small pieces before love - Anna Sergeevna Odintsova. It is terrible to die in the prime of life from a bullet from a random enemy, often defending not even one's own honor, but who knows what: an incorporeal idea (like Bazarov), someone else's good name, or one's own glory as a fearless brave man (like Grushnitsky). And a person is afraid to look beyond the line separating the ghostly world from the real one, the fear of “a country from which no one has returned”, makes the duel participants stay awake at night, thinking like Lermontov’s hero:. “Why did I live, for what purpose was I born?”. The answer to this question sounds different in the mouths of the romantically in love poet Lensky and the tired, deceived wife and friend Pierre Bezukhov. It would seem that it is just a literary device designed to “test” the hero for internal integrity and harmony. But no. Living people with real destinies suddenly stand before us. And already in a completely different way you perceive the fact that two of the greatest poets - Pushkin and Lermontov - died in a duel. Both - almost to the smallest detail describing their own death in their works and what is it - foresight, chance, predestination, finally? Nobody knows. As no one can deny that these two duels forever left in Russian literature the imprint of tragedy and fate, peculiar only to it. So fiction, suddenly breaking the fragile line that separates it from reality, breaks into life, leaving vague anxiety in the hearts and souls. Together with the heroes of our favorite works, we stand at the muzzle of a dueling pistol, feeling a slight chill in our chest. duel duel literary Onegin
In The Captain's Daughter, the duel is depicted purely ironically. The irony begins with the princess's epigraph to the chapter:
Ying if you please, stand in positivity.
Look, I'll pierce your figure!
Although Grinev fights for the honor of the lady, and Shvabrin really deserves punishment, the duel situation looks utterly amusing: “I immediately went to Ivan Ignatich and found him with a needle in his hands: on the commandant’s instructions, he was stringing mushrooms for drying for the winter. “Ah, Pyotr Andreevich! he said when he saw me. - Welcome! How did God bring you? on what matter, dare I ask?” I briefly explained to him that I had quarreled with Alexei Ivanovich, and I asked him, Ivan Ignatich, to be my second. Ivan Ignatich listened to me with attention, staring at me with his only eye. “You deign to say,” he said to me, “that you want to stab Alexei Ivanovich and want me to be a witness at the same time? Is not it? I dare to ask." - "Exactly". - “Have mercy, Pyotr Andreevich! What are you up to? Did you quarrel with Alexei Ivanovich? Great trouble! Hard words break no bones. He scolded you, and you scold him; he is in your snout, and you are in his ear, in the other, in the third - and disperse; and we will reconcile you. And then: is it a good deed to stab your neighbor, I dare to ask? And it would be good if you stabbed him: God be with him, with Alexei Ivanovich; I am not a hunter myself. Well, what if he drills you? What will it look like? Who will be the fool, I dare to ask?”. And this scene of "negotiations with a second" and everything that follows looks like a parody of the duel plot and the very idea of a duel. This is not true at all. Pushkin, with his amazing flair for historical flavor and attention to everyday life, presented here the clash of two eras. Grinev's heroic attitude to the duel seems ridiculous because it clashes with the ideas of people who grew up in other times, who do not perceive the dueling idea as a necessary attribute of the noble life style. it seems to them a whim. Ivan Ignatich approaches the duel from a position of common sense. And from the standpoint of everyday common sense, a duel that does not have the shade of a judicial duel, but is designed only to please the pride of the duelists, is absurd. For an old officer, a duel is no different from a pair fight during a war, only it is meaningless and unjust, because it is their own who are fighting. Shvabrin coolly suggests doing without seconds, although this is against the rules, and not because Shvabrin is some kind of special villain, but because the dueling code is still vague and undefined. The duel would have ended with Shvabrin bathing in the river, where the victorious Grinev drove him, if not for the sudden appearance of Savelich. And here the lack of seconds allowed Shvabrin to strike a treacherous blow. It is this turn of events that shows a certain shade of Pushkin's attitude to the elements of "illegal", non-canonical duels, which open up opportunities for murders, covered with dueling terminology. Opportunities like this came up frequently. Especially in the backwoods of the army, among officers languishing with boredom and idleness.
