One of the main issues in the work of A. S. Pushkin was the question of the relationship between the individual and the state, as well as the ensuing problem " little man". It is known that it was Pushkin who seriously developed this problem, which was later "picked up" by both N.V. Gogol and F.M. Dostoevsky.
Pushkin's poem Bronze Horseman”reveals the eternal conflict - the contradiction between the interests of the individual and the state. Pushkin believed that this conflict was inevitable, at least in Russia. It is impossible to govern the state and take into account the interests of every "little man". Moreover, Russia is a semi-Asian country, where despotism and tyranny reigned since ancient times, which was taken for granted by both the people and the rulers.
The poem has a subtitle - Petersburg story”, followed by a preface emphasizing the reality of everything described: “The incident described in this story is based on truth. The details of the flood are borrowed from contemporary magazines. The curious can cope with the news compiled by V. N. Berkh.
In the introduction to the poem, a majestic image of Peter I is created, who glorified his name with many deeds. Without a doubt, Pushkin pays tribute to the power and talent of Peter. This tsar in many ways "made" Russia and contributed to its prosperity. On the poor and wild banks of a small river, Peter built grandiose city one of the most beautiful in the world. Petersburg has become a symbol of a new, enlightened and strong power:
Now there, along the busy banks of the Hulk, slender crowds of Palaces and towers; ships Crowds from all over the world strive for rich marinas ... The poet loves St. Petersburg with all his heart. For him, this is the homeland, the capital, the personification of the country. He wishes this city eternal prosperity. But the following words are important and interesting lyrical hero: “May the conquered element make peace with you…”
The main part of the poem tells about life, contemporary Pushkin. Petersburg is still as beautiful as it was under Peter. But the poet also sees another image of the capital. This city marks a sharp boundary between " the mighty of the world this" and ordinary residents. Petersburg is a city of contrasts, where “little people” live and suffer.
The hero of the poem, Eugene, is a simple resident of the capital, one of many. His life is told in the first part of the work. Yevgeny's life is filled with pressing everyday worries: how to feed himself, where to get money. The hero wonders why one is given everything, and the other nothing. After all, these "others" do not shine at all with either intelligence or diligence, but for them "life is much easier." Here the theme of the “little man”, his insignificant position in society, begins to develop. He is forced to endure injustice and blows of fate only because he was born "small".
Among other things, we learn that Eugene has plans for the future. He is going to marry just like him, a simple girl Parasha. Beloved Evgenia with her mother lives on the banks of the Neva in little house. The hero dreams of starting a family, having children, he dreams that in old age his grandchildren will take care of them. But Eugene's dreams were not destined to come true. A terrible flood interfered with his plans. It destroyed almost the entire city, but it also destroyed the life of the hero, killed and destroyed his soul. The rising waters of the Neva destroyed Parasha's house, killed the girl herself and her mother. What was left for poor Eugene? It is interesting that the whole poem is accompanied by the definition - "poor". This epithet speaks of the author's attitude to his hero - an ordinary resident, common man whom he wholeheartedly sympathizes with.
The second part of the poem depicts the aftermath of the flood. For Eugene they are scary. The hero loses everything: his beloved girl, shelter, hopes for happiness. The crazed Eugene considers the Bronze Horseman, the twin of Peter himself, to be the culprit of his tragedy. In his frustrated imagination, the Bronze Horseman is a “proud idol”, “by whose will the city was founded here”, who is “a bridle iron Russia reared up."
It was Peter, according to Eugene, who built this city on the banks of the river, in places that are regularly flooded. But the king did not think about it. He thought about the greatness of the whole country, about his greatness and power. Least of all, he was worried about the difficulties that ordinary residents of St. Petersburg might have. Only in delirium is a hero capable of protest. He threatens the monument: “You already!” But then it began to seem to the insane Yevgeny that the monument was pursuing him, running after him through the streets of the city. All the protest of the hero, his courage immediately disappeared. After that, he began to walk past the monument, not raising his eyes and embarrassedly crumpling his cap in his hands: he dared to rebel against the king! As a result, the hero dies. Of course, only in my head crazy hero such visions may have arisen. But in the poem they acquire deep meaning are filled with bitter philosophical reflections poet. The flood is likened here to any transformations and reforms. They are similar to the elements, because, like her, they do not take into account the interests of ordinary people. No wonder St. Petersburg was built on the bones of its builders. Pushkin is full of sympathy for "little" people. He shows reverse side reforms, transformations, thinks about the price of the country's greatness. Symbolic in the poem is the image of the king, who resigned himself to the elements, reassuring himself that "The kings cannot control the elements of God." The conclusions of the poet are sad. The conflict between the individual and the state is inevitable, insoluble, and its outcome has long been known.
