V.S. Pikul noted in one novel that the lack of rights of a Russian woman, among other things, is expressed in the absence of the right to challenge an offender to a duel.
Men did not always have this right either, but fights in the world numbered in the thousands. The rules of the duel assumed maximum equality of opponents; society did not consider them crimes, no matter what the law said.
A matter of honor
History knows many types of private duels - knightly tournaments, “funny fights”... But a duel has a number of features that distinguish it from other fights.
Heiress of the tournament
It is believed that duels appeared in Europe in the 16th century - after the extinction of knightly tournaments. Their homeland is Italy, but soon the tradition of personal duels spread to France and Germany.
“Duo” means “two,” but duels were not always paired. At the initial stage, there are many fights between large companies. In France, there is a known case of 6 opponents fighting at the same time, and only one survived.
A. Dumas used the precedent to create the final scene in “The Countess de Monsoreau”. But already in the 18th century, duels became a duel between two.
The history of duels in Russia began in 1666. It was an import - the participants were two foreign hired officers. The winner, Patrick Gordon, then became a prominent figure in the Peter the Great era.
Features
In past centuries, a “private” fight was not considered something special. But the duel had a number of characteristics unique to it.
- The reason for the duel is an insult to the honor and dignity (of the participant or a woman close to him). A property dispute or criminal claim was considered by the court.
- A duel is an armed duel. Fighting without weapons was not considered such.
- The challenge and the fight itself had to have witnesses. Meetings in private were rare.
- Opponents were given equal opportunities: the same weapons and conditions. For this reason, before the fight, new weapons were necessarily purchased. Each participant had to have a set “for two”, and whose would be used was decided by lot. If one of the opponents could not fight (was old or sick), he could nominate a deputy (usually a relative or best friend). Such a case is described by Corneille in the Cide.
- The goal was not to kill the enemy, but to prove one’s moral superiority. Although murders were not uncommon.
- Only a duel of equals could be considered a duel. Although they didn't have to be nobles.
- The fight had to have a protocol. This was required to ensure that the participants could not be considered criminals. The protocol could be “on parole,” but more often it was written down.
These were unwritten rules, but they were strictly followed. There were deviations, but more often by agreement of the parties.
Commoner's honor
Usually the participants in the fights were nobles, especially officers. But this was not an immutable rule. For example, the famous Russian political figure the beginning of the last century, A.I. Guchkov (of a merchant family, but received nobility according to the Table of Ranks) was known as the most dangerous breter (that is, a fighter).
In Western Europe, student duels have long been extremely popular.
They fought with swords. The participants sought to inflict a wound on the enemy, very lightly, but in a noticeable place, preferably in the face. The goal was not so much to punish the enemy for insulting him, but to prove that you are a fighting guy, and it is better not to touch you.
The more scars a student had on his face, the more he was respected. One thing is important: the opponent of the nobleman was the nobleman, the commoner was the commoner. In Western Europe (but not in Russia), women's duels have been recorded.
The right to choose
It was always provided to the participants in the duel. How much depended on their status. We chose a weapon, a place, a method of action. More rights the offended person had, but everything depended on the severity of the conflict.
One of the participants could refuse the fight. But this was fraught with consequences. Without them, only the offended, having received an apology, recalled the call.
A cowardly offender could be boycotted or fired from service. The presence or absence of a ban on dueling did not play a role.
There were exceptions. Thus, the famous gunsmith S.I. Mosin twice sent a challenge to the husband of his beloved woman, and both times he... reported a potential enemy to the appropriate authorities!
Weapon Selection
This right was granted to the offended. Until the 18th century, bladed weapons were usually used - saber, rapier, . The blades had to be of equal value, the same length or taking into account the height of the fighters. There were mentions in history of oddities, such as the use of candelabra.
19th century dueling codes favored pistols. Only new, identical in characteristics, smooth-bore samples were used.
After the meeting, the opponents could keep the weapons for themselves. But they no longer had the right to fight him again.
Sometimes they agreed on the use of several types of weapons.
Selecting a location
Except for particularly severe cases, this issue was resolved jointly. A fairly well-known, but deserted and remote place was required. Therefore, there were areas where duels took place regularly (Pré-au-Claire in Paris or the same Black River).
If the offense was very serious, they could use a place that was dangerous for the fallen person (the seashore or an abyss). Then even a slight wound threatened opponents with death.
But this happened infrequently; during a duel, the main goal was rarely to kill. You couldn't be late for the fight. A delay of a quarter of an hour was considered evasion.
To the barrier
We also had to choose a way to conduct the fight. It was possible to fight with edged weapons while standing still or moving, as in a normal battle. Pistols provided even better room for maneuver. There were several possibilities for using them.
- Stand motionless and shoot at a signal from a certain distance (measured in steps).
- Stand motionless with your back to the enemy and shoot over your shoulder at random.
- Disperse a certain number of steps, and then, on command, converge to a certain point. The shot could be made at this mark (barrier) or on the move.
- Converge gradually, making the agreed number of stops to shoot. Moreover, each enemy who had already fired a bullet had to wait until the second one did the same.
- Load only one pistol, choose a weapon by lot, put the muzzles to each other's foreheads and pull the triggers. How will fate decide...
There were other options. Thus, in America, “hunts” were practiced, when opponents with the same weapons (they were previously searched) were launched into specific place(ravine, grove, house). They could do whatever they wanted there until the charges ran out.
This is what the duel between Maurice Gerald and Captain Colquhoun looks like in The Headless Horseman. In serious cases, Russians shot “through a scarf.” The distance was determined by the length of the outstretched arms of the participants, grasping the corners of one handkerchief. It was impossible to miss.
Without bureaucracy
The stages of the duel were necessarily documented. The challenge had to be made publicly (by cursing the enemy, throwing a glove in his face, or slapping him in the face) or in writing.
If one person received several challenges, a strict lot was held, or the person summoned chose his own opponent (to prevent reprisals from many against one). The terms of the meeting were also written down and signed by the participants.
This was to prevent crimes under the guise of honor duels. Sometimes this rule was violated at the risk of the participants. More often this was done when they were going to fight to the death, or in the era of the prohibition of skirmishes. There were also disguised murders - the criminal called out an obviously weaker enemy.
Mandatory participants
Although only 2 people were supposed to participate in the battle itself, there were usually a lot of people at the place where the duel took place. Witnesses kept order and provided assistance to the participants.
Ambulance
If death was not expected, the presence of a doctor was required. Sometimes they brought two - from each side. In the era of bans on fights, it was agreed that doctors would not inform the authorities the real reason injuries to their patients.
Doctors had to save the lives of those seriously injured and determine whether the wounded fighter could continue the fight. They often confirmed death...
Be my second
The most important participant in the duel is the second. This person usually became the best friend or relative of the participant, and was not directly related to the conflict.
