Where was he wounded? Duel, injury and death of Alexander Pushkin
A look behind the secret curtain of the past
One of the mysterious historical facts, the secret of which has not yet been fully disclosed, is the assassination attempt on Vladimir Lenin in August 1918. Various versions of what happened are constantly appearing on the pages of the media, which for the most part, repeating, complement each other with the rich imagination of the authors. In principle, this is natural, and everyone has the right to express their own point of view, but at the same time one cannot sin against the truth, which must be supported by scientific data. It is the lack of a qualified approach that, as a rule, leads the authors of "exposing" materials to a dead end, which gives rise to the next "whistleblower" to take the wrong direction in the search for the essence. The material presented below is built on scientific facts and logic, and that is why it does not aim to confirm (or refute) the involvement of F. Kaplan as the main person involved in the case. The purpose of the publication is to recreate the model of the assassination itself and make comparisons with other descriptions in order to eliminate erroneous versions that do not have an evidence base.
On August 30, 1918, after V. Lenin's speech at a rally held in the premises of the grenade shop of the Michelson plant, while the leader was walking to his personal car, an attempt was made on his life. Due to the fact that the shooting person (persons) was not detained directly at the scene of the incident, in the future in the text it will appear as “the shooter”. And the person (persons) who were hit by projectiles (bullets) will be referred to as the “injured party”.
Place
An excerpt from the protocol of the inspection of the site of the assassination attempt on V. I. Lenin at the Michelson plant: “There is only one exit from the premises where the rallies take place. From the threshold of this double-leaf door to the parking lot of the car - 9 sazhens (19.2 meters). From the gate leading to the street to the place where the car was standing, to the front wheels - 8 soots. 2 feet (17.68 m), to the rear - 10 soot. 2 feet (21.94 m). The shooter (shooter) was standing at the front fenders of the car from the side of the entrance to the meeting room. Tov. Lenin was wounded at the moment when he was approximately one arshin (0.71 m) from the car, slightly to the right of the car door ... "
Automobile
None of the mass of previously published materials contains information about the car in which Lenin arrived at the rally on that day, and this may be one of the significant errors in modeling the situation. Many sources mention a Rolls-Royce, but in fact it was a 1915 Turk-Mary-28 car. A very expensive handmade car with a 50-horsepower 4-cylinder engine and a closed custom body. There is no information about how this masterpiece of a little-known French company from Marseille came to Russia, but it certainly was not in the royal garage. The driver of this car was Stepan Kazimirovich Gil, who once served in the royal garage. Lenin introduced a new fashion and began to ride next to the driver, neglecting the convenience and luxury of the back seat. This was done in order to emphasize the democratic nature of the leader. In addition to the French limousine "Turk-Mary", Lenin was also assigned other cars, for example, the "Delaunay-Belleville" from the garage of Nicholas II, which was driven by another driver. However, Lenin liked to ride with Gil: he not only quickly and skillfully delivered him to any point of the city, but was also an excellent conversationalist, while still performing the additional functions of a bodyguard.
Cloth
“Vladimir Ilyich, going to the factory, took his coat with him. Therefore, we can say that on August 30, twilight came earlier than usual, due to clouds and drizzling rain” - N. A. Zenkovich.
“During an investigative experiment in 1996, the FSB requested from the Historical Museum Lenin’s black demi-season coat, lustred black jacket, 4 shell casings found at the crime scene, 2 bullets and a Browning. 1959, the materials of this survey are stored in the Historical Museum.) "- Yuri Felshtinsky.
shots
Witness Interview Testimony:
D. A. Romanychev wrote in a statement that "there were only three or four shots."
E. E. Mamonov testified: "She managed to shoot 3 times."
M. Z. Prokhorov "saw how someone from the public knocked out a revolver from the shooter and the shooter rushed to run."
I. G. Bogdevich assured the chairman of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal, Dyakonov, that the shooter had wounded the housekeeper M. G. Popova with the first shot. The second and third shots - V. I. Lenin.
I. A. Alexandrov remembered that a woman shot over the shoulder of a boy who was standing near Lenin.
I. I. Vorobyov stood next to the shooter and saw that she fired the first two shots at Lenin at point-blank range, and the next two - at some distance, "probably," Vorobyov showed, "the woman who was talking with Lenin was wounded with the second shots."
Weapon
On September 1, 1918, the Izvestia newspaper published the following appeal. "From the Cheka. The Extraordinary Commission did not find the revolver from which Comrade Lenin was shot. The Commission asks those who know anything about the discovery of the revolver to immediately inform the commission."
On Monday, September 2, 1918, the day after the publication of this material in the Izvestia newspaper, a worker from the factory named after V. E. Kingisepp came to the investigator of the Supreme Tribunal. Savelyeva Kuznetsov. He stated that the Browning that had been used to shoot at Lenin was with him and put it on the table. He was numbered 150489, with four rounds in the clip. Kingisepp attached him to the case of the attempted murder of V. I. Lenin, and warmly thanked Kuznetsov for his help in the investigation.
“Kuznetsov,” Kingisepp wrote in the protocol, “presented Browning No. 150489 and a clip with four cartridges in it. Comrade Kuznetsov picked up this revolver immediately after it was dropped by the shooting face, and he was all the time with him, Kuznetsov, in his arms This Browning is attached to the case of the attempted murder of Comrade Lenin."
On September 3, 1918, Izvestia of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was not slow to inform millions of its readers about all this. But the number of cartridges in the clip turned out to be different: "There were three unshot cartridges in the clip. By inspection of the revolver and the testimony of witnesses, it was possible to establish with accuracy that in total three shots were fired at Comrade Lenin."
Version
Oleg Roldugin. "Interlocutor", 26.02.2003
“Russian colleagues also give gifts to sappers. Especially from these presentations, I remember a small blued Browning: according to the donors from the RUBOP, it was from it that Fanny Kaplan shot at Lenin in 1918.
Sleeves
V. E. Kingisepp, who conducted the investigation, recorded in the official documents of the Cheka "a clip with four cartridges in it."
An excerpt from the protocol of inspection of the site of the assassination attempt on V. Lenin at the Michelson plant: “Mark on the photographs the places where the shells fell "4, 5, 6, 7" and write -" shot shells "".
bullets
“Doctors V. M. Mints, B. S. Weisbrod, N. A. Semashko, M. I. Baranov, V. M. Bonch-Bruevich (Velichko), A. N. Vinokurov, V. N. Rozanov, V. A. Obukh suggested whether any poison entered the body of Vladimir Ilyich along with the bullets.
"10 assassination attempts on Lenin"
An extract from the description of the operation to extract a bullet from Lenin's body in April 1922 at the Botkin hospital in Moscow: “... the bullet extracted from the wound turned out to be the size of an average Browning (from a medical report). The bullet is cut crosswise through the entire thickness of the shell along the entire body ... The bullet is attached to the case. Presented to the parties for inspection. After the operation, Lenin wished to go home, but the doctors persuaded him to wait until tomorrow and assigned him to the second floor, to ward No. 44.
"Who put a revolver with poisoned bullets into her (hand. - Approx. ed.)? And that they were poisoned - was proved by a medical examination and a bullet that was removed during the operation ..."
Vladimir Buldakov: “When, after the rally, a crowd surrounded him near the car, four shots were fired. Lenin was wounded with two bullets, two more scratched the housekeeper Popova, whom the head of the Council of People's Commissars advised to seek an end to the outrages on the part of the so-called detachments, disemboweling self-supplying bagmen beyond measure, carrying food from the village.
Yuri Felshtinsky: “After the opening of the case in 1992, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation conducted, according to E. Maksimova, “a comprehensive forensic examination of Browning No. 150489, cartridge cases and bullets that hit Lenin.” But the results of this examination were not exhaustive. The experts concluded that of the two bullets, "one was probably fired from this gun", but "it is not possible to establish whether the second one was fired from it." The Browning jammed and stopped working. But when comparing the bullets "extracted during Lenin's operation in 1922 and during the embalming of the leader's body in 1924, it turned out that they were of different calibers." In addition, "specialists were surprised by the discrepancy between the marks from the bullets on Lenin's coat and the places of his injury."
