The monument to Peter received the nickname “Bronze Horseman” thanks to Pushkin’s poem of the same name about St. Petersburg, which tells about terrible flood 1824. The founder of the city, Peter I, observes the events that take place in his domain.
Thanks to Pushkin’s poems, the legend is widely known that the Bronze Horseman travels around the city at night and returns to his place in the morning. Although this legend appeared earlier in urban folklore.
Pushkin sent the poem to Emperor Nicholas I for censorship, but the tsar was busy with state affairs and sent the poem to Benckendorff’s office for review without reading it. The poet's ill-wishers tried to prevent The Bronze Horseman from being published. So notes the researcher and writer of the Silver Age V.Ya. Bryusov, whom his contemporaries called a “walking encyclopedia.”
Pushkin wrote to friends:
“The Bronze Horseman was not allowed through the censorship. This is a loss to me."
“The Bronze Horseman is not missed - losses and troubles.”
“You ask about the Bronze Horseman, about Pugachev and about Peter. The first one will not be printed."
The poem was published only in 1837, the year of Pushkin’s death.
Pushkin's poem reflects the meeting of a simple city dweller Eugene with the Bronze Horseman. A townsman was distraught with grief; his bride died in a flood. Passing by the monument, a townsman blames Peter for his grief. Then he is overtaken by a vision that the Bronze Horseman is chasing him.
And its area is empty
He runs and hears behind him -
It's like thunder roaring -
Heavy ringing galloping
Along the shaken pavement.
And, illuminated by the pale moon,
Stretching out your hand on high,
The Bronze Horseman rushes after him
On a loud galloping horse;
And all night long the poor madman,
Wherever you turn your feet,
Behind him is the Bronze Horseman everywhere
He galloped with a heavy stomp.
Legends that the ghost of Peter wanders around the city appeared long before Pushkin. One day, the future Emperor Paul I was walking around St. Petersburg at dusk, accompanied by Prince Kurakin. A mysterious stranger approached him and said, “Paul! Poor Pavel! I am the one who takes part in you.” Then he added, “You’ll see me here again.” The stranger raised his hat, and Pavel saw Peter’s face. Prince Kurakin did not see the ghost and was surprised by Pavel’s sudden fear and inexplicable excitement.
The ghost’s words came true; at this place, Catherine II, Paul’s mother, ordered the installation of the Bronze Horseman.
It was said that the ghost of Peter visited Paul in his Mikhailovsky Castle on the eve of his death.
Flood in St. Petersburg
Pushkin vividly described the tragedy of the flood.
But the strength of the winds from the bay
Blocked Neva
She walked back, angry, seething,
And flooded the islands
The weather became even more ferocious,
The Neva swelled and roared,
A cauldron bubbling and swirling,
And suddenly, like a wild beast,
She rushed towards the city. In front of her
Everything ran, everything around
Suddenly it was empty - suddenly there was water
Flowed into underground cellars,
Channels poured into the gratings,
And Petropol emerged like a newt,
Waist-deep in water.
Siege! attack! evil waves,
Like thieves, they climb into windows. Chelny
From the run the windows are smashed by the stern.
Trays under a wet veil,
Wrecks of huts, logs, roofs,
Stock trade goods,
The belongings of pale poverty,
Bridges demolished by thunderstorms,
Coffins from a washed-out cemetery
Floating through the streets!
People
He sees God's wrath and awaits execution.
Alas! everything perishes: shelter and food!
Where will I get it?
Gradually the city is returning to normal life. By the way, the everyday bustle of the city has not changed since then.
...Everything returned to the same order.
The streets are already free
With your cold insensibility
People were walking. Official people
Leaving my night shelter,
I went to work. Brave trader,
Not discouraged, I opened
Neva robbed basement,
Collecting your loss is important
Place it on the nearest one. From the yards
They brought boats.