An accidental quarrel is only a pretext for a duel, and the cause of it, therefore, the cause of Lensky's death is much deeper: Lensky, with his naive, pink world, cannot withstand a collision with life. Onegin, in turn, is unable to resist generally accepted morality, but this will be discussed later. Events are developing as usual, and nothing can stop them. Who can interfere with the duel? Who cares about her? Everyone is indifferent, everyone is busy with themselves. Only Tatyana suffers, foreseeing trouble, but she is not given to guess all the dimensions of the impending misfortune, she only languishes, "her jealous longing disturbs her, as if a cold hand is shaking her heart, as if the abyss under her turns black and makes noise ..." In a quarrel Onegin and Lensky, a force enters that can no longer be turned back - the force of "public opinion". The bearer of this force is hated by Pushkin:
Zaretsky, once a brawler,
Ataman of the gambling gang,
The head of the rake, the tribune of the tavern,
Now kind and simple
The father of the family is single,
Reliable friend, peaceful landowner
And even an honest man:
This is how our age is being corrected!
In every word of Pushkin about Zaretsky hate rings, and we cannot but share it. Everything is unnatural, anti-human in Zaretsky, and we are no longer surprised by the next stanza, in which it turns out that Zaretsky’s courage is also “evil”, that he knows how to hit an ace from a pistol. Onegin and Zaretsky both violate the rules of the duel, the first to demonstrate his irritated contempt for the story, which he got into against his own will and in the seriousness of which he still does not believe, and Zaretsky because he sees in the duel an amusing, albeit sometimes bloody story. , the subject of gossip and pranks ... In "Eugene Onegin" Zaretsky was the only duel manager, because "in duels a classic and a pedant", he dealt with big omissions, deliberately ignoring everything that could eliminate the bloody outcome and he was obliged to discuss the possibilities of reconciliation . Before the start of the duel, an attempt to end the matter by peace was also included in his direct ones.
Duties, and all the more so since no blood offense was inflicted, and it was clear to everyone except Lensky that the matter consisted of a misunderstanding. Zaretsky could stop the duel at another moment: the appearance of Onegin with a servant instead of a second was a direct insult to him (seconds, like opponents, must be socially equal), and at the same time a gross violation of the rules, since the seconds had to meet the day before without opponents and draw up duel rules. Zaretsky had every reason to prevent a bloody outcome by declaring Onegin to have failed to appear. And it is Lensky who instructs Zaretsky to take Onegin "a pleasant, noble, short challenge or a cartel" (Pushkin's italics). The poetic Lensky takes everything on faith, is sincerely convinced of the nobility of Zaretsky, considers his "evil courage" courage, the ability to "calculately keep silent" - restraint, "calculating quarrel" - nobility ... This blind faith in the perfection of the world and people is ruining Lensky . In the duel between Lensky and Onegin, everything is absurd, the opponents do not experience real enmity towards each other until the last minute: “Can’t they laugh until their hand turns red?” Perhaps Onegin would have found in himself the courage to laugh, to stretch out his hand to a friend, to step over false shame - everything would have turned out differently, but he does not, Lensky continues his dangerous game, and in the hands of the seconds there are no longer toys: Now they have already become enemies. They are already coming, raising their pistols, they are already bringing death ... For so long, in such detail, Pushkin described the preparation for the duel, and now everything is happening with incomprehensible speed:
Onegin fired... They struck
Fixed hours: poet
Silently drops the gun
He puts his hand gently on his chest
And falls...
And here, in the face of death, Pushkin is already very serious. When Lensky was alive, one could laugh at his naive daydreaming. But now the unthinkable has happened:
He lay motionless, and strange
There was a languid world of his chela.
He was wounded through the chest;
Smoking, blood flowed from the wound.
Onegin received a harsh, terrible, though necessary lesson. In front of him is the corpse of a friend. Now it finally became clear that they were not enemies, but friends. Pushkin not only himself understands Onegin's torments, but also makes the reader understand them: Onegin is incredibly hard. But Zaretsky is not tormented by anything. "Well? Killed," the neighbor decided.
Killed!.. With a terrible exclamation
Struck, Onegin with a shudder
He leaves and calls people.
Zaretsky carefully puts
On the sleigh the corpse is icy;
He brings home a terrible treasure.
