«If that boy had lived, neither I nor Dostoevsky would have been needed».
L.N. Tolstoy
On the evening of July 15, 1841, a duel took place between Lermontov and Martynov in the vicinity of Pyatigorsk. To this day, debates continue regarding the reasons behind this duel, the behavior of its main participants, as well as the duel itself. Let us attempt to unravel this mysterious, convoluted, and tragic event that cost Russia its young genius.
Allow me to briefly explain why I chose to delve into this topic. Since childhood, I have remembered a painting by N. Yaroshenko entitled "Beshtau," which hung on our wall. My father, who was madly in love with Lermontov's poetry, inherited this painting from his grandfather, who was friends with Nikolai Yaroshenko. In honor of their friendship and mutual admiration for Lermontov, the artist gifted the canvas to my relative. Thus, it ended up in the living room of our Leningrad apartment. Somewhere in the early seventies, my father received a call from a certain V. Seklyutskiy, an artist and art historian tasked with creating a museum for Yaroshenko in Kislovodsk, pleading for any amount of money to purchase the painting for the museum. After much hesitation, my father agreed, but not for money—he decided to donate it. The painting still hangs in a central place at the Yaroshenko Museum in Kislovodsk with the inscription, "Painting donated to the museum in 1962..." followed by my father's name. Alongside the painting, we also kept a small pencil sketch for it, which I remember quite well. On it, presumably drawn by Yaroshenko, were marked two dots with the letters "L" and "M." As my father explained, the painting depicts the site of Lermontov's duel, while the two dots on the sketch indicate the positions of the duelists. The fact is, Yaroshenko lived in Kislovodsk for a long time and often visited Pyatigorsk (which is nearby), where he was interested in the life of the great poet, particularly trying to locate the exact spot of his duel. And apparently, he found it! However, the artist passed away soon after, taking that information to his grave. The sketch also did not survive. Besides Yaroshenko, no one else has managed to do so. Even the well-known obelisk inscribed "The Site of M. Y. Lermontov's Duel" is only symbolically tied to the true location of the duel, a fact that is not concealed.
There are other reasons that prompted me to investigate the demise of Lermontov, but I will address those at the very end. Before I present my understanding of this mystery, I will outline the commonly accepted version. Unfortunately, in nearly all sources, it is described either quite complicatedly and clumsily, or, conversely, excessively simply, often with inaccuracies. Therefore, without altering the essence, adding nothing, and refraining from interpretation, I offer it in my own rendition, structure, and phrasing.
I will begin with the reasons for the duel (based on official investigative documents):
...Glebov and Vasilychikov stated that when Lermontov arrived in Pyatigorsk, he showed disrespect towards his friend and former classmate Martynov, making inappropriate jokes at his expense. They indicated that the duel arose from a quarrel that took place between Martynov and the poet on July 13, 1841, during an evening gathering at the home of General Verzilina.
The ladies present at that evening later confirmed that Lermontov was cheerful and made an ill-timed joke at Martynov's expense. Martynov became enraged and later called the poet for a private conversation. Apparently, it was at that moment he provoked Lermontov into a duel. However, there were no witnesses to this conversation.
The Duel
The duel between Martynov and Lermontov took place on the evening of July 15, 1841. It occurred in the vicinity of Pyatigorsk, at the foot of Mount Mashuk, across from Mount Beshtau. The duelists were accompanied by seconds Glebov and Vasilychikov.
There is speculation that Prince Trubetskoy and Lermontov's relative, Stolyppin, may also have been present at the duel.
Only the first two witnesses were summoned for the investigation; others were allegedly concealed "so that the incident would not ruin their careers."
Briefly about the conditions of the duel: the distance between the barriers was fifteen paces. To establish the starting lines, an additional ten paces were measured out on either side. The duelists could shoot while standing still or on the move, or by approaching the barrier. A misfire of the pistol was considered equivalent to a fired shot.
Here is an excerpt from the descriptions of the duel, made by Count A. Vasilychikov: “...It was pouring rain. Glebov and I loaded the pistols. Glebov handed one to Martynov, I gave the other to Lermontov, and we commanded them to approach. Lermontov remained motionless, cocking his pistol, raising it barrel-up, shielding himself with his hand and elbow as per the rules of an experienced duelist. At that moment, I took one last look at him and will never forget the calm, almost cheerful expression on the poet's face before the barrel of the pistol aimed at him. Martynov quickly approached the barrier and fired. Lermontov fell as if he had been cut down on the spot. We rushed over. A wound smoldered in his right side, blood oozed from the left..."
Yet here too, numerous contradictions exist. Specifically, many familiar with the details of the duel believed that Lermontov, in a gesture of reconciliation, fired the first shot into the air. However, when questioned by the investigation whether Lermontov had fired his pistol, Martynov said nothing, Glebov stated that he did not fire, and Vasilychikov confirmed this as well. When the investigation and court raised the natural question—why, then, were both pistols found to be unloaded—Vasilychikov claimed that after the duel, he had allegedly fired Lermontov's pistol into the air to discharge it.