The main conflict of the poem "The Bronze Horseman" is the conflict between the state and the individual. It manifests itself primarily in figurative system: opposition of Peter and Eugene.
The image of Peter is central in the poem. Pushkin gives in The Bronze Horseman his interpretation of personality and state activity Peter. The author depicts two faces of the emperor, in the introduction Peter is a man and a statesman:
On the shore of desert waves
He stood, full of great thoughts,
And looked into the distance.
He is guided by the idea of the good of the Fatherland, and not by arbitrariness. He understands historical pattern and appears as a decisive, active, wise ruler.
In the main part of the poem, Peter is a monument to the first Russian emperor, symbolizing autocratic power, ready to suppress any protest:
He is terrible in the surrounding darkness!
What a thought!
What power is hidden in it!
The conflict of history and personality is revealed through the depiction of fate ordinary person. Although researchers do not include Evgeny in the gallery of "little people", nevertheless, we find some typical features of such heroes in this image. Eugene is devoid of individuality. Peter I becomes for him that "significant person" that appears in the life of any "little man" to destroy his happiness.
The grandeur, the national scale of the image of Peter and the insignificance of the limited circle of Eugene's personal concerns are emphasized compositionally. Peter's monologue in the introduction (“And he thought: From now on we will threaten the Swede ...”) is opposed to Eugene's “thoughts” (“What was he thinking about? About / That he was poor ...”).
The conflict is supported stylistically. The introduction, the episodes associated with the "idol on a bronze horse", are sustained in the tradition of the ode - the most state genre. Where we are talking about Eugene, prose prevails.
Confrontation of man and power, personality and state - eternal problem, an unambiguous solution of which Pushkin considers impossible.
What is the conflict of the poem The Bronze Horseman (Option 2)
To explain the essence of the conflict in the poem, it is necessary to talk about its third main character, the elements. The strong-willed pressure of Peter, who created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. And this violence, having changed in a historical perspective, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements. You can even see the opposite opposition between the images of Peter and the elements. How immovable, although majestic, Peter, so unbridled, mobile elements. An element that, in the end, he himself gave birth to. Thus, Peter, as a generalized image, is opposed by the elements, and specifically by Eugene. It would seem, how can an insignificant inhabitant even be compared with the bulk of a copper giant? To explain this, it is necessary to see the development of the images of Eugene and Peter, which took place by the time of their direct collision. Having long ceased to be a man, Peter is now a copper statue. But his metamorphoses do not stop there. A beautiful, magnificent rider discovers the property of becoming something that most resembles watchdog. After all, it is in this capacity that he chases Eugene around the city. Eugene is also changing. From an indifferent philistine, he turns into a frightened philistine (the revelry of the elements!), And then desperate courage comes to him, allowing him to shout: "You already!" So two personalities meet in a conflict (for now Eugene is a personality), passing to him each own way. The first result of the conflict is Eugene's insanity. But is it insanity? Perhaps one can say that there are truths full value which the weak human mind cannot bear. Great Emperor, like a watchdog chasing the smallest of his subjects - a figure funny and terrible at the same time. Therefore, Eugene's laughter is understandable, but his mental illness: he came face to face with the state itself, with its copper, ruthless face. So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. The rebellion is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is great. Nothing can resist the elements of the flood. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by muddy waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. In a strong-willed, violent way, Peter established a city among the wild nature, which will now forever be subjected to attacks by the elements. And how do you know if Eugene, so vainly and casually ruined, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol? A state is impossible that endlessly suppresses its subjects in the name of its goals. They, the subjects, are more important and primary than the state itself. Figuratively speaking, Finnish waves will forget "enmity and their old captivity" when Evgeny, for happiness with his Parasha, will not need anyone's permission. Otherwise, the element of popular revolt, no less terrible than the element of a flood, will execute its judgment without distinguishing between the right and the wrong. This, in my opinion, is the essence of the conflict between the individual and the state. There are a number of common opinions as to what is the main idea of the poem "The Bronze Horseman". V. G. Belinsky, who claimed that the main idea The poem consists in the triumph of "the general over the particular", with the author's clear sympathy for the "suffering of this particular", obviously, he was right. A. S. Pushkin sings a hymn to the capital of the Russian state: I love you, Peter's creation, I love your strict, slender appearance, the Neva's sovereign current, Its coastal granite, Your fences are a cast-iron pattern ... "Magnificently, proudly" ascended "from the darkness of the forests and swamp blat "The city became the heart of a mighty state: Show off, city of Petrov, and stand unshakably, like Russia.