Count Khvostov,
Poet beloved by heaven
Already sang in immortal verses
The misfortune of the Neva banks...
Drawing by Pushkin
The sculptor Falconet thought for a long time about the ideas for the monument; one day, he dozed off in the Summer Garden at dusk. Peter I came to the sculptor and began asking questions; the emperor was satisfied with the answers and approved Falconet’s desire to create a monument.
Sculptor Falcone
“My monument will be simple... I will limit myself only to the statue of this hero, whom I do not interpret either as a great commander or as a winner, although he, of course, was both. Much higher is the personality of the creator and legislator..."- sculptor Falconet spoke about the idea of the monument.
Peter's head was made by Falcone's student, Marie Anne Collot. Empress Catherine liked the artist’s works, and Kollo was accepted into the Academy of Arts long before the famous head of Peter was made.
When sculpting the head of the monument, Collo used the emperor's death mask. Catherine approved the artist’s work and assigned her a salary of 10,000 rubles. Falcone called the student his co-author in the work on the monument. In 1788, Falcone received two medals for his work - gold and silver. He gave the silver medal to Kollo.
Marie Anne Collot, who sculpted Peter's head for the monument
Collot married the teacher's son, Pierre Etienne, but the marriage did not work out and the couple separated. The artist filed a complaint against her husband; he extorted money from her to pay off gambling debts and one day, having been refused, hit her.
She remained grateful to teacher Falcone all her life when he was left paralyzed after a stroke; Collo cared for him for 8 years until his death.
Inscription on the monument “Petro primo Catharina secunda” - “Catherine the Second to Peter the Great”. The ambitious empress indicated that she was second after Peter, the successor to his great deeds.
The Thunder Stone on which the statue stands is also associated with the legend of Peter. According to legend, Tsar Peter climbed onto the thunder stone when he looked at the Neva, thinking about the construction of the city.
There is also a version that the ancient Magi considered the thunder stone sacred and performed cult ceremonies on it.
On the shore desert waves
He stood there, full of great thoughts,
And he looked into the distance. Wide before him
The river rushed; poor boat
He strove along it alone.
Along mossy, marshy banks
Blackened huts here and there,
Shelter of a wretched Chukhonian;
And the forest, unknown to the rays
In the fog of the hidden sun,
There was noise all around.
And he thought:
From here we will threaten the Swede,
The city will be founded here
To spite an arrogant neighbor.
Nature destined us here
Open a window to Europe,
Stand with a firm foot by the sea.
Here on new waves
All the flags will visit us,
And we’ll record it in the open air.
A hundred years have passed, and the young city,
There is beauty and wonder in full countries,
From the darkness of the forests, from the swamps of blat
He ascended magnificently and proudly.
The townspeople tried to get hold of the thunderstone fragments that remained after processing. “Many hunters, for the sake of a memorable identification of this stone, ordered to make various cufflinks, knobs, and the like from its fragments.”
After Falconet returned to France, this fashion appeared in Europe. The sculptor brought home the remains of the thunder stone, from which jewelers made souvenirs and jewelry.
As usual, the sculptor chosen by the empress had many envious people. Detractors accused the sculptor of embezzling imperial money. The offended master left St. Petersburg in 1778, without waiting for the opening of the monument, which was scheduled for 1782 - the anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the reign of Catherine II.
Grand opening of the monument
Superstitious Old Believers were afraid of the image of the Bronze Horseman, calling him “Horseman of the Apocalypse.” The Old Believers saw in him the personification of the prophecy about the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse - “whose name is death; and hell followed him; and power was given to him over the fourth part of the earth - to kill with the sword, and with famine, and with pestilence, and with the beasts of the earth.”
One of the most famous legends of the Bronze Horseman is “The Dream of Major Baturin.” There was a war with Napoleon - 1812. The Emperor of France loved to take monuments of defeated cities to Paris as trophies. He stated that he intended to take the monument to Peter to Paris. Alexander I, fearing the capture of the capital, ordered the monument to be removed from the city.
