The duel in the novel "The Captain's Daughter" by A. S. Pushkin

Chzhan Yaven' Postgraduate student; Department of the History of Russian Literature; Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1 daniazhang317@gmail.com

The novel "The Captain's Daughter" is "one of the most perfect and profound creations of Pushkin" ^{[1, p. 212]}, "the result of his ideological and creative searches" ^{[2, p. 169]}. Despite its small volume, its genre is defined by many scientists as a "historical novel" (for example: ^{[3, p. 21]}; ^{[4, p. 191]}), and the most important issue raised by the writer in this novel is usually considered the question of the historical and political significance and meaning of the Pugachev uprising (for more information, see: ^{[4, p. 200]}).

Yu.M. Lotman's article "The ideological structure of the Captain's Daughter" made an important contribution to understanding the meaning of the novel. The scientist divides the "artistic fabric" of the novel into "two ideological and stylistic layers" (or worlds) - the noble and the peasant, and argues that Pushkin realizes "the impossibility of reconciliation of the warring parties and the inevitability of a bloody and destructive civil war," since they stem not from the personal qualities of the leaders of both sides, but from a "clash irreconcilable social concepts", in this "fatal tragedy" both sides "have their own class truth". Lotman hypothesizes that the real pathos of the novel lies in the elevation of "humanity and human dignity" above socio-historical convention (see: ^{[1, pp. 212-227]}). Sharing Lotman's opinion, we focus on the conflict between Grinev and Shvabrin, which ended in a duel, considering that its ideological and semantic content has not been revealed with sufficient completeness.

It should be noted that it is Petrusha Grinev, this noble "nedorosl", who occupies a neutral position in the hero system, standing aside, "he does not completely dissolve in any of his modern camps" ^{[1, p. 227]}. This inevitably leads us to compare him with the image of Shvabrin, who is also a nobleman, but "fell in" with both camps. A significant difference between them is immediately noticed in the 3rd and 4th chapters of the novel, where the characters at first quickly became friends, then categorically separated due to insurmountable internal contradictions.

In the research literature, the conflict between Grinev and Shvabrin is interpreted as the juxtaposition of a "depraved, cynical representative of the upper nobility infected with skepticism ("Voltaire")" ^{[2, p. 193]} and a youngster from an old family that preserves traditional moral foundations. The image of Shvabrin, unlike the noble Grinev, is presented as an "intriguer" ^{[6, p. 213]}, an "immoralist" ^{[7, p. 323]}, the character is entirely "negative" (see: ^{[8, p. 57]}; ^{[9, p. 393]}). Moreover, the duel episode itself is of particular research interest, primarily in connection with the "clash of concepts of two epochs" shown in it ^{[10, p. 23]} – proof of the mastery of Pushkin's "historicism", the writer nowhere directly reports on the social conditioning of the characters, but shows "their psychology, behavior, thoughts, actions as a result of the impact of the social environment" ^{[6, p. 172]}.

According to Ya. A. Gordina, the whole episode of the duel at first glance is shown "as a parody of the duel plot and the very idea of the duel," in fact, this is not so at all. Grinev's heroic behavior is depicted ironically in the text because he is surrounded by people who grew up in other times, who do not understand and do not perceive "the dueling idea as a necessary attribute of the noble lifestyle." And Grinev himself hardly has a clear idea of a duel, but he already feels his right to fight for the sake of dignity and honor; and Shvabrin's apparent coolness (he suggests doing without seconds) does not mean that he is a villain, rather that at that time the "dueling code is still blurred and uncertain" (see: ^{[10, pp. 23-27]}).

Recognizing the validity of the above remarks, it should be emphasized that "in the Captain's Daughter, history and modernity are connected in a single indissoluble knot" ^{[11, p. 287]}, "history for Pushkin is a source of understanding of the present and the key to predicting the future" ^{[12, p. 195]}. The dueling episode shown in the novel is not only a recreation of the situation of a peripheral domestic duel, which is part of the wide historical panorama of Russia during the Pugachev uprising, but it can also be considered as a kind of depiction of another circumstance that worries Pushkin – the moral crisis of the nobility in 1830, and the action completed by Grinev contains Pushkin's sincere call for "honor" – the cherished word that appeared in the epigraph to the entire novel ("Take care of honor from a young age") ^{[13, p. 258]}. To clarify the main position of this article, it is necessary to address the following aspects of the problem: 1) Pushkin's attitude to the nobility; 2) reflection of the moral crisis of the nobility of the 1830s in the change of dueling consciousness; 3) Pushkin's understanding of honor; 4) revision of the ratio of Grinev and Shvabrin as twin heroes.