"10 assassination attempts on Lenin"
“When the Red Army soldier Safonov asked him where he was wounded, Lenin replied: “In the hand.” “The doctors came to the conclusion that, fortunately, the bullet did not hit the large vessels of the neck. Pass it a little to the left or right ... Another bullet pierced the top of the left lung from left to right and sat down near the sternoclavicular joint. The third pierced right through the jacket under the arm, without harming Vladimir Ilyich.
Historical juggling under the situation? (Author's note.)
Historical archive No. 2: "a letter from a certain Socialist-Revolutionary militant with the initials "A.Ch." (author unknown) to the Central Committee of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, written no earlier than 1909, is devoted to the methods of terrorist struggle, or rather, the question of the insufficient effectiveness of terror and ways to increase it What should revolutionary fighters do in this situation so that even the slightest wound inflicted by them is fatal? The answer is obvious: it is necessary to act with poisoned weapons. And concretely, again point by point:
1. Use exclusively lead bullets for browning, without hard shells, as they are easily deformed in the wound and make it easier to process the part for laying a portion of the poison.
2. Provide all provincial committees with stocks of poisons and indicate how to obtain them.
3. Develop instructions for poisoning bullets and edged weapons with poison.
4. Inspect the weapon and put it in order.
5. Apply in the absence of poison to poison bullets, the distribution of infectious bacteria: consumption, tetanus, diphtheria, typhoid fever, etc. just before the terrorist act...
Injuries
Official Bulletin No. 130 August 1918, 11 pm: “2 blind gunshot wounds were recorded: one bullet, entering above the left shoulder blade, penetrated into the chest cavity, damaged the upper lobe of the lung, causing a hemorrhage in the pleura, and got stuck in the right side of the neck above the right clavicle; another bullet penetrated the left shoulder, crushed the bone and got stuck under the skin of the left shoulder region, there are signs of internal hemorrhage. Pulse 104. The patient is fully conscious. The best surgeons are involved in the treatment."
"10 assassination attempts on Lenin":
“I suppose we won’t extract the bullets now,” Rozanov summed up.
“Perhaps we’ll wait a bit,” agreed Obukh ...
After the consultation, the doctors returned to Vladimir Ilyich. Near him sat Nadezhda Konstantinovna. Seeing the newcomers, Lenin wanted to say something, but Rozanov raised his hand in warning. Doctors V.M. Mints, B.S. Weisbrod, N.A. Semashko, M.I. Baranov, V.M. Bonch-Bruevich (Velichko), A.N. Vinokurov, V. N. Rozanov, V. A. Obukh and others. They noted an unusually weak activity of the heart, cold sweat and poor general condition. It somehow did not fit with the hemorrhage, which was not as strong as expected. The patient showed signs of shortness of breath. The temperature has risen. Lenin fell into oblivion. Sometimes he spoke single words.
“Bulletin No. 2 noted that Lenin's general position was serious. But already in Bulletin No. 3 it was said that he felt more cheerful. On the evening of August 31, bulletin No. 4 reported that the immediate danger to the life of Vladimir Ilyich had passed.
On September 18, 1918, the Pravda newspaper published the last official bulletin on the state of health of V. I. Lenin: “The temperature is normal. The pulse is good. There are small traces of hemorrhage in the left pleura. There are no complications on the side of the fracture. The bandage is well tolerated. skin and the complete absence of inflammatory reactions make it possible to postpone their removal until the bandage is removed. Vladimir Ilyich is allowed to do business. "
Vladimir Buldakov: “The bullet, which had a cross incision, entered under the shoulder blade, traveled the most difficult path in the body and, having managed not to touch the vital organs, did not “explode” in his body due to the low speed of its flight.”
"Izvestia of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee", September 4, 1918: "... On the day of the fatal attempt on comrade. Lenin, the aforementioned Popova, was wounded through and through; the bullet, having passed the left chest, crushed the left bone (meaning: the bone of the left arm between the shoulder and the elbow. - Approx. Avtra). Her two daughters and her husband were arrested, but soon released.
From the testimony of policeman A. I. Sukhotin: “Four steps away from Comrade Lenin, a woman who looked about forty years old was lying on the ground, the one who asked him questions about flour. She shouted: "I am wounded, I am wounded!", And from the crowd they shouted: "She is a murderer!" I rushed to this woman together with Comrade. Kalaburkin. We picked her up and took her to the Pavlovsk hospital.”
Playback
Kingisepp asked Gil to park the car the way it was at the time of the assassination attempt. Kingisepp asked Ivanov if he had seen Comrade Lenin.
“I saw it,” Ivanov replied. “It was like this: when Comrade Lenin left the workshop, I hesitated there a little, suddenly I heard shouts: “They are shooting!” A traffic jam formed at the door. I rushed to the nearest window, dropped him off with my foot and jumped into the courtyard. Pushing the people aside, I saw Ilyich ... "
Ivanov showed the place where Comrade Lenin fell.
Kingisepp asked Gil to drive, and told Ivanov and Sidorov to stand in the same way as Vladimir Ilyich and the woman (Popova) with whom he was talking were standing at the time of the shots. Ivanov and Sidorov took their places. Yurovsky took several pictures. He shot in various positions: standing, lying, sitting.
The photographs taken by the Chekist Ya. M. Yurovsky are kept in the case of the attempt on the life of V. I. Lenin. Each picture has an explanatory text written by V. E. Kingisepp.
In the first picture: The grenade shop with the door open, and not far to the left is the car of V. I. Lenin. Having marked the door with the letter "a", the car with the letter "b", Kingisepp indicated: the distance from "a" to "b" is 9 soot. This means that the car was waiting for Ilyich in 25 - 30 steps from the door of the Grenade Shop.
The following three photographs depict "the staging of three moments of the attempted assassination of Comrade Lenin." So wrote Kingisepp.
The second picture captures "the moment before the shot." The car is on the side. Gil is driving, he turned his head towards the "Lenin" (Ivanov portrayed him in the staging). Gil is ready to start as soon as Vladimir Ilyich gets into the car. At a close distance from the door are "Lenin" and "Popova", who asked Vladimir Ilyich about the flour (Popova was portrayed by Sidorov). "Lenin" looked at "Popova" and said something to her. At the front wheels of the car, the "Shooter" froze (Kingisepp himself portrayed him in the staging), he stands with his back to us, but the whole pose indicates that he is pulling out a weapon.
In the third picture: "The shooter is preparing to shoot." "Lenin" and "Popova" continue to talk. "Shooter", stretching out his hand with a browning, aims at "Lenin". Gil (he portrayed himself in the dramatization) notices the "shooter", rises from his seat, drawing his weapon. But it's' too late. Shots are fired.
On the fourth picture: "Perfect attempt". Gil bent down to the wounded Ilyich. "Popova", wounded in the arm, runs back. The "shooter" hurries to the gate, the abandoned pistol lies near the open door of the driver's cab ...
conclusions
So, even for an inexperienced (but attentive) reader of the above materials, after reading them, a lot of questions arise due to inconsistencies in objects, facts, moments of description.
1. It is generally accepted that the victim Ulyanov was in the back seat of a Rolls-Royce car. Given that in fact it was a Turk-Meri-28 car, the place where the victim Ulyanov was during the shots shifted, which means that the distance of the bullets during the reproduction of the assassination was distorted.
2. During the investigation and inspection of the clothes of the victim Ulyanov in 1959 and 1996, due to the mismatch of the inlets on the clothes and the body of the victim, the very fact that the clothes belonged to the victim was called into question. And for objectivity, it should be noted that Lenin's height during his lifetime, namely at the time of the assassination attempt, was 165 cm; after mummification, his height decreased to 158 cm. Hence the discrepancies mentioned above.