Sensing the dead, they snore
And horses fight...
In six lines, the word "terrible" is repeated twice. Pushkin pumps, deliberately intensifies the melancholy, the horror that grips the reader. Now nothing can be changed; what happened is irreversible. Lensky passed away, and leaves the pages of the novel. There is no place for romance and romantics in a world that is too sober and too base; Pushkin once again reminds of this, saying goodbye to Lensky forever. Stanzas XXXVI - XXXIX are dedicated to Lensky - already without the slightest playful intonation, very seriously. Who was Lensky?
Poet, pensive dreamer,
Killed by a friendly hand!
Pushkin does not blame Onegin, but explains him to us. The inability and unwillingness to think about other people turned into such a fatal mistake that now Eugene is executing himself. So the death of Lensky is the impetus for the rebirth of Onegin, but it is still ahead. While Pushkin leaves Onegin at a crossroads - true to his principle of utmost brevity.
Grushnitsky before the duel could read books, write love poems, if he had not turned into a nonentity. But that Grushnitsky would actually be preparing to shoot himself, risk his life, and this Grushnitsky, who accepted Pechorin’s challenge, is deceiving, he has nothing to fear, there is no need to worry about his life: only his pistol will be loaded ... Did his conscience torment him in the night before the duel, we don't know. He will appear before us, ready to fire. Lermontov does not talk about Grushnitsky, but he makes Pechorin write down in detail what he thought and felt: “Ah! Mr. Grushnitsky! Your hoax will not work for you ... we will switch roles: now I will have to look for signs of secret fear on your pale face Why did you choose those fatal six steps yourself? Do you think that I will turn my forehead to you without argument... but we will cast lots!... and then... then... what if his luck outweighs? if my star, finally, will he cheat on me? .. "So, Pechorin's first feeling is the same as Grushnitsky's: a desire for revenge. "Let's switch roles", "the hoax will fail" - that's what he cares about; he is driven by rather petty motives; he, in essence, continues his game with Grushnitsky, and nothing more; he brought it to its logical end. But this end is dangerous; life is at stake - and, above all, his, Pechorin, life! Still not knowing about the details of the duel, we already know the main thing: Pechorin is alive. He is in the fortress - what could he have come here for, if not the tragic outcome of the duel? We already guess: Grushnitsky is killed. But Pechorin does not say this right away, he mentally returns to the night before the duel: "I thought of dying; it was impossible: I have not yet drained the cup of suffering and now I feel that I still have a long time to live." On the night before the duel, he "did not sleep for a minute", could not write, "then sat down and opened a novel by Walter Scott ... it was The Scottish Puritans"; he "read at first with effort, then forgot himself, carried away by magical fiction ... “But as soon as it dawned, and his nerves calmed down, he again submits to the worst in his character: “I looked in the mirror; a dull pallor covered my face, which kept traces of painful insomnia; but the eyes, although surrounded by a brown shadow, shone proudly and inexorably. I was satisfied with myself." Everything that tormented and secretly bothered him at night was forgotten. He prepares for the duel soberly and calmly: cheerful, as if he were going to a ball." Werner (Pechorin's second) is excited about the upcoming fight. Pechorin speaks to him calmly and mockingly; even to his second, to his friend, he does not reveal "secret anxiety"; as always, he is cold and smart, prone to unexpected conclusions and comparisons: "Try to look at me as a patient obsessed with a disease that is still unknown to you ...", "Waiting for a violent death, isn't it already a real disease?" Alone with himself, he is again the same as on the first day of his stay in Pyatigorsk: a natural, life-loving person. The duel in "Princess Mary" is unlike any duel known to us from Russian literature. Pierre Bezukhov shot with Dolokhov, Grinev with Shvabrin, and even Bazarov with Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - without deceit. A duel is always a terrible, tragic way to resolve disputes. And its only merit is that it presupposes absolute honesty on both sides. Any tricks during the duel covered the indelible shame of the one who tried to cheat. The duel in "Princess Mary" is unlike any duel known to us, because it is based on a dishonest conspiracy of a dragoon captain. Of course, the dragoon captain does not even think that this duel could end tragically for Grushnitsky: he himself loaded his pistol and did not load Pechorin's pistol. But, probably, he does not even think about the possibility of Pechorin's death. Assuring Grushnitsky that Pechorin would certainly chicken out, the dragoon captain himself believed this. He has one goal: to have fun, to present Pechorin as a coward and thereby disgrace him, remorse is unknown to him, the laws of honor too. Everything that happens before the duel reveals the complete irresponsibility and stupid self-confidence of the dragoon captain, he is convinced that events will go according to his plan. But they unfold differently and, like any self-satisfied person, having lost power over events, the captain is lost and powerless. And when Pechorin and Werner joined their opponents, the dragoon captain was still sure that he was directing the comedy.
