The theme of revenge is an important part of world literature, which brings readers profound reading experience with profound historical sense, profound critical consciousness and strong emotional color. It expresses the complex human nature and social factors in revenge culture in various artistic forms and actively participates in the construction of legal culture. "Law originates from revenge". Legal culture inherits national values such as freedom, equality, fairness and justice with revenge literature as the carrier, expresses people's belief in the rule of law and ideal pursuit of goodness and beauty, and reflects the author's ultimate appeal for humanistic care. This paper intends to take Pushkin's novel Shooting as an example to interpret the legal culture of the novel from the perspective of literary and legal criticism, and to explore the realistic significance of the dueling atmosphere as a historical and cultural phenomenon in today's society.
I. Revenge mentality under the narrative framework of "crime and punishment"
The theme of duel permeates 19th century Russian literature with a critical value orientation. Under the narrative framework of dual opposition between law and morality, Pushkin's novel Shooting depicts a picture of human nature "conflict" : conflicts between individuals, conflicts between legal justice and moral justice.
According to legal culture, duel, as a form of revenge, is essentially a means of private relief in the early stage of society. The private relief function of duel had a positive value tendency throughout the Russian aristocratic society in the 1830s. Aristocratic society generally agreed that dueling was the most effective means of maintaining personal value and dignity.
This is closely related to the Russian dueling culture. From a certain point of view, the history of Russian duel is the history of conflict between Russian native culture and European culture. Ideas of honor and personal dignity developed as the medieval custom of knightly dueling was incorporated into Petersburgite culture. Russian aristocrats, influenced by enlightenment ideas, felt that their personal future and the fate of the country were in unrelented connection, while despotic monarchs wanted them to remain the slaves of the state. The right to duel, consciously retained by the aristocracy, became a symbol of separation from and limitation of the spread of absolutist power. Throughout the history of Russian dueling, it can be seen that the Russian nobility gradually took a dramatic path from sovereign slaves to "knights" who sought freedom and were ready to die for their personal dignity. Some scholars believe that the revival of Russia's cultural ideas in the 19th century precisely implies a revolt against the notions of nationalism in the 18th century.
It is not hard to find that the old Russian aristocracy, like Russia across the Eurasian continent, held the spirit of Eurasianism. The two-way stretching of Eurasian culture has shaped the extreme and irrational dual character of The Russian nation. Peter I's westernization reform made most Russian aristocrats become spiritual Western Europeans: unable to develop a sense of cultural belonging to their own country, they had lofty ideals and lofty aspirations, trying to change the status quo of backward society but unable to find a way out. In the state of depression and psychological imbalance, the "contemporary heroes" consoled themselves with superficial and boring trifles, and vented and discharged their accumulated negative emotions through bloody and violent duels, which had become the "disease of The Times" of aristocrats at that time.
At first, dueling was widely regarded as a lynching that disturbed public peace and order and violated the administration of public security by the authorities. But by the 19th century, it had become an effective means of maintaining dignity, and social attitudes had diverged: most nobles took dueling for granted as an inherent attribute, a prerequisite for their sense of honor. The bloodlust of dueling and its pernicious effects are generally condemned only by the elderly, women and children, those not directly involved in the fight.
In an effort to curb the growing risk of dueling, Peter the Great banned dueling: anyone who fired a gun, regardless of whether it caused death or injury, was sentenced to death and his property confiscated. Subsequent supplementary acts extended the punishment of hanging to deputies and notaries involved in duels. Catherine II threatened to banish the duelers to Siberia, to little effect. Exile or demotion was seen as a reward for a duelist, a form of recognition for courage, and public opinion swung squarely in the duelist's favor. Under Russian law, the penalty for death or injury resulting from a duel is equivalent to an ordinary criminal offence. At the beginning of the 19th century, the semi-legalization of dueling provided the ground for undesirable practices. While the "duel fever" in Europe was all but over, the number and brutality of duels in Russia soared, causing people to wonder whether the "war of Honor" had turned into "legal murder".