3. To determine the exact number of shots, it is necessary to compare the number of wounds and found cartridges:
a) the entrance of the wound channel above the left shoulder blade of the victim Ulyanov,
b) the entrance of the wound channel to the area of the left shoulder of the victim Ulyanov,
c) the entrance of the wound channel into the left chest of the victim Popova,
d) inlet and outlet holes in the clothes of the victim Ulyanov in the armpit,
e) 4 (four) cartridge cases found at the scene of the assassination can and must be compared for identity - by series (the stamp is stamped on the bottom of the cartridge case), by the imprint of the primer prick, by the imprint of the pistol reflector, which is clearly visible on the bottom of the cartridge case.
This comparison will not only indicate the number of shots fired, but also the fact that the cartridge cases appearing in the case belong to the specifically designated pistol(s).
4. Information on the classification of firearms that appear earlier in the investigation file as a “revolver” or “pistol” should not be taken into account by origin.
In a revolver of any system, for the extraction (removal) of cartridge cases from the drum, it is necessary to carry out a long procedure, and the “shooter” did not have time for this. At the moment the pistol is fired, the cartridge case is automatically extracted, so the firing device must be called nothing more than a "gun". The name of the firing device, published earlier in the press and in the case file, as a “revolver” is considered incorrect due to the lack of special knowledge among those who conducted the investigation in 1918.
5. Kingisepp attached a Browning pistol under the number 150489 with four cartridges in its clip to the case of the attempted murder of V. I. Lenin.
Taking this as a fact, it is safe to say that 3 (three) shots were fired from this weapon, since the clip of this pistol is designed for 7 (seven) rounds. Based on the number of bullets fired and the shell casings found, it can be argued that there is another, previously unidentified person who fired 1 (one) shot. The proof of this is the comparison of the wounds of the victims Ulyanov and Popova. The nature of the described wounds indicates the difference in the manpower (energy) of the bullets they carried.
6. The version that Ulyanov's attending physicians put forward during the first examination about possibly poisoned bullets, which later moved from the category of assumptions to a statement, cannot be considered correct.
The first bullet was removed in 1922, the second - in 1924 (after the death of Lenin). In practice, it takes several hours for the poison to affect the body. In addition, practitioners were well aware of the punishment they would incur if they did not act and did not prevent poisoning. The version about poisoned bullets made it possible for doctors to avoid responsibility in the event of the death of the injured Ulyanov.
7. The bullet extracted in the Botkin hospital in 1922, according to the description, has a cruciform incision along the entire length of the shell and is classified as a medium-caliber ammunition.
The described bullet (with notches) is 7.65 mm, and the Browning in the case is 6.35 mm, so there is a mismatch in calibers. There can be many versions, but only one is accurate: the extracted bullet was changed in the hospital itself. This is indicated by the fact that the shell of the bullet was cut along the entire length, which cannot be done without first removing it from the cartridge. Theoretically, this is possible, but in practice the bullet is fixed in a Browning cartridge of this caliber with a force of 40 kg, which is impossible to do in artisanal conditions, since there is a threat of jamming (misalignment) of the cartridge or a poor-quality shot. That is, in this case, a large amount of powder gases, instead of pushing the bullet, will freely flow through the cuts of the bullet shell.
8. The description of the injury to the victim Ulyanov in the shoulder area in the official bulletin indicates the crushing of the bone by a penetrating bullet. Another paper talks about a healing fracture.
This injury does not match the actually existing similar descriptions. It is known that when a bone is crushed by a bullet, the resulting bone fragments themselves turn into lethal elements that are subject to distribution and movement at a certain speed inside the body. As a rule, such wounds require surgical intervention and heal for a long time. It is known that after being wounded, the victim Ulyanov fell to the ground, and it was for this reason that, as a result of an awkward fall, a bone fracture occurred in the shoulder region. Specifically, a fracture (but not a wound) is mentioned in the Pravda article dated September 18, 1918.
9. The only person who, according to the materials of the case, exposed his personal weapon was the driver (part-time security guard) of the victim Ulyanov - S. Gil.
The conducted trasological examination shows (and proves) that the shots at the victims Ulyanov and Popova were fired from different points. The flight path of the bullet that hit the injured Popova comes from the driver's seat of the Turk-Meri-28 car, which proves the fact of not only exposure, but also the use of personal weapons by the driver S. Gil against the injured Popova. The reason for this was the immediate suspicion that S. Gil had that the shooter was Popova. Additional evidence could be the memories of the late Alekseev Yuri Vasilievich, known in criminal circles under the nickname "Hunchback". (He died in a prison hospital at the age of 62.): "Mom was a very beautiful woman. Her godfather, by the way, was Lenin's personal chauffeur, Gil Stepan Kazimirovich. When he was dying, he left eight notebooks of memories for my mother."
All possible work has been done. The curtain over the historical secret is ajar, and for the final recreation of real events, it remains to announce exactly that part of the information that is labeled "state secret".
Pavel Makarov,
gunsmith, explorer
August, 2006
For more than a century and a half, the injury and death of Alexander Pushkin have been discussed in the press, including the medical one. Let's try to look at the gunshot wound and the actions of our colleagues in 1837 from the perspective of modern surgery.
The discussions don't stop
It seems to me that the unceasing discussions associated with the death of A. S. Pushkin are due to the personality of the deceased patient; circumstances associated with injury and death; lack of certainty in the nature of the injury, autopsy data and cause of death; inconsistency of medical assessments during treatment in subsequent years; accusations from society against the attending physicians of the mistakes they allegedly made (including intentional ones). Accusations against doctors continue to this day. In 1944, the writer Vladimir Nabokov, in an article dedicated to N.V. Gogol, wrote the following: “15 years before that (before Gogol's treatment - I.G.), doctors treated Pushkin, wounded in the stomach, like a child suffering from constipation. At that time, mediocre German and French doctors were still in charge, and the wonderful school of great Russian doctors was just beginning.”
The year 1937 turned out to be the most fruitful in the discussion, when articles by many well-known specialist scientists were published. Accusations of the deliberate actions of the doctors who treated the poet were contained, for example, in the articles of Dr. G. D. Speransky, journalist V. Zakrutkin from Rostov-on-Don. The latter agreed to the point that he directly wrote: "He (N.F. Arendt. - I.G.) knew that Pushkin's death would please the tsar."
In 1966, the newspaper Nedelya published an article by Pushkinist B. S. Meilakh “Duel, wound, treatment of Pushkin”, which also condemns the wrong actions of the doctors who treated the poet, and even proposes to hold a “trial of history” with the participation of specialists!
In 1987, and again in the Nedelya newspaper, journalist A. Gudimov published an article “After the duel. The story of one mistake that has not been corrected so far. This article provides an interesting fact that, to some extent, gives an answer to the forecast about Pushkin's survival if he received a similar wound in the 20th century. Someone A. Sobol in 1937 at the monument to Pushkin in Moscow inflicted a gunshot wound on himself in the area where the great poet was wounded. The victim was taken to the Sklifosovsky Institute, where he died, despite modern medical measures.
Perhaps, of all the materials that have been published over the past years, the chapter on Pushkin's injury in the book by Sh. ). The author uses and cites many documents and letters, published statements about the long-standing tragedy and, without imposing his point of view, allows him to judge what happened himself.
Medical history diary
Based on the documents I read, we can talk about four variants of the diagnosis: 1) Gunshot wound of the abdominal cavity with damage to the pelvic bones and femoral vein, complicated by external-internal bleeding. 2) A gunshot wound to the abdominal cavity, intestines and pelvic bones, complicated by external-internal bleeding and peritonitis. 3) Gunshot wound of the abdominal cavity with damage to the pelvic bones and the development of gas gangrene. 4) Gunshot injury to the abdominal cavity, pelvic bones, complicated by thrombosis of large pelvic veins.
Supporters of all versions fully agree that the gunshot wound damaged the abdominal cavity and pelvic bones. Disagreements concern the complications caused by the wound and the cause of death associated with this complication.
