Where was he wounded? The duel, injury and death of Alexander Pushkin. Discussions continue
For more than a century and a half, the wound and death of Alexander Pushkin have been discussed in the press, including medical press. Let's try to look at the gunshot wound and the actions of our colleagues in 1837 from the perspective of modern surgery.
Discussions continue
It seems to me that the ongoing discussions related to the death of A. S. Pushkin are due to the personality of the deceased patient; circumstances surrounding injury and death; lack of certainty about the nature of the injury, autopsy data and cause of death; inconsistency of medical assessments during treatment in subsequent years; accusations from society against attending physicians for allegedly making mistakes (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 earlier (before Gogol’s treatment - I.G.), doctors treated Pushkin, wounded in the stomach, like a child suffering from constipation. At this time, mediocre German and French doctors were still in charge, and the wonderful school of great Russian doctors was just beginning.”
The most fruitful year for discussion was 1937, when articles by many well-known scientific specialists were published. Accusations of deliberate actions by doctors who treated the poet were contained, for example, in articles by Dr. G. D. Speransky and 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 Pushkin scholar B. S. Meilakh, “Duel, wound, treatment of Pushkin,” which also condemned the incorrect actions of the doctors who treated the poet, and even proposed holding a “trial of history” with the participation of specialists!
In 1987, and again in the Nedelya newspaper, journalist A. Gudimov published the article “After the duel. The story of one mistake that has not yet been corrected.” This article provides an interesting fact that provides, to some extent, an answer to the forecast about Pushkin’s survival if he received a similar injury in the 20th century. In 1937, a certain A. Sobol, near the Pushkin monument 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 devoted to Pushkin’s wounding in the book by Sh. I. Uderman “Selected Essays on the History of Russian Surgery of the 19th Century” (Publishing House “Medicine”, L., 1970) aroused my greatest confidence ). 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 for himself.
Diary of medical history
Based on the documents I have read, we can talk about four diagnostic options: 1) Gunshot wound of the abdominal cavity with damage to the pelvic bones and femoral vein, complicated by external-internal bleeding. 2) Gunshot wound of 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. The controversy concerns the complications caused by the injury and the cause of death associated with this complication.
Four points of view have been expressed on complications and cause of death:
● 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 implementation 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, since there were instructions from the Tsar and Benckendorff. 3) The treatment was carried out correctly, but mistakes were made that influenced the outcome of the treatment.
In order to formulate your professional understanding of both the diagnosis and the treatment being carried out, it is advisable to provide a diary of the medical history left to us by contemporary eyewitnesses.
Pushkin received a gunshot wound during a duel with Dantes on January 27, 1837 at 16:00. The place of the duel was located seven and a half miles from the house where the poet lived.
Dantes shot first from a distance of 11 steps (about 8 meters).
The diameter of the bullet is 7–8 mm, it hit the right iliac region, 5.8 cm medially (?) from the anterosuperior iliac spine.
Immediately after being wounded, Pushkin fell forward on his left side, but then stood up and wanted to fire his shot. He shot while sitting and caused a slight wound to the enemy in the arm. After his shot, Pushkin again fell face down into the snow, and was unconscious for several minutes, his face and hands were pale, with a “widened look.” Gradually he regained consciousness. I could not move independently.
The poet is dragged by his overcoat to the sleigh, his clothes are bloody, and there is also blood on the snow trail. He is carried by hand and placed in a sleigh, and then the sleigh is dragged to the road and transferred to a carriage.
They take you sitting for an hour. I am worried about severe pain in the area of the wound, excruciating nausea, short-term loss of consciousness, due to which I had to stop. They carried me into the house by hand.
January 27, 18–19 hours (2–3 hours after the wound). Somewhat excited, he himself changed into clean underwear, bleeding from the wound continues. Pronounced thirst, willingly drinks cold water. The pulse is frequent, weak, extremities are cold.
January 27, 19–23 hours (3–7 hours after injury). Abdominal pain increases. Periodically falls into oblivion.
January 27, 23 hours, until 3 hours January 28 (7–11 hours after the wound). Periodically screams from stomach pain.
January 28, 3–7 hours (11–15 hours after injury). The pain in his stomach increases sharply, so much so that he wants to shoot himself. N. F. Arendt gives an enema (“cleansing”) after which the condition sharply worsens: “wild gaze”, eyes seem to be popping out of their sockets, cold sweat, cold extremities, pulse cannot be detected. Pushkin groans, but his consciousness remains, he says goodbye to his wife and children.
January 28, 7–11 a.m. (19 hours after injury). The condition is serious, he takes henbane extract with calomel, bloating persists, but the pain has decreased, the extremities are cold, the pulse is barely palpable, consciousness is preserved.
January 28, 11–12 hours (19–20 hours after the wound). 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 are warmer, his pulse can be detected and its quality has improved, and “softening poultices” have been applied to his stomach. Pushkin became more active, he himself helps to put “poultices”.
January 28, 14–17 hours (22–25 hours after the wound). He suffers less, but his condition remains serious. Dahl came and wrote down: “The pulse is extremely small, weak and frequent.” Uses cherry laurel 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 injury). Slight general fever. Pulse 120, full, hard. Anxiety increased. Dahl believes that inflammation has begun to form. They placed 25 leeches on my stomach.
January 28, 19–23 hours (27–31 hours after injury). State of weakness. The fever subsided, the stomach and skin evaporation subsided. The pulse became smoother and softer. They gave me castor oil. I can’t sleep, the feeling of melancholy, the pain continues. Frequent intermittent breathing. Moans quietly. Consciousness is preserved.
January 28, 24 hours until 12 noon 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, the feet are warm. Due to weakness he has difficulty speaking. Feeling of longing.
January 29, 12–14. 45 (44–46 hours 45 minutes after injury). My hands were cold up to my shoulders. Frequent, jerky breathing is replaced by drawn-out breathing. State of oblivion, dizziness, confusion. Visual hallucinations. Enlightenment with a clear mind. Said: “It’s hard to breathe.”
A total of 46 hours and 15 minutes have passed since the injury.
The autopsy of A. S. Pushkin’s body was performed at home by doctors I. T. Spassky and V. I. Dahl.
My idea of the diagnosis
Open gunshot fracture of the right ilium 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 death at the level of medicine of the first third of the 19th century.
How was the treatment carried out?
Therapeutic measures: cold lotions on the stomach in the first hours; cold drink; enema; henbane extract with calomel inside; drops of opium tincture inside; “softening” (warm) poultices for the stomach; leeches to the stomach; castor oil (inside).
In the very first hours, Pushkin was told that the wound was fatal.
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 famous obstetrician-gynecologist, and Doctor of Medical Sciences K.K. Zadler. Scholz, answering A. S. Pushkin’s question about whether his wound was fatal, replied: “I consider it your duty not to hide this, but we will hear the opinions of Arendt and Salomon, for whom we have been sent.” Scholz only changed the bandage on the wound and did not take part in the treatment.
Nikolai Fedorovich Arendt. At the time of Pushkin’s injury, he was 51 years old; he had been the personal physician of Emperor Nicholas I since 1829. He enjoyed great authority in society and medical circles. Arendt supervised the entire treatment of Pushkin 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, carrying out the orders of N.F. Arendt. Together with V.I. Dahl, he performed an autopsy on the body of A.S. Pushkin.
Vladimir Ivanovich Dal, 36 years old, graduate of Dorpat University. He defended his doctoral dissertation in surgery and successfully participated as a surgeon in the Turkish War of 1828. They wrote about him as a jack of all trades and a deft 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 medical history diary, and wrote an 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 man during I. T. Spassky’s short rest.