Pushkin expressed the vengeful mentality of Russian aristocrats under the background of such abnormal legal culture through Shooting. In the 1830s, when personal honor was highly respected, aristocracies solved individual disputes through duels representing the legacy of chivalry, demonstrated their heroic character and maintained personal honor and dignity, so as to gain recognition from the outside world. As the most dignified and brutal way to settle differences and disputes, duel is mostly the result of the interaction of personal honor, revenge, public opinion and other factors. From the perspective of legal culture, semi-legalized duels are not judicial duels, their motive is not legal proceedings but personal grievances, and their purpose is not to judge right and wrong but to defend personal honor. An insult constitutes a crime, revenge a punishment, and a duel becomes the natural end of avoiding a feud.
Within the narrative framework of "crime and Punishment", Shooting presents the highly rebellious character Silvio in three duels. The first duel was the result of a drunken officer's challenge at the game. When everyone thought the provocateur would be killed, Silvio unexpectedly gave up the fight. A sudden twist in the plot reveals the public opinion, represented by the narrator "I", that the protagonist's attitude towards the duel is a stain on his spiritual character and his honor among the young officers.
The second duel takes place from Silvio's narrative point of view, showing his conflict with the young officers of the new regiment. The hero chose to break off the duel and reserve the right to fire because of his opponent's frivolous attitude. The novel analyzes the revenge mentality of The duel participant, Silvio, from the perspective of the protagonist's internalization, from the "incomprehensible anxiety" before the duel to the "anger made me too excited... It's my turn. To the end of the duel, there was never a day after that when I did not want revenge. Silvio chose to break off the duel, intending to terrify and humiliate the young officer -- the unwritten rules of the duel allowed him to do so. That kind of mental torture stings more than a spot kill in a duel. Also suffering from the spirit of "punishment" and the protagonist himself, he carries the name of "coward" deliberately endure for six years.
Silvio embodies the absurd and nihilistic thoughts of the aristocratic youth playing life and death in the Era of Tsarist Russia. They were humiliated by trivial matters and chose to defend their personal dignity by duel. But unlike other duelists, Silvio does not aim to knock his opponent down, but rather to crush him mentally. He is a true spiritual avenger. The immediate act of self-defense cannot be resolved by the careless attitude of the opponent, and silvio's unappeasable anger has been fermenting, driving the innate instinct of revenge, and ultimately catalyzing the firm will to revenge, and even giving the irrational duel a certain rational participation full of terrifying power of precise calculation.
The third duel brings the novel to a climax. Silvio finally found the right time for revenge. In the honeymoon of the officer who had become a count, he suddenly appeared like death and wanted to exercise the right to fire on his old enemy. However, when he saw his opponent was terrified and timid, he pardoned his mental punishment and turned to the origin of "crime". The contentment of the spiritual Nemesis is best expressed in the words of a narrator who witnessed two duels.
Second, the social system logic of the legitimacy of revenge
The reason why private remedy can have the appearance of "quasi-law" is that its legitimacy is based on the logic premise of non-justiciability of law. In Europe at that time, "reputation was regarded as a special property", and insulting reputation was verbal defamation, which basically did not involve material interests. Legal procedures could not provide sufficient and effective relief, and the basic purpose of fairness and justice could not be realized. Therefore, the social system logic of the legitimacy of private relief lies in the following aspects.
First, it does not exist because of its natural superior rationality, but as a social norm, it is spontaneously followed because it maintains a certain social order and meets some needs of people (the extreme desire for honor in a society with a highly developed sense of honor). For the aristocrats of that era, honor was by no means a narrow concept: in addition to the special rights conferred by his position, he had a special duty to his country, and especially to his ancestors. Nobles had to fulfill their moral obligations corresponding to their bloodlines, and because this privileged class had the power to influence the decisions of the Czar government, their words and deeds were always under the "supervision" of the society, and the society's evaluation of them was very important.