We've been expecting you for a long time,' said the dragoon captain with an ironic smile.
I took out my watch and showed it to him.
He apologized, saying his watch was running out."
While waiting for Pechorin, the captain, apparently, had already told his friends that Pechorin was scared, he would not come - such an outcome of the case would have completely satisfied him. Nevertheless, Pechorin arrived. Now, according to the laws of behavior in duels, the seconds were supposed to start with an attempt at reconciliation. The dragoon captain broke this law, Werner complied.
“It seems to me,” he said, “that, having shown both of you a readiness to fight, and having thereby paid the debt to the conditions of honor, you could, gentlemen, explain yourself and end this matter amicably.
I'm ready," said Pechorin. "The captain blinked at Grushnitsky"... The role of the captain in a duel is much more dangerous than it might seem. He not only invented and carried out a conspiracy. He personifies the very public opinion that will expose Grushnitsky to ridicule and contempt, if he refuses to duel. During the whole scene preceding the duel, the dragoon captain continues to play his dangerous role. Now he "winked at Grushnitsky", trying to convince him that Pechorin was a coward - and therefore ready for reconciliation, then "took him by the arm and took aside; they whispered for a long time ... "If Pechorin really chickened out, this would be a salvation for Grushnitsky: his pride would be satisfied, and he could not shoot at an unarmed man. Grushnitsky knows Pechorin well enough to understand: he does not recognize , who was at Mary's last night, will not renounce the assertion that Grushnitsky slandered. And yet, like any weak person who finds himself in a difficult situation, he is waiting for a miracle: suddenly something will happen, save, help out ... A miracle does not happen , Pechorin is ready to refuse the duel - on the condition that Grushnitsky publicly renounces his slander. To this the weak man replies: "We will shoot." This is how Grushnitsky signs his sentence, not knowing that Pechorin knows the plot of the dragoon captain, and not thinks that he is endangering his life. But he knows that with three words: "We will shoot" - he cut off his way to honest people. From now on he is a dishonorable person. Pechorin once again tries to appeal to Grushnitsky's conscience: he recalls that one of the opponents "will certainly be killed," to which Grushnitsky replies: "I wish it were you..." If Pechorin had spoken to Grushnitsky in private, he could have achieved repentance or a refusal to duel. That inner, inaudible conversation that goes on between opponents could take place; Pechorin's words reach Grushnitsky: "there was some kind of uneasiness in his eyes," "he became embarrassed, blushed" - but this conversation did not take place because of the dragoon captain. Pechorin is passionately immersed in what he calls life. He is fascinated by intrigue, conspiracy, the intricacies of this whole affair ... The dragoon captain set up his net, hoping to catch Pechorin. Pechorin discovered the ends of this network and took them into his own hands; he tightens the net more and more, and the dragoon captain and Grushnitsky do not notice this. The conditions of the duel, worked out the day before, are cruel: shoot at six paces. Pechorin insists on even more severe conditions: he chooses a narrow platform on top of a sheer cliff and demands that each of the opponents stand on the very edge of the platform: "in this way, even a slight wound will be fatal ... The one who is wounded will certainly fly down and shatter to smithereens..." Still, Pechorin is a very courageous man. After all, he is in mortal danger and at the same time knows how to control himself in such a way that he still has time to see the tops of the mountains, which "crowded ... like an innumerable herd, and Elbrus in the south," and the golden fog ... Just approaching edge of the site and looking down, he involuntarily betrays his excitement: "... down there it seemed dark and cold, as in a coffin; mossy teeth of rocks thrown down by a thunderstorm and time were waiting for their prey." A month and a half after the duel, Pechorin frankly admits in his diary that he deliberately put Grushnitsky before a choice: kill an unarmed man or disgrace himself, but Pechorin understands something else; in Grushnitsky's soul, "vanity and weakness of character should have triumphed! .." Pechorin's behavior can hardly be called completely noble, because he always has double, contradictory aspirations: on the one hand, he seems to be preoccupied with the fate of Grushnitsky, wants to force him to