Excerpt (from official documents)
“...Retired Major Martynov and Lieutenant Lermontov, having quarreled with each other, agreed to settle this via a duel and thus invited as seconds Martynov—Cornet Glebov, and Lermontov—Prince Vasilychikov. On the 15th of July at 6:30 in the evening, they rode out from Pyatigorsk and stopped four versts from the city, at the foot of Mount Mashuk. Glebov and Vasilychikov measured a barrier of 15 paces, placed their caps at each end, measured an additional ten paces on either side, and handed Martynov and Lermontov loaded pistols. The conditions of the duel were: to approach the barrier on the signal of one of the seconds and shoot at will, on the move or from a stationary position. Glebov signaled. Martynov and Lermontov began to approach, and upon nearing the barrier, Martynov shot and wounded Lermontov in the right side, causing him to die on the spot. After that, by Glebov's order, Lermontov's body was transported by his coachman to his lodgings, and later that evening, Glebov reported this duel to the Commandant of Pyatigorsk, Colonel Vasiliy Ilyashenkov...”
In turn, Ilyashenkov reported the duel to his direct superior—the commander of the troops on the Caucasian line and in the Black Sea region, General-Adjutant Pavel Grabe, who then reported it to the commander of the Separate Caucasian Corps, General of Infantry Evgeniy Golovin:
“...In the city of Pyatigorsk for the treatment of diseases with the Caucasian Mineral Waters, retired major Martynov and Lieutenant Lermontov [this spelling of the poet's surname is frequently found in the documents] on the 15th of this month, four versts from the city, at the foot of Mount Mashuk, had a duel, during which Martynov shot Lermontov in the side, and he died on the spot from the wound. Their seconds were Cornet Glebov, who was here for the use of mineral waters, and Prince Vasilychikov, serving in the Second Section of His Imperial Majesty's Chancellery with the rank of titular adviser. Following this incident, a legal investigation is being conducted, and Major Martynov, Cornet Glebov, and Prince Vasilychikov have been arrested; this has also been reported to the sovereign emperor…”
After the Duel
Many questions remain regarding the behavior of witnesses, including the seconds and Martynov, immediately following the duel, as well as their confused and contradictory testimonies. According to some testimonies, Lermontov died instantly; according to others, he lived for another hour; and according to yet others, he did not die until they were approaching Pyatigorsk. Some testimonies suggested that Martynov and Vasilychikov allegedly immediately went to Pyatigorsk to report to the commandant about the duel and seek a doctor, while Glebov remained alone under the rain with Lermontov's body for several hours. Vasilychikov, however, wrote that it was he who remained alone with the body of the deceased, while the others went to Pyatigorsk... There is also considerable confusion regarding how and by whom Lermontov's body was transported to Pyatigorsk.
Nevertheless, by Ilyashenkov’s order, Martynov was arrested and placed in the city jail; the seconds, Cornet Glebov and Prince Vasilychikov, who had declared their participation in the duel, were sent to the guardhouse and then placed under house arrest. An inspection of the scene of the incident was conducted, where blood was found. An inspection of the apartment where Lermontov and his relative Stolyppin resided was also conducted. An inventory of the poet's belongings was compiled, and notably, the pistols from which the duelists likely fired were seized and described.
The civil court began to consider the cases ofIn addition to the primary question concerning the direction of the gunfire, several other issues have emerged that have given rise to new theories about the death of Mikhail Lermontov.
During the medical examination of Lermontov's body, conducted by the ordi-nator, a physician of the Piatigorsk military hospital I.E. Barclay-de Tolly in the presence of the investigative commission, a medical report was drawn up (Certificate No. 35). The conclusion stated: “On examination it appeared that the pistol bullet, hitting the right side below the last rib at the junction of the ribs with cartilage, penetrated the right and left lung, going up, came out between the fifth and sixth rib of the left side and at the exit cut the soft parts of the left shoulder.
In the course of the investigation the accused Martynov, Glebov and Vasil-chikov were given questionnaires to which they had to answer in writing after thinking about it. The essence of the questions included the following: the cause of the quarrel, how did the duelists travel to the place of the duel, how did the duel itself take place, did they use means of reconciliation and how did they take the body away?
Answering these questions in writing, even though they had the opportunity to communicate with each other by correspondence, the accused gave the investigators confused and contradictory testimony, falsely explaining how they traveled to the place of the duel and how the duel itself took place. In addition, during the investigation, Lermontov's dueling pistols were replaced with more powerful pistols (of the Kuchenreuter system), allegedly belonging to Stolypin, under a poorly explained pretext.
The case, which had begun in the civil court, was soon suspended by order of Nicholas I and sent to the military court with the requirement of the fastest possible consideration. The court made an extremely mild decision, which on January 3, 1842 was further softened by the highest command of Nicholas I: “Major Martynov should be imprisoned in the Kiev fortress in the brig for three months and subjected to church repentance. Titular Councillor Prince Vasilchikov and cornet Glebov to forgive, the first in consideration of the merits of his father, and the second in respect for the severe wound received.
It would seem that the reasons for the duel and its details are established, the case is closed, the court decision is made, the guilty, albeit very mildly, but punished, but, nevertheless, all the time that has passed since the death of the poet, there are dozens of new versions and do not subside disputes around those tragic events. And there are more than enough reasons for this.
Grounds for the emergence of new versions of Lermontov's death.
The first and main reason is the direction of the gunshot (wound) channel.
As indicated above, the pistol bullet, hitting the right side below the last rib at the junction of the ribs with the cartilage, exited between the fifth and sixth ribs on the left side, passing through the soft parts of the left shoulder. This trajectory is estimated by many experts, and on average is from 35 to 50 degrees to the horizon (and according to one of the known versions even 60), which could not have occurred under the described circumstances of the duel.
