The Duel: A Ritual and Its Transformations

The duel emerged as an important theme in Russian literature during the nineteenth century. This literary trend was an outgrowth of events that were then transpiring in the wider society. Dueling became an increasingly popular pastime among the Russian nobility, even as efforts to curb it were enacted into law. Several major Russian literary figures from the era, notably Mikhail Lermontov and Mikhail Pushkin, were killed in duels. There were few Russian writers from this time that did not feature scenes of dueling in their work at some point. The rising popularity of the duel during the nineteenth century was an outgrowth of wider social, cultural, and political currents. It reflected the general instability of the Russian society of the era, when large populations were emigrating to America. In many ways, the growth of dueling, and its increased inclusion in Russian literature is reflective of the wider violent trends that defined much of Russian social life and political culture during the period.

In Russian society from the beginning of the nineteenth century until approximately the 1830s, a record number of duels transpired. This was the period of the reign of Czar Nicholas I, and his efforts to establish an absolute autocracy. These efforts by Czar Nicholas inevitably meant the curbing of some of the traditional privileges of the aristocracy, which had a lengthy tradition of autonomy in Russian political culture. This was met with resistance by the aristocrats. The increased popularity of the duel during this period reflected the rising militancy of an aristocracy that viewed itself as being under attack. It was also during this time of more frequent dueling that Russian literary culture blossomed. Therefore, it was inevitable that dueling scenes would play an important role in the cultivation of early to mid-nineteenth century Russian literature, and to continue to impact the Russian literary style even as the twentieth century approached.

Famous literary figures from this period were often themselves involved in duels. One such duel was between Alexander Pushkin and Georges d’Anthes, which occurred in St. Petersburg in 1837. Pushkin believed d’Anthes to be involved in an adulterous relationship with his wife and challenged him to a duel. Pushkin had previously fought and survived twenty-eight duels. However, he was mortally wounded in his duel with d’Anthes, and died at the age of thirty-seven. In 1841, another famous Russian writer was likewise killed in a duel. He was Mikhail Lermontov, who would die at age twenty-six in a duel with Nikolai Martynov after accusing the latter of insulting his honor. Dueling among the Russian elite including major literary figures continued to transpire throughout the rest of the nineteenth century. The practice would continue into the beginning of the twentieth century as the Revolution of 1917 approached.

Nikolay Gumilyov and Maximilian Voloshin, both of whom were prominent figures in Russian poetry, fought a duel in 1909. The basis for the duel is at once ironically trivial, humorous, and tragic. There was a supposed female poet, Cherubina de Gabriak, who was extraordinarily popular with her male counterparts in Russian literary circles of the period. Gumilyov was her publisher, and he began writing love letters to his client whom he had never met. Cherubina sent him supposed love letters in return. However, Cherubina was not a real person. Instead, she was a fictitious identity created by Voloshin and a schoolteacher named Elisaveta Dmitrievna. When Gumilyov found this out, he was enraged and challenged Voloshin to a duel. However, neither man was killed during this particular encounter.

To a contemporary Western mind, it seems inexplicable as to why otherwise educated and intelligent men such as these would wish to engage in such a reckless and self-destructive activity as dueling. The deaths of such figures as Pushkin and Lermontov at such an early age by means of fighting a dueling for seemingly trivial and gratuitous reasons would appear to be a tragic waste of life and talent in the present era. While Russia lacked the tradition of dueling as a sport found in Western Europe in the pre-modern era, dueling did become something a tradition within the context of the Russian military. Ironically, the historical evidence indicates that the concept of the duel was originally imported into Russian culture as a result of Russian soldiers having been stationed in Western European countries during the seventeenth century. It was through this contact with the military cultures of England, France, and other Atlantic countries that the notion of the “honor duel” was introduced into the ranks of the Russian nobility and military elite.

While records of duels taking place in Russia date back to the mid-seventeenth century, it was not until the early nineteenth century that such acts became commonplace. However, a fascination with legendary duelists evolved in Russian military culture, and eventually military courts would sentence quarreling officers to fight a duel as a means of resolving their differences. The practice of dueling then began to spread into the culture of the civilian nobility from which military officers were typically drawn. While initially considered an illicit activity, and one that was formally prohibited by law, the practice of dueling eventually became widespread with members of the Russian elite openly engaging in duels. Not only did Russian noblemen fight duels with personal rivals in private life, but as the conflict between the aristocracy and the monarchy escalated, individual aristocrats would actually challenge members of the Czar’s government to duels if they felt personally affronted. Indeed, Alexander Pushkin even went so far as to challenge Czar Nicholas I himself to a duel.

