Imagine getting into a dispute with a grown man or woman, middle age, tall, and muscular, and being obviously the less stronger person, you literally can’t do anything besides shout. You’re at a great and deadly disadvantage. A fist fight definitely wouldn’t work, and so wouldn’t verbal exchanges. What if you choose to settle whatever dispute you have with this physically stronger individual , with the draw of two guns, a duel, with a settled score and all. Would you defend your honor with such a “noble” act? A duel is an arranged combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, either with swords or firearms, and rules that are agreed upon by both parties, to fairly settle a dispute. The goal of a duel is not to kill the opponent, but to defend the honor of the nobleman that declared for the duel to happen. Duels, which weren’t official laws, were practiced in the 15th to the 20th century mostly in western societies and in Europe. In the discussions of dueling, one controversial issue has been if dueling is a justified act. On the one hand, the literary text, A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, argues that dueling is an act that appears to be noble, while in reality, dueling isn’t at all justified. The reasons being are dueling is very brutal, it is never completely equal, and it is illegal by the government.
Dueling is not as noble as it appears to be in the text because it is a very brutal act, in which swords or firearms are used to settle a dilemma between two individuals. With the use of a pistol, shots must be fired at the arm, the torso, or the legs. Any other shot is considered a foul, especially a shot to the head. Duels can also end up very bloody and casualties aren’t at all rare. When dueling, the setting can be as dangerous as the lead from the pistols. Duelers must settle at a place in which is dangerous and discrete so government authority won’t be able to figure out such thing. This sense of brutality is seen in A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, when Pechorin describes the scenery of the duel, “There is a drop of about three hundred feet or more from there; below, there are sharp rocks. Each of us will take his stand on the very edge of the shelf…and in this way even a light wound will be fatal. The one who is wounded will inevitably topple down and will be dashed to pieces…and then it should be very easy to ascribe this sudden death to an unfortunate leap.” (Lermontov 150) From this, it is quite evident that the area in which the duel is taking place is very dangerous, close to brutal, because these men are fighting at the edge of a cliff, with minimum distance to safety. Guns aren’t even in the discussion yet, but the lives of the two men are already in great danger. Another example in which the text portrays brutality in duels is when Pechorin explains Grushntsky’s intent during the duel. Pechorin says, “to kill me like a dog, for if I had been wounded in the leg a little more severely, I would have certainly fallen off the cliff.” (Lermontov 153) Grushnitsky shot Pechorin on his leg, a shot that wasn’t so risky, but had it been more sever, he would’ve simply fell to his death. Pechorin didn’t even receive a shot to any vital spots, like the head, or his heart, but a more severe shot to his leg would’ve resulted to an ever so simple death. This is very brutal in itself.
In a duel, both parties are supposed to be given fair rules, as well as weapons that are equal to one another. These weapons must have the same qualities. For a sword, the blades for both parties must be the same length, and for pistols, the guns must be of the same power and must contain an even amount of ammunition. Each party must experience the same set of rules. Lermontov quotes “To your places, gentlemen! Doctor, have the kindness to measure off six paces.” Both Grushnitsky and Pechorin were six steps from each other, and this ensured that the distance between them was fair. (151) Although the two were in equal distance from each other, the duel was never completely fair because Grushnitsky and his captain never loaded Pechorin’s pistol, leaving him at a great disadvantage: “Doctor, these gentlemen, no doubt in their hurry, forgot to place a bullet in my pistol. Please, load it again and properly!… That is not my fault! And you have no right to reload … no right whatsoever…I shall not permit it . . .” (Lermontov 154) Not only was Pechorin’s pistol missing a bullet, it was also rejected from being reloaded. Grushnitsky and his captain both wanted to cheat Pechorin for their own benefit, and this is very unfair. “And still it is utterly against the rules.” (Lermontov 155) Even after having Pechorin’s gun reloaded, allowing the duel to be set on fair terms, Grushnitsky’s captain still believed that Pechorin’s gun shouldn’t be reloaded, even after he cheated Pechorin, and this illustrates more unfairness.