This discrepancy is even more aggravated when assessing the growth of the duelists. Lermontov's height is about 1 meter 60 centimeters, Martynov - 1 meter 80. References of supporters of the official version to the alleged unevenness of the site are untenable. Firstly, none of the descriptions, schemes and drawings (“Beshtau” by N. Yaroshenko, in particular) contain such information, and secondly, these experts are clearly not in touch with math, since under the accepted conditions of the duel (a barrier of 15 steps, and from it to each side 10 more) Lermontov would have to stand at the height of the roof of a five-story house.
For the same reasons, the assumption that Lermontov leaned backwards at the moment of the shot is absolutely absurd. Standing sideways, it would be impossible to deviate back, say, by twenty degrees if you wanted to. And there - more than forty. And why did Lermontov have to demonstrate some ridiculous miracles of balance? Absurd!
Equally untenable are the arguments that the bullet could ricochet from the female jewelry lying in Lermontov's pocket, some thin narrow gold headband worn on the head. The owner of this jewelry Catherine Bykhovets called it a bandeau, and N. Raevsky pheronierka. According to Raevsky - “...Lermontov, having taken this pheronnière, all the time, while chatting with Bykhovets, screwed on her finger its flexible headband ...”.
Also unconvincing are the assumptions about the probable change in the trajectory of the bullet inside Lermontov's body when it may have hit the bones. Even in official forensic practice, the direction of the shot is often determined by the direction of the wound channel (a straight line connecting the entrance and exit wounds). In the case of Lermontov, the word “not infrequently” can be discarded, as the act of examination of the body of the deceased indicates not two, but three points of bullet impact:
1. Below the last rib. 2. Between the fifth and sixth ribs. 3. Into the left shoulder. The location of these points and the conclusion of Barclay de Tolly firmly points to the straightness of the trajectory.
The same reason (trajectory) gave rise to other, quite fantastic versions. For example, about the shot of some sniper, almost sent by the Tsar, who was on the mountainside in the bushes behind Lermontov's back. This version, in particular, was adhered to by K. Paustovsky. Not to mention the obvious lack of logic in this version, suffice it to say that Barclay de Tolly, an experienced military physician (he studied medicine at the Moscow and Dorpat universities, served as a physician in three infantry regiments and as a resident in military hospitals), could not make the “childish” mistake of confusing the entrance hole with the exit hole. And with all the confusion in the testimony of the seconds, they spoke of the moment of the shot in the same way: “Lermontov fell as if he had been mowed down on the spot... A wound was smoking in his right side, and blood was oozing in his left. The bullet pierced the heart and lungs...”. That is, the entrance wound was firmly indicated here - “there was a smoking wound in the right side...”. It is also impossible to assume that the shooter was in front of Lermontov. Then Martynov would have fallen under the bullet, and the shooter in this case (again due to the direction of the wound channel) should have been much lower than the place of the duel, which could not contribute to an accurate shot. And there was no such place - let me remind you that the duel took place at the foot of Mount Mashuk.
There is one more thing, somehow missed by all researchers, but irrefutable evidence that neither the “sent Cossack”, from somewhere from behind the bushes, nor Martynov, being at the barrier, could not inflict such a wound. Let us remember the words repeatedly heard both at the investigation and in the memories of the participants of the duel about the “smoking wound”! Smoke from a bullet hit wound can not, as even at the moment of departure from the gun its temperature is tens of times lower than the temperature of the barrel. Only powder gases could be the cause of a “smoking” wound. And, therefore, the shot was fired at point-blank range!
In this case becomes ideal existing version, according to which Martynov even before the duel simply approached Lermontov, sitting on a horse, and shot him from below upwards.
Yes, in terms of the trajectory of the shot and the fact of the “smoking wound”, the version is perfect. But no more! Only a man with a sick imagination could imagine that a hereditary nobleman, a combat officer, a longtime friend of Lermontov, in the end, just a man who wrote such touching lines on the death of a warrior completely unknown to him - would do such a thing.
Deaf confession, communion,
Then the departing prayer was read.
And there it is, earthly happiness...
Is there much left? A handful of earth!
I turned my back, it was painful
To watch this drama;
And I asked myself involuntarily
“Shall I die this way too?
In addition, we must also realize that Martynov was not “one on one” with Lermontov that day! It means that other combat officers, his friends, were also involved in the despicable open murder of the Russian poet. It is enough to look at their past and, especially, future deeds, feats, merits, awards, and it will become clear that this is a complete absurdity!
Those who put forward both last versions (Shooter and Martynov's point-blank shot) directly or indirectly implied “the highest participation”, say, the tsar took advantage of this duel and organized the murder of the unwanted poet, which corresponded well with the Soviet assessments of the tsar's role in the persecution of Pushkin and Lermontov.
Yes, Nicholas I had nothing to love Lermontov for (at least because of one poem “On the death of the poet”), and even at the moment of receiving the news of his death, he allegedly said: “To a dog, a dog's death,” nevertheless, Nicholas appreciated Lermontov's work and understood its importance for Russia. According to surviving evidence, later, after the Sunday liturgy, Nicholas I said more balanced words: “Gentlemen, received the news that the one who could replace us Pushkin, killed. So - not to do with the sovereign! And except for speculation, there is no other evidence of any participation of Nicholas I in the death of Lermontov. If we remember that the duel took place only a day after the conflict, and the fastest correspondence between Pyatigorsk and St. Petersburg (only one way) was about two weeks, the idea of “the Cossack sent by the Tsar” becomes absolutely ridiculous.