abandon the dishonest act, but, on the other hand, Pechorin is most concerned about his own conscience, from which he pays off in advance in case the irreparable happens and Grushnitsky turns from a conspirator into a victim. Grushnitsky fell to shoot first, and Pechorin continues to experiment; he says to his opponent: "... if you do not kill me, then I will not miss! - I give you my word of honor." This phrase again has a double purpose: once again to test Grushnitsky and once again calm his conscience, so that later, if Grushnitsky is killed, he can say to himself: I am clean, I warned ... Tormented by conscience, "Grushnitsky blushed; he was ashamed to kill an unarmed man .. But how can one confess to such a vile intent? .. "That's when Grushnitsky becomes sorry: why did Pechorin and the dragoon captain confuse him so much? Why should he pay such a high price for pride and selfishness - how many people live in this world, possessing the worst shortcomings, and do not find themselves in such a tragic dead end as Grushnitsky! We forgot about Werner. He knows everything that Pechorin knows, but Werner cannot understand his plan. First of all, he does not have the courage of Pechorin, cannot comprehend Pechorin's determination to stand at gunpoint. In addition, he does not understand the main thing: why? For what purpose does Pechorin risk his life?
"It's time, - whispered ... the doctor ... Look, he is already charging ... if you don't say anything, then I myself ..." Werner's reaction is natural: he seeks to prevent a tragedy. After all, Pechorin is primarily exposed to danger, because Grushnitsky will be the first to shoot! Every person - and a doctor in particular - has no right to allow either murder or suicide. A duel is another matter; they had their own laws, in our modern view, monstrous, barbaric; but Werner, of course, could not and should not interfere with a fair duel. In the same case that we see, he acts unworthily: he evades the necessary intervention - from what motives? So far, we understand one thing: Pechorin turned out to be stronger here, too, since Werner obeyed his will in the same way that everyone else obeys.
And so Pechorin "stood at the corner of the site, firmly resting his left foot on a stone and leaning forward a little, so that in case of a slight wound he would not tip back." Grushnitsky began to raise his pistol...
“Suddenly he lowered the muzzle of his pistol and, turning as pale as a sheet, turned to his second.
Coward! replied the captain.
The shot rang out."
Again - a dragoon captain! For the third time, Grushnitsky was ready to succumb to the voice of conscience - or, perhaps, to the will of Pechorin, which he feels, which he is accustomed to obey - he was ready to abandon the dishonest plan. And for the third time, the dragoon captain was stronger. Whatever Pechorin's motives, here on the site, he represents honesty, and the dragoon captain - meanness. Evil turned out to be stronger, the shot rang out. When Pechorin tries for the last time to appeal to Grushnitsky's conscience, the dragoon captain intervenes again: "Mr. Pechorin! .. you are not here to confess, let me tell you ..." Grushnitsky is crushed, destroyed by mocking contempt, he only wants one thing: so that everything would end soon, Pechorin's shot rang out - a misfire, and to be left alone with the consciousness that the plot had failed, Pechorin won, and he, Grushnitsky, was disgraced. And at that moment Pechorin finishes him off: "Doctor, these gentlemen, probably in a hurry, forgot to put a bullet in my pistol: I ask you to load it again, and well!" Only now it becomes clear to Grushnitsky; Pechorin knew everything! He knew when he offered to refuse slander, he knew when he was standing at the muzzle of a pistol. And just now, when he advised Grushnitsky to "pray to God," he asked if his conscience was saying anything - he also knew! The dragoon captain is trying to continue his line: shouting, protesting, insisting. Grushnitsky doesn't care anymore. "Confused and gloomy," he does not look at the captain's signs. At the first minute, he probably cannot even realize what Pechorin's statement brings him; he experiences only a sense of hopeless shame. Later he will understand: Pechorin's words mean not only shame, but also death. Pechorin is trying for the last time to prevent the tragedy: “Grushnitsky,” I said: there is still time. Give up your slander, and I will forgive you everything; you failed to fool me, and my pride is satisfied, - remember, we were once then friends." But Grushnitsky just cannot bear this: Pechorin's calm, benevolent tone humiliates him even more - again Pechorin won, took over; he is noble, and Grushnitsky...