It is also important to consider the closed nature of Russian society of the era. Education was primarily restricted to the elite, and it was from the ranks of the upper classes that nearly all Russian literary figures were drawn. Russian literature of the period involved aristocrats writing for other aristocrats, and writings glorifying the practice of dueling proliferated within the ranks of Russian literary society. Russian writers would concoct tales of fictional duelists that presented dueling as an ancient and honorable tradition within Russian society. Ironically, this was hardly the case as dueling had been a fairly uncommon practice prior to the nineteenth century, and its popularity at the time had developed rather suddenly. An early work of this type is “Castle Neihausen,” published by Aleksander Bestuzhev-Marlinsky in 1824. This story depicts a Russian duel that supposedly occurred in the fourteenth century, although this was long before the practice had been imported from Western Europe. “The Captain’s Daughter” by Alexander Pushkin gave the appearance that dueling was already a common feature of Russian society in the late eighteenth century. “Three Portraits” by Ivan Turgenev was published in the mid-nineteenth century and depicted eighteenth century Russia in the same manner.

The glorification of dueling in Russian literature continued into the twentieth century. The great Anton Chekhov published a work merely titled “The Duel” in 1891. Another work by the same name was published by Alexander Kuprin in 1905. However, Kuprin’s work represented a sharp departure from the conventional representation of dueling in Russian literature. The story is about a young military officer who leads a wildlife of drinking, gambling, and consorting with prostitutes. The officer is a severe womanizer and maintains multiple affairs simultaneously. He treats his female companions poorly, and also expresses hostility towards Jewish people that he observes during his travels. The act of dueling is depicted in the story as an immoral one that is indulged in by persons of low character. Kuprin depicts dueling as an unseemly and non-romantic practice.

Dueling was depicted in literature with greater frequency in the nineteenth century than it was in any other period in history, and Russian literature was at the forefront of this trend during the era. It was likely Alexander Pushkin more than any other writer of the period who was responsible for this development. As a real-life duelist, Pushkin certainly had plenty of personal experience from which he could draw when crafting his stories. His fictional descriptions of the act of dueling are intense and graphic. One of Pushkin’s most famous poems, “Eugene Onegin,” bears this out. The following is a sample passage from the poem:

The shining pistols are uncased,

The mallet loud the ramrod strikes,

Bullets are down the barrels pressed,

For the first time the hammer clicks.

Lo! Poured in a thin gray cascade,

The powder in the pan is laid,

The sharp flint, screwed securely on,

Is cocked once more. Uneasy grown,

Guillot behind a pollard stood;

Aside the foes their mantles threw,

Zaretski paces thirty-two

Measured with great exactitude.

At each extreme one takes his stand,

A loaded pistol in his hand.

The words depicted above certainly convey an intensely dramatic atmosphere. Dueling is depicted as a thrilling experience whereby the duelist receives a double sense of excitement that comes from both the danger of looking his potential death in the eye, all the while anticipating the pleasure of killing his opponent. The story of the protagonist in “Eugene Onegin” ironically follows the same trajectory as Pushkin’s own life, as both were successful duelists for a time before meeting their own deaths within the context of a duel. Besides Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov is the Russian writer of the nineteenth century whose writings most vividly convey the ethos behind the culture of dueling as it developed during the period. “A Hero of Our Time” is Lermontov’s most famous work, and contains this passage:

“Doctor, these gentlemen have forgotten, in their hurry, no doubt, to put a bullet in my pistol. I beg you to load it afresh—and properly!”

“Impossible!” cried the captain, “impossible! I loaded both pistols. Perhaps the bullet has rolled out of yours… That is not my fault! And you have no right to load again… No right at all. It is altogether against the rules, I shall not allow it”…

“Very well!” I said to the captain. “If so, then you and I shall fight on the same terms”…

He came to a dead stop.

Grushnitski stood with his head sunk on his breast, embarrassed and gloomy.

“Let them be!” he said at length to the captain, who was going to pull my pistol out of the doctor’s hands. “You know yourself that they are right.”

In vain the captain made various signs to him. Grushnitski would not even look.

Meanwhile the doctor had loaded the pistol and handed it to me. On seeing that, the captain spat and stamped his foot.

