Where is the duel? Legislative bans on dueling

Dueling Code

The dueling code is usually referred to as a set of rules governing the reasons and reasons for challenging a duel, types of duels, the order of the challenge, its acceptance and rejection, the procedure for preparing and conducting the duel itself, which determine what behavior of duel participants is acceptable and what is not.

In France, the dueling code was first published by the Comte de Chateauvillers in 1836. At the end of the 19th century, the dueling code of Count Verger, published in 1879, became generally recognized for Europe. Both the one and the other edition record the practice of duels of the corresponding time. In Russia, the dueling code of Durasov, published in 1912, is known. All published versions of the dueling code were not regulatory official documents, but sets of recommendations formed by experts. The dueling code has always been well known among the nobility and officers (as well as within other communities where the duel was used).

Weapon

The main type of dueling weapon was originally cold. Historians of the issue note that initially it was assumed that the nobleman was ready to fight in a duel with the weapon that he had with him, therefore, in a natural way, bladed melee weapons constantly carried with him became a duel:

• Flamberge - a two-handed (less often - one-handed or one-and-a-half) sword with a wavy (flame-shaped) blade;

In the duels of the nobles of Western Europe in the 14th-17th centuries, a light sword or rapier paired with a daga was most often used, since this was the only weapon that a nobleman could carry outside of service within the city. The weapons of legal duels (court fights) were appointed by the court and could depend on the class of the rivals. So, rivals of a simple rank could fight with clubs, sticks or axes, for the nobles, such weapons were considered not “noble” enough.

In the 18th century, firearms became more widespread in duels, mainly single-shot trigger pistols. The use of pistols removes the main problem of all duels using physical force or edged weapons - the effect on the result of the difference in age and physical training of the duelists. To even more equalize the chances of duelists, dueling pistols are made paired, absolutely identical and no different from each other, with the exception of the number 1 or 2 on the barrel. It is curious that at first pistol duels on horseback came into practice, and only later did the now widely known foot form appear.

Much less often, long-barreled firearms (dueling with guns, rifles, carbines) and repeating pistols or revolvers were used for duels. There are also known cases of the use of completely "non-canonical" weapons or items used as such in duels. So, for example, a duel between two English officers in India is described, which consisted of the following: the officers sat motionless for several hours in a dark room, where they launched a spectacled snake, until, finally, she bit one of them. In Russia in the 19th century there was a case of a duel between the bailiff Tsitovich and the staff captain Zhegalov on copper candelabra - such a weapon, in accordance with his right of the offended, was chosen by Tsitovich, because he did not know how to shoot or fence sufficiently.

Reason for a duel

A challenge to a duel usually followed if one person (offended) believed that the actions or statements of another person (offender) were detrimental to his honor. The very concept of honor at the same time could be interpreted very broadly and vary depending on the social community to which the offended and the offender belong, as well as on geographical and historical circumstances. Usually, honor was understood as an innate personal dignity, requiring certain rules of conduct to be observed in relation to a person, demonstrating respect for his origin and social status. Damage to honor was considered any deviation from such rules, humiliating a person in his own eyes and in the eyes of public opinion. Family or clan honor could also be defended through a duel, and in certain circumstances, the honor of strangers who, due to accepted customs, found themselves under the protection of the offended.

No material damage could become, in itself, a reason for a duel, such claims were resolved in court. Filing an official complaint against the offender to the authorities, superiors or to the court permanently deprived the offended person of the right to challenge the offender to a duel because of this insult.

In practice, a variety of circumstances have become an occasion for duels over the centuries. There were duels for extremely serious reasons, such as revenge for a murdered relative or friend, but it happened that a careless joke taken by someone at their own expense, or an awkward gesture, led to a duel. Since in all cases the fact of insult was determined by the offended person, there was no standard for offensive or non-offensive behavior. At the same time, even having received a call on an extremely dubious occasion, the offender was most often forced to accept it, so as not to look like a coward in the eyes of society.

It was widely believed that only an equal in position could damage a person's honor. An insult inflicted by a lower in rank or social position, for example, a raznochinets - a nobleman, was a violation of the right, but did not hurt the nobleman's honor, therefore it could not be a reason for a duel - the challenge from the highest to the lowest was excluded, the violated right should be restored in court. A challenge from a lower rank to a higher one, under certain circumstances, was allowed, so sometimes a junior officer could challenge the boss who offended him to a duel, but the unequal position of the caller allowed the caller to reject such a challenge, if desired, without fear for his reputation.

Later dueling codes classified dueling occasions as follows:

Normal, or light insult (insult of the first degree). Insult with a word, directed mainly against the self-esteem of the offended and not affecting the good name and reputation. For example, such are insulting or caustic expressions affecting minor personality traits, appearance, manner of dressing, unfamiliarity with any subject. The offended person received the right to choose a weapon, other duel conditions were determined by an agreement worked out by the seconds. Grave insult (insult of the second degree). Insulting with a word or indecent gesture, affecting the honor and reputation of the offended, including accusation of dishonorable actions and accusation of lying, or combined with obscene language. "Spiritual infidelity" of the spouse was also considered an insult of the second degree. The offended could choose the type of weapon and the type of duel (to the first blood, to the injury, to the result). Insult by action (insult of the third degree). A real aggressive action directed at the offended. A blow, a slap, an insulting touch, a throw of an object at the offended, as well as an attempt at any such action, if under the given specific conditions it could be brought to a result, but did not reach the goal due to circumstances beyond the offender's control. The bodily infidelity of the spouse was also equated with insult by action. In the event of an insult by an action, the offended person had the right to choose a weapon, the type of duel, the barrier distance (if it was a duel with pistols) or the choice between a mobile and stationary duel (when a duel with swords, sabers or rapiers), as well as to use their own weapons ( in this case, the enemy could also use his own weapon).

Sometimes the difference between a serious insult and an insult by action was purely formal: if an attempt was made to strike or throw an object from a distance at which the blow or throw could reach the goal, then this was considered an insult by action, but if the offender obviously could not touch (hands or object) to the offended, then - an insult of the second degree. At the same time, a verbal announcement of an insult by an action (for example, the statement: “I spit on you!”), Not even accompanied by any real actions, was considered an insult of the third degree.

The severity of a tier 2-3 insult inflicted by a woman was reduced to tier 1. The severity of the 2-3 degree insult inflicted by an incompetent person was reduced by one degree. The severity of the insult inflicted on a woman, deceased relatives or the honor of the clan increased by one step.

If the offended responded to the insult with an insult of the same severity, then this did not deprive him of the rights of the offended. If the response to the insult was more severe, the one who received the more severe insult became the offended party and acquired the corresponding rights.

Call

It was recommended that the offended person immediately, on the spot, demand an apology in a calm and respectful tone, or immediately tell the offender that seconds would be sent to him. Further, the offended could either send a written challenge (cartel), or challenge the offender to a duel orally, through seconds. The maximum period for a call under normal conditions (when the offender was directly available and there were no objective difficulties in transferring the call) was considered to be a day. Delaying with a challenge was considered bad form.