As you know, along with the growth of historical consciousness (since 1823), Pushkin continues to reflect on a possible social revolution, and he forms the idea of a "revolution from above", which N.Ya. Eidelman describes in detail in his article "Pushkin on the French and Russian revolutions". Pushkin is sure that there are three main moving forces of the country that interact with each other: the state as a "fatal power", "the people's, peasant element" and, finally, the third "numerically small, but very important, potentially capable of extremely strengthening the government and the people" – "a thinking minority", an educated stratum represented primarily by the nobility" ^{[14, p. 332]}. Pushkin himself, according to B.V. Tomashevsky, declared his belonging to the nobility (and not to the "landlords") "back in the romantic period in letters to Bestuzhev and Ryleev from Mikhailovsky" ^{[12, p. 190]}. Despite the fact that Pushkin's political projects put forward in his draft notes, according to Tomashevsky, are filled with "fascination with the patriarchal ideal of utopian noble romanticism" ^{[12, pp. 192-195]}, it is clear to us that the writer treats the nobility with personal predilection and high social expectations, is proud of his ancient noble family, believing that only "savagery, meanness and ignorance do not respect the past, groveling before the present alone"^{[15, p. 136]}.

However, in reality, Pushkin was faced with a sad fact – the gradual decline of this noble class, he wrote about it in 1830: "I regretted seeing how the ancient noble families were destroyed, how the rest fall and disappear, like new surnames <..they fall, unprotected by anything, and as the name of a nobleman, hour by hour more humiliated, finally became a parable and a mockery to the commoners" ^{[15, p. 136]}.

One of the most exciting problems for Pushkin in the 1830s was the moral crisis of his noblemen contemporaries, which was directly reflected in the change, sometimes even the disappearance, of the harsh concept of honor developed at the beginning of the XIX century in the practice of dueling. This issue is carefully considered in the work of Ya.A. Gordin in the chapter "The Agony of noble honor": in connection with the decision taken in 1829 by Emperor Nicholas I to eliminate the "powers of officers' assemblies to pass sentences on honor cases", the social atmosphere began to change: the importance of personal honor and personal duty began to decrease, officers were no longer so afraid or ashamed dishonor, public scandal, since it did not harm the position or future career, moreover, refusal to participate in the duel became possible, and the decision of the case of honor decently began to be given into the hands of the government (see: ^{[10, pp. 98-100]}). As a result, according to Gordin, in society "it was not so much the dueling as the boorish element that triumphed. Brazen rudeness replaced pride" ^{[10, p. 101]}. To substantiate his observations, Gordin cites many real events as an example, including the death of Pushkin's friend A.A. Shishkov: in 1832, Shishkov, offended in a quarrel, challenged Chernov to a duel, but the latter refused. To force the opponent to fight, Shishkov slapped him in the face, Chernov silently ran home for a dagger, then returned and, after waiting until Shishkov appeared at the porch, rushed at him and stabbed him (see: ^{[10, p. 104]}).

Pushkin responded sensitively to what was happening around him. So, at the end of 1836, in a letter to P.Ya. Chaadaev, he wrote: "Although I personally am cordially attached to the sovereign, I am far from admiring everything I see around me; <...> as a person with prejudices, I am offended" ^{[16, p. 689]}. One of the main "prejudices" of Pushkin "was the idea of honor as an absolute regulator of behavior – personal, social, political" ^{[10, p. 14]}.

It is worth emphasizing that Pushkin's understanding of honor does not have the class character with its inherent ritualism that he found in the representation of ancient Russian society about honor. In one of the notes of 1827, the writer talked about honor in ancient Russian society in this way: "Foreigners who claim that in our ancient nobility there was no concept of honor (point d'honneur) are very mistaken. This honor, which consists in the willingness to sacrifice everything to maintain some conventional rule, is visible in all the splendor of its madness in our ancient locality. The boyars went to disgrace and execution, subjecting their family feuds to the royal court" ^{[15, p. 41]}. Pushkin's understanding of honor is always associated with "personal dignity", which he placed above "nobility of the family" (for more information, see: ^{[15, p. 136]}). In the article "On the Nobility" (1830), "honor" is interpreted by Pushkin as the highest value of a person ("What does the nobility learn? Independence, bravery, nobility (honor in general)") ^{[17, p. 105]}.