Soon the tsar was told about the dream of a certain Major Baturin, who dreamed of Peter I. The horseman got off the granite pedestal and galloped to the palace of Alexander I.
“Young man, what have you brought my Russia to! But as long as I’m in place, my city has nothing to fear,” he said and galloped off.
Having learned about this dream, Alexander I decided to leave the monument in place. Napoleon's army did not reach St. Petersburg.
According to the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, the human soul sometimes visits our world and inhabits its image. According to this theory, Peter's soul inhabits the statue and looks over his city, protecting it from enemies.
Bronze Horseman at Siege
The legend of the horseman-defender was remembered during the years of the siege. Peter the Great is the patron of the city; while he is in place, the enemy will not set foot on the city pavement. The city of Peter was not captured. Although at one time the philosopher Diderot (a contemporary of Catherine II) called St. Petersburg “the heart in the little finger,” considering the city especially vulnerable to the enemy.
By the way, the anthem of St. Petersburg is a fragment of the ballet by Reinhold Gliere based on the poem “The Bronze Horseman”. Pushkin's Bronze Horseman turned out to be associated with the official symbols of the city.
Sovereign city, rise above the Neva,
Like a wondrous temple, you are open to hearts!
Shine for centuries with living beauty,
The Bronze Horseman guards your breath.
The Bronze Horseman is one of the few surviving monuments to Peter the Great.
Many monuments were demolished as having "no artistic value". For example, the monument is the king-carpenter, a copy of which is located in Holland in the city of Saardam.
The authors of Soviet books argued that the city does not need such monuments:
"...Peter, a Saardam carpenter, was working with an ax on the construction of a boat on the other side of the Admiralty, at its western river gate. It was a trinket monument, more of a table figurine in nature than a monument. In the twenties he also disappeared from here."
(Uspensky L.V. Notes of an old Petersburger, 1970)
The Dutch cast a copy of the lost monument and presented it to St. Petersburg in 1996.
Monument to the Tsar Carpenter, restored by the Dutch
"This monument was donated to the city St. Petersburg Kingdom of the Netherlands. Opened on 7 September 1996 by His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange."
Another “non-artistic” monument - Peter saving drowning people in a flood - was also demolished.
Pavel Evseevich Spivakovsky- Candidate of Philological Sciences, 2004-2011. - Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Literature of the State Institute of Russian Language named after. A.S. Pushkin, since 2011 - Associate Professor of the Department of History of Russian Literature of the 20th Century, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. In 2012/2013 academic year Visiting Associate Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
So, we are starting a short series of five lectures called “Reality as an Illusion.” Where does this name come from? The fact is that from the modern point of view humanities the phenomenon of reality itself is problematized: what was taken for granted in the 19th century (for the most part this was associated with widespread ideas that there is a certain “only true”, positivistically perceived reality, and all other ideas in one or another otherwise inadequate), is now being questioned...
Not everyone, of course, shared this kind of views before, but, in general, they still prevailed. So, in the 20th century, serious doubts began to arise on this score. For example, Roman Jakobson in his article “On Artistic Realism” questions such a criterion as life-likeness.
Previously, it was believed that life-likeness was a sufficient argument to recognize a work as “realistic.” But it turns out that people’s ideas about life, about “reality” are extremely different, and there is simply no common understanding of this very similarity to life. This means that what is either considered to be reality, or someone perceives as reality, is more reasonable to perceive as a problem. It’s not that there is no reality at all, but it’s more likely that there is no reality that is the same for everyone. And therefore it takes a long and difficult time to deal with it.
And in this regard, it is interesting to look not only at modern literary texts, but also on literature of the 19th century centuries. Suddenly it turns out that there are many illusions there too, that everything is very complicated there and is often not at all what it seems. And in this regard, it makes sense to think about Pushkin’s famous poem “The Bronze Horseman”.