Honor is a symbol of nobleness, and the loss of one's honor is not only seen as an insult to one's dignity, but also implies that one's lineage has been questioned. It can be said that an insult to honor is an insult to one's ancestors, and this is not tolerated by nobles.
In "Shooting", Silvio, out of jealousy, repeatedly provoks the young officers, but deftly keeps his words within unlitigious limits that "will not expose the subject to humiliation, ridicule or contempt". The sarcasm of both men came and went, but it was confined to frivolity or sarcasm. However, at one ball, Silvio's vulgar words were met with a retaliatory slap from a young officer. This was one of the most serious insults that led to a duel, an extreme provocation to personal honor. He drew his knife on the spot. He knew that going to law and waiting for a verdict would only be judged by the lower classes of society, and would not help to preserve the superior pride of a gentleman, and that only by a duel could insults be bloodied away and honour restored.
Pushkin also shows the upper class attaches great importance to the prevailing social environment caused by honor duel, it's the beginning of the 19th century the tsar army officers, the quality of the brave for away from the real war and cannot prove that for a long time, they do nothing all day long, in addition to training a lot of time playing CARDS, are used to drinking daily delights in talking about and implementation of a duel, Fighting evil becomes a heroic quality. In such a social atmosphere, any legal glitch can be a catalyst.
Dr. Samuel Johnson said, "If society be so, no man should take part in a duel." For example, Bazarov in "Father and Son" despises the duel and thinks it is extremely stupid to solve the dispute. However, when Pavel challenges, he is still kidnapped by reputation and honor and accepts the duel against his original intention. The binding force of this social convention is mainly due to the pressure of public opinion, and the initiation of a duel is Silvio's first reaction to being slapped in the face by a young officer. Whether or not he was motivated by revenge, the so-called virtue of tolerance would only humiliate him at the time. Revenge was the only logic. Just because of this social atmosphere, Silvio gave up the duel with the drunk officer after being provoked is regarded as a cowardly performance of not courage, but his behavior against the public opinion of the honor society also shows a firm heart of suppressed revenge, giving up a small honor for a greater honor.
Second, in the absence of legal remedies, dueling can fill the legal void. Resorting to law to settle disputes causes the parties to suffer from the dilemma of reputation, and under the private remedy, the restoration of honor does not depend on the result of the duel, and it is not unusual for the two parties to continue to contact and even establish friendship after the duel. While the issues that led to the duel were not actually resolved, there was no doubt that both men had their honors on display in the performance arena. Even because of the risk of death or maiming in the arena, this high-cost, low-quality dispute-resolution mechanism, in a way that would seem to modern eyes to be grotesque, gave the duelers the glory of Roman colossariums, the best proof of their faith and courage.
Under the culture of honor, the character of the gentleman and the brave need to be visible to the world, which is one of the reasons why the duel fits the mentality of the duelist. At the end of the day, dueling may be questioned in certain circumstances only because it is displeasure at the petty pretensions that give rise to it, or at the cruelty or profanity of the process. In any case, this is not a criticism, but a testament to the desire for the dueling ceremony to be as pure as possible, or as solemn as the law.
In addition to the duel mentality mentioned above, in Shooting, the author focuses more on the brutal personality of Silvio in the duel narrative discourse. His desperate desire to clean up his reputation leads him to extreme "evil," not just to show personal courage in a duel, but to kill people.