The conflict of the individual and the state in Pushkin's poem The Bronze Horseman
At all times, the relationship of the individual with the authorities worried people. Sophocles was one of the first to raise the topic of the conflict between the individual and the state in literature back in the 5th century BC. This conflict was inevitable, this problem remained relevant in the 19th century, during the time of Pushkin, and it is relevant to this day.
In the work of Pushkin, a special place is occupied by the poem "The Bronze Horseman". This feature lies in the fact that the present reader can see in it predictions that have come true in contemporary history. The conflict between the state and the individual takes place today. As before, the individual risks his freedom and life in it, and the state, its authority.
The poem begins with a wonderful picture of St. Petersburg, presented to the reader as "the midnight countries of beauty and wonder." Petersburg appears completely different in front of us in the poem "The Bronze Horseman", written by Pushkin in 1833. This is the capital of a strong European state, brilliant, rich, magnificent, but cold and hostile to the "little man". The view of the incredible city, which, by human will, has risen "on the banks of the Neva" is amazing. It seems that he is full of harmony and high, almost divine, meaning. Nevertheless, it was built by people who fulfilled the human will. This man, whose will millions are obedient, who embodied the idea of the state, is Peter. Undoubtedly, Pushkin refers to Peter as a great man. That is why, in the first lines of the poem, he appears as such. Having pressed the scarce nature, dressing the banks of the Neva in granite, creating a city that has not yet been, it is truly majestic. But here Peter is also a creator, and therefore a man. Peter stands on the bank of "great thoughts full." Thoughts, thoughts - another feature of his human appearance.
So, in the first part of the poem we see the dual image of Peter. On the one hand, he is the personification of the state, almost God, creating fabulous city on empty place, on the other - a man, a creator. But, once presented as such at the beginning of the poem, Peter will be completely different later on.
At the time when the action of the poem takes place, the human essence of Peter becomes the property of history. Remains copper peter- an idol, an object of worship, a symbol of sovereignty. The very material of the monument - copper - speaks volumes. This is the material of bells and coins. Religion and the church as the pillars of the state, finance, without which it is unthinkable, everything is combined in copper. Voiced, but dull and greenish metal, very suitable for the "state rider".
Unlike him, Eugene is a living person. He is the complete antithesis of Peter and everything else. Eugene did not build cities, he can be called an inhabitant. He "does not remember kinship", although his surname, as the author clarifies, is from the nobles. Eugene's plans are simple:
"Well, I'm young and healthy,
Ready to work day and night
I'll somehow arrange myself
Shelter humble and simple
And I will calm Parasha in it ... ".
To explain the essence of the conflict in the poem, it is necessary to talk about its third main character, the elements. The strong-willed pressure of Peter, who created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. And this violence, having changed in a historical perspective, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements. You can even see the opposite opposition between the images of Peter and the elements. How immovable, although majestic, Peter, so unbridled, mobile elements. An element that, in the end, he himself gave birth to. Thus, Peter, as a generalized image, is opposed by the elements, and specifically by Eugene. It would seem, how can an insignificant inhabitant even be compared with the bulk of a copper giant?
To explain this, it is necessary to see the development of the images of Eugene and Peter, which took place by the time of their direct collision. Having long ceased to be a man, Peter is now a copper statue. But his metamorphoses do not stop there. A beautiful, magnificent rider discovers the ability to become something that most resembles a watchdog. After all, it is in this capacity that he chases Eugene around the city. Eugene is also changing. From an indifferent philistine, he turns into a frightened philistine (the revelry of the elements!), And then desperate courage comes to him, allowing him to shout: "Already you!" So two personalities meet in conflict (for now Eugene is a personality), each having gone his own way to him.