Four points of view on complications and cause of death were expressed:
● bleeding and blood loss;
● peritonitis (inflammation of the peritoneum);
● blockage and inflammation in large veins, that is, thrombophlebitis;
● gas gangrene developed at the wound site.
There are three points of view on the conduct of therapeutic measures: 1) The treatment was carried out correctly and corresponded to the level of development of medicine, and in particular, surgery of that time. 2) The treatment was carried out incorrectly and even deliberately incorrectly, as the tsar and Benckendorff indicated that. 3) The treatment was carried out correctly, but mistakes were made that influenced the outcome of the treatment.
In order to form your own professional understanding of both the diagnosis and the ongoing treatment, it is advisable to bring a diary of the medical history left to us by contemporaneous eyewitnesses.
Pushkin received a gunshot wound during a duel with Dantes on January 27, 1837 at 4:00 pm. The place of the duel was seven and a half miles from the house where the poet lived.
Dantes fired first from a distance of 11 paces (approximately 8 meters).
The bullet diameter was 7–8 mm; it hit the right iliac region, 5.8 cm medially (?) from the anterior superior iliac spine.
Immediately after being wounded, Pushkin fell forward on his left side, but then got up and wished to fire his shot. He shot while sitting and inflicted a slight wound on the enemy's hand. After his shot, Pushkin again fell face down in the snow, and was unconscious for several minutes, his face and hands were pale, "an enlarged look." Gradually came to consciousness. Could not move independently.
The poet is being dragged to the sledge on the overcoat, the clothes are bloody, there is also blood on the snow on the trail. They carry him in his arms and put him in a sled, and then the sled is dragged to the road and transplanted into a carriage.
They take you sitting for an hour. Worried about severe pain in the area of injury, excruciating nausea, short-term loss of consciousness, due to which I had to stop. Carried into the house by hand.
January 27, 18-19 hours (2-3 hours after the injury). Somewhat agitated, he himself changed into clean underwear, bleeding from the wound continues. Great thirst, willingly drinks cold water. The pulse is frequent, weak, the extremities are cold.
January 27, 19-23 hours (3-7 hours after the injury). Increasing abdominal pain. Periodically falls into oblivion.
January 27, 11 p.m., until 3 a.m. January 28 (7-11 hours after the injury). Periodically screams from pain in the abdomen.
January 28, 3–7 am (11–3 pm after injury). Sharply increases pain in the abdomen, so much so that he wants to shoot himself. N.F. Arendt puts an enema (“cleansing”), after which the condition deteriorates sharply: “wild gaze”, eyes, as it were, crawled out of their sockets, cold sweat, cold extremities, pulse is not determined. Pushkin groans, but consciousness remains, he says goodbye to his wife and children.
January 28, 7-11 a.m. (7 p.m. after injury). The condition is serious, he takes henbane extract with calomel, bloating persists, but the pains have decreased, the limbs are cold, the pulse is barely palpable, consciousness is preserved.
January 28, 11-12 am (7-8 pm after injury). Arendt gives opium drops. Pushkin calms down somewhat and talks with Arendt.
January 28, 12-14 hours (20-22 hours after injury). He feels better, his hands warmed up, the pulse began to be determined and its quality improved, “emollient poultices” were applied to the stomach. Pushkin became more active, he himself helps to put "poultices".
January 28, 14-17 hours (22-25 hours after the injury). He suffers less, but the condition remains serious. Dahl came and wrote down: "The pulse is extremely small, weak and frequent." Uses laurel cherry water with calomel. Pushkin is more or less calm, but there is a fear of death.
January 28, 17-18 hours (25-26 hours after the injury). Slight general fever. Pulse 120, full, hard. Anxiety intensified. Dahl believes that inflammation has begun to form. They put 25 leeches on the stomach.
January 28, 19-23 hours (27-31 hours after the injury). A state of weakness. The fever subsided, the stomach fell, skin evaporation. The pulse became smoother and softer. They gave castor oil. He does not sleep, a feeling of longing, pain continues. Frequent shortness of breath. Silently groans. Consciousness is preserved.
January 28, 24 hours to 12 noon on January 29. (32 - 44 hours after injury). The pulse drops every hour. General exhaustion (adynamia. - I.G.). The face has changed, the hands have cooled down, the legs are warm. Due to weakness, he can hardly speak. Feeling of sadness.
January 29, 12-14. 45 (44–46 hours 45 minutes after being wounded). Hands cool down to the shoulders. Frequent jerky breathing is replaced by a prolonged one. A state of oblivion, dizziness, confusion of consciousness. visual hallucinations. Enlightenment with a clear mind. Said, "It's hard to breathe."
In total, 46 hours and 15 minutes have passed since the injury.
The autopsy of the body of A. S. Pushkin was carried out at home by doctors I. T. Spassky and V. I. Dahl.
My understanding of the diagnosis
Open gunshot fracture of the right iliac bone and sacrum, damage to the pelvic muscles and pelvic vessels. External-internal bleeding (approximate blood loss is about 2 liters of blood). Septic peritonitis. The amount of damage and complications is quite sufficient for a fatal outcome at the level of medicine in the first third of the 19th century.
How was the treatment?
Therapeutic measures: cold lotions on the stomach in the first hours; cold drink; enema; henbane extract with calomel inside; drops of tincture of opium inside; "emollient" (warm) poultices on the stomach; leeches to the stomach; castor oil (inside).
In the very first hours, Pushkin was told that the wound was mortal.
Who took part in the treatment of A. S. Pushkin?
The first to examine Pushkin, about two hours after the injury, were Professor B. V. Scholz, a well-known obstetrician-gynecologist, and Doctor of Medical Sciences K. K. Zadler. Scholz, answering the question of A. S. Pushkin about whether his wound was fatal, replied: “I consider it your duty not to hide it, but we will hear the opinion of Arendt and Salomon, for whom we have been sent.” Scholz only changed the bandage on the wound, did not take part in the treatment.
Nikolai Fyodorovich Arendt. At the time of Pushkin's injury, he was 51 years old, since 1829 he was the life physician of Emperor Nicholas I. He enjoyed great prestige in society and medical circles. Arendt supervised all of Pushkin's treatment from the moment of his arrival until his death.
Academician Ivan Timofeevich Spassky, 42 years old. An excellent and very authoritative doctor, the family doctor of the Pushkin family. Almost all the time (with the exception of a few hours of rest, when he was replaced by the doctor of medicine E.I. Andrievsky), he was with the wounded Pushkin, and carried out the appointments of N.F. Arendt. Together with V. I. Dahl, he performed an autopsy of the body of A. S. Pushkin.
Vladimir Ivanovich Dal, 36 years old, graduate of Dorpat University. He defended his doctoral dissertation in surgery, successfully participated as a surgeon in the Turkish War of 1828. They wrote about him as a jack of all trades and a dexterous operator. He took part in the treatment of A. S. Pushkin from noon on January 28, followed the instructions of N. F. Arendt, participated in the autopsy of Pushkin's body, kept a diary of the medical history, wrote the autopsy report.
Professor Khristiin Khristianovich Salomon, 41 years old. An excellent surgeon, one of the first in Russia to use ether anesthesia. During the treatment of Pushkin, he spoke only once, advising N. F. Arendt during the first examination of the wounded Pushkin.
Doctor of Medicine Efim Ivanovich Andrievsky, 51 years old. A well-known and respected doctor in St. Petersburg. He remained with the wounded during the short rest of I. T. Spassky.
Academician Ilya Vasilyevich Buyalsky, 48 years old. One of the largest domestic surgeons. Advised N. F. Arendt on the injury of Pushkin.
Thus, we can say that the whole color of the then Russian medicine took part in the treatment of A. S. Pushkin.
Evaluation of therapeutic measures
From the point of view of modern medicine, opium was used belatedly. According to IT Spassky, who was on duty at Pushkin's bedside, he was afraid to prescribe opium, since Pushkin fell into oblivion, and opium could hasten the death. The enema applied by N. F. Arendt caused shock in the wounded man and sharply worsened his condition. The doctor, prescribing an enema, did not assume an injury to the sacral bone, and the enema was at that time one of the most common medical procedures for peritonitis, which was supposed by Pushkin. Dr. Malis in 1915 accused doctors of using an enema, and Dahl of wanting to shield colleagues from using it.