In cases where one person insulted several at the same time, the rule was: "One insult - one challenge." It meant that the offender was obliged to satisfy only one of the calls of several people insulted by him at the same time. If all the insults inflicted were of the same severity, then the offender was free to choose any of the incoming calls, but, having chosen, he could no longer replace it with another. If the severity of the insult was different, then those of the callers who were offended more heavily received the advantage. In any case, once the duel over a particular insult had taken place, repeated challenges from other offended persons would not be accepted. This rule ruled out the possibility of a series of duels (with a high probability - fatal) for one person with a group of people about the same insult.

Duel participants

The duelists themselves could take part in the duel, that is, the offender and the offended, the seconds, the doctor. Friends and relatives of the duelists could also be present, although it was not considered good form to turn the duel into a performance, gathering spectators at it.

Duels with relatives and interested parties

Later dueling codes contained a direct prohibition to challenge close relatives to a duel, which included sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, brothers. The cousin might already have been called. Duels between the creditor and the debtor were also strictly forbidden.

Replacement for persons not capable of dueling

The direct participants in the duel could not be women, persons incapable, having an illness or injury that puts them in a clearly unequal position with the enemy, the elderly (usually from the age of 60, although if desired, an older man who retained physical health could fight on dueling himself) or too young (minors). If in reality such a person inflicted an insult or became insulted, one of his “natural patrons” should have replaced him in a duel; it was believed that such a substitute assumes the burden of the inflicted insult and takes over all the rights and obligations of the duel participant due to the person being replaced by him. To replace an elderly, minor, sick or crippled man was one of his closest blood relatives (up to and including his uncle and nephew).

The replacement for the woman was to be either a man from among the closest blood relatives, or a husband, or a companion (that is, the one who accompanied the woman at the time and place where the insult was inflicted), or, if so desired, any man who was present when insulted or later found out about him and considers it necessary for himself to stand up for this woman. At the same time, a necessary condition under which the right of a woman to such intercession was recognized was her impeccable behavior, from the point of view of moral norms accepted in society. A woman known for her excessively free behavior was deprived of the right to protection from insult.

In the event that the wife’s adultery became the cause of the duel, the wife’s lover was considered the offender, and he should have been called. In the event of a husband's infidelity, any of her closest relatives or any man who considers it necessary for himself could stand up for the honor of his wife.

In all cases, when several people who were his (or her) “natural patrons” expressed a desire to intercede for an offended person who was not able to independently take part in a duel, only one of them had the right to challenge. For a man, this was usually the closest blood relative, for a woman, her husband or companion had the advantage. All other calls were automatically rejected.

Seconds

Ideally, the offended and the offender before the duel should no longer meet and, moreover, communicate with each other. In order to prepare for the duel and agree on its terms, each of them invited one or two of their representatives - seconds. The second acted in a dual role: he ensured the organization of the duel, while defending the interests of his ward, and was a witness to what was happening, who, with his honor, guaranteed that everything was done in accordance with traditions and the equality of the participants was not violated anywhere.

Dueling codes recommended choosing seconds from among people of equal status, who are not interested in the outcome of the case and who have not tarnished their honor in any way. In accordance with these recommendations, a close relative, one’s own or an opponent, as well as one of those who were directly affected by the insult inflicted, could not be chosen as a second. The duelist had to explain in detail to the invited seconds all the circumstances of the case, and the invited one, who considered that the circumstances were not sufficiently solid for a duel, had the right to refuse the role of a second without damaging his honor in any way. The seconds were given instructions regarding the negotiations for a duel, and they were obliged to act within the limits of the authority given to them. Here, the duelist had every right to allow the seconds to act either completely according to their own understanding (including even allowing them to agree to reconciliation on their own behalf), or within certain boundaries, or to strictly adhere to certain requirements. In the latter case, the seconds, in fact, turned into couriers, transmitting the requirements of the principal and not having the right to deviate from them.

In their negotiations, the seconds discussed the possibility of reconciliation and, if this turned out to be unattainable, the organization of a duel, first of all, those technical details that the offended person did not determine according to the severity of the insult: the type of duel (to the first blood, to a serious injury, to the death of one of the participants and etc.), moving or not, barrier distance, firing order, and so on. The main task of the seconds at this stage was considered to be to agree on such a duel order in which neither side would have a clear advantage.

In the event that the seconds could not agree on the terms of the duel between themselves, they could jointly invite a respected person to perform the function of an arbitrator, and in this case, the decision of this guest was accepted by both parties without objection. For a duel, a manager was elected from among the seconds, who played the main role at the place of the duel. Usually a doctor was also invited to a duel to certify the severity of injuries, ascertain death and provide immediate assistance to the wounded.

General order of the duel

Traditionally, the duel was held early in the morning, in a secluded place. At the prearranged time, the participants had to arrive at the place. Being late for more than 10-15 minutes was not allowed if one of the opponents was delayed for a longer time, the arriving side received the right to leave the place, while the latecomer was considered to have evaded the duel, therefore, dishonored.

Upon arrival at the place of both sides, the seconds of the opponents confirmed their readiness for a duel. The manager announced the last proposal to the duelists to solve the matter by apology and peace. If the opponents refused, the manager announced the conditions of the duel aloud. In the future, until the end of the duel, none of the opponents could return to the proposal for reconciliation. Apologizing in front of the barrier was considered a sign of cowardice.

Under the supervision of the seconds, the opponents took their starting positions, depending on the nature of the duel, and at the command of the steward, the duel began. After the shots were fired (or after the injury or death of at least one of the opponents during a duel with melee weapons), the manager announced the end of the duel. If both opponents remained alive and conscious as a result, then they were supposed to shake hands with each other, the offender - to apologize (in this case, the apologies no longer offended his honor, since it was considered a restored duel, but was a tribute to ordinary courtesy). At the end of the duel, honor was considered restored, and any claims of opponents to each other about the former insult were invalid. The seconds drew up and signed the protocol of the duel, fixing as much as possible in detail all the actions that took place. This protocol was kept as confirmation that everything happened in accordance with tradition and that the duel participants behaved as they should. It was believed that after the duel, the opponents, if both of them remained alive, should become friends, at least maintain normal relations. It was considered bad manners to call someone who had already fought once for no particular reason.

Duel types

In general, there were a huge number of various types of duels, but by the 19th century a certain “gentleman's minimum” had been established in the aristocratic environment, from which a choice was made when organizing a duel: two or three types of edged weapons and pistols. Everything else was considered exotic and was used extremely rarely. First of all, the type of duel was determined by the type of weapon: cold or firearms.

Melee duels

As a melee duel weapon, mainly a sword, saber and rapier were used. Usually a pair of identical blades of the same type was used. In case of urgent need to fight in the absence of identical blades, it was allowed, with the consent of opponents and seconds, to use a pair of blades of the same type, if possible of the same length. The choice of weapons was made in this case by lot. If one of the opponents, by right of the offended by the action, decided to use his own weapon, he thereby gave the opponent the right to use his own weapon of the same type. Duels on edged weapons were divided into mobile and motionless.