The text of the poem was mainly written by Boldinskaya in the fall of 1833; later Pushkin tried to alter something, but there were few alterations, and therefore the text of 1833 is still mainly in use, although some clarifications can be found in later amendments. But, in general, this is not our topic.
So, “The Bronze Horseman”. The poem begins with the words:
On the shore of desert waves
He stood, full of great thoughts,
And he looked into the distance.
In most editions of this poem the pronoun " He" is written with a lowercase letter and is highlighted in italics, but if we turn to a textologically more carefully prepared edition of the poem in the series "Literary Monuments", we will see that in Pushkin's poem the pronoun "He" is given twice, without any italics and with a capital letter. That is, the way it is traditionally customary to write about God. Naturally, we are talking about Peter I here, and this writing is very significant for the artistic concept of the entire poem.
The fact is that Peter I, as he is presented in this work, lays claim to the role of an earthly god with all the ensuing unpleasant consequences. Actually, we can say (and in this it makes sense to agree with Valentin Nepomniachtchi) that “The Bronze Horseman” actually begins with where it ends Pushkin poem"Anchar".
In “Anchar” we see two people: “A man / Sent a man to Anchar with an imperious look.” What is this talking about? The fact that they are both equally human, they are equal in the face of the author, and, in general, in the face of God. Moreover, one of them is an invincible ruler with almost undivided power, and the other is a poor slave. A poor slave brings a poisoned tree, “and the prince imbued his obedient arrows with this poison / And with them he sent death / To his neighbors in foreign lands.” True, in some publications, instead of “prince,” they try their best to print “tsar,” although when Pushkin sent the poem to the printing house, and there, instead of “prince,” they mistakenly typed “tsar,” the author sharply protested. It would seem, indeed, logically, there should be a “king” there: he has such great power... Most likely, that prince was needed in order to create an association with the prince of this world. That is, before us is precisely a person, and not a demon at all, but this person actually serves the forces of the prince of this world.
So, before us is an “invincible ruler”, who in “Anchar” also acts as a contender for the role of earthly god, but this man has a problem: his neighbors are very bothering him. It is “to the neighbors” that he sends out his poison, and within the framework of Pushkin’s artistic world this poison is incredibly strong, and therefore it poisons everything around. In fact, in the poem “Anchar” we find ourselves in a poisoned world, where it is impossible to be: before us is a kind of ontological dead end caused by the man-divine claims of the prince.
So, let's return to the text of The Bronze Horseman. The landscape that unfolds before Peter is miserable, but peaceful, calm:
Wide before him
The river rushed; poor boat
He strove along it alone.
Along mossy, marshy banks
Blackened huts here and there,
Shelter of a wretched Chukhonian;
And the forest, unknown to the rays
In the fog of the hidden sun
There was noise all around.
Nothing particularly scary happens here, the picture is quite balanced. And now the will of the emperor bursts into this world:
And He thought:
From here we will threaten the Swede,
The city will be founded here
To spite an arrogant neighbor.
“For evil,” that’s exactly how Pushkin writes, separately. At this moment, an artistic myth about St. Petersburg arises, which was built “out of evil,” and this will have the most serious consequences.
Nature destined us here
Open a window to Europe,
Stand with a firm foot by the sea.
Here on new waves
All the flags will visit us,
And we’ll record it in the open air.
Nature... An interesting question: why, in fact, does Peter refer to nature? It would seem that at the level of manifestation he obeys the forces of nature. Yes, but he somehow strangely obeys her, because in the text of the poem we see that it is nature that is severely wounded by his intervention, and so much so that it takes revenge even 100 years after the events described. Therefore, it cannot be said that Peter is subject to the forces of nature. This is simply not true.