Academician Ilya Vasilievich Buyalsky, 48 years old. One of the largest domestic surgeons. Consulted N. F. Arendt regarding Pushkin’s injury.
Thus, we can say that the entire flower of Russian medicine of that time took part in the treatment of A.S. Pushkin.
Evaluation of treatment measures
From the point of view of modern medicine, opium was used late. According to I.T. 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 used by N. F. Arendt caused shock in the wounded man and sharply worsened his condition. The doctor, when prescribing an enema, did not expect injury to the sacral bone, and the enema was at that time one of the most common therapeutic procedures for peritonitis, which was suspected in Pushkin. Dr. Malis in 1915 accused doctors of using enemas, and Dahl of wanting to shield his colleagues from using them.
Prescribing simultaneously two drugs, opium and calomel, according to two famous 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. We can agree with him, but for that time the use of leeches was the main thing in the treatment of peritonitis.
A number of publications expressed complaints 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, telling the truth to a patient about his illness and outcome was the norm of behavior, as is the case today in most countries.
And, finally, there were statements about the useless probing of the wound, allegedly performed by Dr. Zadler. There is no documented evidence of this manipulation.
Conclusion
I believe that from the perspective of the development of medicine in the first half of the 19th century, A.S. Pushkin was treated correctly, although some confusion among doctors was visible, due to the personality of the patient.
Published in abbreviation. The full text was published in the book by I.N. Grigovich "Time to collect stones." - Petrozavodsk University Publishing House, 2002.
"Lyceum" No. 2 2003
On April 28, 1813, in the city of Bunzlau (Prussia), Field Marshal General, the first full holder of the Order of St. George, commander-in-chief of the Russian army during the Patriotic War of 1812, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, died.
The commander's father, Illarion Matveevich, was a major military engineer, lieutenant general, and senator. He took part in the Russian-Turkish War of 1768-1774, commanding engineering and mining detachments of the Russian army. His son Mikhail was educated 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 with the rank of engineer-ensign and was left at the school to teach mathematics to students. His service to the Motherland lasted more than 50 years. Mikhail Illarionovich not only took part in hostilities, he was also a diplomat and military governor.
In 1774, in a battle near the village of Shuma near Alushta, the Turks killed 300 people, the Russians lost 32 people. A large number of wounded on both sides. Among the wounded was Lieutenant Colonel Kutuzov: “This staff officer received a wound from a bullet, which, having hit him between the eye and temple, came out in the same place on the other side of the face.” The bullet hit the commander in the left temple, exited near the right eye, but did not hit 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 where he was wounded in 1774. The bloodied and bandaged commander continued to give orders. From heavy loss of blood he felt weak and was carried from the battlefield. In a letter to the Austrian Emperor Joseph, Prince de Ligne wrote: “Yesterday they shot Kutuzov in the head again. I believe he will pass away today or tomorrow.” Contrary to predictions, Mikhail Illarionovich survived and served his Fatherland faithfully for many more years.
Currently, modern historians have two versions about the commander’s injury. 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 of Smolensky” was published. The first version of the commander’s injury is stated there: “... the bullet entered the cheek and went right through to 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 remained alive, but even soon entered the military 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 end-to-end breakthrough of the most delicate parts and the most important in position of the temporal bones, eye muscles, optic nerves, past which the bullet passed by a hair's breadth and past the brain itself, after healing did not leave any other consequences, except that one eye had just become slightly askew.”
Specialists from the Military Medical Academy and the Military Medical Museum M. Tyurin and 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 about the commander’s injury. Both the first and second wounds were extra-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 commander’s wound: a double tangential open non-penetrating cranial wound, without violating the integrity of the dura mater; compression-concussion syndrome, increased intracranial pressure.
In 1804, Russia joined the coalition of countries participating in the fight against Napoleon. In 1805, two Russian armies were sent to Austria, one of which was commanded by Mikhail Illarionovich. At the Battle of Austerlitz, Russian and Austrian troops were defeated by Napoleon, and Kutuzov was wounded in the cheek. The third time...
Among Alexander I's entourage, 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, 1st degree, “For defeats and expulsion of the enemy outside Russia.”
Kutuzov died on April 28, 1813. The 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 sleeting 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...
Modern military historian A. Shishkin writes: “The imperial physician Billie and the local doctor Bislizenus, the next day after death, performed an autopsy and embalming of 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 an embalmed the 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.
A look behind the secret curtain of the past
One of the mysterious historical facts, the mystery of which has not yet been fully revealed, is the assassination attempt on Vladimir Lenin in August 1918. Various versions of what happened constantly appear 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 “revelatory” materials into a dead end, which gives the next “whistleblower” a reason to take the wrong direction in the search for the essence. The material presented below is based on scientific facts and logic, and that is why it does not aim to confirm (or refute) the involvement of F. Kaplan in the case as the main person involved. The purpose of the publication is to reconstruct the model of the assassination attempt 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 workshop of the Mikhelson plant, while the leader was walking to his personal car, an attempt was made on his life. Due to the fact that the person(s) who shot was not detained directly at the scene of the incident, in the following text he will be referred to as the “shooter.” And the person(s) who were hit by the thrown combat elements (bullets) will be referred to as the “injured party.”
Place
Excerpt from the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the assassination attempt on V.I. Lenin at the Mikhelson plant: “There is only one exit from the premises where the rallies are taking place. From the threshold of this double door to the parking lot is 9 fathoms (19.2 meters). From the gate leading to the street to the place where the car was parked, to the front wheels - 8 soots. 2 feet (17.68 m), to the rear - 10 fathoms. 2 feet (21.94 m). The shooter (the shooter) stood at the front fenders of the car from the entrance to the meeting room. Comrade 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 the indicated 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 wasn’t in the Tsar’s 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 rear cabin. This was done in order to emphasize the democratic nature of the leader. In addition to the French limousine "Turk-Mary", Lenin also had other cars assigned to him, 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, and also performed additional functions as 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.
“When conducting an investigative experiment in 1996, the FSB requested from the Historical Museum Lenin’s black drape demi-season coat, a black lustrine jacket, 4 cartridge cases found at the crime scene, 2 bullets and a Browning, pierced by bullets. (The last time the examination of Lenin’s coat and jacket was carried out in 1959, the materials of this survey are stored in the Historical Museum.)" - Yuri Felshtinsky.
Shots
Testimony from witness interviews:
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 the gun from the shooter and the shooter ran away.”
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 the woman shot over the shoulder of the boy 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 testified, “the second shots wounded the woman who was talking with Lenin.”
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 the shots were fired at Comrade Lenin. The commission asks those who know anything about the discovery of the revolver to immediately report it to the commission."
On Monday, September 2, 1918, the day after this material was published in the Izvestia newspaper, a factory worker named after V.E. Kingisepp appeared before the investigator of the Supreme Tribunal V. E. Kingisepp. Savelyeva Kuznetsov. He stated that the Browning gun used to shoot Lenin was in his possession and placed it on the table. It was number 150489, with four cartridges in the clip. Kingisepp involved him in the case of the attempted murder of V.I. Lenin, and Kuznetsov warmly thanked him 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 the shooter dropped it, and it was in his, Kuznetsov’s, hands all the time "This Browning is involved in the case of the attempted murder of Comrade Lenin."