• Mobile duel. A more or less long path or platform was marked out, within which the duelists could move freely, advancing, retreating, bypassing the enemy, that is, using all the possibilities of fencing techniques. A mobile duel was also possible without site restrictions.
• Fixed duel. Opponents were placed in a fencing position at a distance of a valid blow with the weapon used. It was forbidden to both attack the enemy and retreat, the battle had to take place without leaving the spot.

In the XV-XVII century, in a duel with cold weapons, punches and kicks, fighting on the ground, in general, any actions from the arsenal of a street fight were not forbidden. In addition, a dagger for the left hand was usually used in conjunction with the sword, or the left hand was wrapped in a cloak and used to deflect enemy blows and grabs. By the beginning of the 19th century, they fought with one sword (saber, rapier), the second hand was usually removed behind the back.

Punches and kicks were forbidden, and it was certainly forbidden to grab the opponent's weapon blade with your hand. The fight began at the signal of the second-manager and had to stop at his first request (otherwise the seconds had to separate the opponents). If one of the opponents dropped the weapon, the second had to stop the fight and give the first one the opportunity to pick it up. During duels "to first blood" or "to wound" after any blow that reached the target, the opponents had to stop and allow the doctor to examine the wounded and conclude whether the wound was serious enough to stop the fight, in accordance with accepted rules. In a duel "to the result", the fight stopped when one of the opponents stopped moving.

Pistol duels

There are more types of duels with pistols than with melee weapons. In all cases, twin single-shot pistols were used for the duel. The weapon should not have been familiar to any of the opponents, great importance was attached to this; there was at least one case in the 19th century in which an officer was tried and found guilty of murder when it was found that he had fired the same set of pistols several times over a short period.

In the most traditional duels, each of the opponents fired only one shot. If it turned out that as a result both opponents remained unharmed, it was considered, however, that honor was restored and the matter was over. In the case when the seconds agreed on a duel “to the result” or “to the injury”, in such a situation the pistols were loaded again and the duel was repeated either from the very beginning, or, if it was agreed, with a change in conditions (for example, at a minimum distance).

Fixed duel. Opponents are located at a specified distance from each other (as a rule, in Western Europe a distance of about 25-35 steps was used, in Russia - 15-20 steps). They shoot after the command of the steward, depending on the conditions previously agreed, either in random order, or in turn, according to the lot. After the first shot, the second must be fired no more than a minute later. Mobile duel with barriers. The most common type of duel in Russia in the 18th-19th centuries. A “distance” is marked on the track (10-25 steps), its boundaries are marked with “barriers”, which can be used as any objects placed across the track. Opponents are placed at an equal distance from the barriers, holding pistols in their hands, muzzle up. At the command of the manager, the opponents begin to converge - to move towards each other. You can go at any speed, it is forbidden to move back, you can stop for a while. Having reached his barrier, the duelist must stop. The order of shots can be negotiated, but more often they shoot when they are ready, in random order (they aim at the enemy in motion and shoot when they stop). There are two versions of the rules for this duel. According to the first, more common in Western Europe, the enemy who fired first had the right to stop where he fired from. According to the second, adopted in Russia, after the first shot, one of the opponents who had not yet shot had the right to demand that the enemy go to his barrier and, thus, get the opportunity to shoot from a minimum distance. Duel on parallel lines. Two parallel lines are marked on the ground at a barrier distance determined by agreement (usually 10-15 paces). Opponents stand opposite each other and go along the lines, gradually reducing the distance. You can not move back, increasing the distance to the line. You can shoot at any time. Fixed duel blind. Opponents stand motionless at a specified distance, with their backs to each other. After the command of the steward, they, in a certain or random order, shoot over their shoulders. If both are still intact after two shots, the pistols can be loaded again. "Put the gun to your forehead." A purely Russian version of the "extreme" duel. Opponents stand at a distance that provides a guaranteed hit (5-8 steps). Of the two pistols, only one is loaded, the weapon is chosen by lot. At the command of the steward, the opponents simultaneously shoot at each other. "Blow to blow". Also used exclusively in Russia. Similar to the previous option, but both pistols are loaded. In such duels, both opponents often died. "Through a scarf." Opponents stand with their backs to each other, each holding on to the corner of a scarf stretched diagonally between them with their left hand. At the command of the steward, the opponents turn around and shoot.

"American Duel"

A special kind of duel, not recommended by later dueling codes, was the so-called "American duel", which actually consisted of suicide by lot. Rivals in one way or another cast lots, and the one on whom it fell was obliged to commit suicide within a short time.

The "American duel" was resorted to more often in cases where it was not possible to arrange a traditional duel (due to legal prohibitions, too unequal position of opponents, physical restrictions in which the result of a regular duel was predetermined, but the opponents were unable or unwilling to use the right to substitute, and so on), but at the same time, both rivals believed that the differences could only be resolved by the death of one of them.

Also, the “American duel” could be called another type of duel, more like hunting each other: rivals, by mutual agreement, arrived, usually from different directions, at a certain time in a given place chosen as a “dueling territory”, for example, a copse or gorge, and with weapons in their hands they went to hunt down each other. The goal was to find the enemy and kill him.

Story

Historical predecessors

The immediate historical forerunner of the duel can be considered a judicial duel, which was widespread in the Middle Ages and, in turn, originated from the ancient, rooted in paganism, the tradition of "God's judgment", based on the idea that in an equal duel from a technical point of view, the gods will grant victory to the one who is right. Many peoples had the practice of armed dispute resolution in a situation where the court could not establish the truth by examining evidence and questioning witnesses: the court could appoint a duel for opponents. The winner of this duel was considered right in the case under consideration, the defeated one, if he remained alive, was subject to punishment under the law. The duel was arranged solemnly, the order of its conduct was regulated by laws and traditions. The winner of the duel did not have to kill the opponent at all - it was enough for him to fix an unconditional victory (for example, disarm the opponent or knock him down and hold him, not giving him the opportunity to get up).

Although the duel remained legitimate in the laws of European states until the 15th-16th centuries, its practical use ceased or, in any case, was greatly reduced by the 14th century. One of the reasons was the well-known cases when the loser of a judicial duel and, often, the person subsequently executed after that, due to newly discovered circumstances, turned out to be innocent. So in 1358, a certain Jacques Legre lost an official judicial duel, appointed to determine his guilt in a crime, as a result of which he was hanged. Soon, the criminal, caught in another case, also confessed to the crime charged with Legré.

Another forerunner of the duel can be considered a jousting tournament - also a solemn action in a certain way, the central moment of which was a series of ritual fights of fighters on edged weapons - an equestrian duel with heavy spears or an equestrian or foot fight with swords. The goal of the tournament was also victory, not killing the opponent, and over time, measures began to be taken to reduce the likelihood of death or serious injury: the battle was fought with specially blunted weapons that did not pierce the armor, it was strictly forbidden to finish off the vanquished. Tournaments were abolished in the 16th century when the knightly cavalry lost its military importance, being replaced by archers on foot, first with bows and crossbows, and then with firearms, making armor useless. The formal reason for the termination of the tournaments was the ridiculous death of King Henry II at the tournament of 1559: the spear of the king's rival, the Earl of Montgomery, broke on impact, and its sharp fragment hit the king in the eye, inflicting a mortal wound.