“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 around the corner at night. There is no place for us on earth...
Finita la comedia! I said to the doctor.
He did not answer and turned away in horror.
The comedy turned into a tragedy, Werner behaves no better than a dragoon captain. At first, he did not keep Pechorin when he became under a bullet. Now that the murder had been committed, the doctor had turned away from responsibility.
The episode of the duel between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov occupies an important place in the novel. The duel takes place after the return of Bazarov from Odintsova. After unrequited love for Anna Sergeevna, Bazarov returned as a different person, he withstood this test of love, which consisted in the fact that he denied this feeling, did not believe that it affects a person so much and does not depend on his will. Returning to the Kirsanov estate, he becomes close to Fenechka and even kisses her in the gazebo, not knowing that Pavel Petrovich is watching them. This incident is the reason for the duel, because it turns out that Fenechka is not indifferent to Kirsanov. After the duel, Bazarov is forced to leave for the estate with his parents, where he dies. Bazarov believes that “from a theoretical point of view, a duel is absurd; but from a practical point of view - this is another matter, "he would not allow himself" to be insulted without demanding satisfaction. This is his attitude to duels in general, and he treats the duel with Kirsanov ironically. In this episode, as in the previous ones, Bazarov's great pride is manifested. He is not afraid of a duel, a grin can be heard in his voice. Pavel Petrovich in this episode shows his inborn aristocracy. When challenging Bazarov to a duel, he spoke snobbishly and officially, using long pompous phrases. Pavel Petrovich, unlike Bazarov, takes the duel seriously. He stipulates all the conditions of the duel and is even ready to resort to "violent measures" in order, if necessary, to force Bazarov to accept the challenge. Another detail confirming the decisiveness of Kirsanov's intentions is the cane with which he came to Bazarov. Turgenev remarks: "He used to walk without a cane." After the duel, Pavel Petrovich appears before us not as an arrogant aristocrat, but as a physically and morally suffering elderly man. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov from the very beginning did not like his nephew's friend Bazarov. According to both, they belonged to different class groups: Kirsanov did not even shake hands with Bazarov when they first met. They had different views on life, they did not understand each other, opposed each other in everything, despised each other, often there were clashes and quarrels between them. As for the reason for the challenge to a duel, he said this: “I think ... it is inappropriate to delve into the real reasons for our collision. We can't stand each other. What more? Bazarov agreed, but called the duel "stupid", "extraordinary". It happens the next day early in the morning. They had no seconds, there was only a witness - Peter. While Bazarov measured out steps, Pavel Petrovich loaded pistols. They dispersed, took aim, fired, Bazarov wounded Pavel Petrovich in the leg ... Although they were supposed to shoot again according to the condition, he ran up to the enemy and bandaged his wound, sent Peter for the droshky. They decided to tell Nikolai Petrovich, who had arrived with Peter, that they had quarreled over politics.
The author, like Bazarov, refers to the duel with irony. Pavel Petrovich is shown comically. Turgenev emphasizes the emptiness of elegant noble chivalry. He shows that Kirsanov lost in this duel: “He was ashamed of his arrogance, his failure, he was ashamed of the whole business he had planned ...” And at the same time, the author does not regret Pavel Petrovich at all and makes him lose consciousness after being wounded. "What a stupid face!" said the wounded gentleman with a forced smile. Bazarov was brought out by Turgenev as a noble winner, the author describes the morning nature, against which Bazarov and Peter walked, as if showing that they, fools, got up early, woke up nature and came to the clearing to engage in "stupidity", knowing that it would not end in anything good . The author also shows the special behavior of Pavel Petrovich before the duel: “Pavel Petrovich suppressed everyone, even Prokofich, with his chilling politeness”, which indicates that he wanted to win the duel, he really hoped for it, he wanted to get even with the “nihilists”: “He aims me right in the nose, and how diligently he squints, the robber!” - Bazarov thought during the duel. The duel scene occupies one of the final places in the novel. After her, the characters began to treat each other at least a little, but in a different way: either they treat each other well, or they don’t treat each other at all. The duel is the resolution of the conflict between Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov, the completion of ideological disputes leading to an open clash. This episode is one of the climaxes of the novel.