Once a challenge had been issued, the opponents should not communicate. All negotiations were conducted by seconds (1-2 from the side). They also had to check the weapons, measure the distance if necessary and monitor the opponents' compliance with the rules.
Sometimes a steward (the most senior and respected among the seconds or simply a respectable person) was selected from among them or additionally. The manager checked that there were no violations, did everything necessary to reconcile the warring parties, and gave signals for the beginning and end of the fight.
It was not safe to be a second. Anti-dueling laws punished them almost as severely as the participants. There have been worst cases. So, in 1870 in Paris, Prince Pierre Bonaparte, a cousin of Emperor Napoleon III, shot and killed 20-year-old journalist Victor Noir.
The young man came to him as a second for his friend, Pascal Grousset (known as a friend and co-author of J. Verne, writer Andre Laurie). He challenged the prince to a duel for grossly insulting the Corsican socialists (Grousset was a Corsican and a revolutionary).
The dueling code is not criminal. The prince was acquitted...
The ban is not a hindrance
In the 17th century in Europe, duels became so widespread that they began to significantly reduce the number of nobility. Related to this are attempts to get rid of them.
The attempt made by Cardinal Richelieu is quite well known.
What happened to him was exactly what is described in “The Three Musketeers” - the number of fights only increased.
There was even an impudence that, out of principle, he arranged a duel right under the windows of the formidable minister. The insolent man was executed, but the nobles continued to fight, if only to spite the cardinal.
Petrovsky Charter
Peter the Great was in no hurry to import its shortcomings from Europe. A special charter prohibited them from fighting in Russia under penalty of death for all participants!
It turned out no better than Richelieu's. The nobles still considered it, in many cases, a matter of honor to wash away an insult with blood.
The law prohibiting fights was applied several times, but was able to only slightly reduce their number.
Subsequently, Russian emperors repeatedly made attempts to stop these outrages in Russia, but with the same success. Catherine II threatened to exile the bullies to Siberia - and only slightly reduced the number of fights. Nicholas I was a resolute opponent of duels, but during his reign Pushkin and Dantes and Lermontov and Martynov fought.
Society did not support the rulers on this issue. The duelists were helped to disguise the fights, senior officers tried to get rid of subordinates who evaded satisfaction, and their comrades obstructed them, forcing them to resign.
Exile to the active army or demotion to soldiery, practiced as punishment for a duel in the mid-19th century, was perceived by many as a reward, recognition of courage. Such “punished” people received ranks and orders faster than others. There were also fans of duels among the emperors, for example, Paul I.
Mandatory battle
Emperor Alexander III took a different path. In 1894, he lifted the bans and introduced official rules for organizing duels among officers. Any dispute had to be first considered by the officers' council. If he ruled that it was better for the opponents to make peace, they might obey, or they might not.
If it was decided that a fight was obligatory, the one who refused was immediately dismissed from the army.
This decision increased the number of duels, but not the number of deaths. In general, in Russia, shooting intentionally past, or even into the air, was considered a worthy deed.
Alexander's decrees were abolished along with the monarchy.
Few people know that excommunicated after the duel with Pushkin, from noble society Dantes, ostracized not because of murder famous poet, but because he violated the rules of a duel.
The fact is that after the descent began and Dantes shot, Pushkin, having been wounded, dropped the pistol, which failed when it fell into the snow. It is worth noting that the rules of the duel prohibited any of the fighters from changing weapons during the fight.
But Pushkin demanded that the pistol be replaced and Dantes allowed him to do so. After Alexander Sergeevich’s shot, Dantes fell, but the wound was slight.
The thing is that in a duel they usually took two pairs of pistols, and often the reserve pair was equipped with weakened charges, so that the issue could be resolved without bloodshed and without damage to reputation.
Some sources believe that the second pair of pistols in this duel had just such a charge.
Dantes agreed to replace the weapon, thereby putting himself in a more advantageous position. It is unknown whether he knew in advance about the presence of a weakened charge; most likely, he guessed, but, nevertheless, he authorized the use of such a weapon. For which he later paid.
One of known cases The challenge of a nobleman to a duel by a commoner is again associated with Dantes; he was subsequently challenged to a duel by a tradesman, but Pushkin’s killer refused the challenge on legal grounds.
Conclusion
In a state governed by the rule of law, personal conflicts are not allowed to be resolved with the help of weapons. But still, many regret the disappearance of duels, since this method required determination and responsibility from the disputants.
Video
The tradition of dueling in Russia is an imported one. Despite the fact that since ancient times in Rus' there has been a tradition of both judicial duels to resolve disputes and duels before military battles, it has nothing to do with the duel we now know.
In Western Europe, a duel as a way of defending the honor of a nobleman appeared in Italy in the 15th century and began to spread very quickly to other countries. TO early XVI centuries, a duel was quite common for the noble class of Western Europe. Wherein bottom line The age of the participants in the fight dropped to 14 years.
Despite the fact that dueling had been prohibited by both monarchs and the church since the 16th century, Europe experienced a phenomenon known as “dueling fever.”
On April 27, 1578, one of the most famous duels in history took place in the Tournelle Park in Paris - the “duel of the minions.” It was a three-on-three duel between those close to the king of France Henry III(minions) and supporters of the Duke of Guise (Guizars). As a result of the duel, four of the six participants in the duel died.
Despite the official ban on dueling, the French monarch did not punish the survivors, and ordered the dead to be buried in luxurious mausoleums and marble statues erected for them.
This attitude towards the “minion duel” led to a surge in the popularity of duels and even to the emergence of professional duelists who gained fame through endless duels. In this case, the reason for a duel could be any little thing, a disliked look or a dispute over clothing.
Peter the Great: hang those killed in duels by their feet!
At the height of the European “duel fever” in Russia, in this sense, complete calm reigned. The first duel took place here only in 1666. The future general became rivals Peter I Patrick Gordon and another mercenary officer, Major Montgomery.
In 1682 Princess Sophia signed a decree authorizing service people carry personal weapons, accompanied by a ban on fights.In the popular film “Arapa Peter the Great,” the monarch-reformer expresses his readiness to accept a challenge to a duel for his pupil. In reality, Peter the Great, despite his commitment to European culture, had an extremely negative attitude towards duels.
One of the chapters of Peter’s Military Regulations of 1715 for a challenge to a duel provided for punishment in the form of deprivation of ranks and partial confiscation of property, for entering a duel and drawing a weapon - the death penalty with complete confiscation of property, not excluding seconds.
The “Military Article,” which was an explanation of the provisions of the Military Regulations, confirmed the “most severe prohibition” of challenges and fights. Moreover, hanging was envisaged even for those who... died in a duel. The corpses of such were ordered to be hung by the feet.