The first result of the conflict is Eugene's insanity. But is it insanity? Perhaps it can be said that there are truths, the full meaning of which cannot be sustained by the weak human mind. The great emperor, like a watchdog chasing the smallest of his subjects, is a funny and terrible figure at the same time. Therefore, Eugene's laughter is understandable, but his mental illness is also understandable: he came face to face with the state itself, with its copper, ruthless face.
So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. The rebellion is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is great. Nothing can resist the elements of the flood. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by muddy waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. In a strong-willed, violent way, Peter established a city among the wild nature, which will now forever be subjected to attacks by the elements. And how do you know if Eugene, so vainly and casually ruined, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol?
A state is impossible that endlessly suppresses its subjects in the name of its goals. They, the subjects, are more important and primary than the state itself. Figuratively speaking, Finnish waves will forget "enmity and their old captivity" when Evgeny, for happiness with his Parasha, will not need anyone's permission. Otherwise, the element of popular revolt, no less terrible than the element of a flood, will execute its judgment without distinguishing between the right and the wrong. This, in my opinion, is the essence of the conflict between the individual and the state.
There are a number of common opinions as to what is the main idea of the poem "The Bronze Horseman". V. G. Belinsky, who argued that the main idea of the poem lies in the triumph of "the general over the particular", with the author's clear sympathy for "the suffering of this particular", was obviously right. A.S. Pushkin sings the hymn to the capital of the Russian state:
I love you, Peter's creation,
I love your strict, slender look,
Neva sovereign current,
Its coastal granite,
Your fences have a cast-iron pattern ...
"Magnificently, proudly" the city ascended "from the darkness of forests and swamps of blat" and became the heart of a mighty state:
Show off, city of Petrov, and stop
Unshakable, like Russia.
Conflict between the individual and the state. Russia, I think, is the only state whose history knows the existence of two capitals at once - Moscow and St. Petersburg. Officially, the title of the capital wore, of course, in different time only one city, but in terms of its power, significance for the state, the second could rightly be called this honorary name. In this they are twins, but there is also a significant difference: Moscow is an old city, it grew out of ancient Slavic settlements, and the first mention of it (that is, the appearance in the annals, which does not mean its birth at that time - it happened much earlier ) are attributed to 1147. Petersburg is the creation of the hands of Peter I, it was erected by the will of the emperor, it cannot be called spontaneously appeared, Petersburg is a “synthetic” city. Further, its name is not of Russian origin and sounds unusual for Russian hearing, unlike Moscow, whose name is somehow associated with Ancient Russia. Petersburg was erected on a geographically inconvenient and even dangerous place for the population (the city was often subjected to natural disasters - floods); however, on a national scale, its location was much more advantageous: the proximity of neighboring developed countries, the coast of the Gulf of Finland, the opportunity to “cut a window into Europe” - all this contributed to the strengthening of Russia on international arena. Nevertheless, for many Russian people, Petersburg remained a “non-Russian”, cold city, the personification of evil, the brainchild of Satan (which, accordingly, was Peter I). Any human tragedy within its limits could be presented as a victim to this merciless monster - Petersburg.
Among the Russian classics, the city became somewhat akin to a living being that can manage human lives. Products with thus are also present in writers of the 19th V. - Gogol, Dostoevsky, and even among the symbolists belonging to the 20th century - Merezhkovsky, A. Bely. The image of "living" Petersburg is also eaten by Pushkin - in the poem "The Bronze Horseman". In general, this image is ambiguous here: it is both a symbol of the entire era of Peter I, and just a city suffering a flood, and a huge monument to its founder, and the personification of the entire state.
On November 7, 1824, a flood occurred in St. Petersburg. Many residents died. Main character of the poem, Eugene mentally connected the raging elements that brought him misfortune with the city itself, where it happened, and the city with its founder Peter I. Thus, drawing a parallel, he laid all the blame on the emperor. The flood turned out to be a tragedy for him: although he himself escaped a sad fate, his bride Parasha did not escape. The house where she lived was washed away, as if it had never existed at all. Eugene goes crazy from despair.
These are the main events of the poem, which not by chance has the subtitle "Petersburg Tale". Having carefully read the work, we see Eugene in two roles. Firstly, he is a specific hero, with his own experiences and biography, to which Pushkin does not pay much attention, but still one fact related to his family history takes place: Pushkin hints that Evgeny may belong to the previously famous , but to an impoverished family:
We don't need his name.
Although in the past
It may have shone.
And under the pen of Karamzin
In native legends it sounded;
But now with light and rumor
It is forgotten.