In three duels ("Eugene Onegin", "The Captain's Daughter", "A Hero of Our Time") one of the heroes acts as a noble defender of the girl's honor. But Pechorin actually protects Mary from insults, and Lensky, due to his romantic perception of reality, “thinks: I will be her savior,” considers a misunderstanding a reason for a duel. At the heart of Pushkin's conflict is Tatyana's inability to "rule herself", not to show her feelings, at the heart of Lermontov's is the baseness of the soul, meanness and deceit of Grushnitsky. Grinev also fights for the lady's honor. The reasons for duels in all the works under consideration are completely different. Onegin could not resist public opinion and defame his honor, Grinev loves Marya Ivanovna and cannot afford to offend her honor, Pechorin is bored in this world, he wanted to diversify his life with a duel with Grushnitsky, Bazarov and Kirsanov were at enmity. They had different views on life, they did not understand each other, opposed each other in everything, despised each other, because they belonged to different eras. Between Onegin and Lensky the duel was equal, in compliance with all the rules, excluding some violations. Onegin and Zaretsky (Lensky's second) - both violate the rules of the duel. The first, to demonstrate his irritated contempt for the story, which he fell into against his own will and in the seriousness of which he still does not believe, and Zaretsky because he sees in a duel an amusing, albeit sometimes bloody story, an object of gossip and practical jokes ... In "Evgeny Onegin" Zaretsky was the sole manager of the duel, because "in duels a classic and a pedant", he dealt with big omissions, deliberately ignoring everything that could eliminate the bloody outcome. Zaretsky could stop the duel at another moment: the appearance of Onegin with a servant instead of a second was a direct insult to him (seconds, like opponents, must be socially equal), and at the same time a gross violation of the rules, since the seconds had to meet the day before without opponents and draw up duel rules. In The Captain's Daughter, the absence of seconds allows Shvabrin to strike a treacherous blow, which contradicts Grinev's notions 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, but he got scared and did not do it. In the duel of Bazarov and Kirsanov, all the rules of dueling were observed, the only deviation from them: instead of seconds, there was a witness, “because where can I get them?” Seconds play an important role in all duels. In A Hero of Our Time, it is Ivan Ignatievich who becomes the organizer of the conspiracy against Pechorin. It was the captain of the dragoons who persuaded Grushnitsky not to load his pistols. With the help of Grushnitsky, Ivan Ignatievich wanted to take revenge on Pechorin for the fact that the latter considers himself, and is not like the “water society”, he is above this society. 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 a conspiracy. He personifies the very public opinion that will expose Grushnitsky to ridicule and contempt if he refuses to duel. Zaretsky in "Eugene Onegin" is similar to Ivan Ignatievich: they are both narrow-minded, envious, for them the duel is nothing more than entertainment. Zaretsky, like the dragoon captain, personifies public opinion. The results of the duels in these works are different. In Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin" the duel ends with the death of Lensky, in "The Captain's Daughter" - Shvabrin injures Grinev not according to the rules. At Lermontov's, Pechorin kills Grushnitsky. At Turgenev's, Bazarov wounds Pavel Petrovich in the leg. A duel for Onegin serves as an impetus to a new life, feelings awaken in him, and he lives not only with his mind, but also with his soul. Pechorin, on the other hand, 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. Grinev, after the duel, decides to confess his love to Marya Ivanovna and invites her to become his wife. After the duel, Bazarov is forced to leave for the estate with his parents, where he dies. In The Captain's Daughter, the duel between Shvabrin and Grinev is needed to show the understanding of people from different eras of such a phenomenon as a duel. In Pushkin's novel, the inability and unwillingness to think about other people turned into such a fatal mistake that now Eugene is executing himself. And he can no longer help thinking about what he has done, cannot but learn what he did not know how to do before: suffer, repent, think ... The duel is the resolution of the conflict between Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov, the completion of ideological disputes leading to an open clash. This episode is one of the climaxes of the novel. Thus, all duelists in these works violate the dueling code to a greater or lesser extent. In the story "The Captain's Daughter", the events of which unfold in the 18th century, the dueling code is still blurred and not defined. In the 19th century, the dueling code undergoes changes. Since the middle of the 19th century, it has not been of great importance for duelists, it does not play a special role in a duel. At the beginning of the century, the call to a duel is transmitted by the second, at the end of the century - by the duelist himself, and the reason for the duel may not be explained at all. The presence of seconds is also unimportant. The attitude to the duel is also changing. At the beginning of the century, the duel was taken seriously as an institution, at the end of the century, the duel and all its rituals began to be treated ironically. The only thing that remains unchanged is the pre-duel stipulation of the terms of the duel, although at the end of the century it is allowed to negotiate the terms almost during the duel.