Returning to the Captain's Daughter, the above gives us the basis for a possible double interpretation of the meaning of the duel between Grinev and Shvabrin. It means that Pushkin projects his observations on the matter of honor, characteristic of the XIX century, onto the event of the XVIII century, and suggests his call for "honor" in the epigraph to the entire novel (that "in the scene of Shvabrin and Grinev's acquaintance, the following sounds loudly, XIX century." can be seen: ^{[18, pp. 289-290]}). It is known that the narrative in "The Captain's Daughter" is complicated by the memoir form, there are three possible subjects of the narrative: the young Grinev as a participant in all these events, the author of Grinev's memoirs, and Pushkin himself. In this regard, many scientists focus on the function of epigraphs in the novel, considering them to be the "semantic key of the work" ^{[8, p. 66]}. V.S. Listov, in his article on the interpretation of the epigraphs of the novel, believes that Pushkin's attitude to the meaning of the story is revealed "only in epigraphs" ^{[19, p. 123]}.

The relationship between Grinev and Shvabrin is often considered as the relationship of antagonistic heroes (for example: ^{[6, p. 213]}; ^{[20, p. 66-67]}; ^{[21, p. 213]}). As you know, the original idea of the "Captain's Daughter" was connected with a specific historical fact – the transfer of the noble officer Schwanwich to Pugachev's side. The image of this hero changed as the idea developed, and in the final text "the image of a traitorous officer seems to split" ^{[6, p. 213]}: one is a representative of the St. Petersburg "new nobility", the other is the successor of the local "fronting" nobility" ^{[6, p. 217]}, who grew up in an ancient patriarchal family.

While acknowledging the validity of scientists' observations, at the same time, we believe that another point of view on the relationship between Grinev and Shvabrin is possible – the heroes are doppelgangers. A similar revision of the relationship between Grinev and Shvabrin appears in a recent article by O.V. Bogdanova, in which the researcher shows that Pushkin actually "intentionally likens the characters, revealing the inconsistency of their characters, putting them in similar situations, pushing them into one love conflict" ^{[21, p. 12]}. Our position is that Pushkin divides a single novel character into an intellectual principle (Shvabrin) and an ethical principle (Grinev), which could and should complement each other, but puts them in a conflict position (rivals within the framework of the love storyline). The writer, on the one hand, shows what a dangerous path of dishonor can lead to an uprooted, unsupported intellectuality (an impudent slanderer, an intriguer – a cruel murderer – and further, a despicable traitor), on the other – what strength a person with a moral principle can gain, which allows him not only not to succumb circumstances, but also rise above them.

"I lived as a teenager, chasing pigeons and playing leapfrog with yard boys <...>" ^{[13, p. 260]}, it is no coincidence that the main character is presented in the image of a seventeen–year-old boy with a clearly reduced intelligence, which is especially obvious if compared with the original intention of the writer. Here it is difficult for us to fully agree with Shklovsky's explanation that the writer "redid the plot because he found a new center for it — the character of Pugachev" ^{[8, p. 57]}. The young age and careless childhood of the hero – the inexperience of life; "the parting words of old Grinev "Take care <. . .> honor from a young age"" – gives the hero only an abstract "moral guideline" (see: ^{[11, p. 273]}). The writer seems to intentionally reduce or weaken other factors influencing the hero's decisions, except for his innate morality. Young Petrusha looks, learns, absorbs the features of others, but each time faced with an unexpected crisis, the hero makes decisions with his "living gifted soul" ^{[22, p. 234]}. This explains his rapprochement and then divergence with Shvabrin.

It is worth noting that the image of Shvabrin in the novel is given through the prism of Grinev's subjective perception, which largely explains the "unambiguity and one-coloredness" ^{[23, p. 39]} of his depiction in the novel as an undeveloped, "ready-made" character ^{[24, p. 136]}. However, based on the position that the relationship between Grinev and Shvabrin can be considered as twin heroes, we note that Shvabrin had a significant influence on the hero at the beginning of their acquaintance: "Shvabrin was very smart. His conversation was sharp and entertaining" ^{[13, p. 277]}; "Shvabrin had several French books. I began to read, and the desire for literature awoke in me" ^{[13, pp. 280-281]}; "There was no other society in the fortress, but I did not want another one"; "So, after rewriting my song, I took it to Shvabrin, who alone in the whole fortress could appreciate the works of the poet" ^{[13, p. 281]} – despite good relations with the rest of the inhabitants of the Belogorskaya fortress, Shvabrin is the only one with whom Grinev found a common language. The senior witty guardsman-nobleman seems to be teaching a young naive youngster who could repeat his guards career. This is manifested, for example, in criticizing Petrushka's poems, Shvabrin usually treats Grinev "condescendingly".