On September 3, 1918, Izvestia of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was quick 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 unfired cartridges in the clip. By examining the revolver and the testimony of witnesses, it was possible to establish with accuracy that a total of three shots were fired at Comrade Lenin.”
Version
Oleg Roldugin. "Interlocutor", 02/26/2003
“Russian colleagues also give gifts to the sappers. One of the most memorable of these gifts was a small blued Browning: according to the donors from the RUBOP, it was from this that Fanny Kaplan shot 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.”
Excerpt from the protocol of the inspection of the scene of the assassination attempt on V. Lenin at the Mikhelson plant: “Mark on the photographs the places where the cartridges fell “4, 5, 6, 7” and write “shot cartridges.”
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 Vladimir Ilyich’s body along with the bullets.”
"10 assassination attempts on Lenin"
An extract from the description of the operation to remove a bullet from Lenin’s body in April 1922 at the Botkin Hospital in Moscow: “... the bullet removed from the wound turned out to be the size of an average Browning (from the medical report). The bullet is cut crosswise through the entire thickness of the shell along the entire length of the body... The bullet is attached to the case. Presented to the parties for inspection. After the operation, Lenin wanted to go home, but the doctors persuaded him to wait until tomorrow and assigned him to the second floor, ward No. 44.”
“Who put a revolver with poisoned bullets into her (hand – editor’s note)? And that they were poisoned was proven by medical examination and the bullet that was removed during the operation...”
Vladimir Buldakov: “When, after the rally, a crowd surrounded him near his car, four shots were heard. Lenin was wounded by two bullets, two more scratched the wardrobe maid 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 barrier detachments, which were excessively gutting self-supplying bagmen carrying food from the village."
Yuri Felshtinsky: “After the opening of the case in 1992, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation carried out, according to E. Maksimova, “a comprehensive forensic examination of Browning No. 150489, shell casings 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 pistol,” but “it is not possible to determine whether the second was fired from it.” 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 bullet marks on Lenin’s coat and the places where he was wounded.”
"10 assassination attempts on Lenin"
“When the Red Army soldier Safonov asked him where he was wounded, Lenin replied: “In the arm.” “The doctors came to the conclusion that the bullet, fortunately, did not hit the large vessels of the neck. Had it passed a little to the left or to the right... Another bullet pierced the apex of the left lung from left to right and lodged near the sternoclavicular joint. The third pierced the jacket under the armpit, without causing harm to Vladimir Ilyich."
Historical manipulation of 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, to 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 would be fatal? The answer is obvious: they must act with a poisoned weapon. And specifically, again point by point:
1. Use bullets for browning exclusively lead, 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 methods for obtaining them.
3. Develop instructions for poisoning bullets and bladed weapons with poison.
4. Inspect the weapon and put it in order.
5. If there is no poison to poison bullets, use a dilution of infectious bacteria: consumption, tetanus, diphtheria, typhoid fever, etc. immediately before the terrorist attack..."
Injuries
Official bulletin No. 130 August 1918, 11 pm: “2 blind gunshot wounds were stated: one bullet, entering above the left shoulder blade, penetrated into the chest cavity, damaged the upper lobe of the lung, causing hemorrhage into the pleura, and got stuck in the right side of the neck above the right collarbone; another bullet penetrated the left shoulder, crushed the bone and got stuck under the skin of the left shoulder area, there are signs of internal hemorrhage. Pulse 104. The patient is fully conscious. The best surgeons have been involved in the treatment."
“10 assassination attempts on Lenin”:
“I think we won’t remove the bullets now,” Rozanov concluded.
“Perhaps we’ll wait,” agreed Obukh...
After the consultation, the doctors returned to Vladimir Ilyich. Nadezhda Konstantinovna was sitting next to him. Seeing those entering, Lenin wanted to say something, but Rozanov raised his hand in warning. At V. I. Lenin’s apartment in the Kremlin there were 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 unusually weak heart function, cold sweat and poor general condition. This somehow did not fit with the hemorrhage, which was not as severe as expected. The patient showed signs of shortness of breath. The temperature has risen. Lenin fell into semi-oblivion. Sometimes he uttered individual words.
“Bulletin No. 2 noted that Lenin’s general situation is 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 Vladimir Ilyich’s life 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 left from the hemorrhage in the left pleura. There are no complications from the fracture. The bandage is well tolerated. The position of the bullets is under 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 go about his business."
Vladimir Buldakov: “the bullet, which had a cross cut, entered under the shoulder blade, traveled a very difficult path in the body and, managing not to hit 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 assassination attempt on comrade. Lenina, the aforesaid Popova, was wounded right through; the bullet, having passed through the left chest, crushed the left bone (meaning: the bone of the left arm between the shoulder and elbow. - Author's note). Her two daughters and husband were arrested, but were soon released.”
From the testimony of policeman A.I. Sukhotin: “Four steps from Comrade Lenin, a woman who looked to be about forty was lying on the ground, the one who asked him questions about flour. She shouted: “I’m wounded, I’m wounded!”, and the crowd shouted: “She’s a murderer!” I rushed to this woman along with Comrade. Kalaburkin. We picked her up and took her to the Pavlovsk hospital.”
Playback
Kingisepp asked Gil to park the car as it was at the time of the assassination attempt. Kingisepp asked Ivanov if he had seen Comrade Lenin.
“I saw,” Ivanov answered. “It was like this: when Comrade Lenin left the workshop, I hesitated there for a while, and suddenly I heard shouts: “They’re shooting!” A traffic jam formed at the door. I rushed to the nearest window, kicked him out and jumped into the yard. Having pushed the people away, I saw Ilyich..."
Ivanov showed the place where Comrade Lenin fell.
Kingisepp asked Gil to sit behind the wheel, and told Ivanov and Sidorov to stand 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 photographs. He filmed in various positions: standing, lying down, sitting.
The photographs taken by security officer Ya. M. Yurovsky are kept in the case of the assassination attempt on V. I. Lenin. Each photograph has an explanatory text handwritten by V. E. Kingisepp.
In the first photo: The grenade workshop with an open door, and nearby on the left is V. I. Lenin’s car. Having marked the door with the letter “a” and the car with the letter “b”, Kingisepp indicated: the distance from “a” to “b” is 9 fathoms. This means that the car was waiting for Ilyich 25 - 30 steps from the door of the Grenade Workshop.
The next three photographs depict “the staging of three moments of the attempted murder of Comrade Lenin.” This is what Kingisepp wrote.
The second photo captures “the moment before the shot was fired.” The car is standing sideways. Gil is driving, he turned his head towards “Lenin” (he was portrayed by Ivanov in the dramatization). Gil is ready to start driving as soon as Vladimir Ilyich gets into the car. At a close distance from the door stand “Lenin” and “Popova”, who asked Vladimir Ilyich about flour (Popova was portrayed by Sidorov). “Lenin” looked at “Popova” and said something to her. The “Shooter” (he was portrayed by Kingisepp himself in the re-enactment) is frozen at the front wheels of the car; he stands with his back to us, but his whole posture indicates that he is taking out a weapon.
In the third photo: "The shooter is preparing to shoot." "Lenin" and "Popova" continue to talk. "Shooter", holding out his hand with a Browning, aims at "Lenin". Gil (he portrayed himself in the re-enactment) notices the “shooter” and rises from his seat, drawing his weapon. But it's' too late. Shots ring out.
In the fourth photo: “The perfect assassination 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 an inexperienced (but attentive) reader of the above materials, after reading them, has a lot of questions due to inconsistencies in objects, facts, and aspects of description.