“You are a fool, then, my friend,” he said: “a common fool!… You trusted to me before, so you should obey me in everything now… But serve you right! Die like a fly!”…

He turned away, muttering as he went:

“But all the same it is absolutely against the rules.”

“Grushnitski!” I said. “There is still time: recant your slander, and I will forgive you everything. You have not succeeded in making a fool of me; my self-esteem is satisfied. Remember—we were once friends”…

His face flamed; his eyes flashed.

“Fire!” he answered. “I despise myself and I hate you. If you do not kill me I will lie in wait for you some night and cut your throat. There is not room on the earth for both of us”…

I fired.

This passage from Lermontov clearly depicts the level of interpersonal hatred that would lead men to engage in deadly combat with their rivals. Even a passage such as this, written by a practicing duelist and intended to glorify its supposed honor, conveys a dramatic sense of the barbaric nature of the practice. The manner in which dueling devalued life and trivialized violence and murder is depicted even more dramatically in this passage from “The Duel” by Alexander Kuprin:

‘I am sensible of my obligation to you,’ replied Pavel Petrovitch; ‘and may reckon then on your accepting my challenge without compelling me to resort to violent measures.’

‘That means, speaking without metaphor, to that stick?’ Bazarov remarked coolly. ‘That is precisely correct. It’s quite unnecessary for you to insult me. Indeed, it would not be a perfectly safe proceeding. You can remain a gentleman…. I accept your challenge, too, like a gentleman.’

‘That is excellent,’ observed Pavel Petrovitch, putting his stick in the corner. ‘We will say a few words directly about the conditions of our duel; but I should like first to know whether you think it necessary to resort to the formality of a trifling dispute, which might serve as a pretext for my challenge?’

‘No; it’s better without formalities.’

‘I think so myself. I presume it is also out of place to go into the real grounds of our difference. We cannot endure one another. What more is necessary?’

‘What more, indeed?’ repeated Bazarov ironically.

‘As regards the conditions of the meeting itself, seeing that we shall have no seconds—for where we could get them?’

‘Exactly so; where could we get them?’

‘Then I have the honour to lay the following proposition before you: The combat to take place early to-morrow, at six, let us say, behind the cops, with pistols, at a distance of ten paces….’

‘At ten paces? that will do; we hate one another at that distance.’

‘We might have it eight,’ remarked Pavel Petrovitch.

‘We might.’

‘To fire twice; and, to be ready for any result, let each put a letter in his pocket, in which he accuses himself of his end.’

‘Now, that I don’t approve of at all,’ observed Bazarov. ‘There’s a slight flavour of the French novel about it, something not very plausible.’

‘Perhaps. You will agree, however, that it would be unpleasant to incur a suspicion of murder?’

‘I agree as to that. But there is a means of avoiding that painful reproach. We shall have no seconds, but we can have a witness.’

‘And whom, allow me to inquire?’

‘Why, Piotr.’

‘What Piotr?’

‘Your brother’s valet. He’s a man who has attained to the acme of contemporary culture, and he will perform his part with all the comilfo (comme il faut) necessary in such cases.’

‘I think you are joking, sir.’

‘Not at all. If you think over my suggestion, you will be convinced that it’s full of common-sense and simplicity. You can’t hide a candle under a bushel; but I’ll undertake to prepare Piotr in a fitting manner and bring him on to the field of battle.’

‘You persist in jesting still,’ Pavel Petrovitch declared, getting up from his chair. ‘But after the courteous readiness you have shown me, I have no right to pretend to lay down…. And so, everything is arranged…. By the way, perhaps you have no pistols?’

‘How should I have pistols, Pavel Petrovitch? I’m not in the army.’

‘In that case, I offer you mine. You may rest assured that it’s five years now since I shot with them.’

‘That’s a very consoling piece of news.’

In this passage the two duelists casually discuss their plans to fight to the death. The potential taking of each other’s lives is clearly regarded by both of them as a matter of moral indifference at best, and perhaps even an honorable act. It is ironic how two sworn enemies such as these will engage in the planning of mortal combat as a matter of routine conversation. They even make plans to avoid potential accusations of murder being levied against the survivor by agreeing to make it appear the losing combatant committed suicide. This passage by Kuprin does a splendid job of conveying the brutality and barbarism of dueling. The reckless disregard for life and the well-being of both one’s self and others that the culture of dueling involved is clearly indicated.