Only this fact distinguishes him from the general mass of the population of St. Petersburg. In general, Eugene is every resident of the city, his life is like two drops of water similar to the life of the rest. That is why we only know about him that he “serves somewhere”, is poor, but full of strength and desire to work, dreams of marrying Parasha and living a long, quiet life:
It will pass, be mozhs, one or the other -
I'll get a place - Parashe
I will entrust our economy
And raising kids...
And we will live, and so on to the grave
Hand in hand we will both reach,
And our grandchildren will bury us...
The dream is the most ordinary. Therefore, Eugene, with all his independent features and biographical facts, should be attributed to the class of so-called "small" people.
Nevertheless, he is a separate representative of this group of people, and it is in this capacity that he is violently opposed to the elements - the Neva that overflowed its banks. This river in Pushkin is to some extent correlated with the state: it also disposes of human lives.
Basically, Pushkin’s image of Petersburg is built on contrast: at the beginning of the poem, “the city of Petrov” is seen as a “window to Europe”, a formidable personification of the power of the state, its “strict, slender appearance” inspires awe; during a flood, the northern capital is no less formidable, but already helpless: the Neva, part of itself, tears the city apart from the inside, breaking out of its granite shackles. Petersburg, at the beginning of the work creating the impression of a somewhat mythical and even mysterious city, subsequently reveals its essence, the river raises all the dirt from its bottom, carries through the streets of the "coffin from the blurred cemetery." After the flood, the "sovereign" city reveals another side of itself - indifference, coldness towards the inhabitants. In the image of Petersburg appear both "evil children" throwing stones at the insane Yevgeny, and coachmen whipping him with whips.
The state has great power, and its symbol is the statue of Peter I. On horseback, the Bronze Horseman climbs a stone block and stretches out his hand, protecting the city and at the same time asserting his power and authority. Against the backdrop of such power, people seem to be puppets. Indeed, Pushkin presents Petersburg in such a way that it becomes clear to the reader that in this city a person is not an independent person, but only a puppet controlled “from above” (by the city). And in such a situation, only the insane Eugene has the courage to “threaten” the mighty ruler, even if he turns to the Bronze Horseman. Although he is out of his mind, for him the statue is alive, therefore, in this situation, the dissatisfaction expressed by the monument is tantamount to an accusation thrown in the face of the emperor.
“Good, miraculous builder! -
He whispered, trembling angrily,
Already you!.. "
But the power of the state's influence on the minds is great, and even insane Yevgeny imagines that the Bronze Horseman breaks off his pedestal and rushes after him in order to punish his insolence.
Such a conflict cannot end with a determination of which of them is Eugene (one of characteristic representatives"small" people" or the Bronze Horseman (represented by government) - will be the winner, and who will be the loser. In principle, there is no answer to such a question, as Pushkin shows: the pursuit ends in nothing, it is meaningless and fruitless. By this, the poet wanted to say that the confrontation between man and power will never stop; he repeatedly developed this theme in other works. His point of view is as follows: the conflict will exist, each side is sure that they are right, but at the same time both of them are wrong in their own way, pursuing only their own benefit. Man and power are interconnected, and this connection is sometimes tragic. The legendary “He”, mentioned in the Preface, is the personification of the state and cares only about state interests, about the fate of Russia; Undoubtedly, this is important, but it is, as it were, a bird's-eye view that does not provide for the simple, worldly interests of all people and each one individually. At first glance, the state stronger than a man, his authority is unshakable (after his “threat”, Eugene, passing by the monument, shrinks from fear each time), but on the example of Peter 1, who failed to tie people with an “iron bridle” (or rather, his statues), it is clearly seen how a person , by the power of his heart, memory, causes a terrible, but impotent wrath of the "idol".