1. It is generally accepted that the victim Ulyanov was located in the back seat of a Rolls-Royce car. Considering that in fact it was a Turka-Meri-28 car, the place where the victim Ulyanov was during the shots shifted, which means the distance of the bullets was distorted during the reenactment of the assassination attempt.
2. During the investigation and inspection of the clothing of the victim Ulyanov in 1959 and 1996, due to the discrepancy between the entrance holes on the clothing and the body of the victim, the very fact that the clothing belonged to the victim was called into question. And for the sake of objectivity, it is necessary to note that Lenin’s height during his life, 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 canal above the left shoulder blade of the victim Ulyanov,
b) the entrance of the wound channel into the area of the left shoulder of the victim Ulyanov,
c) the entrance of the wound channel into the left breast of the victim Popova,
d) entrance and exit holes in the clothing of the victim Ulyanov in the axillary region,
e) 4 (four) cartridge cases found at the scene of the assassination attempt can and should be compared for identity - by series (the mark is stamped on the bottom of the cartridge case), by the imprint of the primer, 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, but also the fact that the cartridges in the case belong to the specifically designated pistol(s).
4. Information on the classification of small arms that appeared earlier in the investigation as a “revolver” or “pistol” should not be taken into account by origin.
In a revolver of any system, to extract (remove) cartridges from the drum, it is necessary to carry out a time-consuming procedure, and this is precisely what the “shooter” did not have time for. At the moment the pistol is fired, the cartridge case is extracted automatically, so the firing device should be called nothing more than a “pistol.” The name of the firing device as “revolver”, previously published in the press and in the case materials, is considered incorrect due to the lack of special knowledge among those who conducted the investigation in 1918.
5. Kingisepp attached the Browning pistol number 150489 with four cartridges in its clip to the case of the attempted murder of V.I. Lenin.
Taking this as a fact, we can confidently 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 casings found, it can be argued that there was another, previously unidentified person who fired 1 (one) shot. Proof of this is a comparison of the wounds of victims Ulyanov and Popova. The nature of the wounds described 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 confirmation, cannot be considered as correct.
The first bullet was recovered in 1922, the second in 1924 (after Lenin’s death). In practice, it takes several hours for the poison to affect the body. In addition, medical practitioners were well aware of the punishment they would suffer if they failed to act and prevent poisoning. The version of poisoned bullets made it possible for doctors to avoid liability in the event of the death of the victim Ulyanov.
7. The bullet, recovered from the Botkin hospital in 1922, is described as having a cross-shaped cut along the entire length of the shell and is classified as medium-caliber ammunition.
The described bullet (with notches) belongs to a caliber of 7.65 mm, and the Browning featured in the case has a caliber of 6.35 mm, thus there is a mismatch of calibers. There may be many versions, but only one is accurate: the extracted bullet was replaced in the hospital itself. This is indicated by the fact that the bullet casing has been cut along its 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 home-made 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 flow freely along the cuts in the bullet casing.
8. The description of the wound of the victim Ulyanov in the shoulder area in the official bulletin indicates fragmentation of the bone by a penetrating bullet. Another document talks about a healing fracture.
This injury does not match actual similar descriptions. It is known that when a bone is crushed by a bullet, the resulting bone fragments themselves turn into lethal elements, subject to distribution and movement at a certain speed within the body. As a rule, such wounds require surgical intervention and take a long time to heal. It is known that after being wounded, the victim Ulyanov fell to the ground, and it was for this reason, due to an awkward fall, that a bone fracture occurred in the shoulder area. The fracture (but not the injury) is specifically discussed in the Pravda article dated September 18, 1918.
9. The only person who, according to the case materials, exposed his personal weapon was the driver (part-time security guard) of the victim Ulyanov - S. Gil.
The conducted forensic examination shows (and proves) that the shots were fired at victims Ulyanov and Popova from different points. The flight path of the bullet that hit the victim Popova comes from the driver’s seat of the Turka-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 victim Popova. The reason for this was S. Gil’s immediate suspicion that Popova was the shooter. Additional evidence could be the memoirs of the late Yuri Vasilyevich Alekseev, known in criminal circles under the nickname “Humpbacked”. (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 driver, Gil Stepan Kazimirovich. When he died, he left my mother eight notebooks of memories.”
All realistically possible work has been done. The curtain on the historical secret has been lifted, and for the final reconstruction of real events, it remains to disclose exactly that part of the information that is classified as a “state secret.”
Pavel Makarov,
gunsmith, researcher
August, 2006
Dmitry Belyukin. Death of Pushkin
Pushkin is mortally wounded by Dantes. On January 29 (February 10) the poet died. He was buried in the Svyatogorsk Monastery.
On February 28, 1837, Natalia Nikolaevna Pushkina unexpectedly gained European fame. On this day, the Parisian newspaper “Journal de Debas” published a sensational message from St. Petersburg:
The famous Russian poet Pushkin was 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 seriously wounded:"
On the same day, the same message was published by Courier France. On March 1, the message was reprinted in the Gazette de France and the Courier de Théâtre. At that time, the Parisian "Journal de Deb" played on the European continent the same role 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 situation surrounding the death of the Russian poet, the duel itself and the reasons that led to it.
However, the true sensation remained unknown to meticulous Parisian journalists. We didn’t know about it for almost 160 years.
On Wednesday, January 27, 1837, at about six o’clock in the evening, Natalya Nikolaevna Pushkina came out of her room into the hallway and then she felt sick: the valet, taking her in his arms, carried her husband, 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, although wounded, was very lightly. The poet's second told a lie: the wound was fatal. At 2:45 pm on January 29, Pushkin passed away.
How Pushkin died a violent death was revealed. Whether an official autopsy report was drawn up remains unknown.
Only a note from doctor Vladimir Dahl “Autopsy of the body of A. S. Pushkin” has reached us. It reads:
“Upon opening the abdominal cavity, all the intestines turned out to be severely 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.
In the abdominal cavity there was at least a pound of dried blood, probably from a broken femoral vein. Around the circumference of the large pelvis, on the right side, many small fragments of bone were found, and finally, the lower part of the sacrum was crushed.
Based on the direction of the bullet, one must conclude that the victim was standing sideways, half-turned, and the direction of the shot was slightly from top to bottom. The bullet pierced the general covering of the abdomen two inches from the upper anterior extremity of the loin or ilium (ossis iliaci dextri) on the right side, then went, sliding along the circumference of the pelvis, from top to bottom, and, encountering resistance in the sacral bone, crushed it and settled somewhere - somewhere nearby.
Time and circumstances did not allow further detailed investigations.
Regarding the cause of death, it should be noted that here the inflammation of the intestines had not yet reached the highest degree: there were no serum or terminal effusions, no increments, and even less general gangrene. Probably, in addition to inflammation of the intestines, there was also inflammatory damage to the large veins, starting from the broken femoral; and finally, severe damage to the ends of the spinal vein (caudae equinae) due to fragmentation 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. Bistrom reported his order to Nicholas I on the same day. Minister of War A.I. Chernyshev reported the commander’s report to the Tsar. However, the tsar already knew about the duel on the evening of January 27.
The Empress wrote in her diary on this day: “N. said about the duel between Pushkin and Dantes, it made me shiver.”
Pushkin's Duel 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 to hand over to a military court not only Dantes, but also Pushkin, as well as all persons involved in the duel, excluding foreign nationals, about whose involvement in the duel a special note was to be drawn up. But Pushkin died, and Dantes’ second Olivier d’Archiac, an attaché at the French embassy, two days before the start of the military court commission’s work on February 2, hurried to leave for Paris. Therefore, only Dantes and Danzas were brought to trial.