"Legalized form of murder"
However, up to the second half of the XVIII centuries, duels in Russia did not take on a mass character. However, when Catherine II they are becoming an increasingly popular way of sorting out relationships, especially among young people brought up in the European spirit.
In 1787, Catherine the Great, alarmed by what was happening, released the “Manifesto on Duels.” It called duels “a foreign plant”; participants in a duel that ended bloodlessly were given a fine as a punishment (not excluding seconds), and the offender, “as a violator of peace and tranquility,” was given lifelong exile to Siberia. Wounds and murder in a duel were punishable as a similar criminal offense.But nothing helped. The first half of the 19th century became the peak period for Russian dueling. Moreover, in Europe, where this tradition began to decline, the Russian duel was called “barbarism” and “a legalized form of murder.”
The fact is that if in Europe the period of “duel fever” was associated with battles with edged weapons, then in Russia preference was given to firearms, which led to serious outcomes many times more often.
The “noble” duel took Pushkin’s life
In Russia there was a fairly diverse list of types of duels.
The most common was the so-called “moving duel with barriers”. A “distance” (10-25 steps) was marked on the path, its boundaries were marked by “barriers”, which could be used as any objects placed across the path. The opponents were placed at an equal distance from the barriers, holding pistols in their hands with the muzzle up. At the command of the manager, the opponents began to converge - to move towards each other. You could walk at any speed, it was forbidden to step back, you could stop for a while. Having reached his barrier, the duelist had to stop. The order of shots could be specified, but more often they fired when ready, in a random order. According to Russian rules, after the first shot, one of the opponents who had not yet fired had the right to demand that the opponent go to his barrier and thus get the opportunity to shoot from a minimum distance. The famous expression “To the barrier!” This is exactly what this requirement means.
A duel from a distance of 15 steps was considered “noble”, because the option of a fatal outcome in in this case was not so likely. Nevertheless, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin received mortal wound in a duel with 20 steps.Fight to the death
Unlike Europe, in Russia there were types of duels that terrified residents of other countries. For example, a duel “at six steps”: with this option, the opponents were located at a distance that ensured a guaranteed hit. A duel of this kind often ended in the death of both participants.
Sometimes a variant of this duel was used, in which one pistol was loaded, the duelists received the weapon by lot, after which both pulled the trigger. In this case, the “unlucky” one was practically doomed to death.
In Europe to early XIX century there were no types of duels that provided for the obligatory death of one of the participants. In Russia, there were types of duels “to the point of death.” One of these was a duel on the edge of an abyss - a wounded person in a duel fell into the abyss and died.
Gradation by degree of insults
The reason for the duel was considered to be damage caused to the honor of the victim, as well as the honor of his family. In certain circumstances, a challenge could also occur for insulting the honor of third parties providing patronage to the challenger.
The reason for the duel could not be the infliction of any material damage. In addition, filing a complaint with the authorities deprived the offended person of the right to demand satisfaction through a duel.
There was a whole gradation of insults, according to which the insulted person received the right to demand certain conditions of the duel.
It is curious that an insult inflicted on a woman was considered one step more serious than a similar insult inflicted on a man.
Satisfaction could also be demanded from a woman who insulted a nobleman - however, such an insult was rated two levels lower than a similar one inflicted by a man. In any case, in this case, a relative of the offender would have to answer the call, and not herself.
Fight with witnesses, but without spectators
The offended person was recommended to 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. Next, the offended person could either send a written challenge (cartel), or challenge the offender to a duel orally, through seconds. The maximum period for a call to normal conditions days were considered. Delaying a challenge was considered bad manners.
There was another important rule that said: “One insult - one challenge.” If a certain insolent person insulted several people at once, only one insulted person could challenge him to a duel. Preference was given to the one who received the most rude insult.
It was considered extremely unethical to turn a duel into a performance. In addition to the duelists, seconds and a doctor were present at the duel. The presence of friends and relatives of participants was possible, but not encouraged.
At a predetermined time, usually in the morning, opponents, seconds and a doctor arrived at the appointed place.
One of the parties was allowed to be late by 15 minutes. A longer delay was considered evasion of a duel and meant dishonor.
The fight usually began 10 minutes after everyone arrived. Opponents and seconds greeted each other with a bow.
A duel manager was appointed from among the seconds, who supervised all actions.
The seriously offended shoots first
Manager in last time invited the duelists to reconcile. If the parties refused, he announced the rules of the duel. The seconds marked the barriers and loaded the pistols (if the duel involved the use of firearms). The rules of the duel required the participants in the duel to empty all their pockets.
The seconds took places parallel to the battle line, the doctors - behind them. The opponents performed all actions at the command of the manager.
If during a sword fight one of them dropped his sword, either it broke, or the fighter fell, his opponent was obliged to interrupt the duel at the command of the manager until his opponent stood up and was able to continue the duel.
In a pistol duel, the degree of insult inflicted was of great importance. If the insult was medium or severe, then the insulted person had the right to shoot first, at otherwise the right to fire the first shot was determined by lot.
Right to Replacement
The rules of the duel allowed for the replacement of its participant with a person representing his interests. This was possible if we were talking about a woman, a minor, a man over 60 years old, or having an illness or injury that put him in a clearly unequal position with the enemy.
A woman’s honor could be defended either by a man from among her immediate blood relatives, or by her husband, or by her companion (that is, by the one who accompanied the woman at the time and place where the insult was inflicted), or, upon expression of such a desire, by any man present when insulted or later finds out about it and considers it necessary for himself to stand up for this woman.
At the same time, only a woman with impeccable behavior in terms of social norms. If a lady has become too famous free behavior, the challenge in her defense was not considered valid.
Paired set of pistols in the 19th century. was kept in many noble houses in case of a duel. Photo: Commons.wikimedia.org
The surviving duelists became friends
The rules of the duel prohibited fights with close relatives, which included sons, fathers, grandfathers, grandchildren, uncles, nephews, and brothers. Duels with first and second cousins were considered completely acceptable.
If, as a result of the duel, both opponents remained alive and conscious, then they were supposed to shake hands and the offender was supposed to apologize (in this case, the apology no longer affected his honor, since it was considered restored by the duel, but was a tribute to ordinary politeness). At the end of the duel, honor was considered restored, and any claims of the opponents against each other regarding the former insult were considered invalid.
It was believed that the duelists who survived the battle were supposed to become friends or, at a minimum, continue to maintain normal relations. Re-challenging the same person to a duel was possible only in the most extraordinary cases.
How Minister Vannovsky created a renaissance of the Russian duel
Throughout almost the entire 19th century, Russian monarchs passed laws aimed at banning duels. Emperor Nicholas I said: “I hate dueling. This is barbarism. In my opinion, there is nothing chivalrous about her. Duke of Wellington destroyed it in the English army and did a good job.” At the same time, he significantly reduced the liability for duels. The “Criminal Punishment Code” approved in 1845 completely exempted seconds and doctors from liability, and the participants in the fight faced 6 to 10 years of imprisonment in a fortress while retaining their noble rights.
