PHYSICAL INVIOLABILITY AND THE DUEL pUNCH OR STAB: THE RUSSIAN DUELIST’S DILEMMA The Russian duel was a surprisingly and consistently violent affair. I do not imply that Russian duels were more deadly than those in the West (the fatality rate in Russia never approached that in France in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries or in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century).1 I mean rather that conflicts over honor were frequently resolved in unregu lated spontaneous physical confrontations rather than in formal en- counters . Furthermore, those confrontations differed from rencontres in that they involved direct physical contact—hand-to-hand fighting or the use of weapons unrecognized by the dueling ritual, such as walking sticks or whips. The use of standard dueling weapons— swords or pistols—appears to have been optional. In other words, from the introduction of the duel in Russia to its demise, a conflict over honor was as likely (and at times more likely) to result in an im mediate and violent hand-to-hand fight as in a formal duel of honor. This happened so frequently that physical force seems to have been an accepted alternative to the duel. In fact, it would be possible to write (—S A Brief History of Dueling in Russia 97 98 a variant history of dueling in Russia featuring fistfights, slaps in the Everyone present—nobles face, and battering with walking sticks. and commoners, officers and enlisted men, Historians of the Russian women too—had at each other. Klimovich’s wife was beaten with a duel have consistently ignored or dis missed this ugly and violent club and her mother threatened.4 Grinshtein seems to have won this alternative behavior as aberrant. Thus Iakov Gordin, in his Right conflict, but he paid dearly for it: he was arrested, tortured, and exiled to a Duel, sees unregulated physical vio lence as an anomaly characteristic together with his wife and son to the northern provinces. There they of either the early (immature) or the late (corrupted) stages of stayed nearly sixteen years, until Peter III finally allowed Grinshtein to dueling in Russia. He is right to some de gree (there seem to have been return to his estate. more fights in the first half of the eigh teenth century than a hundred This vulgar scuffle scarcely deserves to be considered a duel. Still, years later), but my material does not completely support this interpretation. amidst the raw violence some nascent elements of an affair of honor I find that unritualized violence accompanied dueling throughout can be discerned. All accounts mention injured honor as the conflict’s its history. The regular duel of honor in Russia seems to have been cause. When the carriages collided, Grinshtein allegedly reacted to a noble ideal realized by few and disre garded by many. Klimovich’s transgression with the question: “Who are these canailles The so-called Nezhin quarrel who are traveling and why won’t they honor military commanders that took place in 1744 between the aide-de-camp (de facto [geniralitetu chesti ne otdaiutj and clear the “ In the following head) of the Guards Regiment (Leib-kompa niia), Petr Grinshtein (Grünstein), exchange, Grinshtein himself assaulted Razumovsky’s honor: as the and one VIas Klimovich is an early example of a confrontation history of the Guards Regiment describes it (quoting from contempo over an alleged offense to honor that in- volved hand-to-hand fighting rary documents), Grinshtein “with foul words dishonorably cursed and weapons both appropriate and in- appropriate to an affair of honor. Aleksei Grigor’evich (Razumovsky), which words are even shameful Grinshtein was one of the leaders of the 1741 coup d’etat. Elizabeth to record.” Furthermore, certain gestures, if considered outside of rewarded him by making him a noble. Klimovich was a brother-in-law man-to-man combat, could be part of an affair of honor. Thus when of Elizabeth’s favorite, Aleksei gor’evich Gri Klimovich hit Grinshtein on the head with Razumovsky, whose rise made Grinshtein a stick, Grinshtein, “hay- jealous. The fight ing smiled took place on a road near Nezhin, and crossed himself, with the words ‘Even Aleksei Gri in Ukraine. The precise course of the encounter is difficult to gor’evich would not hit me,’ slapped Klimovich on the cheek with a establish, since the incident is known ex clusively from the rivals’ accounts: full swing of his right arm.”6 Klimovich responded like a duelist: he Klimovich’s complaint to the em- press, supported by members drew his sword and swung it at Grinshtein, but one of Grinshtein’s of- of his party, on the one hand, and Grin- shtein’s testimony, ficers stopped him, took away his weapon, and broke it in half. supported by his officers, on the other.2 temporary Even con- References to honor and status (“Even investigators of the affair reported Aleksei Grigor’evich would to the empress that’ not there was no hope of finding the hit me”) indicate that this was a conflict over precedence—that is, truth and recommended that the case be closed.3 over Grinshtein’s and Razumovsky’s positions in the hierarchy of The conflict honor (Klimovich clearly functioned in the conflict arose over the right of way: depending as Razumovsky’s on who is re junior porting, either Klimovich’s carriage representative). In the West, such conflicts were customarily re collided with Grinshtein’s in the dark of night or Klimovich solved by means of dueling, in defiance of the monarch’s power.7 In demanded that Grinshtein’s party make way for his and began the Muscovite Russia, by contrast, they were resolved through the insti fight when Grinshtein refused. Heated words led to a fight involving tution of beschest’e, which was controlled by the state. In fact, any both the principals and their retinues. the course of In exchange of blows was as forbidden as dueling. Jacques the fight, sticks, swords, guns, and Margeret fists were all used. writes: ‘—, Physical Inviolability and the DueL— C—, Physical Inviolability and the Duefr— 101 Moreover, even if a man is greatly injured by words, he is not permit- his right arm,” a blow that clearly must have inflicted real physical ted to strike his foe, even with his hand, on pain of being punished as damage. Moreover, according to another account, Grinshtein “slapped above [i.e., like a duelist]. For if he does, and the other returns the Klimovich in the face about three or four times”10—far more times blow, and a complaint is lodged, they are both condemned to be beaten as above or to pay a fine to the emperor. This is because, they say, who- than was necessary to establish his superior status. Such apparent in- ever has been offended, in wreaking vengeance for the injury or in an- difference to the semiotics of weapons and gestures was to become a swering a blow, took upon himself the authority of the law, which re distinctive feature of the Russian duel. serves to itself alone the recognition of wrongs committed and the pun- Interpreting the Nezhin quarrel as an early, clumsy attempt at duel- ishment of them.8 ing, one would expect that indiscriminate violent responses to insults The “Nezhin quarrel,” crude as it was, constituted an attempt to re against honor would disappear as dueling was assimilated and the solve the matter independently, outside the monarch’s jurisdiction. symbolism of the honor code established.11 Yet historical documents Hence the severe punishment imposed on Grinshtein: not only did he reveal that fistfights and the wielding of sticks between officers and overestimate his status in relation to that of Elizabeth’s favorite, but he gentlemen in defense of their honor continued throughout the eigh also directly threatened the monarch’s right to determine the hierarchy teenth century and beyond. Most important, the fight and the duel re of honor and to regulate disagreements about it. Grinshtein probably mained intertwined. The i 3 duel between Chernyshev and Leont’ev, felt that his role in establishing Elizabeth on the throne allowed him mentioned in Catherine’s memoir, began as a fight: “On January ii, such independence. Yet she refused to recognize his claim. I 75 3 , Colonels Chernyshev and Leont’ev, being at Count Roman Vo In their approximation of an affair of honor, Grinshtein and Ku- rontsov’s, first had a fight and then, taking out their swords, stabbed movich used weapons both appropriate (sword) and inappropriate each-other with those swords.” Similarly, in the mid-175os, two offi ( fists, hands, sticks, and clubs) for a duel. These weapons have sym cers of the Guards, Fedor Smol’ianinov and Aleksandr Shvanovich, bolic meaning. They not only indicate what type of conflict is taking having quarreled over a game of billiards, first pushed and slapped place (duel, fight, etc.); they also symbolize the power relations among each other, then drew swords and seriously wounded each other.12 combatants. A sword and a fist are equalizers, although in opposite Nikolai Grech tells the story of A. V. Khrapovitsky’s quarrel with a ways. A sword establishes (or reestablishes) opponents’ equally high provincial gentleman who mistakenly sat at a restaurant table prepared status, whereas a fist reduces both opponents to an equally low level. for Khrapovitsky and his high-ranking friends: A stick used to deliver a blow and an open hand used for a slap are At that time this party came in and took their places around the table. weapons of punishment; they introduce or reinforce a hierarchy of One of its members, seeing a stranger and figuring from his manners power.9 that he was a visiting provincial, began to tease him.