To explain the essence of the conflict in the poem, it is necessary to talk about its third main character, the elements. The strong-willed pressure of Peter, who created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. And this violence, having changed in a historical perspective, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements. You can even see the opposite opposition between the images of Peter and the elements. How immovable, although majestic, Peter, so unbridled, mobile elements. An element that, in the end, he himself gave birth to. Thus, Peter, as a generalized image, is opposed by the elements, and specifically by Eugene. It would seem, how can an insignificant inhabitant even be compared with the bulk of a copper giant? To explain this, it is necessary to see the development of the images of Eugene and Peter, which took place by the time of their direct collision. Having long ceased to be a man, Peter is now a copper statue. But his metamorphoses do not stop there. A beautiful, magnificent rider discovers the ability to become something that most resembles a watchdog. After all, it is in this capacity that he chases Eugene around the city. Eugene is also changing. From an indifferent philistine, he turns into a frightened philistine (the revelry of the elements!), And then desperate courage comes to him, allowing him to shout: "You already!" So two personalities meet in a conflict (for now Eugene is a personality), passing to him each own way. The first result of the conflict is Eugene's insanity. But is it insanity? Perhaps it can be said that there are truths, the full meaning of which cannot be sustained by the weak human mind. The great emperor, like a watchdog chasing the smallest of his subjects, is a funny and terrible figure at the same time. Therefore, Eugene's laughter is understandable, but his mental illness is also understandable: he came face to face with the state itself, with its copper, ruthless face. So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. The rebellion is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is great. Nothing can resist the elements of the flood. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by muddy waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. In a strong-willed, violent way, Peter established a city among the wild nature, which will now forever be subjected to attacks by the elements. And how do you know if Eugene, so vainly and casually ruined, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol? A state is impossible that endlessly suppresses its subjects in the name of its goals. They, the subjects, are more important and primary than the state itself. Figuratively speaking, Finnish waves will forget "enmity and their old captivity" when Evgeny, for happiness with his Parasha, will not need anyone's permission. Otherwise, the element of popular revolt, no less terrible than the element of a flood, will execute its judgment without distinguishing between the right and the wrong. This, in my opinion, is the essence of the conflict between the individual and the state. There are a number of common opinions as to what is the main idea of the poem "The Bronze Horseman". V. G. Belinsky, who argued that the main idea of the poem lies in the triumph of "the general over the particular", with the author's clear sympathy for "the suffering of this particular", was obviously right. A. S. Pushkin sings a hymn to the capital of the Russian state: I love you, Peter's creation, I love your strict, slender appearance, the Neva's sovereign current, Its coastal granite, Your fences are a cast-iron pattern ... "Magnificently, proudly" ascended "from the darkness of the forests and swamp blat "The city became the heart of a mighty state: Show off, city of Petrov, and stand unshakably, like Russia.
IN domestic literary criticism a tradition has developed for the perception of A. S. Pushkin's poem "The Bronze Horseman" in the context of the ideologeme "personality ↔ state". This conflict is indeed outlined in the poem. Another thing: how is it implemented and what lies at its basis?
The structuring of the text, its fragmentation into "Foreword", "Introduction", "Part One", "Part Two" and "Notes" seems unexpected. As for the "Preface", it, at first glance, seems redundant, because it does not add anything significant to the text, it only points to a certain source: "The incident described in this story is based on the truth. The details of the flood are borrowed from contemporary magazines. The curious can cope with the news compiled by V. N. Berkh. But it is precisely the fact that the preface does not contain important information, and draws attention to itself, that makes one think about its “masking” character.
Unlike the "Preface", the style and tone of the "Introduction" reveal the presence in it of the voice of the author-narrator and do not allow the thought of hoax or falsehood: the poet unambiguously glorified Peter and Russia in the person and deeds of the great "ruler of half the world". But Pushkin gives two notes to the introduction, which still seem redundant and unimportant. The first refers to F. Algarotti, an authoritative connoisseur of art, who in 1738-1739. made a trip to Russia and who “said somewhere”:
"Petersburg is a window through which Russia looks to Europe" (French). This note is, if not mandatory, then informative and points to the source of the poetic metaphor implemented by Pushkin in the poem. But the second note “See the verses of the book. Vyazemsky to Countess Z***” forces one to think more seriously about its meaning. It seems that Pushkin refers to P.A. Vyazemsky "Conversation April 7, 1832 (to Countess E.M. Zavadovskaya)". However, for comparison, another poem by Vyazemsky, “Petersburg”, would be more suitable, with its solemn pathos: “I see the city of Petrov, wonderful, majestic ...”. Against its solemn background, the message to Countess Zavadovskaya looks "accidental", for it is a playful conversation about the charms of the interlocutor, where love for Petersburg is explained almost exclusively by the fact that Z *** was born and reigns in it. But Pushkin's appeal to this particular poem was not accidental. It was important for Pushkin to point out the game, because the opening line of Vyazemsky's poem "No, no, don't believe me ..." allowed him to give a hint, point to a certain hidden meaning to be guessed in the poem.