It is characteristic that in the genuine military court case about Pushkin’s duel with Dantes-Heckern there are no medical documents about the nature of Pushkin’s wound 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, Lermontov’s famous lines “with lead in the chest” were not a simple poetic metaphor, but reflected rumors circulating in society about the details of the mortal 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 refer to a wound to the side. Obviously, the members of the military court under the Cavalry Regiment had a vague idea of where exactly the dead man was wounded, and this misconception of the judges can hardly be explained by their ignorance or simply ordinary indifference to the ruined life of a genius.
The court's ignorance was a consequence of the fact that the seconds deliberately obscured the question of the nature of the poet's wound and quite deliberately sought to create an incorrect impression of where the opponents were aiming.
The origin of this conflicting information is as follows. In Bistrom's report to the Tsar about putting Dantes on trial, Pushkin's wounding is not mentioned at all, it only says that Dantes was wounded during the duel. The meetings of the military court commission were preceded by a preliminary inquiry. It was produced by Colonel Galakhov. According to Dantes, he wrote that he actually 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 wounds received by the opponents.
How Dantes was interrogated
On February 6, during the first interrogation of the commission, Dantes was asked where and when the duel took place and whether he could, in support of his words, refer to witnesses or any documents explaining the matter. Dantes, whose testimony throughout the case was tendentious, insincere and outright false, but at the same time very stingy, balanced and careful, referred only to those documents that whitewashed him. Regarding the duel, he stated that before his departure from St. Petersburg, his second d’Arshiak handed over a “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 outsiders in the process and even suggested that Danzas hide his participation in the duel, which Pushkin’s friend proudly refused, brought to the forefront 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 essentially the first document about the duel that the commission, the military court, had at its disposal, and it was created, one must think, specifically for this case, for the commission. Dantes considered the publication of this document so beneficial for himself that he hastened to refer to it and “interfere” in the matter with a third party - Peter Vyazemsky. Dantes knew well that no unpleasant revelations would follow from Vyazemsky. And of course I was not mistaken.
On February 8, Vyazemsky was called to the commission. He was offered a whole range of questions regarding the duel and asked to give explanations in as much detail as possible and to provide documents related to the case, if he had any. However, Vyazemsky not only did not present any documents (although he had them at that moment, as it turned out later during the investigation), but he excused himself from all questions by complete ignorance.
It seems 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 “relation,” the prince replied that there was no “relation,” that is, he did not have an official document, but he had a letter from Arshiac describing the fight.
Vyazemsky's testimony
“Having previously known nothing about the duel,” Vyazemsky testified, “which I first heard about along with the news that Pushkin was mortally wounded, at my first meeting with d’Archiac, I asked him to tell me what happened.” It is not difficult to see in these “candid” testimony of Vyazemsky the prince’s desire to “substantiate” the seemingly accidental, everyday origin of a private letter.
In fact, Vyazemsky received detailed information about the fight, of course, not from Arshiac, 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. “To this end, Mr. Arshiak volunteered to set out in a letter everything that happened, asking me,” Vyazemsky continued, “to show the letter to Mr. Danzas for mutual verification and witnessing of the details of the duel.”
However, Vyazemsky received d’Archiac’s letter after the French attaché had left abroad, so the prince could not, according to him, read it together with both witnesses in order to obtain in his eyes the authenticity that he wanted to have. As a result, Vyazemsky gave d Arshiak’s letter to Danzas, and he returned this document to the prince along with a letter from himself.
This is how Vyazemsky explained the seemingly 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 case. It was these documents that were presented to the investigation by Vyazemsky, as if a complete stranger, and therefore seemingly 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” of Arshiac-Danzas was presented to Dantes, and he once again confirmed that it described what happened “in all fairness.”
Reading d'Archiac's letters, it is easy to notice that this description does not say a word about where Pushkin was wounded. Moreover, in Danzas’s letter one senses the writer’s intention not only to obscure this subject and create in the reader (which, as we will see below, was successful) the wrong idea.
“Prince! You wanted to know the details of the sad incident that Mr. Danzas and I witnessed. I inform you of them, and ask you to hand over this letter to Mr. Danzas for his reading and signature,” wrote d Arshiak to Vyazemsky on February 1.
How the duel went
It was half past five when we arrived at the appointed place. A strong wind blowing at that time forced us to seek shelter in a small spruce grove. Since deep snow could interfere with the opponents, it was necessary to clear a place twenty paces away, at both ends of which they were placed.
The barrier was marked with two greatcoats; each of the opponents took a pistol. Colonel Danzas gave a signal and raised his hat. Pushkin was already at the barrier at that very moment; Baron Heckern took four out of five steps towards him.
Both opponents began to aim; a few seconds later a shot was heard. Pushkin was wounded. Having said this, he fell on his overcoat, which signified the barrier, with his face to the ground and remained motionless. The seconds arrived; he stood up and, sitting, said: “Wait!” The pistol he held in his hand was covered in snow; he asked the other.
I wanted to oppose this, but Baron Georg Heckern (Dantes) stopped me with a sign. Pushkin, leaning his left hand on the ground, began to aim; his hand did not tremble. A shot rang out. Baron Heckern, standing motionless after the shot, fell, in turn wounded.
Pushkin's wound was too dangerous to continue the case and it ended.
After firing the shot, he fell and lost consciousness twice; after several minutes of oblivion, he finally came to his senses and was no longer unconscious. Placed in a shaking sleigh, half a mile away from the worst road, he suffered greatly, but did not complain.
Baron Heckern (Dantes), supported by me, reached his sleigh, where he waited until his opponent’s sleigh started moving, and I could accompany him to St. Petersburg. Throughout the entire affair, both parties were calm and full of dignity.
Please accept, Prince, the assurance of my high respect.”
As for Danzas, he essentially confirmed what d Arshiac had stated, 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 challenge the exchange of the pistol and did not actually do so. As for Dantes’s wound, Danzas explained: “The opponents went at each other with their chests. When Pushkin fell, then Gekkern (Dantes) made a movement to approach him; after Pushkin said 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 validity of Mr. d’Arshiak’s testimony.”
...A little more reasoning
Georges Charles Dantes Danzas’s phrase is noteworthy: “The opponents went at each other with their chests.” It was she who created the false impression among the reader of the “report” that Dantes, who shot first, wounded Pushkin in the chest. At the same time, it turned out that the wounded Pushkin 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 was aiming for the enemy’s chest. However, as we will see below, this is not at all the case.
It is characteristic that when the materials of the case 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 this way: “the chamber cadet Pushkin received a mortal wound in the chest, from which he died, while Gekkern weakly wounded in the arm." The situation was presented to the commander of the Guards Cavalry Corps, Lieutenant General Knoring, in exactly the same way.
Based on the collected materials, an extract from the case was prepared. In it, the duel was described on the basis of the “relation” of Arshiac and Danzas, and therefore without indicating Pushkin’s wound. The same picture was presented in the court's maxim. On March 11, Bistrom submitted all the case materials to the Audit Department of the War Ministry. Handing over the case, Bistrom noted that during its audit, a number of “omissions” were noticed at the headquarters of a separate guards corps.
A whole series of omissions
In particular, Bistrom pointed out that “no proper certificate was taken regarding the cause of death: Pushkin.” Bistrom's instruction is especially interesting if we take into account that of all the generals he submitted the harshest opinion condemning Dantes.