In practice, the punishment was even milder - most often those guilty of even a deadly duel were limited to a few months in prison and a slight demotion in rank.By the end of the 19th century, the popularity of duels in Russia began to decline. However, in 1894, at the instigation of the Minister of War Peter Vannovsky, In order to strengthen morale in the army, duels were not only legalized, but in some cases became mandatory for officers.
The logical result was a sharp increase in the number of duels. If in the period from 1876 to 1890 in Russia only 14 cases of officer duels came to trial, then in 1894 - 1910 322 duels took place. Moreover, over 250 of them were carried out by decision of the officers' honor courts, which were given the right to order fights. Only 19 turned out to be unauthorized duels, without the permission of their superiors, and not a single participant was brought to justice.
Of the 322 duels of this period, 315 took place with pistols and only 7 with melee weapons. Most of the fights between 1894 and 1910 ended bloodlessly or with minor injuries, and only 30 ended in the death or severe injuries of the duelists.
Rifle fights: how Russian emigrants died
Not only military men, but also politicians and cultural figures fought in duels at the beginning of the 20th century. The leader of the Union of October 17 was an avid duelist. Alexander Guchkov, a famous duel between the poets of the Silver Age Nikolai Gumilyov And Maximilian Voloshin.
The institution of Russian duel ceased to exist after the October Revolution of 1917, along with other attributes of class society.
In the White Army, and then among the Russian emigration, until the 1930s, another original type of duel was popular - a duel with Mosin rifles. At the same time, the destructive power of this weapon made death almost inevitable. For desperate people, such a duel became a kind of “noble” way of suicide.
Introduction.
Origin, duels
CHARLES MOORE, who fought against dueling in the eighteenth century, wrote that such dueling arose in “an era of ignorance, superstition and Gothic barbarism” (4). He was not alone in the belief that dueling owed its origin to the uncivilized customs of the Middle Ages: many authors, both before and after him, sought the roots of duels in various forms fights in which men have entered since time immemorial, trying to resolve the contradictions that have arisen between them at once.
People have always sought one-on-one battles, no matter what the reasons. Dr. John Cockburn, the luminary of the neoclassical age of English art, who wrote one of the histories of the duels, drew a cruel conclusion:
It is impossible to deny the obvious that pride, envy, malice, the thirst for revenge and a sense of resentment have always reigned over human minds, and the consequences of all this were actions that very often resulted in open violence and suppression of the will of others, and in the commission of secret murders (5) .
One way or another, the earliest examples of fights that became integral parts both our literature and culture as a whole are associated with heroic fighters for truth, defenders of the weak and saviors of their people. Many of these powerful literary allusions live, as they say, with one foot in myths and the other in history: the Archangel Michael and Satan (saving the world, no less) and Beowulf with his exploits (here the scope is perhaps smaller, but the heroism is definitely evident ) exist, of course, in the realm of mythology. In Paradise Lost, Milton superbly describes the duel between the Archangel Michael and the Devil. The unknown author of Beowulf tells the haunting story of a hero from across the sea. If the acts of the angel, according to Milton, have strong roots in the Christian tradition, Beowulf belongs to the pagan mythology of the North.
Trial by combat was a legal norm for settling differences between people and had its origins in the “Dark Ages” of European history. It is believed that Gundobald, King of Burgundy, was the first of the reigning sovereigns to officially establish such a rule in about 501 AD. (6) Edward Gibbon explained the principle of judicial combat as follows:
In both civil and criminal law, the plaintiff or accuser, defendant, or even witness could be challenged to death by the opposing party if he could not prove his case in the usual way; then they had no choice left - either to renege on their words, or to defend their own honor in battle.
According to Gibbon, Gundobald determined the legality of the use of judicial combat rhetorical question: “Isn’t it true that the outcomes of wars between peoples and peoples and fights between by individuals in the will of God, does not Providence grant victory to the upright? The belief that a duel could establish the truth in disputes between parties through the expression of divine will is the basis on which medieval people believed that such a practice was justified. The force of arms had to give an answer - an answer not clouded by the words of false witnesses or the false slander of the unworthy. Gibbon continues, not without sarcasm:
Such a compelling argument supported the absurd and cruel practice of judicial duels, characteristic of some tribes in Germany, but which spread and became the norm in all European countries from Sicily to the Baltic states (7).
According to Gundobald's law, a duel was allowed when the accused stubbornly refused to admit guilt under oath, and the accuser insisted on establishing the truth with the help of weapons. This provision remained an integral part of establishing the truth in court through combat throughout Europe. The first recorded judicial duel took place in the Italian city of Pavia in the early seventh century AD. They resorted to a duel because of the accusation brought against the Lombard queen Gundiperga. When in 643 King Rotari ordered the compilation of a code of laws of the Lombards, judicial duels took their rightful place in it, and outlived the Lombard dynasty, overthrown in 774 by Charlemagne. The very principle we are considering continued not only to live and thrive, but also to expand its application. For example, in 982, Emperor Otto II issued a decree on the advisability of resorting to combat in cases of perjury. In the process of evolution of the laws of the Lombards, a rule was developed according to which a judicial duel could be ordered in 20 different cases (8).
During the Middle Ages, the practice of judicial duels was widely used throughout Europe. At first it even enjoyed the support of the church, since Pope Nicholas II sanctioned it in 858. First legalized, as we have already seen, in Burgundy, the judicial duel quickly spread throughout the rest of the world. modern France, taking root in all the Frankish kingdoms.
As a result of the Norman conquest, judicial duels came to England, although there is a legend that half a century earlier - in 1016 - King Canute and Edmund Ironside fought in such a duel on the island of Olney, not far from Gloucester. They then competed no less for England itself. At the end of the eleventh century, during the reign of King William II, a baron, Godefroy Baynard, brought an accusation of malice against the king on the part of William, Comte d'Eux. These two knights had to sort things out through a legal duel. They converged on Salisbury, where they fought in the presence of the king and his court. Comte d'E lost and as a result was castrated and blinded, while his squire for some reason was whipped and hanged.