Third, dueling changed from "semi-legalization" or "quasi-legalization" to legalization. The social conventions and tragedies of dueling were generally accepted and could not be completely prohibited by law, so Russia equivocally "semi-legalized" or "quasi-legalized" it. This, to some extent, pushes the duel to the development of legalization and makes it become an alternative "law". Duels are carried out in accordance with a complex and rigorous "code of honor", including the rules of provocation, the mediation of assistants, the location of the duel, weapons, distance, rules, etc., all have fixed procedures. This distinguishes duels from savage brawls and, to some extent, limits the tendency of revenge to expand and group. In Shooting, a notary measured the distance of firing and drew lots to determine the sequence of firing. The young officer regarded the field of honor as a playground in the presence of a notary, and the frivolity of eating cherries in the presence of a notary deeply angered Silvio, whose desire to wash away the insult and regain his honor made him desire revenge.
So whatever the private relief force behavior, for what reason might be rational, in violation of the doctrine, or the law, whether or not there are many shortcomings, whether just aristocracy exclusive national protection privileges, can be easily replaced, because the system has become the Russian aristocratic society maintain honor inherent specific customs, traditional and common values.
It is also easy to overlook that the more the law tries to prohibit dueling by its compulsion and high punishment, the more it stimulates the duelist to defend his honor at all costs, and makes the act of revenge, duel, noble and worthy.
Bacon, an English philosopher, once criticized private relief. "Revenge is a wild road," he said. "The more human nature craves it, the more law should weed it out. For the first crime was merely an offence against the law; to take revenge for that crime is a substitute for the law." That is, the more prevalent the private remedy, the more it shows how powerless the public power of the era is, unable to effectively prevent and punish immoral violations. From this point of view, the system of revenge should die out, and in turn, it should be replaced by a more sound and perfect legal system, as a sword of justice to defend individuals or groups.
Thirdly, self-salvation under the domestication of religious ethics
Throughout ancient and modern revenge literature at home and abroad, we can find that ancient China almost overwhelmingly praised revenge. The reason lies in the Confucian culture's extreme opposition to loyalty, adultery, good and evil due to the emphasis on the realization of the ethical task in the act of revenge in ancient China, the disclosure of the dark reality and the criticism of the ruling class. This kind of ethical appeal expresses people's good wishes for harmonious and stable social order, so whether public or private revenge is supported by feudal ethics and public opinion. Such practices obscure or ignore the human struggle, spiritual conflict and contradictory narration in the process of revenge, and focus on the description of the results of revenge to the people's hearts and influence.
On the contrary, western revenge literature focuses more on the expression of the eternal struggle between individuals and fate, and selects the part of subtle analysis and reflection of human nature from the micro narration to show the compassion with humanistic feelings.
For Silvio, the ultimate form of salvation cannot be death, but religious ethics. As Mr Bergayev argues, the religious system of the Russian soul has fostered certain deep-rooted traits, one of which is the ability to suffer and die for whatever faith it is. The church has always taken a negative view of dueling. Eastern Orthodoxy, as a religion, places itself above society and its values above the secular. In this case, the church held that aristocratic notions of honor should never prevail over Christian virtues. Human life belongs to God, and no one has the right to control it, neither another's nor his own. The "honor" in the view of honor held by aristocrats belonged to secular people, and the "honor" they obtained in the secular world was regarded as "the honor of pagans".
It is painful for a young nobleman like Silvio, whose ego is so inflated, to challenge to a duel after being insulted, only to discontinue it because his opponent has no value for his life. In the Russian mind of the time, the only way to relieve pain was to seek religious salvation. Silvio embodies the consciousness of suffering in the Orthodox Church. He lived in seclusion in a poor town for six years, living in poverty and accepting physical abuse. His pain is more a matter of mental torture, of waiting for the perfect moment to avenge himself. But suffering is not the goal after all, Silvio in the day after day of learning the book of war and marksmanship hard practice, temper its perseverance. When he faced the enemy at last realize the duel has points out, the earl and cherish life because of the family, if silvio killed him at this time, constantly pray for forgiveness, poor earl's wife will become the innocent victims of the violence, silvio will lose its motive force of long survival - revenge.