Bistrom found Heckern guilty of challenging Pushkin to a duel, inflicting a mortal wound on him, and had previously irritated Pushkin’s sensitivity 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 worthy of leniency” in relation to Dantes.
Since duels were strictly prohibited, “the offensive expressions placed in Pushkin’s letter to Dantes’ adoptive father did not give the lieutenant the right to “illegal arbitrariness.”
the audacity of the Pushkin letter that provoked the duel Bistrom especially emphasized that the court did not have the testimony of Pushkin himself, but the extreme audacity of the Pushkin letter that provoked the duel “could not have been written without an extraordinary reason,” which is very poorly explained by Dantes himself’s admission that he wrote sensitive 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, after the death of Pushkin, in February 1837, Dantes demanded that the brothers of his wife Ekaterina Goncharova legally formalize the due part of the family inheritance, a corresponding document was drawn up and K. I. Bistrom signed on it as a witness on the part of the Goncharovs . Apparently, the commander of a separate guards corps could have been better informed than other members of the court and the generals who considered this case about 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 Minister of War A.I. Chernyshev on March 17, members of this body made certain amendments to the description of the duel. The audit definition stated that “Gekkern shot first and wounded Pushkin in the right side.” “Pushkin wounded Heckern in the arm.” As we see, the formula taken from the preliminary inquiry of Colonel Galakhov has been resurrected here. It was in this form that it appeared in the report of the Minister of War to Nicholas I.
Meanwhile, back on January 28, when Pushkin was still alive, senior police doctor P. N. Yudenich, who reported incidents in the capital to the Medical Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, wrote that Pushkin was “wounded by a bullet in the lower abdomen,” “Dantes - hit right through the right arm and received a concussion in the abdomen.”
In 1856, the Decembrist I. I. Pushchin returned from Siberia after an amnesty. In Nizhny Novgorod, he met with V.I. Dahl, thereby drawing up a note on the autopsy of Pushkin’s body. Dahl showed the poet's lyceum friend a mournful relic - the frock coat in which Pushkin shot himself. On the coat against the right groin there was a small hole the size of a fingernail from the bullet that took the life of Alexander Sergeevich.
And Dahl’s description leaves no doubt about where Dantes shot.
The clumsy attempts of modern doctors to “raise” Pushkin’s bullet wound as high as possible above the groin and to cast doubt on Dr. Dahl’s description as insufficiently competent cause a smile (if only it is appropriate in such a sad matter). But what about the bullet hole in the coat, which seems to indicate exactly where the bullet entered?
Where was Pushkin aiming?
It turns out, no, it doesn’t. Thus, Dr. B. M. Shubin, who published the book “The History of a Disease” in Moscow in 1983, 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, naturally, the right hem of his coat flew up. A comparison of the bullet hole on his coat and the wound on his body allows us to determine how high Pushkin’s hand was raised, and to assume that he was aiming at his opponent’s head.” It is quite possible that Dr. B.M. Shubin wore such suits, in which the flaps covering the groin, raising the arm up, ended up almost on the chest. After all, this happened in Soviet times.
(Let’s remember the unforgettable Arkady Raikin: “Guys, who sewed this suit?”). But only in the 19th century were frock coats sewn in such a way that the wearer could raise his arm up without fear of exposing his groin. As for the fact that Pushkin was aiming at Dantes’ head, that’s a separate matter.
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 was at his barrier at the moment of Dantes's shot. Dantes did not get one step closer to his goal. The distance from which the opponents fired their shots was only eleven steps. [
Pushkin's skill in shooting is well known. What is much less known is that Dantes was also a marksman.(One of his hobbies was hunting). Perhaps even a layman could hit his opponent from eleven steps, 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 Dantes was nervous (although there is no evidence on this matter), and allow for the strong wind, it is still difficult not to admit: Dantes deliberately shot in Pushkin’s groin.
Where was Pushkin aiming, mortally wounded in the lower abdomen? To the head?
When the military court commission began to meet, Stefanovich, the headquarters physician of the Guards Cavalry Corps, was sent to the wounded Dantes to examine the defendant and answer the question of whether he could testify. “: Gekkern has a piercing bullet wound on his right hand below the elbow joint, four transverse fingers,” the doctor testified, “The entry and exit of the bullet are at a small distance from each other. Both wounds are in the finger flexor muscles surrounding the radius, more to the outside. The wounds are simple, clean, without damage to bones and large blood vessels. The patient: wears his arm in a bandage and, in addition to pain in the wounded area, also complains of pain in the right upper part of the abdomen, where the ejected bullet caused a concussion, which pain is detected with a deep sigh, although no external signs of concussion were noticed: "
Lucky Dantes
In the letter about Vyazemsky’s fight to the partisan hero Denis Davydov in 1812, there is one very important detail that explains why Dantes escaped with only a slight concussion: the bullet “pierced the meat, hit the button of the trousers on which the braces were put on, and, already weakened, bounced off into the chest ."
Vyazemsky’s instructions help us understand a lot. The button on which the suspenders were put on was naturally located in the waistband of the pantaloons. In what position should Dantes have stood 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 button of his trousers?
Reader, mentally imagine this ridiculous pose!
No, it wasn’t Dantes who covered his chest with a pistol. If the right hand at the site of the wound was at waist level, then the pistol should not have been raised, but, on the contrary, lowered. This means that Dantes covered his groin with a weapon. Why did Dantes' hand end up here? Apparently because he was watching where the barrel of Pushkin’s pistol was pointed. Or Dantes expected his wounded opponent to shoot in the same place in which he himself fired his shot.
Now it becomes clear why the seconds did their best to obscure the question of Pushkin’s wound, and why it was necessary to compose a “report” about the duel in advance 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 were distributed 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, a reluctance to initiate outsiders, so to speak, into the physiology of Pushkin’s death.
It is no coincidence that the same circumstance was hidden by Dantes’ friends, to whom delicacy towards the Russian genius was absolutely alien. The point was that if opponents deliberately shot each other in the groin, then they obviously had special reasons for this. In the event 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 defend the honor of your wife or your own dignity, as the legend created by Vyazemsky claims, to shoot your enemy in the groin? What words could the duelists have uttered before and after they exchanged shots below the belt?
The fact that the seconds of not only Pushkin, but also 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, not yet noted by any of the Pushkin scholars. But another important question arises: if the creators of the “relation” hid such an important episode of the duel, how accurately did they describe all the other episodes of this tragic incident?
In 1963, the French magazine Rouban Rouge, published by the Order of the Legion of Honor, of which Dantes later became a Knight, published an article by Fleuriot de Langle about the duel with Pushkin. The publication was accompanied by a drawing depicting the fight. Opponents with pistols in their hands stand opposite each other in white shirts (January 27 at 15 degrees below zero!).
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 fight, we know little more about him than the French artist?
In any case, we have the right to suspect that the “report” of d’Archiac and Danzas about the duel is only an integral part of the legend about the death of the poet.
How often during the times of Tsarist Russia, disputes among people of the noble class were resolved by a duel! And this is all - despite the decree of Peter I of January 14, 1702 banning this kind of fights for the sake of preserving honor and dignity (as if there were no other options to talk “like a man”). However, such a burden fell on the lot of the hot-blooded young people of the “Golden Age”.
Which “victim” do we remember first? Naturally, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. And, naturally, almost everyone familiar with his fate had the question: “Was it possible to save him?” What would a modern doctor say about Pushkin’s case, how would he describe the condition and what treatment would he prescribe? Let’s figure this out - using the wonderful work of Mikhail Davidov “The Duel and Death of A.S. Pushkin through the eyes of a modern surgeon."