One more a shining example A trial by combat in England could be the duel between Baron Henry de Essex and Robert de Montfort during the reign of Henry II (1154–1189). The Essexes had the hereditary right to be the standard bearers of the kings of England, and de Montfort accused Henry of gross neglect of duty during the Welsh campaign of 1157. De Montfort stated that Essex threw the royal standard in the face of the enemy and fled ignominiously from the field. No one could get away with such statements, so the two gentlemen met to find out the truth on an island on the Thames near Reading. Essex lost the fight and was left to die where he was. Fortunately for him, the monks who brought his body to the monastery for burial discovered that the knight was still alive. Cured and put back on his feet, Essex never left the abbey again. (9)
In France, in 1386, there was also a noteworthy judicial duel, in which Jean de Carrouges and Jacques Le Gris took part. The entire episode was restored in detail by Eric Jaeger in a work somewhat recklessly called “The Last Duel.” Jaeger tells the story of a slowly brewing rivalry between two knights, which took its most disgusting form when Le Gris raped de Carrouges' beautiful and much younger wife. As a result, the King of France, Charles VI, ordered a judicial duel to put an end to this matter. Jaeger gives in vivid detail the details of the magnificent ceremony of the feudal judicial duel. To fight each other, two knights took to the field on the territory of one of the Parisian monasteries immediately after Christmas 1386. The king and his retinue and hundreds of onlookers were also there - the duel could only end in the death of one of the two participants. As a result of a brutal clash, in which there was none of the poetic inspiration and pomp so characteristic of the previous ritual, the exhausted Le Gris found himself on the ground in heavy armor, where the enemy finished him off in cold blood with a blow to the throat (10).
Judicial duels, wherever they took place - in France, in Italy or in England - in essence, were not much different from each other. They were open meetings, sanctioned by the king, in which plaintiff and defendant met each other in full view of courtiers and ordinary citizens, in the presence of the monarch himself, and on a platform that could not provide advantages to either side. The verdict following the collision was pronounced immediately in the presence of the interested parties. Thus, as we see, the judicial duel of the Middle Ages in this aspect was fundamentally different from the purely personal, secret and illegal meetings that represented duels in later times. Shakespeare, as often happened with his insight, captured the spirit of the judicial duel and conveyed it in Richard II. The first three opening scenes of the play tell the story of the confrontation between Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and Henry Bolingbroke, Lord of Hereford.
The king, the pledge of justice and the stronghold of justice, convenes two irreconcilable barons to resolve their differences. Richard, having listened to the claims of each party against each other, tries to achieve their reconciliation, and when nothing good comes of it, he orders a judicial duel to settle the issue. Shakespeare perfectly understood the essence of a judicial duel. When the king, who fails to reconcile the warring parties, orders a duel, he acts as a judge. Such powers of the sovereign as chairman of the court are only emphasized by the fact that when the parties arrive in Coventry, ready for battle in the face of the king and courtiers, Richard cancels the duel and imposes the punishment of exile on both barons. As Shakespeare believes, which is what he talks about, the king and only the king can administer justice.
From an early time the church opposed combat, seeing in it a usurpation of the rights of God, despite the fact that secular authorities, who sanctioned duels, believed entirely in them as a means of inviting the same God to bring about a just decision by battle between the litigants. Saint Avitus, Archbishop of Vienne and Primate of Burgundy, protested to King Gundobald about the legalization of judicial combat in 501. More active opposition to the phenomenon we are describing on the part of the clergy appeared at the Council of Balance in 855. Meanwhile, the papacy itself - at least at first - took an ambivalent position, condemning duels in individual cases, but not encroaching on their very institution until the twelfth century. Indeed, in 858, Nicholas I gave official papal sanction to a judicial ordeal, or the testing of a defendant by physical suffering (a judicial duel was, in essence, one of its varieties).
In Italy, after experiencing a period of great popularity between the ninth and twelfth centuries, judicial combat began to die out. One historian suggests that the process of reducing the spread of the practice we are considering began to decline as a result of the decisions of the church congress in Verona in 983. At this high meeting, the sovereigns of Italy decided to bring under strict control the phenomenon of trial by combat. Gradually, the judicial duel as an institution migrated to the sphere of concern of the civil leadership; By the middle of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century, the free cities of Italy began to prohibit judicial combat one after another. Genoa in 1056 and, possibly, Bari in 1132 were among the first to dare to take such a step (11).
In other parts of Europe, opposition to judicial duels came primarily from the church. The orders of the pope were to be - even in theory - respected throughout the territory controlled by the Roman Church. In France, the end of the era of judicial duels dates back to the reign of Louis IX the Saint (1226–1270), who issued edicts outlawing such practices. Some historians believe that this moment is very important for understanding the reasons for the later emergence of duels themselves, as we understand them, since Louis, who deprived judicial duels of state approval, made it possible, as they say, to privatize them. So the monarch lost or began to lose the ability to control such a phenomenon as trial by combat. Philip IV the Fair in 1303 continued the clampdown on dueling practice. Since the tradition lost support from above, it began to transform, losing its former open forms with their inherent pompous feudal rituals and moving into the realm of the forbidden but widely practiced modern duel, with its well-known set of features: secrecy, the choice of an early time of day and a secret place.
In England, the legal battles that crossed the English Channel with the Normans saw a brief but violent heyday. Henry II's introduction of trial by jury into England marked the beginning of the decline of trials by combat. People saw alternative way resolution of contradictions - more fair, less susceptible to bias and influence of the interests of the powerful and resistant to corruption compared to the principle of considering cases by one judge.
The era of chivalry is well known for the nobility's widespread passion for tournaments, which were partly magnificent holidays, partly war games and perfectly corresponded to the ideals of knights. An integral component of this phenomenon were the rules and traditions of feudal loyalty, which connected the knight with the lord, and vice versa; penetrating everywhere and permeating the entire society, they firmly cemented the bonds of subjects with the king and the king with his subjects. Tournaments, in addition, gave knights the opportunity to perform heroic deeds in front of their lady, which in itself served as one of the main guarantees of observing the traditions of the medieval code of courtly love.
Medieval tournaments were pompous and carefully orchestrated events in which knights faced each other in full armor on elaborately decorated horses in the presence of the king and the entire court. However, under the cover of silks and Aksamites, behind the luxurious ornaments on the tents and skillfully embroidered trellises of the era of feudalism, there was a completely practical purpose: a chance for knights to hone their combat skills, without which it is difficult to imagine their effective performance of duties on military service. Heavily armed horsemen - knights - served as the main striking force of any medieval European army. Fighting on horseback in full armor with a spear and sword required high skill and long training, and therefore it seemed very important for the knight to use every opportunity to hone his skills and bring it to the highest level. Tournaments were one - and probably the best - of the ways in which such a goal could be achieved.
The connection between the judicial duel and the medieval tournament with their inherent competitiveness is obvious, and it is no less logical to imagine that both of them can rightfully claim to be the predecessors of the modern duel, although personally I would speak in favor of the primacy of the judicial duel, which is still closer to the dueling confrontation we are accustomed to. Trial by combat entered into tradition and practice - or was introduced there - for the purpose of resolving differences between two sides, while the tournament, despite the fact that in one of its forms it also represented a fight between two men, despite all the ceremonial shell, in to a greater extent was war game. In general, several strong arguments can be made in favor of the opinion that medieval tournaments are more correctly viewed as the forerunner of modern sports competitions rather than duels.