Besides the main one (the direction of the gun channel) there were other questions that gave grounds for new versions of Lermontov's death.
Did Lermontov fire into the air, or did he fire at all? Was there a misfire with his pistol?
- Why was Lermontov's pistol found to be unloaded, especially since the official account states he did not fire?
- Did Vasilychikov indeed discharge Lermontov's pistol into the air?
- How could Martynov, over a trivial quarrel, coolly kill a friend?
- What was the purpose of substituting the pistols during the investigation?
- Why, by the order of the Tsar, was the civil court replaced with a military one, and why was there a directive to complete the investigation and trial as quickly as possible?
- Why was the final verdict so lenient regarding participation in the duel?
- Why did all participants in the duel provide confused and contradictory testimonies during the investigation and trial?
- What compelled Martynov, Vasilychikov, and Glebov to maintain a vow of silence about the duel for the rest of their lives?
- Why did Martynov abruptly end his "Confession" without addressing the moment of the duel?
- How should we interpret the words of the duel participants regarding the "smoking wound in the right side"?
- What did Nicholas I mean by saying, "A dog deserves a dog's death"?
This concludes my brief summary of the official version of the death of the great Russian poet M. Yu. Lermontov. I am certain that every reader will inevitably ask the question: what exactly happened on the outskirts of Pyatigorsk, at the foot of Mount Mashuk, on July 15, 1841? The versions presented do not sufficiently address the numerous questions surrounding the demise of Mikhail Lermontov. Frankly, it seems that a real, plausible explanation has yet to be discovered over the 183 years since the poet's death. Alas!
he Death of M. Yu. Lermontov – My Version
Before I present my version, a few words about the tools that substantiate its validity. If these events had occurred a century later, I might have been able to provide photographs, film footage, audio recordings, etc. Unfortunately, such technical evidence could not exist even theoretically, and the "traditional" evidence is scarce, given the passage of time. Witnesses of the duel have long since passed away, most documents and materials have been lost, and of those that remain, not all can be trusted. Therefore, the acceptance (or rejection) of my version will not be based on substantial and tangible "evidence," but will rely instead on empirical reasoning and comparisons, particularly employing the well-known method of elimination. However, when it comes to the circumstances of the duel, there are not many "exclusionary" versions. Naturally, if we disregard absurd conspiracy theories that contradict common logic, common sense, and the laws of physics and mathematics. Unfortunately, such theories encompass all those I briefly described in the first part.
Theoretically, one version posits an accidental shot fired by one of the seconds, perhaps while loading the pistols near Lermontov. While the probability of such an incident is extremely low—especially given the absence of similar incidents in centuries of duel practice—it is difficult to imagine such a blunder by experienced military personnel well-versed in weaponry. Nonetheless, we will not completely eliminate this version until we can compare it with mine.
So, let us get to my version!
In short, it is suicide.
Before explaining my version, a few words about suicide and the attitudes toward it from the church, the authorities, and society.
The Church: The sixth commandment of God's Law states: "…Suicide is the most terrible of all sins, as it encompasses not only the sin of murder but also the grave sin of despair, rebellion against God, and audacious defiance of divine providence…".
The Authorities: An excerpt from Peter the Great's military statute states: "…If anyone commits suicide, his body shall be dragged by the executioner to an unknown place and buried, after being dragged through the streets…". This decree was later extended to civilians under Alexander I.
Society: In Russia at that time, society viewed suicide extremely negatively, with disdain and revulsion. Suicidal individuals were labeled "cursed," buried without a funeral service in "dishonorable" places, and those who attempted suicide were placed in psychiatric hospitals.
Returning to my account of the death of M. Yu. Lermontov, on July 15, 1841, on the outskirts of Pyatigorsk, at the foot of Mount Mashuk, M. Yu. Lermontov demonstratively took his own life by shooting himself with a duel pistol.
What led me to this seemingly strange conclusion?
The fact that it is practically the only explanation that aligns clearly with the laws of physics and mathematics (I graduated from a physical-mathematical institute, by the way). One does not need to be a specialist to understand that this theory perfectly corresponds to the physical injuries on the poet's body and accurately reflects the trajectory of the aforementioned wound channel. Naturally, this is not the only reason; I will present several below. However, it was the very actions of Glebov and Vasilychikov that persuaded me of the correctness of my suicide theory. Whether they intended to or not, while vigorously promoting the official version, they quite unequivocally refute Martynov's shot at Lermontov. For instance, Glebov states in his note to Martynov: "...Vasilychikov and I not only defend you out of duty everywhere and in everything, but also because we see nothing wrong on your part in the matter of Lermontov and attribute this shot to a tragic accident!"
In the concluding paragraphs of the first part, I listed nearly a dozen questions that contributed to the emergence of various theories about the duel. If we return to these questions and attempt to answer them from the perspective of the suicide theory, the vast majority will cease to be questions. Below, I will work to clarify the remaining inquiries, although a number of new questions will arise. Specifically:
- Could Lermontov have shot himself in such a way as to inflict the fatal wound described by Barclay de Tolly?
- Why did the poet choose such an unconventional shooting method, "to the right side," instead of a traditional shot to the head?