At the same time, Shvabrin's swagger and cynicism repel Grinev (the hero hated Shvabrin's "constant jokes" about the commandant's family, especially "caustic remarks" about Masha, and ultimately "an hour-by-hour conversation <...> became <...> less pleasant") ^{[13, p. 277]}, which shows his ability to make independent judgments. Upon learning about Grinev's sympathy for Masha, Shvabrin became completely embittered, he shamelessly defamed the reputation of innocent Masha even right in front of the commandant's family, using "secular communication", which is based "on wordplay, slander, subtext dialogue" ^{[25, p. 116]} and which he tried to teach Grinev, and as a result, caused the hero has deep indignation and hatred ("Shvabrin's shamelessness almost enraged me; but no one but me understood his rude insinuations") ^{[13, p. 282]}.

We turn to the analysis of the duel episode, indeed, the ironic shade of its description is already felt in the epigraph taken from the comedy by Ya.B. Knyazhnina "Cranks": "If you please, and stand in the same position. / You'll see, I'll pierce your figure like I did!" ^{[13, p. 282]}. Vasilisa Egorovna's interruption and intervention are shown especially comical (but at the same time good-natured): at the very moment when Grinev and Shvabrin "drew swords", they were surrounded by Ivan Ignatiich and five disabled soldiers; returning to the fortress, their swords were taken with a Broadsword and taken to the closet; then the "commandant" as a conciliator, practically having no idea about the real reason for their conflict, she forced the characters to "kiss each other" ^{[13, p. 286]}.

However, the reason for the duel is actually serious for both sides: Shvabrin needs to wash away the insult received from a seventeen-year-old boy through it (You're lying, you bastard! <...> you lie in the most shameless way) ^{[13, p. 286]}, and Grinev defends the honor and reputation of an innocent lady.

Let us recall Pushkin's understanding of honor ("What does the nobility learn? Independence, bravery, nobility (honor in general)" ^{[17, p. 105]}, it manifested itself in all the details of Grinev's behavior in the conflict with Shvabrin: in negotiations with second Ivan Ignatich, which ended with the latter's decisive refusal, "the reasoning of a prudent lieutenant did not shake"^{[13, p. 283]} the young hero, and good-natured Vasilisa Egorovna's intervention only made the heroes "apparently reconciled", Grinev insisted on his decision ("Our case cannot end with this" ^{[13, p. 286]}, the hero told Shabrin); after learning about the real reason for Shvabrin's "persistent slander" towards Masha, the desire to "punish the audacious slanderer" ^{[13, p. 287]} it became even stronger in Grinev; in the end, the hero's bravery was shown during the duel – it seemed that if Savelyich had not appeared, the hero would have won ("noticing that Shvabrin was weakening, I began to attack him with alacrity and drove him almost into the river" ^{[13, p. 287]}). Apparently, Grinev not only did not violate his father's covenant, but also fulfilled it in his own way, "not taught by anyone", the hero "miraculously knows how to preserve his honor" ^{[26, p. 220]}, which will be continued in the subsequent events of the novel (in relation to both authorities, to the tsarina and to the impostor").

Thus, this article argues that the duel between Grinev and Shvabrin in The Captain's Daughter is not only a recreation of the situation of a peripheral domestic duel during the Pugachev uprising, but also turns out to be a kind of depiction of modernity. The double interpretation of the meaning of the duel is carried out taking into account different contexts of the work of art: historical (reflection of the moral crisis of the nobility in 1830 in the change of dueling consciousness); biographical and everyday (the writer's personal attitude to the nobility, as well as his understanding of honor); literary (revision of the ratio of duelists as heroes-doubles). "Honor" is a cherished word that appeared in the epigraph to the entire novel, it seems to be a key concept that allows us to connect history and modernity. The duel in the novel "The Captain's Daughter" turns out to be Pushkin's call for the preservation and affirmation of honor as the highest human value.