The third medieval institution, a former close relative of the tournament and the judicial duel - and, in fact, it can be perceived as a kind of symbiosis of the two phenomena we have already considered - should be called the knightly duel. Its origin is rather vague, but we have a good idea of the essence of what it was. Like trials by combat, always permitted by the authorities, duels of knights also took place in fenced areas - champs clos. The rules that the two participants in the battle were required to follow, apparently, were also quite clear. Anyone and everyone, as one might expect, could not fight in such a fight. Clause 12 of the rules read: “Whoever cannot prove his noble origin through his father and mother in at least four generations should not claim the honor of being admitted to the competition” (12).
As in the case of the judicial duel and the medieval exhibition battle between two knights, the knightly duel clearly has a right to claim a place in the list of predecessors of the modern duel. Its main purpose was to settle issues related to the honor of the knight as a nobleman. In this sense, it is the most direct ancestor of the modern duel. However, like a judicial duel, it differed from a modern duel in the fact that it took place in public with the permission and blessing of the sovereign (13).
As the institution of trial by combat spread and developed, the practice arose of the parties using field fighters who were hired to defend the case of the litigants in battle. Although this custom saved the latter from the risk of fighting with an opponent with weapons in their hands, they had to bear full responsibility in accordance with the results of the fight. As one historian put it: “As clients in a criminal case that was decided in battle by others, such people did not participate in the duel, but stood with a rope around their necks, so that the one whose fighter lost the fight could be hanged without delay” (14). .
Consequently, the choice of a “champion” in such cases was the most literally words are a matter of life and death. The figure of a fighter-defender in a medieval judicial duel outlived the very institution of such competitions and existed in a rudimentary form for quite some time. for a long time. Fighter-protectors, or "champions" of kings, continued to play a role, albeit a purely ceremonial one, during coronations in England. Thus, at a banquet in Westminster Hall after the coronation of George IV in 1821, such a “champion” served the king. The king's defender fighter, in full armor and wearing a plumed helmet, rode into the hall where high-ranking guests had gathered and threw his gauntlet three times in front of the audience, challenging to a one-on-one duel all those who wished to challenge the king's rights to the throne. Nobody accepted the call (15).
Despite church opposition and the growth of laws restricting them, judicial duels did not disappear during the Renaissance, surviving in it as a relic of the slowly receding Middle Ages. At the end of 1583 - that is, in the middle of the reign of Elizabeth I - two Irishmen, Conor O'Connor and Tidge O'Connor, at the behest of the Privy Council of Ireland, had to settle differences between themselves by force of arms. The case concerned charges of treason, and the trial took place in courtyard Dublin Castle. Conor died in the battle, and his body was beheaded (16).
In 1547, an event took place that is traditionally considered the last case official application of judicial duel or knightly duel in France. The sumptuously staged battle between Baron de Jarnac and Lord de La Chatignray received the approval of the young king Henry II. Two nobles fought on a strictly defined field, surrounded by tents and tents, in front of the king himself in the presence of courtiers, heralds and many other spectators. What took place was a relic of the Middle Ages - an old-fashioned trial by combat, not a modern duel. We will examine this case in detail in Chapter 5 of this story.
A generation later, in 1571, a court in London ordered a duel to settle a dispute over a piece of land on Harty Island in Kent. The defendant, a certain Paramour, filed a petition for a “trial by battle” (by Battel), which - and, presumably, not unreasonably - confused the court in common civil cases. However, since the plaintiffs expressed their full readiness to agree to the fight, the court saw no grounds for refusal, no matter how outdated and outdated such a norm may be. For the competition, a place was fenced off at Tothill Fields (close to the modern Houses of Parliament). Both litigants chose to expose their clients, that is, they resorted to the services of fighters, or “champions,” who fought for them. The plaintiff, a certain Chavin, chose Henry Nayler, an experienced fencer, and Paramour invited George Thorne to defend his case.
...the fighter-defender of the plaintiff [Chayvin], who appeared at the appointed place dressed in a red tabar over black armor, with his legs open below the knee, with bareheaded and with bare arms to the elbow, was led by the hand by a knight, Sir Jerome Bowes, who carried a club of el length (that is, about 1.10–1.15 m) with a point of horn and a buckler (small shield) with a double leather covering … (17)
Defender Paramour was accompanied to the field by Sir Henry Cherry. Rumors of the upcoming fight and the careful preparations for it immediately spread throughout London, forcing at least 4,000 people to leave their seats, who hurried from everywhere to Tothill Fields so as not to miss anything from the unprecedented performance. Unfortunately for thousands of curious and impatient spectators, the queen, who also learned about the planned fight, not wanting to become, albeit indirectly, but still an accomplice in the absurd bloodshed, ordered the case to be resolved in favor of the defendant (18). Therefore, the trial by combat under the bated breath of the crowd did not happen, no blood was shed, and 4,000 people, suffering from the spectacle, peacefully went home.
The right to resort to "trial by battle" (by Battel) took root in English law until the nineteenth century. In 1817, a certain Abraham (Abraham) Thornton was charged with the murder of Mary Ashford. The defendant's lawyer, apparently well-versed in the intricacies of the law and familiar with the darkest corners of the criminal law, not wanting to expose his client to the risk of a jury trial, suggested that he opt for "trial by combat" (by Battel). Heeding the advice of his defense attorney, Thornton took off his glove in court and challenged the prosecution to a duel (19). The court, of course, was confused by such an act - a call to resort to a legal procedure that had not been used not only for several decades, but for centuries - but could not help but respect Thornton’s choice. In 1819, however, Parliament abolished "trial by battle". The move to repeal this provision is said to have been the only legal reform approved by the reactionary Lord Eldon during his long tenure as Lord Chancellor. Even the “stubborn, inflexible and impenetrable” Eldon was forced to admit the validity of the abolition of a tradition that had its origins in the depths of the “Dark Ages” (20).
Three various types medieval duel - one-on-one combat - have long been considered the direct ancestors of the modern duel. Earlier historians of dueling traced its origins to the “fierce but gloomy superstition of the northern tribes” (21). These same experts everywhere agree that the first important modern duel was the challenge received by Francis I, King of France, from the German Emperor Charles V in 1528. The fact may be unreliable, and the stories may be vague and contradictory, but the episode is in itself confidently captured the imagination of dueling historians. Although it is not difficult to understand the reason for their attitude: we're talking about about the two greatest secular rulers of Europe, two powerful sovereigns who challenged each other as duelists. From that very moment, as the theory goes, modern duels became common. As one of these historians wrote: “The example turned out to be contagious” (22).