The appearance of the duel

The nobility, which was formed on the basis of chivalry, gave rise to its own class ideas about honor and dignity inherent in any nobleman from birth and, accordingly, that an encroachment on the honor of a nobleman in the form of an insult by word or action requires an indispensable retribution, otherwise the offended is considered dishonored. Another feature of the European noble mentality was the idea of ​​certain privileges inherent in a nobleman by birthright, which no one, even the overlord (king or other ruler) has the right to encroach on, in particular, the right to bear arms. The combination of ideas about honor and the need to protect it with the constant availability of weapons naturally gave rise to the practice of immediate resolution of personal conflicts through a duel, in the organization and conduct of which the nobleman did not consider it necessary to involve the overlord, the court or government services.

The duel as a form of showdown and a way to call the offender to account for the insult appeared around the 14th century in Italy. It was there that the young nobles-townspeople got into the habit of turning the conflict into an occasion for a duel. For such a duel, the opponents usually went to some remote place, where they fought with their weapons, ignoring all the conventions, which is why unauthorized duels (as opposed to official judicial duels) were originally called “battle in the bushes” (it. “bataille àla mazza") or "fight of animals" (it. "bataille en bestes brutes"). In contrast to official battles, according to a court order, “battle in the bushes” usually took place “as is”, on the weapons that were constantly carried with them, that is, on a sword and dagger, and without armor, which, of course, no one in everyday life wore.

It can be noted that for the Italian nobility "fights in the bushes" became, to a certain extent, a progressive innovation. If earlier aristocrats often resolved issues of honor by organizing attacks on individuals, houses or estates of opponents by entire detachments, now at least the number of people involved in the conflict and, accordingly, the number of victims has decreased.

The spread of dueling in Europe

The French nobility was introduced to "bush fighting" during the Italian Wars of the 15th century and quickly adopted the fashion. However, fights that took place in Italy in secret, in secluded places, in France were practiced literally everywhere, right up to the city streets and the royal palace, although they fought more often in outlying parks.

By the beginning of the 16th century, the duel was quite common for the nobility of all Western Europe, although the distribution of this custom varied sharply in different states; for example, in England the duel was much less common than in Italy and France. By this time, the first printed works of duel theorists date, who consider the “battle in the bushes” as opposed to the knightly traditions of tournaments and judicial duels of past centuries and insist on the need to observe the rules, rituals and certain regulation of duels in order to satisfy the requirements of justice in resolving issues of honor. But among those who often fought in duels, the majority did not bother to read treatises and were content with traditions learned with experience. In practice, duels of this time arose spontaneously, mostly on domestic occasions, because of verbal insults and because of rivalry for women, and took place everywhere.

The right and duty to defend one's honor by means of a duel acquired the status of generally accepted. To forgive a clear insult without challenging the offender to a duel came to mean completely "losing face" and being disgraced in the eyes of society. A similar shame awaited the one who did not accept the challenge thrown to him, even on the most trifling occasion. Either a very elderly (usually not younger than 60 years old), or an obviously seriously ill or infirm nobleman could afford to reject the challenge. The lower limit of the age of "suitability for dueling" was at the level of 14-16 years, that is, the age at which a nobleman began to wear a sword.

In fact, there were no established rules, except for the most general ones. Thus, the rule was universally adopted, according to which the caller chose the time and place of the duel, and the weapon was chosen by the one who was called. Since the right to choose weapons gave a certain advantage, often the instigators of duels resorted to various tricks in order to be the challenged party, for example, they publicly called him a slanderer to an insulting remark of an opponent or grossly insulted him in response, putting him in a position where he was forced to challenge himself in order to save face. Subsequently, the traditions changed and the issue of the choice of weapons became more complicated, as a result, the seconds of the parties, arguing about who should be given this choice, often resorted to references to previously existing precedents and printed dueling codes, went to a variety of tricks to leave the right to choose weapons for your subordinate.

Often duels were tied up in just a few minutes and took place without seconds. A common thing, not at all condemned by society, was the use of techniques that, according to modern ideas, do not correspond to knightly rules: divert the attention of the enemy, hit someone who accidentally slipped or stumbled, finish off the disarmed or wounded, stab in the back, attack on horseback (during a duel on horseback). Moreover, when the opponent, who had every chance of winning due to the opponent’s oversight, refused them out of nobility, such behavior was often condemned by society as stupidity and arrogance, since it could well lead to a stab in the back from the spared or to a second duel.

A classic example of an early French duel is the duel of the young Ashon Mouron, nephew of one of the marshals of France, with the elderly captain Mathas in 1559. During the hunt, Muron and Matas quarreled, Muron demanded an immediate duel, during which Matas, much more experienced with a sword, easily disarmed Muron than considered the matter finished, after which he read to the young man a moral that one should not rush with a sword at a person if you don't know how dangerous he can be. Having finished his speech, the captain turned away from the enemy to mount his horse; at that moment, Muron raised his sword and stabbed Matas in the back, killing him outright. Thanks to Muron's family ties, the case was hushed up. At the same time, in society, his vile blow did not receive any censure, on the contrary, the majority was surprised how an experienced captain could make such a mistake and reproached him for inappropriate humanism.

Often, frankly mean tricks were also used, such as putting on hidden protective armor (chain mail) under everyday clothes or even a surprise attack on an opponent from the back of a specially hired killer. To avoid this, in private duels, like the judicial duels of the past, seconds appeared, whose duties were to keep order and observance of the rules and traditions, and subsequently to be witnesses that the duel was fair. Subsequently, the powers and responsibilities of the seconds expanded, through them they began to transmit calls and negotiate the conditions of the duel in order to exclude the meetings of rivals between the insult and the duel. The most common weapons of duelists were swords and daggers - the only weapons that a nobleman was allowed to carry in the city in peacetime, while out of action. There was a style of fighting naked to the waist or wearing only a light shirt on the torso: this made it impossible to wear armor under clothes and demonstrated the contempt of duelists for death.

Legislative bans on dueling

Initially, the authorities treated the duels calmly, often the kings were even present at the duels of the most famous bullies or their entourage. King Henry II of France put an end to this practice, after the favorite of Shaterenya was wounded in a duel in his presence and died a few days later.

From the 16th century, the duel began to be legally prohibited both by secular laws and by the establishment of the Christian church, and the church, in its decisions condemning the practice of duels, did not make a distinction between state judicial duels and private duels, recognizing both those and others as contrary to divine principles. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) forbade sovereigns to arrange judicial duels under the threat of excommunication and declared automatically excommunicated all participants, seconds and even spectators of duels. Church denunciations of duels continued until the 19th century, when Pope Pius IX on October 12, 1869 confirmed the excommunication of all those who challenged or agreed to fight duels. Those who died in a duel, like suicides, were ordered not to be buried in the cemetery. King Henry IV of France, at the insistence of the States General, issued a law equating participation in a duel with lèse majesté. The decree of Cardinal Richelieu of 1602 established as a punishment for a duel the death penalty or exile with deprivation of all rights and confiscation of all property for all participants in duels, including even spectators. In the reign of Louis XIV, 11 edicts against duels were issued.