The works of Pushkin and Lermontov on one end and Kuprin on the other represent polar opposites in terms of how dueling is portrayed in nineteenth century Russian literature. Pushkin and Lermontov were both duelists who helped to popularize the practice in Russia, and they both ultimately lost their lives in duels. Kuprin is clearly opposed to dueling and regards the practice with disdain. He is able to convey this idea in his writing is a way that is very subtle and matter of fact, and without any necessary recourse to moral exhortation. These works also represent polar opposites with regards to the time in which they appeared. The works of Pushkin and Lermontov appeared in the early decades of the nineteenth century as the popularity of dueling was beginning and, indeed, as the Russian nobility itself was in a state of severe crisis and soon to meet a dreadful fate.

Yet another angle from which dueling is explored in Russian literature of the nineteenth century can be found in the work of Ivan Turgenev. A much different personality type from that of Pushkin or Lermontov, Turgenev was not personally a duelist. He had been raised by a domineering and overprotective mother, and lacked the adventurous, risk-taking spirit of those writers who actually engaged in the practice of dueling. Though he was also a product of the Russian nobility, Turgenev rejected the aristocratic values of many of his contemporaries. He leaned leftward politically and sympathized with the revolutions in America and France. Turgenev became friends with Mikhail Bakunin, the future anarchist leader and rival of Karl Marx. Clearly, he was of a much different spirit and outlook that his dueling, aristocratic contemporaries. However, he did approach the subject in one of his works, “The Duelist,” published in 1847. This work is a somewhat romantic work that explored the duality between one’s nature as an individual on one hand, and one’s nature as a member of society on the other hand. Turgenev’s work reflects an affinity for the free-spirited individual.

Turgenev also had an experience with the culture of dueling in his personal life, even if he never actually engaged in a duel. He knew well the legendary The Death of Ivan Ilyich writer Leo Tolstoy, and the two literary figures maintained an on-again, off-again friendship for many years. Occasionally, the friendship would be interrupted by violent quarrels. At one point, Turgenev had sent his illegitimate daughter Pauline to work among Russia’s poor. Turgenev believed such an experience would enhance her own education. Tolstoy criticized this action, and denounced Turgenev as a hypocrite. A bitter and hostile exchange of letters would occur for some months afterward, and at one point both men actually challenged each other to a duel. No duel ever ensued, however, and Turgenev and Tolstoy simply went their separate ways.

The practice of dueling eventually fell out of favor in Russia. Not only did the practice come to be viewed as unseemly, but the aristocratic culture of the nobility itself entered a phase of severe decline. The Russian nobility represented an old order that was doomed. Just over a decade after Kuprin’s work depicting dueling in a negative light was published, the Russia elite met their revolutionary fate at the hands of the Bolsheviks. Yet the works of classic nineteenth century writers like Pushkin, Lermontov, Kurpin, Turgenev, Tolstoy, and many others thankfully survive. Through their works the modern reader may get a glimpse into the cultural life of the Russian nobility as it was in its final decades.

Bibliography

Binyon, Timothy J. Pushkin: A Biography. London: HarperCollins, 2002.

Freeborn, Richard. Turgenev: The Novelist's Novelist, a Study. London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1960.

House, Melville. “Illuminations: The Russian Duel’s Greatest Hits.” Melville HouseBooks. http://www.mhpbooks.com/illuminations-the-russian-duels-greatest-hits/ August 25, 2011. Accessed on November 30, 2013.

Kelly, Laurence. Lermontov: Tragedy in the Caucasus. Tauris Parke, Spain: Tauris ParkePublishing, 2003.

Kuprin, Alexander. The Duel. Translated by Josh Billings. New York: Melville House,2011.

Lermontov, Mikhail. A Hero of Our Time. Translated by Natasha Randall. Foreword by Neil Labute. New York: Penguin, 2009.

Magarshack, David. Turgenev: a Life. London: Faber and Faber, 1954.

Pushkin, Alexander. Eugene Onegin: A Novel in Verse. Translated by Charles Johnston.

Introduction by Michael Basker. Preface by John Bayley (Revised Edition). NewYork: Penguin, 1979.

Reyfman, Irina. Ritualized Violence Russian Style: The Duel in Russian Culture and Literature. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Terras, Victor. Handbook of Russian Literature. New Haven, Connecticut: YaleUniversity Press, 1985.

Turgenev, Ivan. 1847. “The Duelist.” The Literature Network. http://www.online-literature.com/turgenev/2710/. Accessed on November 30. 2013.