Esso Patasse

Due Date: 12/13/2020

Essay Assignment 2- Research Critical Analysis Essay on Dueling

FIQWS 10005/10105 Composition for Russian Literature

            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. Each side has a witness, called seconds. The usual cause of a duel is an insult given by one person to the other or over a question of honor. The challenged person has the right to set the place, time, and weapons. 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 15^th to the 20^thcentury mostly in western societies and in Europe. Noblemen dueled for financial reasons, verbal conflicts, or for a women’s romantic interest. Ivan Turgenev’s, The Torrents of Spring and A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, consists of two protagonists, Pechorin and Sanin, who performed duels for the sole purpose of obtaining a women’s interest. Pechorin fancied Princess Marie’s attention, while Sanin proposes a duel for Gemma’s sake. Although these characters participated in something that’s labeled to be honorable and noble, these two literary texts depict why the duel is an unnoble act because of how debasing the characters in each text presented dueling to be with the way they conducted themselves.

            Dueling to avenge one’s honor has never been legal, it has been marked by laws opposing it. The practice became popular in Europe after the famous challenge between King Charles V of Spain and Francis I of France around the 16^thcentury. Dueling became a technique for resolving political disputes. Legislation during the 17th century had little effect on suppressing the practice. The English Common Law declares that killing in a duel to be held as murder, but juries rarely convicted in cases of dueling until the custom had ceased to be popular during the reign of Queen Victoria. The duel was intensely popular in England, during Restoration. The combatants had to guarantee their participation by throwing down a gauntlet ( a special dueling glove made of metals) and his opponent accepted by picking it up. It was believed in such a situation that the right could not be beaten and the loser, if still alive would be dealt with by the law this was thought to be the judgement of God and could not been wrong. This form of trial was open to all free men. (Britannica Duel)

            A Hero of Our Time is about Grigory Pechorin, a young army soldier, lonely, self-centered and arrogant, who believes in nothing. He plays with impunity, with the affection of women and with the goodwill of men. He performs risky adventures impulsively, risks his life, and destroys women who care about him. While Pechorin is able to feel deeply, he is unable to express his emotions. One of the novel’s most important scenes is a duel between Pechorin and a fellow soldier, Grushnitsky, that ends with Grushnitsky dead and Pechorin shrugging meanly. Pechorin is brave, ambitious, and persistent, but eventually his efforts and potential are lost.

            Dueling isn’t  as noble as it appears to be in the text A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov, because it is a very brutal act, in which 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 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.

            The text The Torrents of Spring by Iven Turgenev, talks about 23 year old Dimitry Sanin’s journey to Frankfurt. There he met the stunning Gemma Roselli, who worked in the patisserie of her parents, and for the first time fell intensely in love. Convinced that nothing will get in the way of lifelong love with his fiancée, Dimitry unexpectedly agrees to start a new life and to sell his Russian estates. But when he sees the prospective buyer, the intriguing Madame Polozov, his youthful vulnerability makes him a victim to a deeper, more destructive obsession.

        In one significant scene, Gemma is mocked by a drunken German officer named von Donhof in Frankfurt. The Torrents of Spring states, “the officer stopped before Gemma, and in an unnaturally screaming voice.. he articulated, “I drink to the health of the prettiest confectioner in all Frankfort, in all the world (he emptied his glass), and in return I take this flower, picked by her divine little fingers!” He took from the table a rose that lay beside Gemma’s plate. At first she was astonished, alarmed, and turned fearfully white … then alarm was replaced by indignation; she suddenly crimsoned all over, to her very hair—and her eyes, fastened directly on the offender, at the same time darkened and flamed, they were filled with black gloom, and burned with the fire of irrepressible fury.”(Turgenev 18)   Kluber wanted to disregard the situation and exclaims “Unheard of! Unheard of! Unheard of impertinence!” but Sanin, rebukes Donhof and accepts his duel challenge. “I am a Russian, but I cannot look on at such insolence with indifference; but here is my card and my address; monsieur l’officier can find me.” From this, it is cleart that Sanin is very uspet at the officer’s actions. He feels as if the officer has disrespected Gemma, a women he has deeply fell in love with at first sight. Sanin also proposes for a duel to be held, thus why he propels his address card at the officer (Turgenev 19).As this portion of the text continues, the duel between Donhof and Sanin himself was presented. This part of the text was very significant because during the duel, an unnoble act was conducted, an offense to the duel. Turgenev quotes, “The first shot was Sanin’s, and he missed. His bullet went ping against a tree. Baron von Dönhof shot directly after him—intentionally, to one side, into the air.” (Turgenev 30) Although Sanin was willing to actually take a shot at his opponent, he honestly  just missed. On the other hand, Donhof purposely shoots in the air. In 19^th century dueling codes, shooting into the air was considered one of many greatest offenses in a duel. Paul Robinson’s journal Courts of Honour in the Late Imperial Russian Army:The Slavonic and East European Review explains how this act of purposely missing was considered dishonorable and was considered an insult to not only the opponent, but to the doctors and seconds. (Robinson 709)

 In addition to this, Donhof expresses his apologies towards Sanin and wishes for the duel to discontinue. Although this was a genuine act, he harmed his honor as he withdrawed himself from the duel. Instead of defending himself, as one is suppose to in a duel, and carrying on with actually executing a shot, he decides to damage his honor by proposing an apology. This was seen as very unnoble in the 19^th century duel convention. Sanin, who once felt anger towards this officer, also acts unoble as he accepts simple apology and proceeds to stop the duel.

            It can be argued that dueling is a noble act because it was a way in which men can obtain honor, and honor was essential in all aspects of life, from the 15^th to the 20^th 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.”(Schwartz, Baxter, &Ryan,326) 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, but as something unjust and brutal. 

In conclusion the two texts The Torrents of Spring by Ivan Turgenev and A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail.Lermontov both support why dueling isn’t a noble act. These texts consisted of male protagonists, Sanin and Pechorin, who debase the act of dueling by amplifying the brutality, the unfairness, and offenses within their duels. Pechorin deliberately wounds and kills his old comrade Grushnitsky, who also tried to cheat Pechorin in the duel, while Sanin accepts his opponent’s offense, which was shooting into the air and discontinues the duel. These are just a few of the many unnoble acts within each of the characters own duel. 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? Overall, both of these primary sources expressed the idea of how dueling bares no honor and is ultimately unnoble because of the way the characters acted in their duels.

Works Cited

A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov

“Duel.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/duel. 

“Mikhail Lermontov.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/biography/Mikhail-Yuryevich-Lermontov. 

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.

The Torrents of Spring by Ivan Turgenev