Bans on dueling were adopted throughout Europe. In 1681, such a ban was issued by the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and Austria, Leopold I. According to the laws of Maria Theresa, everyone who took any part in a duel was subject to the death penalty by decapitation. Emperor Joseph II legally equated a duel with premeditated murder. Frederick the Great imposed severe penalties for dueling in the army. Over time, the penalties for dueling were mitigated. In the 19th century, according to the Austrian criminal code, a duel was punishable by imprisonment, and according to the German criminal code, imprisonment in a fortress.

However, the practice of dueling continued in those countries where it originally took root and where duels were common, mainly in Italy, Spain and France. Many eminent lawyers who spoke out against duels in the 17th-18th centuries, nevertheless, recognized that written laws do not affect law enforcement practice and, apparently, this will be so until the attitude towards dueling in society as a whole does not change. Since the main executors of the laws and persons supervising the execution of the laws were nobles everywhere, in practice formidable edicts and heavy punishments for a duel often remained only on paper, and their application was either simply sabotaged or blocked with the help of various tricks. Even in those cases when the cases of duelists reached the court, difficulties arose. The jury that operates in many countries was composed, according to the canons, of people of the same class as the accused, that is, in a particular case, of the nobles, who in the majority shared the idea of ​​​​the inalienable right of a noble to a duel. Such a court almost never found duelists guilty under laws that equated a duel with murder.

Attempts to apply legislation against duels "for intimidation" did not lead to the desired result. So Cardinal Richelieu sent the famous breteur de Boutville and his cousin de Chapelle to the scaffold after a duel on the Royal Place in Paris on May 12, 1627, in which Boutville fought against de Bevron (de Chapelle was a second and, according to the custom of that time, fought with de Bussy , de Bevron's second). De Bevron, who remained alive after the duel, escaped the sentence by fleeing Paris. But the execution had no effect - the number of duels did not decrease, and Richelieu only acquired more ill-wishers among the nobility.

Sometimes the duel was even unofficially encouraged for one reason or another. So, during the reign of the aforementioned Henry IV, duels became an important source of filling the constantly depleted royal treasury: over 20 years of reign, more than 7 thousand official royal pardons were issued to surviving duel participants, only on their notarization (for which the recipient paid), the treasury gained about 3 million livres. gold. At the same time, according to various estimates, from 7 to 12 thousand nobles died in duels over the same years, some modern researchers insist on a figure of 20 thousand - for that time this was the size of a fairly large army.

"Dueling Fever" in France in the 16th-18th Centuries

Significant for the history of the French duel was the fight that took place in 1578 and went down in history as the “duel of minions” (depicted in a highly modified form in the novel “Countess de Monsoro” by Dumas Sr.), named after the group nickname of its participants - several young favorites Henry III, known, in particular, for their penchant for bright, provocative clothes (“minion”, in French - “handsome”). One of the minions, Jacques de Lévy, comte de Quelus, competed for a woman with Charles de Balzac d'Entragues, baron de Dune. Once, after mutual insults, a duel was scheduled between the rivals in Tournelle Park. Immediately before the duel, the second of Quelus Mogiron insulted the second of Antrag Rebeyrac and demanded a fight with him, after which the two remaining seconds, Livaro and Schomberg, also drew their swords. As a result of the ensuing group battle, Mogiron and Schomberg were killed on the spot, Rebeyrak died of wounds a few hours later, Kelus - a few days later, Livaro was crippled (his cheek was cut off with a sword blow, he recovered from the wound and died a few years later, in another duel ), and only Antrag escaped with a slight wound in the arm.

Despite the fact that duels were already strictly prohibited at this time, none of the survivors were punished. The king ordered the dead to be buried in magnificent mausoleums and put marble statues on them. The nobility took the king's reaction as a sign that the duel, despite the official ban, was not only allowed, but also honorable. At the same time, the “duel of minions” brought into fashion the battle not only of the direct participants in the duel, but also of their seconds. As a result, the attitude of society towards the duel has changed, duels have become not just a tradition, but also a fashion, their number has increased so much that one can speak of a “dueling fever” that has engulfed entire countries and lasted for more than a century. Everyone fought, from the poorest nobles to the crowned heads, despite the regularly reissued laws against duels.

Among the young nobles, a category of "professional" brutes stood out, usually skilled swordsmen, who made dueling a way to achieve personal glory. They constantly bullied other nobles, challenged them to a duel at the slightest pretext, and provoked those around them with their defiantly impudent behavior. On account of some of them were hundreds of duels and dozens of wounded and killed opponents. One of the famous French braziers was Louis de Clermont, Seigneur d'Amboise Comte de Bussy, about whom contemporaries wrote that for him a reason for a duel could "fit on a fly's foot" (once he fought a duel, arguing about the shape of the pattern on the curtains) . So the literary quarrels of the nobles described in the novels of Dumas, for example, in The Three Musketeers, when the call follows due to an accidental collision in the street or a joke about the cut of the cloak, were in fact quite common for that time. The call could follow for any reason: because of the alleged sideways glance, the insufficiently polite tone of the interlocutor, and so on.

The sunset of the duel in Europe

By the middle of the XVIII "dueling fever" in Western Europe ended. Although the severity of punishment for duels was gradually reduced in the legislation of most states, duels became much rarer, and most importantly, more streamlined. Melee weapons were noticeably supplanted by pistols, which became the main weapon of a duel in the 19th century. The transition to firearms had one important side effect: the impact on the outcome of the duel of the duelist's physical abilities was significantly reduced. The rules of duels were clarified, finally taking shape in the form of dueling codes of the 19th century: most duels began to be held with seconds, an official challenge, observance of an indispensable 24-hour interval between the challenge and the duel, and according to a verified procedure that ensures all possible equality of chances for participants. The dueling rules have changed a lot in the direction of humanization: in a duel with pistols, a typical barrier distance of 30-40 steps was established, with a duel with swords, as a rule, the battle was fought until the first wound, as a result, most duels began to end with minor wounds or even bloodless. At the same time, the very concept of "restoring honor" was transformed: the very fact that the enemy was placed in mortal danger began to be considered sufficient as a retribution for the insult. Of course, duels periodically took place under difficult conditions, including death, but their number decreased and public opinion disapproved of them.

The number of duels decreased even more after the Napoleonic wars, when social changes led to a significant erosion of the aristocracy and, accordingly, a change in mores and customs. The development of the legal system, for its part, created the possibility of the legal prosecution of offenders by means of recourse to the courts, which many preferred to resort to rather than risk life and freedom by arranging a duel. On the whole, while dueling was still a regular occurrence in the 19th century, the public view of it changed, and it came to be seen as a relic of a bygone era and, in some cases, as a necessary evil to be endured until changes in laws and in the worldview of people will not reach such a level when the legal retribution will in all cases be sufficient to restore the violated honor.