- Why did the witnesses to the suicide conceal this fact, insisting on the conventional account of death in a duel?
- Why were there two shots in that case?
- Why were the investigation, trial, and authorities unable to uncover the true version of the incident in the immediate aftermath?
- Were there circumstances that could have provoked Lermontov to make that fateful shot? What were the reasons for suicide?
- Lastly, if this theory is indeed correct, why have dozens of researchers into Lermontov's death worldwide—including many respected figures in literature and culture, as well as esteemed scholars—failed to uncover the truth?
Indeed, there are many questions. I will attempt to answer each in turn:
- Could Lermontov have shot himself in such a way as to inflict the fatal wound described by Barclay de Tolly?
- Could Lermontov have shot himself in this way to inflict the fatal wound described by Barclay-De Tolly?
Yes, he certainly could, and this is far from an isolated case. In addition, the poet was small in stature (about 160 cm.), which also made it easier for him to shoot himself in this part of the body, especially since the total length of the flintlock pistol used in this duel was only about 30 cm. So everyone can experiment with a model of such a gun, putting the muzzle to the place of the wound - you will not experience any problems or even inconvenience. It is well known that in the course of the investigation the weapon of the duel was substituted - “...single-barrelled pistols with festoons with silver staples and silver notch, one of which is without a ramrod and without a silver tube”, for more powerful pistols of the Kuchenreuther system, having a much longer length, which were declared the murder weapon. Although the length (about 43 cm) also allows for such a shot, this substitution once again confirms the desire to conceal the suicide. In particular, and for the reason that a bullet fired from a low-powered pistol from a distance of more than twenty paces could not pass through and not even be found. As well as the fact that literally in the night after the duel was burned bloody clothes Lermontov, probably to hide on it traces of gunpowder and charring of the entrance hole, characteristic of a shot at point-blank range.
- Why did the poet choose such an almost unused variant of the shot, “in the right side”, and, say, not the traditional one, in the head?
There is a mistake in the question itself - the variant of such a shot is quite often used. First of all, because, according to a medical expert: “...this direction of bullet movement practically excludes the possibility of staying alive, as it, without meeting bones on its way, hits vital organs - liver, lungs, heart...”. It was such a shot that gave the maximum guarantee of a fatal outcome even when fired from Lermontov's underpowered dueling pistol. In addition to the above, one can find on the Internet dozens of testimonies of suicide by a shot in the stomach or right side. Such a shot is indicated, for example, and on the famous painting “Suicide” by Edouard Manet.
The question remains - why not the traditional, headshot? Yes, in this way, indeed, ended the lives of officers, military leaders, party figures, officials .... But not poets and writers! “To die beautifully” - you can believe me - is extremely important for literary figures. But can we call “beautiful” death after a point-blank shot in the head?
Here is how experts (forensic medical expert and crisis psychologist) describe the external consequences of such a shot: “Gunshot wound to the head leads to almost complete disfigurement of the face, especially the ocular areas, due to the action of gunpowder gases, practically tearing the head from the inside and scattering around blood, brains, teeth, parts of the skull and fatty tissues ...”. I don't think a young poet with lofty aesthetic appreciation was eager for anyone to see such a picture next to his body. I suppose that both Mayakovsky and Fadeyev did not desire it either.
The question remains: why not the traditional shot to the head? Yes, officers, military leaders, party officials, and bureaucrats often ended their lives this way. But poets and writers? For literary figures, "dying beautifully" is of utmost importance, believe me. Can a death from a close-range shot to the head ever be considered beautiful?
- Why then were there two shots fired?
Indeed, and here there is a remarkable unity in the testimony of all the witnesses to the duel and the people in the vicinity - on that fateful evening there were, with a certain interval, exactly two shots. But just two, and only two shots, could be in my version of the duel. The first was a fatal shot “into himself” by M. Y. Lermontov. The second - a shot “in the air” from Martynov's pistol, made by Vasilchikov in order to stage a version of the duel.
- How to treat Vasilchikov's statement that he discharged Lermontov's pistol after the duel?
Above, practically, sounded the answer to this question. Yes, Vasilchikov after the duel, indeed, unloaded the pistol. But only not Lermontov's pistol, but Martynov's pistol, I repeat, for the sake of imitation of an ordinary duel.
- For what reasons did the witnesses of the suicide conceal this fact, insisting on the version of a traditional death in a duel?
At the very beginning of the second part I have already almost answered this question by describing the attitude to suicides in Russia at that time. Martynov, Vasilchikov, Glebov, and perhaps even Trubetskoy and Stolypin, acted extremely nobly towards their dead friend and towards the memory of him. All of them were deeply religious people and understood what “glory” awaits Lermontov, who committed “the most terrible of all sins!”. In addition, they were patriots and they did not care how the great Russian poet will be treated by his contemporaries and future generations: with love and reverence, or with contempt and disdain. And it is the curse, “contempt” and “squeamishness” awaited Lermontov in the future. It is not without reason that Nicholas I, according to a number of testimonies, uttered these terrible words: “To a dog, a dog's death.” In Russia at that time, death in a duel, or as it was called “duel of honor”, often animated by the spirit of romanticism, has never been shameful, and certainly could not be called “doggy”. Unlike death by suicide! In the address of a despicable suicide pronounced words: “Dog's death”, in that period in Russia would not surprise anyone! Therefore, the actions of an official of the Pyatigorsk military prosecutor's office V.I.Chilyaev (1798-1873), in whose house lived the poet, when after the duel, he re-consecrated the rooms, “desecrated by such a tenant” becomes understandable. Equally different attitude to the victim of a duel and the perpetrator of suicide in the Russian church. Duelists, too, the church did not formally pity, but almost universally looked at duels “through the fingers” in contrast to suicide. There are many examples of this, but the most striking is the performance of all the proper church rites after the death of Pushkin in a duel, including the funeral service in the Church of the Savior on Stables Square.