The appointment of two drugs of opium and calomel at the same time, according to two well-known domestic surgeons V. A. Shaak and S. S. Yudin, was inappropriate, since their action is antagonistic. However, according to pharmacologists, in the doses in which these drugs were given to A. S. Pushkin, they should have strengthened each other.
Dr. Rodzevich in 1899 reproached the attending physicians for prescribing leeches, which weakened the patient's condition. One can agree with him, but for that time the use of leeches was the main one in the treatment of peritonitis.
In a number of publications, claims were made against Professor Scholz for a truthful answer to A. S. Pushkin's question about the unfavorable outcome of the injury. I think that in those days the truth told to the patient about his illness and outcome was the norm of behavior, as is customary in most countries today.
And, finally, there were statements about the futile probing of the wound, allegedly carried out by Dr. Zadler. There is no confirmation in the documents of this manipulation.
Conclusion
I believe that from the standpoint of the development of medicine in the first half of the 19th century, A. S. Pushkin was treated correctly, although some confusion of doctors is visible, due to the personality of the patient.
Published in abbreviation. The full text is published in the book by I.N. Grigovich "Time to collect stones." - Publishing house of Petrozavodsk University, 2002.
"Lyceum" No. 2 2003
Dmitry Belyukin. Pushkin's death
Pushkin is mortally wounded by Dantes. January 29 (February 10) the poet died. He was buried in the Svyatogorsky Monastery.
On February 28, 1837, Natalia Nikolaevna Pushkina suddenly gained European fame. On this day, the Parisian newspaper "Journal de Deba" published a sensational message from St. Petersburg:
The famous Russian poet Pushkin is killed in a duel by his brother-in-law, the French officer Dantes. “The duel took place with pistols. Mr. Pushkin, mortally wounded in the chest, nevertheless lived for two more days. His opponent was also badly wounded:"
On the same day, the Courier Français published the same message. On March 1, the message was reprinted in the Gazette de France and the Courier de Théâtre. At that time, the Parisian Journal de Debas played the same role on the European continent that the New York Times plays today throughout the world.
On March 5, the German "Allgemeine Zeitung" informed its readers about the duel, after which Pushkin "lived for two more days with a bullet in his chest" and the St. Petersburg scandalous chronicle began its march through European newspapers. The press was primarily occupied with the sensational atmosphere of the death of the Russian poet, the duel itself and the reasons that led to it.
However, the real sensation to meticulous Parisian journalists remained unknown. We did not know about it and we almost 160 years.
On Wednesday, January 27, 1837, at about six o'clock in the evening, Natalya Nikolaevna Pushkina left her room into the hallway and then she felt sick: the valet, taking in an armful, carried her husband, who was bleeding. Karl Danzas, whom she had known for a long time as Pushkin's lyceum friend, explained to her as calmly as he could that her husband had just fought a duel with Dantes. Pushkin, though wounded, but very lightly. The poet's second told a lie: the wound was fatal. At 2:45 p.m. on January 29, Pushkin passed away.
How Pushkin, who died a violent death, was opened. Whether an official autopsy report was drawn up remains unknown.
Only a note by the doctor Vladimir Dal “The autopsy of the body of A. S. Pushkin” has come down to us. She says:
“After opening the abdominal cavity, all the intestines turned out to be very inflamed; in only one place, the size of a penny, the small intestines were affected by gangrene. At this point, in all likelihood, the intestines were bruised by a bullet.
There was at least a pound of gore in her abdomen, probably from a severed femoral vein. Along the circumference of the large pelvis, on the right side, many small fragments of bone were found, and finally, the lower part of the sacral bone was crushed.
According to the direction of the bullet, it must be concluded that the victim was standing sideways, half a turn, and the direction of the shot was somewhat from top to bottom. The bullet pierced the general integument of the abdomen two inches from the upper anterior extremity of the loin or ilium (ossis iliaci dextri) of the right side, then went, sliding around the circumference of the large pelvis, from top to bottom, and, meeting resistance in the sacrum, crushed it and sat down somewhere. anything nearby.
Time and circumstances did not allow to continue the most detailed searches.
Regarding the cause of death, it should be noted that here the inflammation of the intestines had not yet reached its highest degree: there were no serum or final outpourings, no increments, and even less general gangrene. Probably, in addition to inflammation of the intestines, there was also an inflammatory lesion of large veins, starting from a broken femoral one; and finally, a severe defeat of the extremities of the vein (caudae equinae) during crushing of the sacral bone.
On January 29, the commander of a separate guards corps, Adjutant General K. I. Bistrom, ordered Dantes to be tried by a military court. On the same day, Bistrom reported to Nicholas I about his order. Minister of War A. I. Chernyshev reported the report of the commander to the tsar. However, the tsar already knew about the duel on the evening of January 27.
The Empress wrote that day in her diary: “N. said about the duel between Pushkin and Dantes, made me shudder.”
Duel Pushkin But Nikolai received official news of what had happened only on January 29 from the Minister of War. On the same day, the tsar ordered that not only Dantes, but also Pushkin, as well as all those involved in the duel be handed over to the military court, excluding foreign nationals, about whose involvement in the duel a special note was to be drawn up. But Pushkin died, while d'Anthès' second, Olivier d'Archiac, attaché of the French embassy, two days before the start of the work of the military court commission on February 2, hastened to leave for Paris. Therefore, only Dantes and Danzas appeared before the court.
It is characteristic that in the original military court case about Pushkin's duel with Dantes-Gekkern there are no medical documents about the nature of Pushkin's injury and the causes of his death.
In the very first pages of the case, where the opinions of the guards generals are given, we are talking about Pushkin being wounded in the chest. As we will now see, the famous Lermontov lines “with lead in the chest” were not a simple poetic metaphor, but reflected the rumors circulating in society about the details of the death duel on the Black River.
No wonder Tyutchev asked, “From whose hand did the deadly lead tear the poet’s heart to pieces?”
At the same time, a number of documents in the case deal with a wound in the side. Obviously, the members of the military court at the Horse Regiment had a vague idea of exactly where the dead man was wounded, and this delusion of the judges can hardly be explained by their ignorance or simply ordinary indifference to the ruined life of a genius.
The ignorance of the court was a consequence of the fact that the seconds deliberately obscured the question of the nature of the wound of the poet and quite deliberately sought to create an incorrect idea of where the opponents were aiming.
The origin of this conflicting information is as follows. In Bistrom's report to the Tsar about Dantes being brought to trial, Pushkin was not mentioned at all, it is only said that Dantes was wounded during the duel. The meetings of the commission of the military court were preceded by a preliminary inquiry. It was produced by Colonel Galakhov. According to Dantes, he wrote down that he really fought with Pushkin with pistols, "wounded him in the right side and was himself wounded in the right hand." Danzas only confirmed to Galakhov the fact of the duel, but Pushkin's second did not expand on the nature of the injuries received by the opponents.
How Dantes was interrogated
On February 6, at the first interrogation of the commission, Dantes was asked where and when the duel took place and whether he could refer to witnesses or any documents explaining the case in support of his words. Dantes, whose testimony during the whole case was tendentious, insincere and frankly false, but at the same time very mean, balanced and cautious, referred only to those documents that whitewashed him. Regarding the duel, he stated that his second, Arshiak, before his departure from St. Petersburg, handed the “report” about the duel to the chamberlain, Prince P. A. Vyazemsky.
Curious twist
It is noteworthy that Dantes, who did not want to interfere with any outsider in the process and even offered Danzas to hide his participation in the duel, which Pushkin's friend proudly refused, brought to the fore a third person who did not participate in the duel, and for what? In order to inform the court about the details of the duel, that is, to convey what Dantes himself had to tell about as a direct participant.