Although dueling is actually an unnoble act, others may argue that it is noble because it was a way in which men can obtain honor, and honor was essential in all aspects of life, from the 15th to the 20th century. The journal article The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently
by Warren F. Schwartz, Keith Baxter, and David Ryan quotes, “They embraced personal relationships, most critically those between men and women, and implied a set of attitudes about acceptable forms of personal advancement, aesthetic preferences, appropriate manners…” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,322) Although a duel was performed in order to settle exchanged slander or just any dispute between noblemen, it was a way for one to yield honor. Honor is very important in this sense because having honor under ones name carried an individual throughout all aspects of life, including wealth. Dueling plays a huge rule in the idea of receiving honor. On the contrary, dueling is not at all noble because it was illegal, and this act went against the government. The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently explains the legality of duels, and states “One other important feature of the larger social context was that the duel was explicitly made illegal and subjected to severe penalties.” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) Dueling was made illegal in many parts of western and European societies because it was seen as violent and unjust. One shouldn’t ever be wounded or killed unlawfully by someone else’s weapon. Additionally, individuals who participated in duels were given sever consequences, things such as large fines or imprisonment. “ Specific laws prohibiting participation in the dueling convention were enacted in the Southern states.” Many governments in western territories, specifically the south of the United Sates, disallowed dueling to the point where laws were established against it. Eventually, many governments in Europe started to practice these similar laws, because dueling wasn’t seen as noble.
You’re done imagining the scenario of you in a slander with the grown adult. You’re clearly at a disadvantage. Do you choose to propose a duel, or do you not? Well, its quite evident that you shouldn’t. In conclusion, dueling is not a noble act for many reasons. It is known to be very brutal, in most cases it is not equal, and it is illegal. Others may conclude that dueling is a noble act because an individual can restore or obtain honor, and honor is a significant part of life. Honor bares ones name. But this is absolutely wrong because how can something be labeled as noble if it isn’t even legal. Now think about it again. Would you want to participate in something illegal? Would you be willing to be cheated? Will you want to injure yourself or experience something close to death unlawfully by a random stranger’s weapon?
Bibliogrpahy
Robinson, Paul. “Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army.” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 84, no. 4, 2006, pp. 708–728. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4214361. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.
Schwartz, Warren F., et al. “The Duel: Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently?” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 321–355. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/724239. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.
Imagine getting into a dispute with a grown man or woman, middle age, tall, and muscular, and being obviously the less stronger person, you literally can’t do anything besides shout. You’re at a great and deadly disadvantage. A fist fight definitely wouldn’t work, and so wouldn’t verbal exchanges. What if you choose to settle whatever dispute you have with this physically stronger individual , with the draw of two guns, a duel, with a settled score and all. Would you defend your honor with such a “noble” act? A duel is an arranged combat between two individuals, with matched weapons, either with swords or firearms, and rules that are agreed upon by both parties, to fairly settle a dispute. The goal of a duel is not to kill the opponent, but to defend the honor of the nobleman that declared for the duel to happen. Duels, which weren’t official laws, were practiced in the 15th to the 20th century mostly in western societies and in Europe. In the discussions of dueling, one controversial issue has been if dueling is a justified act. On the one hand, the literary text, A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, argues that dueling is an act that appears to be noble, while in reality, dueling isn’t at all justified. The reasons being are dueling is very brutal, it is never completely equal, and it is illegal by the government.
Dueling is not as noble as it appears to be in the text because it is a very brutal act, in which swords or firearms are used to settle a dilemma between two individuals. With the use of a pistol, shots must be fired at the arm, the torso, or the legs. Any other shot is considered a foul, especially a shot to the head. Duels can also end up very bloody and casualties aren’t at all rare. When dueling, the setting can be as dangerous as the lead from the pistols. Duelers must settle at a place in which is dangerous and discrete so government authority won’t be able to figure out such thing. This sense of brutality is seen in A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, when Pechorin describes the scenery of the duel, “There is a drop of about three hundred feet or more from there; below, there are sharp rocks. Each of us will take his stand on the very edge of the shelf…and in this way even a light wound will be fatal. The one who is wounded will inevitably topple down and will be dashed to pieces…and then it should be very easy to ascribe this sudden death to an unfortunate leap.” (Lermontov 150) From this, it is quite evident that the area in which the duel is taking place is very dangerous, close to brutal, because these men are fighting at the edge of a cliff, with minimum distance to safety. Guns aren’t even in the discussion yet, but the lives of the two men are already in great danger. Another example in which the text portrays brutality in duels is when Pechorin explains Grushntsky’s intent during the duel. Pechorin says, “to kill me like a dog, for if I had been wounded in the leg a little more severely, I would have certainly fallen off the cliff.” (Lermontov 153) Grushnitsky shot Pechorin on his leg, a shot that wasn’t so risky, but had it been more sever, he would’ve simply fell to his death. Pechorin didn’t even receive a shot to any vital spots, like the head, or his heart, but a more severe shot to his leg would’ve resulted to an ever so simple death. This is very brutal in itself.