Over the centuries, many inquisitive minds have studied the numerous documents remaining after the duel, related both to the notes of eyewitnesses and to the notes of the great poet’s healers, among whom were the best doctors of St. Petersburg.
Here is what they write about Alexander Sergeevich’s health and his lifestyle: “At the time of his injury in a duel, Alexander Sergeevich was 37 years old, had average height (about 167 cm), a regular physique without signs of obesity. As a child, he suffered from colds and minor soft tissue bruises. In 1818, for 6 weeks, Alexander Pushkin suffered a severe infectious disease with a prolonged fever, which the attending physicians called “rotten fever.” Over the next two years, relapses of fever appeared, which completely stopped after treatment with quinine, which gives reason to assume that Pushkin suffered from malaria...
The poet led a healthy lifestyle. In addition to long walks on foot, he rode a lot, successfully practiced fencing, swam in the river and sea, and used ice baths for hardening.
We can conclude that by the time of the duel Pushkin was physically strong and practically healthy.”
The day of the duel was approaching...
Wednesday morning, January 27, 1837 (or February 8, new style). “I got up cheerfully at 8 o’clock - after tea I wrote a lot - an hour before 11. From 11 lunch. - I walked around the room unusually cheerfully, sang songs - then I saw Danzas through the window (note: second), greeted him joyfully at the door. - We entered the office and locked the door. - A few minutes later he sent for pistols. - After Danzasa left, he began to get dressed; washed all over, everything was clean; ordered the bekesh to be served; went out onto the stairs, returned, ordered a large fur coat to be brought into the office and walked on foot to the cab driver. “It was exactly at 1 o’clock.” (from the notes of Pushkin’s friend, poet V.A. Zhukovsky, about Alexander Sergeevich’s last day before the duel)
... The place of the duel. “Wrapped in a bear fur coat, Alexander Sergeevich sat in the snow and looked at the preparations with detachment. What was in his soul, only God knows. At times he showed impatience, turning to his second: “Is everything finally over?” His opponent, Lieutenant Dantes, a tall, athletic man, an excellent marksman, was outwardly calm. The psychological state of the opponents was different: Pushkin was nervous, in a hurry to end everything as soon as possible, Dantes was more collected, calmer.”
...It was 5 o'clock in the evening.
“The seconds marked the barriers with their overcoats, loaded their pistols and took the opponents to their starting positions. There they were given weapons. The tension reached its climax. The deadly meeting of two irreconcilable opponents has begun. At a signal from Danzas, who drew a semicircle in the air with his hat held in his hand, the rivals began to approach each other. Pushkin quickly walked towards the barrier and, turning his body slightly, began aiming at Dantes’ heart. However, it is more difficult to hit a moving target, and, obviously, Pushkin waited for the opponent to finish approaching the barrier and then immediately fire a shot. Cold-blooded Dantes unexpectedly shot on the move, not reaching 1 step from the barrier, that is, from a distance of 11 steps (about 7 meters). It was convenient for him to aim at Pushkin, who was standing still. In addition, Alexander Sergeevich had not yet completed the classic half-turn, adopted during duels in order to reduce the sighting area for the enemy, his hand with the pistol was extended forward, and therefore his right side and lower abdomen were completely unprotected.” It was this position of Pushkin’s body that caused the peculiar wound channel.
Bright flash. Pushkin was blinded for a moment and at the same second felt a blow to his side and something shooting forcefully into his lower back. The poet’s legs could not withstand such a sharp impact and the weight of his own body, he collapsed on his left side face-first into the snow, briefly losing consciousness. However, as soon as the seconds and Dantes himself rushed to look at the consequences of the shot, Pushkin woke up and sharply shouted that he still had enough strength to make his shot. With an effort, he rose and sat down, briefly noticing with his blurred gaze that his shirt and overcoat were soaked with something scarlet, and the snow under him had turned red. I took aim. Shot.
the vest in which Pushkin shot himself
“The bullet flying from the seated Pushkin to the tall Dantes, who was standing with his right side forward, along a trajectory from bottom to top, was supposed to hit the Frenchman in the area of the left lobe of the liver or the heart, but pierced his right hand, with which he covered his chest, causing a through bullet wound to the middle third of the right forearm, changed direction and, causing only a contusion of the upper part of the anterior abdominal wall, went into the air. Dantes’s wound, therefore, turned out to be not severe, without damage to bones and large blood vessels, and subsequently healed quickly...” What happened then?
Help for the poet and transportation.
According to Danzas’s recollections, at the site of the duel, blood flowed “like a river” from Pushkin’s wound; it soaked his clothes and stained the snow. He also noted the pallor of the face, hands, and “widened gaze” (dilated pupils). The wounded man regained consciousness on his own. The gravest mistake of the poet’s second was that he did not invite the doctor to the duel, did not take the means for bandaging and medicine, therefore, no one did first aid and at least a small bandage. Danzas justified this by the fact that “he was taken as a second several hours before the duel, time was running out, and he did not have the opportunity to think about first aid for Pushkin.”
Pushkin, while conscious, could not move independently due to shock and massive blood loss. There was no stretcher or shield. “The patient with a damaged pelvis was lifted from the ground and first “dragged” to the sleigh, then they were laid on an overcoat and carried. However, this turned out to be impossible. Together with the cab drivers, the seconds dismantled the fence made of thin poles and brought up the sleigh. All the way from the place of the duel to the sleigh there was a bloody trail in the snow. The wounded poet was put in a sleigh and driven along a shaking, bumpy road.” What did you achieve in this way? That's right, worsening shock.
The volume of blood loss, according to the calculations of doctor Sh.I. Uderman, amounted to about 2000 ml, or 40% of the total volume of blood circulating in the body. Nowadays, gradual blood loss of 40% of the volume is not considered fatal, but then... All means for restoring lost blood masses have not yet been developed.
It is impossible to imagine the degree of anemia in Pushkin, who did not receive a single milliliter of blood. Undoubtedly, blood loss sharply reduced the adaptation mechanisms of the poor organism and accelerated the death outcome from the septic complications of the gunshot wound that later developed.
At home…
“Already in the dark, at 18 o’clock, the mortally wounded poet was brought home. This was another mistake by Danzas. The wounded man had to be hospitalized. Perhaps, on the way, the poet really expressed a desire to be taken home. But he, periodically being in an unconscious state, in deep faints, for some time having difficulty getting out of them, was still not capable of a clear assessment of what was happening. That Pushkin was hopeless and they did not operate on him cannot serve as an excuse for the second, because Danzas could not have known this on the way. Observing severe bleeding, frequent fainting and the serious condition of the wounded man, Danzas didn’t even have to ask Pushkin where to take him, but make the right decision himself and insist on it!” - says Davydov.
Finding a surgeon in evening St. Petersburg is not an easy task. However, Fate itself intervened - Danzas met Professor Scholz on the street. Yes, he was not a surgeon, but an obstetrician, but it was still better than nothing. He agreed to examine Alexander Sergeevich and soon arrived with surgeon K.K. Zadler, who by that time had already managed to help Dantes! (such a vicissitude: he was slightly wounded, but help “came” earlier).
“Professor of Obstetrics Scholz, after examining the wound and dressing it, had a private conversation with the wounded man. Alexander Sergeevich asked: “Tell me frankly, how did you find the wound?”, to which Scholz replied: “I cannot hide to you that your wound is dangerous.” To Pushkin’s next question whether the wound was fatal, Scholz answered directly: “I consider it your duty not to hide this, but we will hear the opinions of Arendt and Salomon, for whom we have been sent.” Pushkin said: “Thank you for telling me the truth as an honest man... Now I’ll take care of my affairs.”