In fact, the failed meeting between the French king and the head of the Holy Roman Empire has many reasons to claim the title of the first modern duel. Despite all the noticeable similarities (let's leave aside the differences for a moment) between the medieval forms of single combat and the modern duel, the latter is essentially a product of the Renaissance. Italy was the cradle of the Renaissance, it gave us Botticelli, Brunelleschi and Michelangelo, but it also enriched the world with the concept of the modern duel. As one scholar recently wrote: “During the first half of the sixteenth century, medieval forms of one-on-one combat developed in Italy into duels of honor, which replaced vendetta” (23). Charles V and Francis I were, as they say, completely typical par excellence - by definition - sovereigns of the Renaissance, and therefore, in terms of logic, it would be completely natural for them to give rise to new tradition duels and introduce concepts of honor that would be at the forefront of this entire concept.
In Italy of the first half of the sixteenth century, which became the birthplace of modern dueling, there was one tool that contributed to the spread of new ideas - the printing press. It was with the help of these machines that it became possible to reproduce all kinds of literature - manuals and manuals - on the one hand, inviting noble gentlemen to familiarize themselves with the standards of concepts of honor, and on the other, to study the accumulated experience in terms of the use of weapons that helped to properly defend it.
The incubation period of the gestation of the modern duel coincided in time with the intermittent and overlapping wars in Italy, which also pushed people to converge in duels, multiplying and multiplying the ranks of those who wanted to become adepts of the new etiquette. In September 1494, Charles VIII of France and his army crossed the Alps and invaded Italy to claim the throne in the Kingdom of Naples. Having entered In a similar way, he launched the Italian Wars - a whole series of increasingly bloody and expensive ones material resources and human lives of conflicts that lasted until 1559.
The Italian wars represent important milestone in the history of duels, since due to protracted hostilities on the territory of Italy, many French soldiers. As a result, a significant number of French people found themselves in close contact with something new to them, absorbing and quickly mastering not entirely familiar views on the concept of personal honor and dueling etiquette. They had plenty of opportunities to try out their acquired experience in practice. War and periods of unrest are fertile ground for arousing general hostility and hatred and are ideally suited for the ripening of ideas of duels, and Italy at the dawn of the sixteenth century was no exception.
The Italian Wars undoubtedly introduced the invading French soldiers to a new style of dueling: the chronicles are full of accounts of duels that took place at that time, many of which involved the French. Bayard, Sainte-Croix, Cobois, Bourdeil, Pourvillain and La Motte are just a few French knights, who went out to fight one-on-one in Italy during that period. Gaston de Foix and de Chaumont - two significant French commanders - witnessed duels fought by their fellow countrymen (24). It was these people, as well as many others who remain unnamed, who brought the new fashion home from across the Alps to France.
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) authorIts origin Now let's try to find out for ourselves historical origin this order. Following the course of possessive relations between the princes in the XI-XIII centuries. in the Dnieper south and the Upper Volga north, we notice one visible inconsistency. In old Kievan Rus XI-XII
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures LXII-LXXXVI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichHer origins, Catherine, on her mother’s side, belonged to the Holstein Gottorp princely family, one of the numerous princely families of Northern Germany, and on her father’s side, to another local and even smaller ruling family - the Anhaltzerbst. Catherine's father
From book Everyday life France in the era of Richelieu and Louis XIII author From the book Barbarian Invasions on Western Europe. Second wave by Musset LucienOrigin After powerful migration shocks during late antiquity in the 6th–8th centuries. Scandinavia entered a period of decline and isolation. Human resources were depleted; in order to form new hordes, a respite was required. However, this pause was not
From the book Etruscan Civilization by Thuillet Jean-PaulORIGIN Let's face it, the origin of the Etruscans is a question in which there has been no progress since the beginning of the 20th century. Let’s leave aside what appeared back in the 18th century. hypothesis about the arrival of the Etruscans from the north of the Rhaeta. This hypothesis was subsequently refined taking into account
From the book The Conquest of America by Ermak-Cortez and the Rebellion of the Reformation through the eyes of the “ancient” Greeks author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich5. The origin of Ermak and the origin of Cortes In the previous chapter, we have already reported that, according to Romanov historians, information about Ermak’s past is extremely scarce. According to legend, Ermak’s grandfather was a townsman in the city of Suzdal. His famous grandson was born somewhere in
From the book Requests of the Flesh. Food and sex in people's lives author Reznikov Kirill YurievichOrigin The origin of North and South American Indians is discussed in the previous
From the book The Face of Totalitarianism by Djilas MilovanOrigin 1 The roots of the communist doctrine, as we know it today, go deep into the past, although it began its “real life” with the development of modern industry in Western Europe. The fundamental foundations of its theory are the primacy of matter and
From the book The Little Book of Capoeira author Capoeira NestorOrigin The origin of capoeira - African or Brazilian - is still debated to this day; Various and mutually contradictory theories are created to explain how it all began. Unfortunately, the early days of capoeira are shrouded in obscurity, since there are only
From the book Everyday Life of European Students from the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment author Glagoleva Ekaterina Vladimirovna authorOrigin
From the book St. Petersburg Women of the 19th Century author Pervushina Elena VladimirovnaOrigin Merchants made up slightly less than 1% of Russia's population, but were the lifeblood that nourished all its parts. Since 1775, the merchants were divided into three guilds according to the amount of declared capital. At the same time, the minimum capital required to enroll in the third guild was
From the book St. Petersburg Women of the 19th Century author Pervushina Elena VladimirovnaOrigin Bourgeois and bourgeois women made up a significant proportion of townspeople - about 35% of the urban population and from 6 to 10% of general population Russia. It consisted mainly of small traders (those who could not declare merchant capital) and artisans. This class carried
From the book The Mayan People by Rus AlbertoOrigin If 20 years ago the problem of the origin of Mesoamerican culture could be solved alternatively - to consider it autochthonous or, conversely, brought from Asia, then now, as new discoveries increase data on ancient horizons, this
From the book Duel. The World History by Richard HoptonPart II. History of duels
From the book The Tale of Boris Godunov and Dimitri the Pretender [read, modern spelling] author Kulish Panteleimon AlexandrovichCHAPTER FIVE. The origin of the Zaporozhye Cossacks and their history before the impostor. - Description of their country and settlement. - Impostor on the Don. - Origin Don Cossacks and their relationship to the Moscow state. - The impostor enters the service of Prince Vishnevetsky. - Life
The fights between the rivals were business as usual at all times - among different classes and different peoples. In some places they fought only until first blood was drawn (like, for example, the Vikings), and in others they fought until the death of one of the duelists. In some countries, the fights took place in the presence of many spectators, while in others they were held in complete secret. The weapons could also be very diverse.