Moreover, the “report” is, in fact, the first document about the duel that the commission, the military court, had at its disposal, and was created, one must think, specifically for this case, for the commission. The announcement of this document Dantes considered so beneficial for himself that he hastened to refer to it and "intervene" in the case of a third party - Peter Vyazemsky. Dantes knew well that no unpleasant revelations would follow from Vyazemsky. And of course I wasn't wrong.
On February 8, Vyazemsky was called to the commission. He was offered a whole range of questions relating to the duel and was asked to give explanations in as much detail as possible, to submit documents related to the case, if he had any. However, Vyazemsky not only did not submit any documents (although he had them at that moment, which later became clear during the investigation), but he dissuaded all questions with complete ignorance.
One gets the impression that Vyazemsky's main goal was to announce the "relation", which, apparently, was created precisely for this purpose. When asked about the origin of the "relationship", the prince replied that he had no "relationship", that is, he did not have an official document, but he had a letter from d. Arshiak with a description of the duel.
Vyazemsky's testimony
“Not knowing anything in advance about the duel,” Vyazemsky testified, “about which I first heard along with the news that Pushkin was mortally wounded, at my first meeting with Dr. Arshiak I asked him to tell me what happened.” It is not difficult to see in these "sincere" testimonies of Vyazemsky the prince's desire to "substantiate", as it were, the accidental, everyday origin of a private letter.
In fact, Vyazemsky received detailed information about the duel, of course, not from Arshiak, but from Danzas on the evening of January 27 on the Moika, in the poet’s apartment, where the prince met the poet’s second, who did not leave the dying man’s house. “This year, d. Arshiak volunteered to set out in a letter everything that happened, asking me at the same time,” continued Vyazemsky, “to show the letter to Mr. Danzas for mutual verification and attestation of the details of the duel.”
However, Vyazemsky received the letter from Dr. Arshiak after the departure of the French attache abroad, so the prince could not, according to him, read it together with both witnesses in order to obtain in his eyes the reliability that he wanted to have. As a result, Vyazemsky gave the letter to Dr. Arshiak Danzas, and he returned this document to the prince along with a letter from himself.
This is how Vyazemsky explained, as it were, the accidental creation of a written version of the duel, a version whose authenticity was almost officially certified by both seconds in documents specially prepared for this occasion. It was these documents that were presented to the investigation by Vyazemsky, as if he were a completely outsider, which means that he seemed to be an absolutely objective person.
(It is important to note that in the following days Vyazemsky will create a written version of not only the duel itself, but the entire duel history, will select documents that seem to confirm it, a version, alas, very far from what took place in everyday reality).
On February 10, the “report” from Arshiak-Danzas was presented to Dantes, and he once again confirmed that the incident was described in it “in all fairness”.
Reading the letters of Dr. Arshiak, it is easy to see that this description does not say a word about where Pushkin was wounded. Moreover, in the letter of Danzas one senses the intention of the writer not only to obscure this subject and create in the reader (which, as we will see below, he succeeded in) a wrong idea.
"Prince! You wanted to know the details of the sad incident that Mr. Danzas and I were witnesses to. I communicate them to you, and ask you to hand over this letter to Mr. Danzas for it to be read and signed,” wrote Dr. Arshiak to Vyazemsky on February 1.
How did the duel go?
It was half past five when we arrived at the appointed place. The strong wind that was blowing at that time forced us to seek refuge in a small spruce grove. Since deep snow could interfere with the opponents, it was necessary to clear the place for twenty steps of the distance, at both ends of which they were placed.
The barrier was marked with two overcoats; each of the opponents took a pistol. Colonel Danzas signaled and raised his hat. Pushkin at the same moment was already at the barrier; Baron Gekkern took four out of five steps towards him.
Both opponents began to aim; a few seconds later, a shot rang out. Pushkin was wounded. Having said this, he fell on his overcoat, which meant a barrier, facing the ground and remained motionless. The seconds approached; he got up and, sitting, said: “Wait!” The pistol he held in his hand was covered in snow; he asked another.
I wanted to resist this, but Baron Georg Gekkern (Dantes) stopped me with a sign. Pushkin, leaning his left hand on the ground, began to heal; his hand did not tremble. There was a shot. Baron Gekkern, standing motionless after the shot, fell, wounded in turn.
Pushkin's wound was too dangerous to continue the work and it ended.
Having fired a shot, he fell and lost consciousness twice; after several minutes of unconsciousness, he finally came to his senses and no longer lost his senses. Placed in a jolting sleigh, he was half a verst away from the worst road, suffered greatly, but did not complain.
Baron Gekkern (Dantès), supported by me, reached his sleigh, where he waited until his opponent's sleigh started, and I could accompany him to Petersburg. In the course of the whole affair, both sides were calm and dignified.
Accept, Prince, the assurance of my highest consideration.
As for Danzas, in fact, he confirmed what was stated by Dr. Arshiak, noting only some minor inaccuracies in his story. So, in particular, Danzas somewhat lengthened the phrase of the wounded Pushkin: “Wait! I still feel so much strength in myself to shoot.
Danzas noted that he could not dispute the exchange of the pistol and did not actually do so. As for the wounding of Dantes, Danzas explained: “The opponents walked at each other with their chests. When Pushkin fell, then Gekkern (Dantes) made a movement to approach him; after Pushkin's words that he wanted to shoot, he returned to his place, stood sideways and covered his chest with his right hand. In all other circumstances, I testify to the truth of Mr. Arshiak's testimony.”
…A little more reasoning
Georges Charles Dantes The phrase of Danzas is noteworthy: "The opponents walked at each other with their chests." It was she who created the false impression in the reader of the "relationship" that Dantes, who fired first, wounded Pushkin in the chest. At the same time, it turned out that the wounded Pushkin also shot the enemy in the chest, for Danzas wrote: Dantes, "stood sideways and covered his chest with his right hand." Since Dantes was wounded in the arm, it follows that Pushkin aimed at the chest of the enemy. However, as we will see below, this is not the case at all.
It is characteristic that when the case materials were presented to the guards authorities and the generals submitted their opinions, the commander of the guards cuirassier division, Adjutant General Apraksin, understood the situation exactly like this: “Chamber Junker Pushkin received a mortal wound in the chest, from which he died, while Gekkern weakly wounded in the arm." In the same way, the case was presented to the commander of the guards cavalry corps, Lieutenant General Knoring.
Based on the materials collected, an extract from the case was prepared. In it, the duel was described on the basis of the "relationship" between Arshiak and Danzas, and therefore without indicating Pushkin's wound. The same picture was presented in the maxim of the court. On March 11, Bistrom presented all the materials of the case to the Audit Department of the War Ministry. Transferring the case, Bistrom noted that during the audit at the headquarters of a separate guards corps, a number of "omissions" were noticed.
A number of omissions
In particular, Bistrom pointed out that "there was no proper evidence of the cause of death: Pushkin." Bistrom's pointing is particularly interesting when one considers that of all the generals he filed the harshest opinion condemning d'Anthes.
Bistrom found Gekkern guilty of challenging Pushkin to a duel, inflicting a mortal wound on him, and before that he irritated Pushkin's delicacy as a husband by sending his wife theater tickets and books along with notes of dubious content. The general rightly believed that there were no “circumstances deserving of indulgence” in relation to Dantes.
Since duels were strictly prohibited, “the insulting expressions placed in Pushkin’s letter to Dantes’ adoptive father did not give the lieutenant the right to “illegal self-government.”
the audacity of Pushkin's letter that provoked the duelBistrom emphasized that the court did not have the testimony of Pushkin himself, while the extreme audacity of Pushkin's letter that provoked the duel "could not be written without an extraordinary reason," which is very weakly explained by Dantes' own admission that he wrote ticklish letters to the wife of the murdered man.