Then why is he saying this? Knowing Pushkin’s views and his attitude towards deism, which was extremely popular in his time, we can say with confidence that here we have before us an attempt to build a deist picture of the world. Deism is a philosophical doctrine according to which God created the world, and then does not interfere with anything, and everything develops according to natural law. That is, in fact, it turns out that for a person, de facto, it makes no difference whether God exists or He does not exist. If God doesn’t interfere in anything anyway and will never interfere, then what difference does it make?
Pushkin very sharply did not accept this anti-Christian teaching, largely popularized by French enlighteners (for example, Voltaire was a deist). So, in 1830, he wrote the poem “To the Nobleman,” describing in it how Russian travelers became acquainted with the ideology of the French enlighteners, and they taught them either atheism or deism:
You came to Ferney - and the cynic turned gray,
The leader of brains and fashion is sly and brave
[a very negative characteristic, I must say],
Loving your dominion in the North,
<…>
The study was done for a time, your idol:
You were secluded. For your harsh feast
Now a devotee of providence, now a skeptic, now an atheist,
Diderot sat down on his shaky tripod
[we are talking about Denis Diderot, who wavered in his views],
He threw his wig and closed his eyes in delight.
And he preached. And modestly you listened
Over a slow cup of atheus or deist,
Like a curious Scythian to an Athenian sophist.
The deist-atheist teaching was perceived extremely naively and completely uncritically, because at that time there was no decent education in Russia.
As for Peter, when he places faceless nature in the place of God, he actually puts himself above everyone else. You don’t have to think about anyone, don’t think about it, and do whatever you want: this is a very convenient, essentially atheistic model of the world.
It is also significant that Pushkin is not inventing anything here: Boris Uspensky has a wonderful article “The Tsar and God,” which talks about Peter I’s attempts to present himself as some kind of earthly deity. What can I say, Feofan Prokopovich, an associate of Peter I, in his work “On the Glory and Honor of the Tsar” calls the Tsar Christ and God. Just... Feofan Prokopovich was, of course, a very subtle person, he knew how to say so as not to formally turn out to be a heretic and at the same time to flatter the tsar as much as possible.
But why Christ? Χριστός in Greek is “anointed”, the king is God’s anointed, therefore, why not use this word?..
Or about the word “god”. Let us remember Psalm 81: “I said: you are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you” (Ps 82:6). This means, of course, not gods in the literal sense, but people created by God, like sons of God. At the same time, it seems that it is possible to formally say everything that Feofan Prokopovich claimed. Although, of course, we are faced with not just papocaesarism, but also an undisguised attempt to deify the emperor.
And so it was: in particular, during the Easter service, Peter took away the right of the patriarch to depict Christ and depicted Him himself, trying to symbolically emphasize that he had the right to act as an earthly deity...
And this is very serious, this is what lays something dark and terrible in the very basis of Peter’s activities. The point is not about Westernization as such; Westernization of Russia, of course, was needed, but under Peter it was carried out in a rather wild way. If it were gentle and gradual, it would be welcome, it would be wonderful. As, however, this was done in the 17th century. Under Peter, everything changed extremely radically. In fact, traditional ancient Russian culture was banned, and “something Dutch” was initially supposed to take its place. In such cases, I tell students: “Imagine that tomorrow the president, let’s say Putin, will tell us: from today, Russian culture is completely prohibited, and instead there will be Chinese culture. Everyone should study the Chinese language, Chinese philosophy, Chinese literature and speak Chinese.” The same thing happened with the absolutely incomprehensible Dutch culture.
“And we’ll lock it in the open.” The word “feast” in Pushkin is also quite ambiguous. For example, three years before The Bronze Horseman, in 1830, he wrote Little Tragedies, which are permeated by the motif of a disastrous feast. Naturally, “A feast during the plague” - it’s clear what kind of feast there is. The feast of Mozart and Salieri is also clear: the one at which Mozart will be poisoned. " Stone Guest"is a feast of Don Guan and Donna Anna, during which the hero dies. Well, in “The Miserly Knight” the baron opens his chests and says that in this way he arranges a feast for himself. In a word, a feast is a rather ambivalent phenomenon.