Finally, in relation to the "Introduction" attention deserves the last stanza "It was a terrible time ...", on which Pushkin worked hard and for a long time. As a result, the appeal “my friends” that appeared leaves no doubt that this is an autoquote. The words about friends with all certainty correspond with the famous “My friends, our union is beautiful ...” and allow us to talk about the dedication of the poem to friends. The dates of work on the text, October 6–30, leave no doubt about that. And then the appearance in the "Preface" of the name of V.N. Berkha, in fact - named after F.V. Bulgarin, on the basis of whose materials he worked, becomes understandable: Faddey Bulgarin for the time being professed liberal views and was friendly with A.S. Griboyedov, K.F. Ryleev, A.A. and N.A. Bestuzhev, V.K. Kuchelbeker and others. After the defeat of the uprising, he hid Ryleev's archive, thereby helping Griboyedov and other persons under investigation during the investigation. In this context, the late insertion of “details of the flood” into the preface reveals the author's task to hide a direct reference to the events of December 14, 1825, to divert attention from the seditious association. The choice of poems and the name of Vyazemsky in this context is also motivated: to the dedicated reader, he suggested an allusion not to "Conversation ..." and not even to "Petersburg", but to "The Sea", written by Vyazemsky in the summer of 1826, immediately after the news of the execution of five Decembrists . According to Pushkin, the name of Vyazemsky was supposed to turn the "smart" reader to famous poem, in which the poet embodied the image of the uprising and its participants in symbolically sea waves. It becomes clear that the task of including the "Preface" and "Notes" in the poem was to disavow those important signs-signals that made it possible to explicate the deep (hidden) layer of the text.
Usually the problem of "personality and the state" is solved in the poem through the system of relationships between Peter and Eugene. However, as the text shows, the battle-battle for the city unfolds through another pair of heroes - Peter and the elements, Peter and the waves. Eugene is only her casual witness. The picture of the flood takes on the features of a metaphorical rebellion: nature, the sea, the river rebelled, the rise of water is defined as a “siege” and “attack”, the city is threatened by “evil waves”. And then Peter, who once conquered the wild shores from nature, again enters the battle, pointing with his outstretched hand at the rebellious enemy-element in an attempt to protect his city. In the course of the narrative, Pushkin combines the real and the symbolic, the natural and the social. If at the beginning of the first part the narrator spoke about the November season (“November breathed autumn cold ...”, i.e. the chronotope of the poem was marked with the date of the flood on November 7), then to the line “And the pale day is already coming ...” Pushkin gives a note: “Mickiewicz He described the day preceding the St. Petersburg flood with beautiful verses in one of his best poems - Oleszkiewicz. Too bad the description is not accurate. There was no snow - the Neva was not covered with ice ", where it associatively hints at another "terrible day", December, with snow on the pavements and ice on the river. And now the chronotope of the poem takes on a different date - December 14th. The battle unfolds, as it were, in two layers, in two time coordinates. Names sounding after "transfer" in "Note" tsarist generals- Miloradovich and Benkendorf - with all the random non-randomness, they localize the events of the poem within the (rebellion on) Senate Square. Miloradovich - as a victim of the tragic shot of Kakhovsky, Benkendorf - as one of the most active participants in the investigation into the case of the Decembrists.