And what about Lermontov? According to the descriptions of several participants of the funeral, the poet's friends asked Father Pavel Alexandrovsky, rector of the Church of Skorbyashchenskaya, to repose Lermontov.
But another priest - Vasily Erastov did not allow it. Probably, he knew or guessed about the true cause of the poet's death, and despite the official explanation of the investigating commission that Lermontov's death should not be attributed to suicide, depriving the deceased of a Christian burial, he secretly took the keys to the church and fled. Even after a while, the same Erastov argued that “Lermontov, as a suicide, should have been tied to the executioner with a rope by the legs and dragged to a dishonorable place and buried there”. And he was not the only one - the investigative commission of the Caucasian spiritual consistory considered Father Paul guilty of seeing off the coffin with Lermontov's body, “as a voluntary suicide, in church attire with appropriate honor” and imposed on him a fine “in favor of the poor clergy in the amount of 25 rubles in assignments. In December 1843 the money was collected from him..... But even on this the church did not stop.
So in 1875 in the village of Podmoklovo, near Serpukhov, at the expense of the church headman T.I. Kashtanov, a major overhaul of the Church of the Holy Nativity, one of the most beautiful churches of the 18th century, was carried out. In particular, inside, near the exit from the church, there appeared a picture of the “Last Judgment”, painted with the permission of the church authorities. And in this composition, among the sinners being thrown into hellfire, the parishioners recognized M.Y. Lermontov. Repeatedly, representatives of the intelligentsia of Serpukhov and Aleksin district appealed to the Tula bishop, in whose jurisdiction was the parish of Podmoklovo, asking permission to change the appearance of the sinner depicted on the mural. The bishop in his answers did not deny that it really depicted Lermontov, but refused the request. Not only that, one of the church attendants stated that “Lermontov belongs here, and he is not the only one...”, making it clear that just above and to the right of the poet is Father Pavel Alexandrovsky, the same priest who participated in the poet's funeral.
Only in 1934 this fresco was removed and now it is kept in the funds of the Museum of the History of Religion in St. Petersburg.
So, to summarize - hiding Lermontov's suicide, the participants of the duel, believing, intelligent and highly decent people acted as real Russian officers and true friends of the dead poet. Honor to them, praise and Glory!
At the same time, the same words should be addressed to Lermontov. Going to the duel, apparently, he had already firmly decided for himself - to die. Moreover, to do it in the presence of friends, demonstratively. In its own way - a certain challenge, spectacle, epatage, that all his life was peculiar to Lermontov. But, a real Russian officer, a deeply decent man, a true friend, could not by his death to bring his loved ones serious trouble. And for participation in a duel as seconds, the laws of those years provided very serious penalties. Not to mention from whose shot the death of a person occurred. For example, offering Alexei Stolypin to become a second, Lermontov was well aware that his punishment will be particularly severe, as Stolypin had already been punished for participation in the first duel of the poet. At best, deprivation of titles, ranks, awards and complete collapse of career, but most likely Siberia. If there was a suicide in a duel, and the duel itself did not take place, and punish no one and for what! And, perfectly realizing this, Lermontov made his choice!
- Why did the investigation, the court and the authorities failed to find the true version of the incident?
The investigation and the court were initially in an extremely difficult position due to the deliberately confused and often outright deceitful testimony of the accused. All the more so because some officials, we can assume, were not interested in establishing the truth either. How else to explain the following lines from Martynov's note to Glebov: “The commandant was at my place today; he was very nice, offered to change the prison, to continue treatment, to let in all my acquaintances and so on. And the beastly clerk tortured me to see if I would blab. When I see you, I will tell you what it is. N. M.” It would seem that Russian officers could not lie so unambiguously, especially since all witnesses were sworn before testifying. And it sounded extremely serious: “I, the undersigned, promise and swear by Almighty God and before His Holy Gospel, the Honorable and Life-Creating Cross, that in the matter on which I am now called to testify and will be questioned, I will show the most essential truth, without seeking any side, neither for friendship, enmity, or lucre below fear for the sake of powerful persons, but because before God and His Holy Court I can give an answer in this matter. In what may the Lord God help me mentally and bodily in this and future ages. In conclusion of this my oath I kiss the Word and the Cross of my Savior. Amen.” How could the deeply religious officers break such an oath? They could not! And they didn't! The fact is that Martynov, Glebov and Vasilchikov were not witnesses in the case, but accused, and were not sworn in. And Stolypin and Trubetskoy were not questioned at all, we can assume because they could go on the case only as witnesses, and by virtue of the oath, would hardly give the necessary testimony.
Nevertheless, I am confident that, despite everything, the investigation and the civil court would ultimately have arrived at the true version of the incident. However, by the highest decree, the civil court was replaced with a military one, which was simply not given the necessary time, repeatedly demanding that the case be concluded and tried as quickly as possible. I can speculate that Nicholas I was informed—most likely by the father of the second, Prince I.V. Vasilchikov, chairman of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers—about the falsification of the true account of the incident, agreed with it, and actively facilitated it, choosing "the lesser of two evils": the disgraceful suicide of Russia's foremost poet or death in a "duel of honor." I believe that this was the very reason why, for nearly thirty years, writing about Lermontov was strictly prohibited.