Finally (less than a few hours had passed), the seriously wounded poet was deigned to be visited by the urgently invited life physician N.F. Arendt and the Pushkin family’s home doctor I.T. Spassky.
Then many doctors took part in the treatment of the wounded Pushkin (H.H. Salomon, I.V. Buyalsky, E.I. Andreevsky, V.I. Dal), but behind the scenes it was Arendt, as the most authoritative among them, who supervised the treatment. Everyone listened to his opinion.
Some researchers believe that the actions of Arendt and Scholz, who told Pushkin about the incurability of his illness, contradicted medical ethics, because they contradicted the principle developed over centuries according to one of the rules of Hippocrates. It reads: “Surround the sick person with love and reasonable consolation; but most importantly, leave him in the dark about what awaits him, and especially about what threatens him.” It must be said that there are still disagreements between doctors in matters of deontology, but the patient still has the right to know about his diagnosis, no matter how disappointing it may be.
“Arendt chose a conservative tactic for treating the wounded, which was approved by other famous surgeons, H.H. Salomon, I.V. Buyalsky and all the doctors, without exception, who took part in the treatment. No one offered to operate, no one tried to pick up a knife themselves. For the level of development of medicine at that time, this was a completely natural solution. Unfortunately, in the 30s of the 19th century, those wounded in the stomach were not operated on. After all, science did not yet know asepsis and antiseptics, anesthesia, X-rays, antibiotics and much more. Even much later, in 1865, N.I. Pirogov in “The Beginnings of General Military Field Surgery” did not recommend opening the abdominal cavity to those wounded in the abdomen in order to avoid the development of inflammation of the peritoneum (peritonitis) and death.”
Wilhelm Adolfovich Shaak in the article “Wound of A.S. Pushkin in modern surgical coverage” from the Bulletin of Surgery in 1937 accuses doctors of giving the patient an enema, giving a laxative and prescribing oppositely acting drugs (calomel and opium). However, in the surgical manual of Professor Helius, published in 1839, measures such as poultices, castor oil, calomel, enema were recommended for the treatment of wounded in the abdomen, that is, in the 30s of the 19th century, these remedies were generally accepted for the treatment of such diseases.
From the chronicles:
“At 19:00 on January 27, the wounded man’s condition was serious. He was agitated, complained of thirst (a sign of ongoing bleeding) and asked for a drink, and was tormented by nausea. The pain in the wound was moderate. Objectively noted: the face is covered with cold sweat, the skin is pale, the pulse is frequent, weak, and the extremities are cold. The bandage that had just been applied was quite intensively soaked in blood and was changed several times.
On the first evening after the wound and on the night of January 28, all treatment consisted of cold drinks and applying ice packs to the stomach. Doctors tried to reduce bleeding with these simplest means. The patient's condition remained serious. Consciousness was mostly clear, but short-term periods of “forgetfulness” and unconsciousness arose. He drank cold water willingly. Complaints of thirst, nausea, gradually increasing abdominal pain. The skin remained pale, but the pulse became slower than in the first hours after the injury. Gradually the bandage stopped getting wet with blood. At the beginning of the night they became convinced that the bleeding had stopped. The tension between doctors and caregivers eased somewhat.
“At 5 o’clock in the morning on January 28, the pain in the abdomen intensified so much that it was no longer bearable. They sent for Arendt, who arrived very quickly and, upon examining the patient, found obvious signs of peritonitis. Arendt prescribed, as was customary at that time, a “lavage” to “ease and empty the intestines.” But the doctors did not assume that the wounded man had gunshot fractures of the iliac and sacral bones. Turning on the side to perform the enema caused, quite naturally, some displacement of the bone fragments, and the liquid introduced through the tube filled and expanded the rectum, increasing pressure in the pelvis and irritating damaged and inflamed tissue. After the enema, the condition worsened, the intensity of the pain increased “to the highest degree.” The face changed, the gaze became “wild”, the eyes were ready to jump out of their sockets, the body was covered in cold sweat. Pushkin could hardly restrain himself from screaming and only let out moans. He was so irritated that after the enema he refused any treatment offered for the entire morning.”
“On the afternoon of January 28, the wounded man’s condition remained serious. Abdominal pain and bloating persisted. After taking henbane extract and calomel (mercury laxative), there was no relief. Finally, at about 12 o’clock, as prescribed by Arendt, they gave opium drops as an anesthetic, after which Alexander Sergeevich immediately felt better. The intensity of the pain decreased significantly - and this was the main thing in improving the condition of the hopeless patient. The wounded man became more active and cheerful. Hands warmed up. The pulse remained frequent and weakly filled. After some time, the gases passed and spontaneous free urination was noted.”
“By 18:00 on January 28, a new deterioration in the condition was noted. A fever appeared. The pulse reached 120 beats per minute, was full and hard (tense). The abdominal pain became “more noticeable.” My stomach is bloated again. To combat the developed “inflammation” (peritonitis), Dahl and Spassky (with the consent and approval of Arendt) placed 25 leeches on the stomach. Pushkin helped the doctors, caught and administered leeches with his own hand. After using leeches, the fever decreased.”
From the use of leeches, the patient lost, according to Uderman's calculations, about another 0.5 liters of blood and, thus, the total blood loss from the moment of injury reached 2.5 liters (50% of the total volume of blood circulating in the body). There is no doubt that by the time leeches were prescribed, severe anemia had already occurred. The improvement turned out to be fleeting, and soon Alexander Sergeevich became even worse.
From the description of the poet’s friends, “the face has changed, its features have sharpened (“the face of Hippocrates,” typical of inflammation of the abdominal cavity). A painful grin of teeth appeared, lips twitched convulsively even during short-term oblivion. There were signs of respiratory and cardiovascular failure. Breathing became frequent, jerky, there was not enough air (shortness of breath). The pulse was barely noticeable."
Despite the severity of the condition, there was no doubt about it, the treatment tactics remained unchanged. The patient was still given cherry laurel water, calomel and opium.
Last hours
“On the morning of January 29, the condition became critical, pre-agonal. “General exhaustion took over.” Doctor Spassky, who came to the apartment early in the morning, was amazed at the sharp deterioration in the patient’s condition and noted that “Pushkin was melting away.” A council of doctors consisting of Arendt, Spassky, Andreevsky and Dahl unanimously agreed that the agony would soon begin. Arendt stated that Pushkin would live no more than two hours. ... The patient’s pulse dropped from hour to hour and became barely noticeable. The hands were completely cold. Frequent, jerky breathing movements were interrupted by pauses (Cheyne-Stokes breathing).”
At 14:45 on January 29, 1837 (February 10, new style), having breathed his last, Pushkin died. Doctor Efim Ivanovich Andreevsky closed the eyes of the deceased.
So what kind of wound did Pushkin have? Read about the autopsy data and anatomy of the wound canal in the article.
You can follow our blog updates in our public pages at
Why do you dream of a price tag in a dream - interpretation of dreams Dream interpretation of a price tag on clothes
Decoding a dream about a ruler Why do you dream about a ruler?
Dream interpretation of kicking a man out of an apartment
The uprising of Stepan Razin
Brief biography of Gotthold Lesing
Test Vegetative organs of plants
Assessment of management competencies Online test to identify managerial abilities