Orthodox teachings emphasize undifferentiated universal love, the nobleness of which is forgiveness, compassion and mercy, even when facing your enemies. In the face of cherish life and fear of death of the count, Silvio waiting for the moment of shooting finally understand: the right to shoot does not give him the right to kill. His revenge was a brutal murder of a man who could not defend himself by the law of honor. In this case, killing the husband also means destroying the young, innocent wife. So Silvio put the pistol down. The bullets were too heavy for him now.
In Silvio's mind, the count's impolite behavior and contemptuous attitude towards life were the ideological basis for his conviction of the count's guilt. The orthodox original sin view rooted in the traditional Russian spirit made him finally realize that his revenge out of jealousy was also evil and anti-humanitarian. Silvio has experienced both mental and physical torture in the long waiting process, but this is ultimately a negative suffering for the purpose of revenge, only the real positive suffering can make the sinful soul pure again. As a devout believer in God and Christ, he chose between good and evil. Under the domestication of religious ethics, Silvio's salvation is an inevitable path.
Silvio's first step on the road to redemption is to stop avenging. In the count's recollection, Silvio turned back and fired a shot at the painting, making a formal end to his six-year quest for revenge before turning and walking away. If the story ends here, it is, at best, an ordinary revenge story with many reversals. However, at the end of the story, Pushkin, in a few words, from the perspective of the narrator "I", tells the ending of the death of the Soldiers of the Greek independence movement led by Silvio in the battle of Sculano. He realized that "revenge is nothing but an extension of the evil cycle" and that getting out of the spiritual dilemma means inevitably going to the result of sacrifice. The sacrifice in the liberation campaign for justice is just for the final soul redemption, which is the second step of Silvio's salvation road.
Even the author of the novel Pushkin himself was a frequent duelist, and his life fell in the duel with Danes, which has become a great pity in the world of literature. The descriptions of duels are more or less drawn from his own experiences, and the narrative between the lines reveals the author's contradictory attitudes towards duels that he both criticizes and defends. Pushkin's behavior was limited by The Times, and the duel inevitably became the only way to preserve dignity. But he was also ideologically opposed to dueling. He realized, in an era of collective life appear absurd feeling, in the "fair", "official", belong to the superior quality, fighting for the glory of the glorious duel field, how vulnerable the so-called heroism is shallow, men of pride have to haggle over every ounce of personal and topic to sustain, is the sorrow of time.
Therefore, in Shooting, Pushkin places his dissatisfaction for the revenge of mental torture on Both sides on Silvio, so that the pointless sorrow of fighting violence with violence ends on the protagonist. In addition, the ending of the hero's sacrifice for the revolutionary cause is tragic and stirring. If contact pushkin's background of that time and the political orientation, which implied that erupted in the 1820 s "socialist revolution" in December, a group of mostly rich was born in a noble family and served in the political institutions of the czar's young people, for the development of the motherland will itself against the rest of the original class, decisively against the feudal autocracy and the tsar serfdom. Although it failed due to class limitations, this revolution was the cradle of Russian nationalism exploration, and its values also fit the ideas of salvation and patriotism in Orthodox philosophy. For the Russian aristocratic youth in the period of time change, this is reflected in the patriotism that cares about the destiny of the country and is not afraid of bloodshed.
Pushkin undoubtedly gave a high evaluation to this group of noble revolutionary youth with vigorous blood, while Silvio was the embodiment of the group spirit of youth with rebellious romantic spirit. He transformed his passion into the will of free revolution, and was not kidnapped by the boring and absurd duel. Instead, he broke away from the melancholy disease of The Times and was "tamed" by religious ethics. He showed the consciousness of caring for humanity and the ultimate meaning of the human world, and the spirit of fighting for freedom and the country. He, too, finally exits as a national hero, whose national character is now complete. In a sense, ordinary penance was not enough to complete his spirit, and sacrifice for the cause of justice and the revolutionary ideal sublimated his soul.
.jpeg)