There were separate "bursts" of duel activity. For example, in France after 1830, when freedom of the press increased significantly, there was an epidemic of "journalistic duels" - challenges between journalists due to printed accusations of lying.

Dueling became widespread in the first half of the 19th century among the students of German universities. Practically at any university there was a “dueling society”, fights were regularly held, but most of them, thanks to carefully designed security measures, ended in minor injuries or were completely bloodless (duels were held with melee weapons, mainly rapiers, duelists put on protective equipment before the fight, weapons disinfected to prevent contamination of wounds).

Duels in Russia

Russia never had its own tradition of duels, although court fights (“field”) and fights of the best fighters before military battles were practiced (one can recall, for example, the famous battle between Peresvet and Chelubey before the Battle of Kulikovo). Nevertheless, the aristocratic class (boyars) had a slightly different appearance in Rus' than in medieval Europe; the mores and customs of this environment did not give rise to sharp ideas about personal honor, which would have to be defended by all means personally and by force of arms. On the contrary, the boyars, nobles and Russian officers did not consider it shameful or detrimental to honor to seek protection from the offender in court or by filing a complaint with the sovereign or higher authorities. Various excesses between the nobles over the centuries, of course, took place, but the dueling tradition did not arise. Moreover, it was not borrowed in the West, despite the fact that active contacts with Western Europe began under Alexei Mikhailovich and many traditions of European life were adopted long before Peter I. In the XV-XVII centuries, when France and Italy flourished "dueling fever", in Russia in this sense absolute calm reigned. The first duel in Russia recorded in the documents took place only in 1666, and between foreigners - two officers of the Russian service from a “foreign” regiment fought because of an insult.

Since there was no phenomenon, there were no legal sanctions prohibiting it - for the first time, a law prohibiting a duel appeared in Russian law only in the time of Peter: the 139th military article, adopted in 1715 by Emperor Peter I, strictly forbade duels between officers, and executions who died in a duel was also subject to hanging: “All challenges, fights and fights through this are most severely prohibited<…>Whoever commits against this, of course, both the caller and whoever comes out, has to be executed, namely, hanged, although one of them will be wounded or killed, or even though both are not wounded, they will move away from him. And if it happens that both or one of them remains in such a duel, then hang them by their feet even after death. The severe punishment for a duel was literally written off from European laws, while not a single case of the application of these sanctions in practice was recorded.

Only in the reign of Catherine II did the practice of duels begin to spread among the youth of the nobility, who learned from foreign teachers the concept of "noble honor" in the form in which it was understood in Western Europe, and the dueling tradition itself. This prompted the Empress to publish in 1787 the "Manifesto on duels", which called duels "foreign planting" and imposed punishment for organizing a duel and participating in it: participants (including seconds) of a duel that ended bloodlessly were set as a punishment a fine, and the offender - life exile in Siberia; for causing harm to health and life, the punishment was imposed as for the corresponding intentional crimes. But these sanctions, for the most part, remained on paper, the cases of duelists rarely reached the court, and even in these cases, many received forgiveness or a significantly more lenient punishment.

At the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th century, when the "dueling fever" had practically ceased in Europe, in Russia the number of duels, on the contrary, increased, despite the cruel official punishment. At the same time, as in Western Europe, the attitude towards duels developed in a paradoxical way: the number of duels was constantly growing, and official legislation and real law enforcement practice made duels less and less criminal. By the end of the 19th century, it came to the point that duels between officers were recognized not only as legal, but, in some cases, mandatory, that is, in fact, the practice of “judicial duels” was officially revived (see below).

Western authors, describing the "Russian duel" of the 19th century, note its extreme cruelty, in comparison with the European duel, they call the duel in Russia "legalized murder". As noted above, European ideas about the duel softened significantly by the first half of the 19th century, it was considered quite sufficient to restore the honor simply to force the offender to take a real risk to his life, even if this risk was not particularly great. Therefore, a typical European pistol duel at this time was carried out from a stationary position, at 25-35 paces or even further, firing in turn, determined by lot. In such conditions, a difficult outcome was likely, but by no means necessary, most duels ended bloodlessly. Russian bullies, like Tolstoy the American, called such duels "opera" and openly laughed at them. In Russia, the typical barrier distance was 15-20 steps (about 7-10 meters) or less, at such a distance a good shooter, even with unknown weapons, rarely missed. In a mobile duel in Russia, they almost always used a rule uncharacteristic for Western Europe, according to which the duelist, who shoots second, had the right to demand that the enemy approach the barrier, that is, in fact, stand as an unarmed target, allowing the opponent to approach the minimum distance, calmly aim and shoot (it is from this rule that the well-known expression comes: “To the barrier!”). In duels “pistol to forehead”, “muzzle to muzzle” or “through a handkerchief”, in practice, it was unrealistic to avoid the death of one or both duelists. If in Europe a mutual miss usually ended the duel, and the honor of the participants was considered to be restored on that, then in Russia the conditions of the battle were often accepted “until a decisive result”, that is, until the death of one of the opponents or until the moment when one of them does not lose consciousness. If both opponents fired and no one was killed or wounded, the weapon was reloaded and the duel continued. The offender had the right to shoot in the air (to the side) if he did not want to endanger the enemy, but if he did so, then the offended was forced to shoot to kill - with a mutual intentional miss, the duel was considered invalid, since none of the participants was in danger.

The history of fights goes back to ancient times. They fought for women, for the right to own land, for revenge, and finally, just to show their strength and humiliate, or even destroy the opponent. Even in ancient times, court fights were known that were appointed to resolve disputes over property and other issues (in particular, in Russkaya Pravda), circus gladiator fights in Ancient Rome, medieval knightly tournaments, fisticuffs in Rus'. But they are not included in the concept of a classic duel. The definition of a duel given by the Russian military writer of the beginning of the century P. A. Shveikovsky seems to us the most capacious and accurate: “A duel is an agreed fight between two persons with a deadly weapon to satisfy the desecrated honor, in compliance with the well-known customary conditions regarding the place, time, weapons, and the general situation for the performance of the battle.”

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

1. the purpose of the duel is to satisfy the desecrated honor (and not a circus performance, not a dispute resolution and not a competition of strength);
2. there are only two participants in the duel (and not “wall to wall”), that is, the offended and his offender (hence the word “duel” itself);
3. the means of a duel is a deadly weapon (and not fists, like the merchant Kalashnikov and Kiribeevich have);
4. the presence of the rules (conditions) of a duel established by custom, mandatory for strict observance.

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

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

1. Opponents are placed at a distance of 20 steps from each other and 10 steps from barriers, the distance between which is 10 steps.
2. Opponents armed with pistols, following this sign, moving towards one another, but in no case crossing the barrier, can shoot.
3. Moreover, it is assumed that after the shot the opponents are not allowed to change their place, so that the one who fired first is exposed to the fire of his opponent at the same distance.
4. When both sides make a shot, then in case of ineffectiveness, the duel is resumed as if for the first time, the opponents are placed at the same distance of 20 steps, the same barriers and the same rules remain.
5. The seconds are direct intermediaries in every respect between opponents on the spot.
6. The seconds, the undersigned and vested with full authority, ensure, each for his side, with his honor, strict observance of the conditions set forth here.