In the first part of the story, Evgeny's line acquires its own plot. Like Peter, sitting on a formidable rearing horse, the poor hero "above the elevated porch" also saddled a marble lion. It seems that Yevgeny's similarity to an idol is ironically reduced, but ironically, but ideologically significant, it is doubled by comparison with the guessed Napoleon, the object of worship for more than one generation. The comparison with Napoleon is not only ironic, but also attributes the involvement of poor Eugene to a special type of people whose "forbidden" names are invisibly scattered throughout the text of The Bronze Horseman, among which the author himself turns out to be. Those. Pushkin's image of Eugene becomes a "two-faced", two-part bearer of two essences. Conventionally, one Eugene is the hero of the plot line of the poem (its real component), the other Eugene is the hero storyline, actually from literary. If one face embodies the image of a dreamy and naive lover who is losing his mind, then the other represents “doom high aspiration”. In other words, before the sovereign Peter is no longer a sick madman, but another "madman". More precisely, both, but their “rebellion” and the threat “You already! ..” take on a radically opposite meaning. If at the level of one plot (visible, superficial) the cause of the rebellion is the death of Parasha, the pain from the loss of a beloved, then at the level of the second - hidden, secret plot- a challenge to autocracy. And if in the first case the “evil whisper” sounds from the lips of a madman and his reproach to Peter is understandable, but absurdly groundless (Peter fought against the elements of the flood, saved the city, but he could not save Parasha; Parasha is an accidental victim), then in the second row the challenge is thrown by the “noble madman”, pierced by the “noise of inner anxiety”. Last words- again an autoquote: that “ monotonous life noise", which was present in Pushkin's poem "A gift in vain, an accidental gift ...", where the hero was looking for "a goal ... in front of him." Those. The image of Eugene in the poem is an image-mask, an image-cryptonym, in which two entities have merged: a poor (essentially random) crazy and a tall (disturbing author) madman. That. so-called " little hero”, “little man” Eugene - in violation of the tradition that has developed in literary criticism - as it turns out, he has nothing to do with the rebellion against Peter and the autocracy. This is his “ghost”, his double, the real prototype-prototype, enters into an ideological conflict with the autocrat. The nature of Eugene's "rebellion-indignation" (each of the Eugenes) turns out to be profoundly different.
The traditionally accepted conflict of the poem “personality ↔ state”, “”little man” ↔ autocrat” crumbles just as the idea of the contradictory image of Peter turns out to be irrelevant. Almost the only indication of the possibility of Pushkin's contradictory attitude to the personality of Peter can be considered the last note that the commentator gives to the stanza “Where are you jumping, proud horse”, where he refers to Mickiewicz: “See the description of the monument in Mickiewicz. It is borrowed from Ruban - as Mickiewicz himself notes. It was the comparison with Mickiewicz that gave rise to the idea that Pushkin, following the Polish poet, could give a harsh assessment of Peter in The Bronze Horseman. However, by the time the poem was being written, Pushkin had already distanced himself from his poet friend, whom he had previously "eagerly listened to." In 1833, Pushkin had already created a poem "He lived between us", in which he spoke about the "poison" of Mickiewicz's poems addressed to Peter and Petersburg, "To Russian friends." That is why the references to Mickiewicz in the notes should be read not as consonant, but as contrapuntal, as Pushkin directly says:
"It's only a pity that his description is not accurate. Our description is more accurate ...". In the second reference to Mickiewicz (note 5), the "commentator" again deliberately moves away from the point of view of the Polish poet and refuses the authorship of the words about the monument to Peter, entrusted by Mickiewicz to a poet friend (i.e. Pushkin). The flattering characterization of Mickiewicz does not prevent Pushkin from deliberately redirecting the words about the monument to another person: "It is borrowed from Ruban." At the same time, it is symptomatic that the words attributed by Mickiewicz to Pushkin really did not belong to him (but not to Ruban either). In a letter from Vyazemsky to P.I. Bartenev dated March 6, 1872 contains information that Vyazemsky himself uttered these words. Pushkin, as a participant in the conversation mentioned, could not have been unaware of this; nevertheless, he refers to V.G. Ruban, a poet who is alien to him both in his views and in his manner of writing. Thus, Pushkin once again reveals his disagreement with Mickiewicz in the interpretation of the monument (and deeds) of Peter, which he began already in the "Introduction".
Summing up, it is necessary to make a judgment that the previously stable tradition of isolating the conflict “person and state” and its subsequent implementation through the figurative pair “Eugene - Peter” should be corrected (especially within the framework of school curriculum). The problem of the “little man” must give way to the subtextual line of the incarnation of a different literary type, the so-called. " extra person”(although the range of problems associated with this type of hero is not updated by Pushkin in the poem). Just as it should also renounce the assertion that the image of Peter was created by Pushkin in the poem as a contradictory image, as an image of a tyrant creator. The relevance of such interpretations is pushed aside in The Bronze Horseman by another target: the creation of a monument of glory and tragedy.
Bibliography
1. Vyazemsky P. A. Poems. BP. BS. 3rd ed. M.: Soviet writer, LO, 1986. 544 p.
2. Pushkin A.S. Sobr. cit.: in 10 volumes / under the total. ed. D. D. Blagogo, S. M. Bondi and others. M.: Khudozhestvennaya Litra, 1960. Vol. II. Poems 1823–1836. 799 p. T. III. Poems. Fairy tales. 542 p.