Bistrom, Karl Ivanovich It is important to note that Bistrom was somehow connected with the Goncharov family. In any case, when already after the death of Pushkin, in February 1837, Dantes demanded that the brothers of his wife Ekaterina Goncharova legally issue the due part of the family inheritance, an appropriate document was drawn up and K. I. Bistrom signed it as a witness from the Goncharovs . Apparently, the commander of a separate guards corps, better than other members of the court and the generals who considered this case, could be aware of the circumstances of the duel between Pushkin and Dantes.
Bistrom's opinion was taken into account in the General Auditorium. Therefore, in their definition, presented to the Minister of War A. I. Chernyshev on March 17, the members of this body made certain amendments to the description of the duel. The audit definition stated that "Gekkern fired first and wounded Pushkin in the right side." "Pushkin wounded Gekkern in the hand." As you can see, the formula taken from the preliminary inquiry of Colonel Galakhov has been resurrected here. It was in this form that she appeared in the report of the Minister of War to Nicholas I.
Meanwhile, as early as January 28, when Pushkin was still alive, senior police doctor P.N. in the right arm through and through and received a concussion in the abdomen.
In 1856, the Decembrist I. I. Pushchin was returning from Siberia after an amnesty. In Nizhny Novgorod, he met with V. I. Dahl, thereby compiling a note on the autopsy of Pushkin's body. Dal showed the poet's lyceum friend a mournful relic - a frock coat in which Pushkin shot himself. On the frock coat against the right groin there was a small hole the size of a fingernail from the bullet that claimed the life of Alexander Sergeevich.
Yes, and Dahl's description leaves no doubt about where Dantes shot.
Cause a smile (if only it is appropriate in such a sad case) the clumsy attempts of modern doctors to "raise" Pushkin's bullet wound as high as possible above the groin, to cast doubt on the description of Dr. Dahl as insufficiently competent. But then what about the bullet hole in the coat, which indicates exactly, as it seems, where the bullet entered.
Where Pushkin was aiming
It turns out, no, it doesn't. So Dr. B. M. Shubin, who published the book “The History of a Disease” in 1983 in Moscow, argued that Dahl did not take into account that he was aiming at close range at Dantes, who was taller, ”
Pushkin, you see, “raised his right hand, and with it, of course, the right half of his coat flew up. Comparison of the bullet hole on the frock coat and the wound on the body allows us to determine how high Pushkin's hand was raised, and to assume that he was aiming at the head of his opponent. It is quite possible that Dr. B. M. Shubin wore such costumes, in which the floors covering the groin, raising the arm up, turned out to be almost on the chest. After all, it was in Soviet times.
(Recall at least the unforgettable Arkady Raikin: “Guys, who sewed this suit?”). But only in the 19th century, frock coats were sewn in such a way that the wearer could raise his hand up without fear of exposing the groin. As for the fact that Pushkin aimed at the head of Dantes, this is a separate conversation.
As mentioned above, both opponents fought at a distance of twenty paces. Each duelist could take five steps to the barriers, separated by ten steps. Pushkin at the time of the shot Dantes was at his barrier. Dantes did not reach one step before his own. The distance from which the opponents fired their shots was only eleven paces. [
Pushkin's skill in shooting is well known. Much less known is that Dantes was a marksman.(One of his hobbies was hunting). Perhaps even a layman from eleven steps could hit his opponent, approximately in the place where he was aiming. What can we say about a skilled shooter, even a hunter? Even if we take into account that Dantès was nervous (although there is no evidence of this), to make allowances for the strong wind, it is still hard not to admit that Dantès deliberately shot Pushkin in the groin.
Where was Pushkin aiming, mortally wounded in the lower abdomen? To the head?
When the commission of the military court began to sit, the head doctor of the guards cavalry corps Stefanovich was sent to the wounded Dantes to examine the defendant and answer the question of whether he could testify. “: Gekkern has a penetrating bullet wound on his right arm below the elbow joint by four transverse fingers,” the doctor testified, “The entrance and exit of the bullet is at a small distance from one another. Both wounds are located in the flexor muscles surrounding the radius, more towards the outside. The wounds are simple, clean, without damage to the bones and large blood vessels. Patient: wears a bandage on his hand and, in addition to pain in the wounded area, also complains of pain in the upper right part of the abdomen, where the ejected bullet caused a concussion, which pain is detected with a deep sigh, although there are no external signs of concussion: "
Lucky Dantes
In a letter about Vyazemsky’s duel to Denis Davydov, the partisan hero of 1812, there is one very important detail explaining why Dantes escaped with only a slight concussion: the bullet “pierced the meat, hit the button of the pantalon, which was worn with help, and already weakened bounced into the chest ."
Vyazemsky's instructions help us understand a lot. The button on which the suspenders were put on, of course, was located in the area of \u200b\u200bthe pantalon belt. In what position should Dantes stand if the outer side of his right hand with a pistol covering his chest, four transverse fingers below the elbow, was at the level of the pantalon button?
Reader, mentally imagine this ridiculous pose!
No, it was not at all that Dantes covered his chest with a pistol. If this right hand was at the level of the belt at the site of the wound, then the pistol should not have been raised, but, on the contrary, lowered. So, Dantes covered his groin with a weapon. Why did Dantes' hand end up here? Apparently, because he followed where the barrel of Pushkin's pistol was directed. Or Dantes was expecting his wounded adversary to shoot at the same place where he himself fired his shot.
Now it becomes clear why the seconds in every possible way obscure the issue of Pushkin's wound, why it was necessary to compose in advance a "report" about the duel for the commission of the military court. It is also interesting to note that in all the stories about the duel, which, with the light hand of Vyazemsky, went to the public, there is no mention of where the poet was wounded. Of course, this kind of silence was not caused by natural human delicacy, that is, by the unwillingness to let outsiders, so to speak, into the physiology of Pushkin's death.
It is no coincidence that the same circumstance was concealed by Dantes' friends, to whom delicacy in relation to the Russian genius was absolutely alien. The point was that if the opponents deliberately shot each other in the groin, then they obviously had special reasons for this. In the case of publicity, the question of these reasons would immediately arise, and such a question would give the duel a very delicate character. Is it really necessary to shoot the enemy in the groin when defending the honor of his wife or his own dignity, as the legend created by Vyazemsky claims? What words could have been uttered by the duelists before and after they exchanged low blows?
The fact that the seconds not only of Pushkin, but also of Dantes deliberately concealed the location of the poet's wound in the first days after the duel is a very important fact in the history of the duel, which has not yet been noted by any of the Pushkinists. But another important question arises: if the creators of the “relationship” concealed such an important episode of the duel, how correctly did they describe all the other episodes of this tragic incident?
In 1963, the French magazine Ruban Rouge, published by the Order of the Legion of Honor, of which Dantes later became a cavalier, published an article by Fleriot de Lange about the duel with Pushkin. The publication was accompanied by a drawing depicting a duel. Opponents with pistols in their hands stand against each other in white shirts (January 27 at 15-degree frost!).
He will not reproach the artist (his name is not indicated in the magazine) for ignorance of Russian realities. Shouldn't we admit to ourselves that even today, almost 160 years after this duel, we know little more about him than the French artist?
In any case, we have the right to suspect that the "relation" of Arshiak and Danzas about the duel is only an integral part of the legend about the death of the poet.
It is easiest to determine the place of injury when firing a bullet, therefore, in large animals, such as elk, deer, wild boar, bear, especially in long-legged ungulates. When shooting with buckshot, especially shot, it is much more difficult to determine where the animal or bird is wounded, for the reason that they can receive several minor wounds. In the same way, the wound becomes much more complicated and becomes much more severe when fired with an express bullet, especially with an explosive bullet, which brings down the beast even when it hits a not particularly lethal place. Usually the beast falls as if struck by thunder, killed on the spot, when the charge hits the heart or spinal cord.
An experienced hunter will always be able to determine whether the animal (and bird) is injured and where exactly, even if no blood was seen, according to the following signs:
If the animal falls after the shot and, jumping up, quickly leaves, this means that the bullet (or buckshot) only stunned the animal, hitting it either in the vertebrae, sliding along the forehead, or in the lower part of the horn.
