Pro et contra: Discussions about Duels in Russian Publicistic in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries

Abstract

The article reviews the discussions on duel as a social phenomenon which broke out in the Russian journalism in the late 19th and early 20th century. To a significant extent, it was caused by modification of the duel legislation in 1894 when, in accordance with the Rules of Dispute Settlement among Officers, duels were legalised in the officer community and the Court of the Officer Society was granted a new authority: to review “the affairs of honour” and to appoint a duel in some conflict situations at own discretion. This legislative novelty was perceived by the society in different ways. For instance, M. Dragomirov critisised the discretionary power granted to the Court of the Officer Society and considered the new law as discrediting of personal honour which was now set against corporate views on rules and standards of settlement of personal conflicts. P. Levitov and V. V. Nabokov drew attention of the society to duels between the deputies of the State Duma which had become more frequent. A number of authors (B. Adamovich, V. Korolenko, A. Kireev, S. Nedrazhov, etc., maintaining their positions, referred to tragic fates and the last duels of Pushkin and Lermontov which had led to their deaths. The conclusions the publicists drew were absolutely opposite to each other. In the works by theologist and church historian A. Bronzov, duels were considered in the context of the principles of Christian ethics. One of examples of a direct discussion was a work by an anonymous company officer written in response to the article by A. Kireev. This “dialogue” pointed at social injustice contained in the new duel decree as well as at diversity of different points of view at the same phenomenon. The author of the article notes and analyses metaphorical expressions, major plot lines and rhetorical figures which were common for the reviewed discussion. It is noted in the conclusion that this discussion on duels not only clearly emphasised the questions of moral legitimacy of a duel and social status of its participants but also reflected the social tension and cultural barriers common during the late period of the Russian Empire.