The unwritten order of the duel

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

Pistol duels had several options.

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

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

The romance of medieval traditions and a sense of unreal freedom. The boys, having read books about brave musketeers, were ready to fight with swords, and the girls dreamed of being beautiful ladies-in-waiting at balls. Although what is beautiful at first glance is not always so exciting in reality. The duels held in order to defend one's honor were sometimes ordinary slaughter.

medieval justice

The first written information about duels appeared during the time of the first kings who divided the lands of Europe among themselves. At that time, this way of clarifying the relationship was attributed to the court of the gods. Although even earlier, the fate of the convicts was decided by the same method in Ancient Greece and Rome. Two fighters, a convict and a person representing justice, were released onto the battlefield. It was believed that only the innocent could win. If the condemned perished, the judgment of the gods was done.

The history of the duel, which is better known to contemporaries, began in the 15th century. At that time, the most common way to deal with the enemy were hired killers, poisoning or appeal to the overlord.

Few vassals dared to demand that the ruler solve their problems, thus making them public. But the increased class of nobles, who received titles for feats of arms, was looking for a way to punish the impudent ones who dared to offend them.

The title of nobility made any family a step higher than an ordinary city dweller or a wealthy merchant. Small impoverished families tried to show their superiority, but did not want to put up with the ridicule of richer "comrades".

To defend his honor, desecrated by an unjust word or action, a born nobleman could challenge him to a duel. This is a way to defend one's dignity by dueling between two people within the strictly established dueling code.

Crazy Italy

Italy became the ancestor of such fights. Young people could not only reward enemies with unflattering epithets, but also invite them to a duel in a secluded nook on the outskirts of the city. Public fights were condemned, so the duelists tried to hide their actions.

It was this innovation that replaced the judicial duels, arranged with the knowledge of the king or the mayor of the city. From that moment on, the offended person could challenge the offender and receive satisfaction in a convenient place and with the weapon that he had with him.

Such fights began to be called "battles in the bushes" because of the desire to hide from the eyes of ordinary citizens. Such battles helped to resolve the issue with less bloodshed and the number of victims suffering from the conflict was significantly reduced.

A good example is Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo has to fight Paris. The death of a young man from the sword of the protagonist was the result of precisely the “battle in the bushes”.

Hot French and cold-blooded British

A little later, fights in the streets became part of the life of the French and the British. And if the French eagerly sorted things out on the streets, in the doorways, then for the inhabitants of foggy Albion this was rather an extreme measure.

Already in the 16th century, a duel was not only a way to settle scores with an offender, but also an opportunity to show one's ability to wield cold weapons.

It was at this time that the first printed treatises containing the rules of the duel appeared. Thanks to them, spontaneous battles acquired regulations, rules of conduct. It was these works that became the basis on which the dueling code was built. Few of the titled persons bothered to read books and manuals. This ritual has been passed down from generation to generation.

Dueling Code

In the modern world, two codes are most often mentioned: Russian, written by Durasov, and European in two editions - Count Verger and Count Chatovillard. It was they who were used by the nobles and military personnel of that time.

These publications described the rules of the duel. The weapons, the reasons for the call were indicated. The place of the duel was discussed. The fight could be carried out with the help of cold and firearms. The dueling code was very useful, especially in the period when small arms appeared in the form of pistols.

Call

Any noble could challenge if the actions or words spoken to him could damage his honor or the honor of the family. Thus, anything could become an insult: from an accidentally thrown word to open disrespect for the status and position of an individual in society.

If financial conflicts arose, they were not considered a reason for being challenged to a duel. Litigations of a material nature were resolved through litigation.

The reason for the challenge to a duel could be the death of a loved one at the hands of a murderer, a casually expressed wit in the direction of the lady of the heart or the family of the offended.

In order to make a challenge, the duelists had to stand on the same step in the hierarchical ladder, not concede title to each other and position in society. Those who received such a challenge from a lower status could easily refuse it, since such a challenge could already be considered an insult.

Duel types

The first duels were held with the help of edged weapons: a dagger, a dagi. At the choice of rivals, she could become:

• Movable - carried out on a platform of a certain size).
• Motionless - was held in one place, during the battle the opponents could not move from the intended position.

Until the end of the 17th century, a mobile sword duel was allowed using "dishonest" methods of combat: kicks and kicks, an additional bonus in the form of a dagger or shield. With the advent of pistols, this method has become obsolete.

The dueling code described competition with firearms as a "meeting" using dual pistols, not used by any of the duelists. Such weapons were available in any noble family.

Both brought pistols to such a “meeting”: both the offended and the offended. One of the couples was chosen by lot. In the original version of the duel rules, only one shot was allowed. Over time, new types of duels arose and, accordingly, new combat options.

Pistol duels

There were such types of duels:

• Fixed duel. Distance from 15 to 35 steps, shot on command or on a drawn lot.
• Mobile duel with an obstacle. On a flat area, the middle is marked with any object, the arrows count the required number of steps to it and shoot when ready.
• Duel at a noble distance. The distance between the arrows is no more than fifteen steps.
• Blind shot. At a distance of fifteen steps, the duelists stand with their backs to each other, the shot is fired over the shoulder.
• Russian roulette. Only one pistol is loaded, the shot is fired from a distance of 5-8 steps.

Thus, a duel is not just a way to express one's dissatisfaction with an insult, but also a real opportunity to deal with the enemy once and for all.

The most brutal method of reprisal was the so-called American duel. The duelists and the one on whom it fell were supposed to commit suicide within a set time period. Because of such a wild outcome, this method was removed from the dueling code.

Referee and duel participants

For the proper conduct of the duel, seconds were needed. They made sure that the opponents did not meet before the duel, they chose the meeting place. Favorite places where a duel was held are suburban forests, parks or fields.

Anyone present at the insult and challenge to a duel could be a second.

There were cases when a trusted person could come out instead of the offended - the closest relative, friend or person who considers it her duty to protect the desecrated honor of the weaker one.

On November 24, 1817, a duel between Count Alexander Zavadovsky and Vasily Sheremetev, officer of the Cavalier Guard Regiment, took place on Volkovo Field, in northern Palmyra. They shot because of the 18-year-old brilliant ballerina Avdotya Istomina. This duel, which went down in history as a "duel of four", ended in the death of Sheremetyev and a duel of seconds - the future Decembrist cornet Alexander Yakubovich and the official of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, the poet Alexander Griboyedov. However, Russia also knew not such dueling vicissitudes.

Tsarist decrees did not save Russia from duels

The first strict laws against duels, which provided for punishment up to the death penalty, appeared in Russia under Peter I. True, these laws were not applied in practice, and duels in Russia were quite rare until the end of the 18th century. Duels became widespread among the youth of the nobility under Catherine II, who was even forced to publish a “Manifesto on duels”, which provided for a bloodless duel for life exile in Siberia, and murder and wounds were equated with a criminal offense. Nicholas I also treated duels with great disgust. Under him, duelists were sent to serve in the Caucasus, and in case of death they were deprived of their officer rank.