If the animal makes a big leap with its front legs or hind legs, or all four, it is wounded in the lungs or liver. At the same time, he speeds up his run, separates from the herd (hoofed animals), pokes at the bushes, but soon slows down and falls dead, 100 paces or more. With a slight injury to the lungs, the animal goes further and should not be immediately pursued.
The beast, wounded in the stomach, starts violently and quickly leaves, but soon slows down and runs hunched over.
Wounded in the front leg - falls, but immediately jumps up and runs on three legs very quickly. In the back - settles on the back, but immediately jumps up and leaves, but not quickly.
In a wolf and a fox, it is more difficult to determine the location of the wound than in large, especially hoofed animals. The mortally wounded wolf and fox poke their noses into the ground. Wounded in the stomach or back - quickly turn around and bite the wounded place. If a wounded fox squeals, it means that her leg bone is broken. An uninjured fox sometimes rolls over and swings its pipe several times.
A hare wounded in the back or in the back of the head begins to tumble, and in the lungs it jumps high to the side.
A wounded bird usually shudders and flaps its wings incorrectly, flies away from the flock and sits separately. Wounded in the head - rises; in the back of the back - flies with lowered legs; in the legs - too; in the wing - flies along an inclined line with a convulsive movement of the wings.
The blood trail of the beast can always indicate much more accurately where the projectile hit.
A heavily bloody trail at first, decreasing and finally stopping, means that the bullet hit the soft parts of the back, neck or chest, that is, a light wound.
If the bullet hit the leg, then there is a lot of red blood, on the right or left side of the track. It means light wound.
Light blood splashed on the sides, on the contrary, is a sign of a serious wound, since this means that the bullet hit the lungs and the beast is expectorating it.
Blood on both sides - a wound through. Such a wound is less severe than if the blood (black) pours on only one side, since this means that the bullet remained in the beast.
Dark blood in small quantities and caked - the bullet hit the chest and touched the insides.
Dark, almost black, blood mixed with feces is evidence that the bullet entered the intestines.
Blood alternately on the right or left side means that the bullet hit the head or the front of the neck.
Blood all over the trail in chunks of almost black color indicates that the animal was very seriously wounded in the main internal organs and that blood poured down its throat.
In addition, the position of the wound can be recognized by the height of the bloody branches in the path of the beast. Also, from the bed of a wounded animal, it is not difficult to find out where the bullet hit, because the blood that came out of the wound means on the bed the place where it hit. The irregularity of the track, even without blood, can serve as evidence of the wounding of the beast, why it is necessary to carefully examine the track along the white throne: the beast, wounded high in the shoulder blade, throws one of its front legs, draws with it in the snow, runs unevenly and loses its run, expands hooves (moose and other hoofed animals). Finally, in winter, one can conclude that the animal was wounded based on the location of buckshot on the snow, in relation to the track. It is also necessary to look - if there is wool in the place (in the snow) where the animal was at the time of the shot, because the bullet, hitting the animal, cuts off the wool, which falls to the ground.
On April 28, 1813, in the city of Bunzlau (Prussia), Field Marshal General, the first full holder of the Order of St. George, the commander-in-chief of the Russian army during the Patriotic War of 1812, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, died.
The commander's father, Illarion Matveyevich, was a major military engineer, lieutenant general, and senator. He participated in the Russian-Turkish war of 1768-1774, commanding the engineering and miner detachments of the Russian army. His son Mikhail studied at home from the age of 7. In June 1759 he was sent to the Noble Artillery and Engineering School. In February 1761 he graduated from it with the rank of ensign engineer and was left at the school to teach mathematics to pupils. His service to the Motherland lasted more than 50 years. Mikhail Illarionovich not only participated in hostilities, he was both a diplomat and a military governor.
In 1774, in a battle near the village of Shuma near Alushta, 300 people were killed by the Turks, the Russians lost 32 people. A large number of wounded on both sides. Among the wounded was Lieutenant Colonel Kutuzov: "This staff officer was wounded by a bullet, which, hitting him between the eye and temple, went straight through in the same place on the other side of the face." The bullet hit the commander in the left temple, exited at the right eye, but did not touch him. He was operated on. Doctors considered the wound fatal. However, Mikhail Illarionovich recovered, although the recovery process was long.
On August 18, 1788, during the siege of the Ochakov fortress, Kutuzov was again seriously wounded in the head. A rifle bullet hit Mikhail Illarionovich in the cheek, approximately in the same place in which he was wounded in 1774. The bloody and bandaged commander continued to give orders. From a large loss of blood, he felt weak and was taken out of the battlefield. In a letter to the Austrian Emperor Joseph, Prince de Lin wrote: “Yesterday they shot Kutuzov in the head again. I believe that today or tomorrow he will die. Contrary to forecasts, Mikhail Illarionovich survived and served the Fatherland faithfully for many more years.
Currently, modern historians have two versions of the wounding of the commander. These versions are not new. In 1813, a collection of documents “The Life and Military Exploits of Field Marshal General His Serene Highness Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov Smolensky” was published. The first version of the commander’s injury is stated there: “... the bullet entered the cheek and went right through the back of the head ...” A.V. Suvorov wrote: “... the bullet hit him in the cheek and flew out into the back of the head. He fell. Everyone expected the wound to be fatal. But Kutuzov not only survived, but even soon entered the fighting ranks.
In 1814, the first biographer of the commander F. Sinelnikov published a multi-volume biography of Kutuzov. In it, he outlined the second version of the wounding of Mikhail Illarionovich: “The bullet went right through from temple to temple behind both eyes. This dangerous through breakthrough of the most delicate parts and the most important in terms of position of the temporal bones, the eye muscles, the optic nerves, past which the bullet passed by a hair's breadth and past the brain itself, after the cure did not leave other consequences, as soon as one eye was somewhat twisted.
Specialists of the Military Medical Academy and the Military Medical Museum M. Tyurin, A. Mefedovsky wrote an article "On the wounds of M.I. Kutuzov", published in 1993. They analyzed the surviving materials and confirmed the second version of the wounding of the commander. Both the first and second wounds were non-cerebral, otherwise, of course, he would not have been able to serve in the army for almost 40 years.
Here is the diagnosis of modern researchers about the wounding of the commander: a double tangential open non-penetrating craniocerebral wound, without violating the integrity of the dura mater; concussion-contusion syndrome, increased intracranial pressure.
In 1804, Russia joined the coalition of countries participating in the struggle against Napoleon. In 1805, two Russian armies were sent to Austria, one of which was commanded by Mikhail Illarionovich. In the battle of Austerlitz, Russian and Austrian troops were defeated by Napoleon, and Kutuzov was wounded in the cheek. The third time...
Among the entourage of Alexander I, Mikhail Illarionovich had many ill-wishers who could not forgive him for the surrender of Moscow to Napoleon, the chosen tactics of action, and the slowness, in their opinion, in the fight against the enemy. After Napoleon was expelled from Russia, Kutuzov's powers began to decline. Although the commander was awarded the Order of St. George I degree "For the defeat and expulsion of the enemy from Russia."
Kutuzov died on April 28, 1813. A possible cause of death was pneumonia. On April 6, 1813, the commander and emperor Alexander I, on the way to Dresden, arrived in the city of Bunzlau. It was sleet and raining, Kutuzov was driving in an open droshky and caught a cold. The next day his condition worsened. The emperor went to Dresden alone. Kutuzov could still read reports and give orders. But his strength was running out...
The modern military historian A. Shishkin writes: “The imperial life physician Billie with the local doctor Bislizenus, the next day after death, performed an autopsy and embalmed the body of the deceased, which was placed in a zinc coffin, at the head of which they placed a small cylindrical silver vessel with embalmed heart of the Savior of the Fatherland. On June 11, the funeral ceremony of the commander took place in the Kazan Cathedral. The coffin was lowered into a specially prepared niche in the central hall of the Kazan Cathedral.
Andrey VUKOLOV, historian.
Moscow.