It is worth mentioning another mysterious and simultaneously tragic factassociated with the involvement of a renowned Russian physician of international acclaim, Professor Iustin Evdokimovich Dyadkovsky (1784–1841) from Moscow University.
The fact is that just a week before the duel, Dyadkovsky traveled to Pyatigorsk for a vacation and met with Lermontov, bringing him gifts from his grandmother. It is known that their conversation lasted well past midnight, and afterward, Dyadkovsky publicly extolled the young poet's intellect and erudition on numerous occasions. It is nearly impossible to imagine that the professor could have ignored his death and not come to bid farewell. On the contrary, I am certain, and not alone in this belief, that Iustin Evdokimovich not only said goodbye but also had the opportunity to examine Lermontov's body and categorically disagreed with the official version of his death. Undoubtedly, the opinion of a medical professional of such caliber would not have been easily dismissed in the event of any conflict, and this was well understood by the investigation participants. The next question is, why did a seemingly healthy man in the prime of life, a professor of medicine, die allegedly from an erroneous overdose of medication? He passed away less than a week after the official opening of the investigation into the duel between Lermontov and Martynov!
– Were there circumstances that could have provoked Lermontov to make that fateful shot? Reasons for suicide?
Absolutely! These circumstances are acknowledged by most authors who adhere to the mainstream narrative surrounding Lermontov's death, as well as other versions. Thus, there is no dispute on this matter, and yet I will present a few facts. Many researchers of the poet's biography believe that Lermontov actively sought death, almost sensing it from a young age, feeling burdened by life. Here are lines from the sixteen-year-old Mikhail:
No, I am not Byron; I am another,
An unknown chosen one,
Like him a wanderer chased by the world,
But with a Russian soul.
I began earlier and will end sooner,
My mind will achieve little;
In my soul, like in the ocean,
Lies a cargo of shattered hopes...
And here are the opening lines of the poem "Dream," written shortly before his death:
In the midday heat in the Dagestan valley,
With lead in my chest, I lay immobile;
Deep still smoldered the wound,
Drop by drop my blood flowed out...
It is not difficult to find an almost mystical coincidence between these lines and the official statements of Vasilchikov and Glebov: "...Lermontov fell as if he had been mowed down on the spot. We rushed up. A wound smoldered in his right side, blood oozed from the left..." I dare to suggest that this coincidence is not entirely accidental.
Moreover, not only in his childhood and just before his demise, but throughout Lermontov's life, his poetry resonated with deeply prophetic lines. For instance:
A bloody grave awaits me,
A grave without prayers and without a cross...
Or these well-known lines:
I expect nothing from life anymore,
And I do not regret the past at all,
I seek freedom and peace:
"I would like to forget and fall asleep."
One could cite a dozen more poems of the poet that echo notes of impending death, weariness of life, and a sense of hopelessness from languishing in the Caucasus, love torments, but perhaps it suffices to quote these lines from Lermontov:
I foresaw my fate, my end.
And the early stamp of sorrow is upon me;
And only the creator knows how I suffer;
But the indifferent world must not know.
And I shall die, unforgotten. My death
Will be terrible; foreign lands
Will be astonished, but in my native land,
Everyone will curse and remember me...
This was, in particular, the reason why his friends decided to stage a duel instead of a "disgraceful" suicide, so that this very "memory of me" would not be cursed. But returning to the question: biographers assert that Lermontov was obsessed with self-destruction throughout his life and repeatedly put himself at risk. This is evidenced by his desperate duel with de Barant in 1840 and the battle at the shore of the Valerik stream, where, according to eyewitnesses, Lermontov fought as if he were deliberately seeking his own death. After the battle, as a fearless participant in the conflict, the poet was recommended for the Order of St. Vladimir by the command. However, the higher authority overturned this decision, thus adding another stroke to the portrait of the reasons for suicide.
There are also plenty of other similar examples. For instance, in a letter to Anna Kushnereva (1832), he wrote: "Oh, if only I could die young and glorious, as a poet should die!" Furthermore, as is evident from the documentary testimony of the poet's young servant, Khristofor Sanikadze, in the days leading up to the duel, and most likely on July 15 as well, all participants in the event were in a state of intoxication, which could have served as an additional impetus toward suicide and all the events of that day.
One cannot also dismiss the factor of heredity, which scholars have recently ranked as a primary cause of suicides. None of Lermontov's close relatives lived to a ripe old age. His mother died at twenty-one, and his father passed away young. However, what is particularly significant is that due to unrequited love, Lermontov's grandfather, also named Mikhail, took his own life. Moreover, the details of this equally public and demonstrative suicide, which occurred in 1810 at a New Year's ball in Tarkhany, are also shrouded in mystique. Here is how one of Lermontov's biographers, P.K. Shugaev (1855–1917), whose estate was located near Tarkhany, describes it: "...Mikhail Vasilievich congratulated everyone on the New Year, warned his wife, Elizaveta Alexeyevna Arsenyeva, of her impending widowhood, expressed sympathy for his orphaned daughter Masha, and, drinking a glass of poison before everyone, fell dead." Such a Shakespearean tragedy! I will add, again based on the words of those close to him, that the suddenly widowed Arsenyeva famously remarked, "A dog’s death for a dog!" And in 1836, in a letter to her friend, she wrote about her beloved grandson Mishenka: "...His character and traits are entirely like those of Mikhail Vasilievich." The poor grandmother had no idea how right she was!