List of used literature
1. Belinsky V. G. Articles about Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol. M.: Enlightenment, 1983.
3. Gordin Ya. A. Duels and duelists. Moscow: Education, 1980.
5. Pushkin A.S. Eugene Onegin. Prose. M.: EKSMO-PRESS, 2001.
7. Reifman I. Ritualized aggression: a duel in Russian culture and literature. Moscow: New Literary Review, 2002.
8. Turgenev I.S. Fathers and sons, stories, stories, poems in prose. M.: AST OLIMP, 1997.
9. Lermontov M.Yu. Hero of our time. Moscow: Pravda, 1990.
10. Pushkin A.S. Captain's daughter. AST Moscow, 2008
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
Duel in Russian Literature. Duel as an act of aggression. The history of the duel and the dueling code. Duels at A.S. Pushkin in "The Captain's Daughter", "Eugene Onegin". The duel in the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time". The duel in the work of I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons".
scientific work, added 02/25/2009
Rules and procedure for conducting a Russian duel. The study of the role of duels as a way to protect the dignity and honor of a person on the example of literary heroes: Onegin and Lensky, Pechorin and Grushnitsky, Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, Pierre Bezukhov and officer Dolokhov.
term paper, added 05/04/2014
The protagonist of the novel M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time", his friends and foes. The episode of the duel as one of the key ones in the novel. The night before the duel. "Demonic" properties of Pechorin's nature. The place of the image of Grushnitsky in the novel. Hero's diaries.
presentation, added 10/14/2012
The problem of "superfluous people" in Russian literature of the 19th century on the example of Onegin, Pechorin and Beltov. The problem of "New people" on the example of Kirsanov, Lopukhov, Vera Pavlovna and Rakhmetov. Issues of family relations in the works of A. Herzen and N. Chernyshevsky.
thesis, added 01/13/2014
General characteristics and specific features of Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", its structure and main storylines. The sixth chapter of the novel as a key episode in understanding the characters' characters. The place and significance of the duel scene between Lensky and Onegin in the novel.
abstract, added 04/26/2011
The study of the biography and creative path of Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov - Russian poet, prose writer, playwright, artist, officer. The first works: the poem "Indian Woman", "Hadji-Abrek". The first stay of Lermontov in the Caucasus. Samples in painting. duel site.
presentation, added 05/13/2012
Origin of M. Lermontov. Highlights of his life: studies at Moscow University, views on social relations and poetic activity. Features of the first love of the poet and its influence on creativity. Causes of the duel and death of Lermontov.
presentation, added 03/15/2011
A brief sketch of the life, personal and creative development of the great Russian writer and poet A.S. Pushkin. Analysis and chronology of writing the main works of this author, their topics. Pushkin's marriage and the main reasons for his duel, the death of a genius.
presentation, added 11/12/2013
Origin and family of Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov. The childhood years of the poet, the influence of his grandmother E.A. Arsenyeva. The first teachers, the development of the young man's poetic talent. Reasons for exile to the Caucasus, the tragic events of the duel and funeral in Pyatigorsk.
presentation, added 12/05/2013
Biography of the great Russian poet M.Yu. Lermontov. The origin of the poet from the noble family of the Stolypins on the mother and the Scottish family on the father. Influence of impressions from the Caucasus. The beginning of poetic creativity, the choice of a military career. The death of a poet in a duel.