But laws against dueling in Russia proved to be ineffective. Moreover, Russian duels were particularly cruel: the distance between the barriers did not exceed 10 meters (usually 7), duels often took place without doctors and seconds, so the fights ended tragically.

"Duel of four" because of the brilliant ballerina

The name of Avdotya Istomina was immortalized by the great Pushkin in the poem "Eugene Onegin":
Brilliant, half-air,
obedient to the magic bow,
Surrounded by a crowd of nymphs
Worth Istomin; she is,
One foot touching the floor
Another slowly circles
And suddenly a jump, and suddenly it flies,
It flies like fluff from the mouth of Eol;
Now the camp will soviet, then it will develop,
And he beats his leg with a quick leg.
The famous Avdotya Istomina, the daughter of a drunken policeman, the same age and friend of Pushkin and the beloved of the officer of the Cavalry Regiment Vasily Sheremetev, somehow quarreled with her gentleman. Frustrated, she accepted Alexander Griboyedov's invitation and went with him to have tea with the chamber junker Alexander Zavadovsky. The tea party lasted 2 days. Sheremetyev, spurred on by the cornet Alexander Yakubovich, challenged Zavadsky to a duel, in which Sheremetyev was mortally wounded and died the next day. His grave is located at the Lazarevsky cemetery of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.

But this duel continued. Between the seconds there was also a quarrel, the result of which was a challenge to a duel. Due to the investigation into the Sheremetyev case, the duel had to be postponed, and it took place a year later in Georgia. They shot in the ravine at the Tatar grave in the vicinity of Tiflis. Yakubovich managed to shoot Griboedov through the little finger on his left hand. It was by this sign that the mutilated body of the author of "Woe from Wit" and the Russian ambassador was identified when a crowd of religious fanatics dealt with him in Tehran.

The most famous love match

One of the most famous Russian duels is the duel that took place on September 14, 1825 on the northern outskirts of St. Petersburg between lieutenant of the Semenovsky regiment Konstantin Chernov and adjutant wing Vladimir Novosiltsev. The reason for the duel is Novosiltsev's refusal to marry Chernov's sister because of the resistance of his mother, heiress to the vast fortune of Count Orlov. She idolized her son, and the marriage with the poor and humble girl Chernova was absolutely not to her liking. Novosiltsev's mother made every effort to upset her son's marriage, and she succeeded.

The offended brother of the bride challenged Vladimir Novosiltsev to a duel, which took place on the outskirts of the Forest Park. Chernov's second was his cousin KF Ryleev, who was a member of the Northern secret society of "Decembrists". Both duelists were mortally wounded, and Ryleev did everything to turn Chernov's funeral into a demonstration.

Novosiltsev's mother, having learned about the duel, still managed to catch her son alive and promised the famous doctor Arendt 1000 rubles for saving her son, but all the efforts of the doctors were in vain.

The inconsolable woman spent about 1 million rubles to purchase an inn where her son shot himself, and built the Novosiltsevo charitable institution and the Prince Vladimir Church on this site. The places where the duelists fired from a distance of eight paces were marked with two bollards.

Pushkin - the most famous Petersburg duelist

Ekaterina Karamzina, a contemporary of the great Russian poet, stated in one of her letters: “ Pushkin has a duel every day". And Ivan Liprandi, a famous duelist, left an entry in his diary: “ I knew Alexander Sergeyevich to be quick-tempered, sometimes to the point of frenzy; but in a moment of danger, when he came face to face with death, when a person reveals himself completely, Pushkin possessed the highest degree of equanimity. When it came to the barrier, he was cold as ice to him.».

In his first duel, Pushkin fought with his lyceum comrade Kuchelbecker. The reason was a kind of review of Pushkin's epigrams. Kyukhlya fired first by lot, and when he began to aim, Pushkin shouted to his second Delvig: “Stand in my place, it’s safer here!” Kuchelbecker lost his temper, his hand trembled, and he really hit the cap on Delvig's head. The comical nature of the situation reconciled the opponents.

It is also known about Pushkin's duel with Colonel Starov, who was a famous sniper. The duel took place on January 6, 1822. According to eyewitnesses, on this day there was such a strong snowstorm that nothing could be seen a few steps away. Both duelists missed. Subsequently, Pushkin's friends did everything. So that the duel does not resume.

But already in the spring in St. Petersburg they were discussing a new duel between the poet and General Staff officer Zubov. Zubov missed, and Pushkin, who calmly ate cherries while the enemy was aiming at him, refused his shot. “Are you satisfied?” he asked Zubov, and when he tried to hug Pushkin, he remarked with restraint: “This is superfluous.”

Deadly for Pushkin was the duel with Georges de Gekkern (Dantes), which took place on February 8, 1837 in the Black River area on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. On conditions that left practically no chance of survival, Pushkin himself insisted. The distance between the opponents was 20 steps, the barrier was set at 10 steps, and it was possible to shoot at any moment. Already with the first shot of Dantes, Pushkin was wounded in the stomach. Pushkin died 2 days later. For the duel, Dantes was sentenced to death. He hastily left Russia, lived to a ripe old age and had a successful career in politics.

Witty Lermontov provoked a duel, in which he died

The official reason for the duel, in which Lieutenant Lermontov died from the bullet of Major Martynov, was the sharpness and taunts that the poet regularly released in relation to the officer. Martynov's patience was overwhelmed by the case when Lermontov called him "a highlander with a big dagger." Although it was rumored that the reason for this behavior of Lermontov was the rivalry over the lady.

On July 15, 1841, the duelists met at an agreed place on Mount Mashuk. What were the conditions of the duel today is no longer known. Lermontov was mortally wounded by an opponent in the chest and died on the spot, before he could fire his shot. To confirm that Lermontov's pistol was loaded, a shot was fired into the air from it.

Russian anarchist challenged the founder of Marxism to a duel

The revolutionary anarchist Bakunin challenged the author of Capital, Karl Marx, to a duel. The reason was the fact that Marx allowed himself a disparaging review of the Russian army. Bakunin, although he was an anarchist and an opponent of any regular army, decided to stand up for the honor of the Russian uniform, since in his youth he was an artillery ensign. Marx, who fought with swords more than once as a student and was very proud of the scars on his face, did not accept Bakunin's challenge. He declared that his life now belonged not to him, but to the proletariat.

Tolstoy wanted to shoot with Turgenev, and Voloshin with Gumilyov

Many famous people were duelists. It is known that the young Leo Tolstoy threw down the gauntlet to Ivan Turgenev. The duel, fortunately, did not take place. The last known duel was the duel between the poets Lev Gumilyov and Maximilian Voloshin, which took place before the revolution. Gumilyov was offended by the draw. Then the offender fired into the air, and Gumilyov missed.

However, weapons can be used for very peaceful purposes, and proof of this.