Recently, by the way, scientists have put the factor of heredity in the first place in the list of causes of suicide.
And the final question—if this is indeed the case, why have dozens of researchers into Lermontov's death around the world, including highly respected figures in literature and culture, prominent scholars, been unable to uncover the truth?
Yes, we couldn't. First of all, this is due to the persistent silence of all the participants in the events. Martynov, Vasilchikov, Glebov, and together with them and Stolypin and Trubetskiy, until the end of his days or silent, or extremely sparingly talked about the duel, trying to strictly adhere to the official version. Only once, according to the English researcher of Lermontov's biography L. Kelly, Vasilchikov blabbed to his son Boris that, speaking about the duel, he omitted ... one significant detail, “sparing Lermontov's memory ...”! Many experts amicably rushed to reveal this “great” secret, considering that Lermontov said the following: “I will not shoot a fool!”. It is not clear only one thing, and why these “fateful” words had to be hidden? What did they decide? How could they influence the course of the duel? It is very clear - nothing! I assume that Lermontov, indeed, said this phrase. Only it sounded somewhat differently: “I will not shoot a fool... I'd rather shoot myself!”. That's when Vasilchikov's words become clear: “...at this minute and for the last time I looked at him and will never forget the calm, almost cheerful expression that played on the poet's face...”. Then sounded the fatal shot.
It is known that Martynov was repeatedly addressed, including in the press, with requests to tell about his relationship with Lermontov and their duel. Martynov kept silent, referring to the fact that “considers himself unauthorized to utter a single word in condemnation of Lermontov and to cast the slightest shadow on his memory,” thus making it clear that the story of the duel would not be in favor of Lermontov. But at the very end of life, Martynov seemed to have decided to remove the “vow of silence”, writing a rather lengthy “Confession”, which has survived to this day, but suddenly cut it short, never reaching the point of describing the duel. Apparently, a very “terrible” oath gave themselves participants in the event of that tragic evening of July 15, 1841 on the outskirts of Pyatigorsk, at the foot of Mount Mashuk. It is “tougher” than the above oath during the examination of witnesses. “I swear by officer's honor, God, Tsar, Fatherland, relatives...” - it is extremely difficult to guess the exact words uttered by very young officers shocked by the scene of their friend's suicide. But these words, I have no doubt, were spoken! And the oath of Russian officers - It is Holy!
There are a lot of other reasons, because of which so far the mystery of Lermontov's duel has not been solved. In particular, because most of the attempts were conducted in times with poorly developed means of communication, in the absence of electronic databases, the Internet, and so on. But, besides this mystery, there are many other great and unresolved mysteries on our earth. Someday they too will cease to be mysteries. The time will come. It so happens that today the time has come to reveal this very mystery - the mystery of the death of the great Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov on July 15, 1841 on the outskirts of the city of Pyatigorsk, at the foot of Mashuk, opposite Mount Beshtau.
Why did I do it? I don't know! Luck! Although those who know the details of my long and varied life will not be very surprised. And besides, I had every opportunity to maximize the use of informatics and communications, including the Internet and neural networks, which I took full advantage of. And it allowed me, according to the most modest calculations, to accelerate the process of receiving, storing, filtering, processing and systematization of information several thousand times, compared to the capabilities of researchers of the past years. In addition, my activity, lasting almost a quarter of a century, as the chairman of the St. Petersburg Pardon Commission, also helped. It helped because the search and study of motives, arguments and circumstances of the events, and, in the end, finding the truth, restoring justice and showing mercy are the main goals and objectives of the commission.
All the years since those tragic events all over the world the name of Nikolai Martynov has been associated with the “murderer” of the great Russian poet M.Y. Lermontov. And for Russians Martynov became even more despicable and hateful than the murderer of Pushkin - Dantes! The one, at least:
“... insolently despised
of the land of foreign language and manners;
“He could not spare our glory;
He could not understand at this bloody moment,
What he was raising his hand against!
And Martynov? It's his land, it's his language, it's his morals! And who but Martynov to spare our glory, and to understand “what he raised his hand to!”
“Martynov” is probably the most ‘cursed’ Russian surname in our country!
And poor Martynov, for the sake of memory of his friend, for the sake of purity of his name, for the sake of fidelity to the holy oath the rest of his life carried this “heavy cross”. Bullying had a negative impact on his health, and shortened his years. But even death did not allow him to find peace. In the post-revolutionary years, the Martynov family crypt was deliberately destroyed, and the remains of Nikolai Solomonovich were drowned in a pond. That is such injustice!
Therefore, personally for me, acceptance of the version of suicide of Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov, except for the establishment of the long-awaited truth, also means pardon, rehabilitation, restoration of honor and good name of the Russian nobleman, intellectual, brave officer Nikolay Solomonovich Martynov. And, I believe, it is extremely important not only for Russian, but also for the whole world history!
St. Petersburg. February 2024.
Aleksey Kozyrev.
Writer, playwright, artistic director of the Russian Musical Theater "AleKo," chair of the Commission for Clemency in St. Petersburg.