In a duel, both parties are supposed to be given fair rules, as well as weapons that are equal to one another. These weapons must have the same qualities. For a sword, the blades for both parties must be the same length, and for pistols, the guns must be of the same power and must contain an even amount of ammunition. Each party must experience the same set of rules. Lermontov quotes “To your places, gentlemen! Doctor, have the kindness to measure off six paces.” Both Grushnitsky and Pechorin were six steps from each other, and this ensured that the distance between them was fair. (151) Although the two were in equal distance from each other, the duel was never completely fair because Grushnitsky and his captain never loaded Pechorin’s pistol, leaving him at a great disadvantage: “Doctor, these gentlemen, no doubt in their hurry, forgot to place a bullet in my pistol. Please, load it again and properly!… That is not my fault! And you have no right to reload … no right whatsoever…I shall not permit it . . .” (Lermontov 154) Not only was Pechorin’s pistol missing a bullet, it was also rejected from being reloaded. Grushnitsky and his captain both wanted to cheat Pechorin for their own benefit, and this is very unfair. “And still it is utterly against the rules.” (Lermontov 155) Even after having Pechorin’s gun reloaded, allowing the duel to be set on fair terms, Grushnitsky’s captain still believed that Pechorin’s gun shouldn’t be reloaded, even after he cheated Pechorin, and this illustrates more unfairness.
Although dueling is actually an unnoble act, others may argue that it is noble because it was a way in which men can obtain honor, and honor was essential in all aspects of life, from the 15th to the 20th century. The journal article The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently
by Warren F. Schwartz, Keith Baxter, and David Ryan quotes, “They embraced personal relationships, most critically those between men and women, and implied a set of attitudes about acceptable forms of personal advancement, aesthetic preferences, appropriate manners…” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,322) Although a duel was performed in order to settle exchanged slander or just any dispute between noblemen, it was a way for one to yield honor. Honor is very important in this sense because having honor under ones name carried an individual throughout all aspects of life, including wealth. Dueling plays a huge rule in the idea of receiving honor. On the contrary, dueling is not at all noble because it was illegal, and this act went against the government. The Duel:Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently explains the legality of duels, and states “One other important feature of the larger social context was that the duel was explicitly made illegal and subjected to severe penalties.” (Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) Dueling was made illegal in many parts of western and European societies because it was seen as violent and unjust. One shouldn’t ever be wounded or killed unlawfully by someone else’s weapon. Additionally, individuals who participated in duels were given sever consequences, things such as large fines or imprisonment. “ Specific laws prohibiting participation in the dueling convention were enacted in the Southern states.” Many governments in western territories, specifically the south of the United Sates, disallowed dueling to the point where laws were established against it. Eventually, many governments in Europe started to practice these similar laws, because dueling wasn’t seen as noble.
You’re done imagining the scenario of you in a slander with the grown adult. You’re clearly at a disadvantage. Do you choose to propose a duel, or do you not? Well, its quite evident that you shouldn’t. In conclusion, dueling is not a noble act for many reasons. It is known to be very brutal, in most cases it is not equal, and it is illegal. Others may conclude that dueling is a noble act because an individual can restore or obtain honor, and honor is a significant part of life. Honor bares ones name. But this is absolutely wrong because how can something be labeled as noble if it isn’t even legal. Now think about it again. Would you want to participate in something illegal? Would you be willing to be cheated? Will you want to injure yourself or experience something close to death unlawfully by a random stranger’s weapon?
Bibliogrpahy
Robinson, Paul. “Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army.” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 84, no. 4, 2006, pp. 708–728. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4214361. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.
Schwartz, Warren F., et al. “The Duel: Can These Gentlemen Be Acting Efficiently?” The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1984, pp. 321–355. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/724239. Accessed 26 Oct. 2020.
A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