An interesting thing: if two people get together and punch each other, this is considered undignified behavior. And if two fighters have a duel, this speaks of their honor and dignity. Of course, some people thought the duelists were just bullies serving bad example, however, many believed that real men should behave this way.
Over time, duels became the main way to resolve private conflicts, which is why many people died. In a number of countries, duels were prohibited by law, but were still carried out. There were even rules for conducting them. For example, in 1836 In France, a special code for duelists was issued, although duels themselves were already officially prohibited here. And this code was successfully adopted not only in France, but also in many other countries of the world, for example, in Russia.
The rules strictly regulated the behavior of combatants, who previously could trip the enemy, hit him in the back, and even finish off the wounded. Also, according to the rules, when challenged to a duel, the offender should be hit in the face or a white glove thrown at his feet. After this, the “scene of action” was chosen, a doctor and two seconds were invited, one of whom was appointed as the manager. Duelists were allowed to be no more than fifteen minutes late for the duel. When everyone was in place, the manager traditionally turned to the opponents with a proposal to make peace. If they refused, then a weapon was selected for the duel and the distance was measured. The fighters dispersed to the barriers and, after the manager’s command, shot at each other.
Before the duel, they also agreed on whether they would shoot simultaneously or alternately. Usually shooting was carried out from thirty steps. Sometimes both opponents were injured or even killed.
If they shot in turn, then the first shot was fired by the one who challenged the duel. The one who was called could discharge his weapon into the air. A wounded duelist was allowed to shoot while lying down. If both opponents remained alive and unharmed, they shook hands and dispersed.
In addition to firearms, duelists also used edged weapons - swords, sabers, knives. Some originals used axes, canes, razors, candelabra, and so on to sort out relationships. However, in such battles it was not easy for the seconds to monitor the actions of the fighters, and in addition, the strengths of the duelists often turned out to be unequal. Therefore, most rivals tried not to resort to this kind of weapon.
Prohibition of duels
Duels were banned in France in the 16th century. The reason for this was the death of thousands and thousands of aristocrats. Similar laws were also in force in other states, but everything was in vain...
If the authorities became aware of the duel, they roughly punished the duelists so that others would be discouraged. Cardinal Richelieu, for example, introduced the death penalty for them, which in rare cases replaced with exile in case of complete confiscation of property. This applied not only to the duelists, but also to the seconds and spectators.
Under Peter the Great, Russia also introduced (for the first time) the death penalty for participating in a duel, and according to the decree of Catherine the Great, those guilty were either exiled to Siberia or imprisoned. Nicholas II sent duelists to war as privates.
However, it was all in vain. Moreover, in Russia they began to shoot without doctors, without seconds, from a distance of ten steps! Having fired once, the opponents did not disperse, but fought “until they hit.” It is clear that most duels ended in someone's death.
Women's duels
Surprisingly, among the duelists there were also women who fought even more severely and more sophisticated than men: women’s fights much more often ended in death. Often they turned into a real massacre with the participation of seconds and fellow spectators. If they fought with swords, the tip of the weapon was often moistened with poison, but if they shot, then until they were seriously wounded or someone died.
The famous opera singer Julie d'Aubigny fought many duels with ladies and even men. Once at a ball she competed against three opponents and managed to injure them. To avoid execution, Julie had to spend several years outside of France.
Stories are known and quite funny women's duels. For example, the one that happened because of the composer Franz Liszt between his lover Marie d'Agoux and the loving French writer George Sand. These determined ladies chose... their long nails as a weapon. The duel took place in Liszt’s house, and the composer himself was holed up in his office at that time. "Duel on Nails" ended in a draw; Having yelled and pretty much scratched each other, the ladies went their separate ways. After this, George Sand no longer sought Liszt's favor.
How about this fact: the Empress Catherine II we mentioned, who prohibited duels in Russia, in her youth (before her accession to the throne) participated in an armed duel and more than once served as a second for other ladies.
The most famous men's duels
A.S. Pushkin participated in more than a hundred duels. Many were his opponents famous people of that time (for example, Kuchelbecker), but the last for the poet was a duel with Dantes, who spread evil jokes about Pushkin and his family. Having received a mortal wound, Russian genius died two days later.
The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, who lived during the Renaissance, once fought with swords with a relative who managed to cut off part of his nose. Brahe spent his entire subsequent life with a silver prosthetic nose...
Lermontov and Martynov were considered friends, which, however, did not save them from the fatal duel. The reason for the confrontation was the jokes that the poet made about Martynov. The result of all this turned out to be far from funny: the bullet pierced Lermontov’s heart and lungs...
Two English gentlemen - Member of Parliament Humphrey Howarth and nobleman Earl Barrymore - quarreled in a pub and decided to duel. Howarth, a former army surgeon, showed up completely naked, although he was no joker, much less a pervert. It’s just that, as a physician, he knew that the wounded die, as a rule, not from the wounds themselves, but from an infection contracted from their clothing. Seeing his opponent in this form, Count Barrymore burst out laughing and announced that he would not shoot at a naked man, and also did not want to be killed by him. The duel, therefore, did not take place.
Alexandre Dumas took part in a rather peculiar duel: the loser by lot had to kill himself. To the famous writer bad luck. Dumas went into another room and fired into the air, after which he returned and announced that he was aiming for the temple, but missed.
Seventh American President Andrew Jackson fought a duel as a young man with a man who insulted his wife. Andrew was shot in the chest and surgeons were unable to remove the bullet. She stayed with Jackson for the rest of her life...
A fairly well-known duel between the minions (close associates of the French king Henry III) and the Guizars (supporters of the Duke of Guise), in which four participants were killed and two were seriously wounded. By order of the king, a marble monument was erected on the grave of the victims.
A French aristocrat, also a handsome man and a womanizer, Comte de Boutville fought duels twenty times, and this despite the fact that Cardinal Richelieu banned them in the country under penalty of death. Of course, Richelieu knew about all these fights of his favorite and constantly forgave him. However, for the twentieth time, Boutville crossed all boundaries, staging a showdown in broad daylight, and in large cluster Parisians. The cardinal simply could not forgive this without damaging his reputation. And the count's head was publicly cut off.
The first German chancellor, Bismarck, also fought duels; in twenty-seven duels, he lost only two battles, receiving minor injuries. By the way, in Germany at that time only duels with a fatal outcome were prohibited, but those that resulted in minor injuries were not.
But the most remarkable duel in the world took place in 1808, it took place on balloons. The young people did not share the lady and decided to sort things out in this original way. The winner in this fight was not the most accurate, but the most cunning shooter, who shot at the ball - and his opponent simply crashed.
And in the end, it is worth saying that in many countries of Latin America, fights were banned only at the turn of the millennium, that is, quite recently, but in Paraguay they are still allowed to this day...