So, something very bad is being laid into the very foundation of St. Petersburg. But this does not mean that a beautiful city is not being created. It is being created...
A hundred years have passed, and the young city,
There is beauty and wonder in full countries,
From the darkness of the forests, from the swamps of blat
Ascended magnificently, proudly<…>.
“Pompous” and “proud” in Pushkin’s language are, it must be said, not at all positive characteristics. “Humble” is undoubtedly closer to the mature Pushkin. Even in early poem“To the sea” a flock of perfectly equipped ships sinks, but the “humble sail of fishermen” does not touch the sea. So “magnificent” and “proud” is something very suspicious. Despite the fact that he himself, of course, loves this great city very much...
Where was the Finnish fisherman before?
Nature's sad stepson
Alone on the low banks
Thrown into unknown waters
Your old net, now there
Along busy shores
Slender communities crowd together
Palaces and towers; ships
A crowd from all over the world
They strive for rich marinas;
The Neva is dressed in granite;
Bridges hung over the waters;
Dark green gardens
Islands covered her,
And in front of the younger capital
Old Moscow has faded,
Like before a new queen
Porphyry widow.
I love you, Petra's creation,
I love your strict slim look,
Neva sovereign current,
Its coastal granite<…>.
Yes, there is no doubt that Pushkin loves this city. But here, too, if you look closely, there is some strange ambiguity. The fact is that five years before The Bronze Horseman, in 1828, Pushkin wrote a poem
The city is lush, the city is poor,
Spirit of bondage, slender appearance,
The vault of heaven is green and pale,
Boredom, cold and granite -
Still, I feel a little sorry for you,
Because here sometimes
A little leg walks
A golden curl curls.
Here even the rhymes are similar: “a strict, slender appearance”, “its coastal granite” - that is, in the poem the assessment is rather negative, but in the poem it seems to be rather positive. But at the same time, Pushkin “dissolves” the poem of 1828 in the text of the poem.
I love your cruel winter
Still air and frost,
Sleigh running along the wide Neva,
Girls' faces are brighter than roses.
It's cold. Instead of a small leg and a curl, we see faces, but in general the figurative system is almost the same. The emphasis in this case is rather on positive aspects, which undoubtedly also exist. The problem, however, is that they are not the only ones.
I love the warlike liveliness
Amusing Fields of Mars,
Infantry troops and horses
Uniform beauty
In their harmoniously unsteady system
The rags of these victorious banners,
The shine of these copper caps,
Through those shot through in battle.
Pushkin also loves this Petersburg. In general, he was to a large extent an imperialist. As Georgy Fedotov, “the singer of empire and freedom,” wonderfully said about him. Pushkin felt a contradiction between one and the other. Before us is an official, powerful imperial city, and Pushkin felt that it was putting pressure, in particular, on himself: “A lush city, a poor city...”, of course, this is exactly what he’s talking about. At the same time, joy over imperial victories was also characteristic of Pushkin: this is “Poltava”, and “Borodino Anniversary”, and even in the early “ Caucasian prisoner": "Humble yourselves, Caucasus: Ermolov is coming!" All this, of course, also happened, but at the same time Pushkin feels that there is something terrible and overwhelming in imperial greatness. “Slender communities” also embody something dangerous.
Neva in The Bronze Horseman is depicted as a living creature.
<…>breaking your blue ice,
The Neva carries him to the seas
And, sensing the days of spring, he rejoices.
Show off, city Petrov, and stand
Unshakable like Russia,
May he make peace with you
And the defeated element;
Enmity and ancient captivity
Let the Finnish waves forget
And they will not be vain malice
Disturb Peter's eternal sleep!
So, ancient enmity and ancient captivity. This is how this symbol appears in the poem. Looking ahead, we can say that Pushkin associates the image of the Neva waves with the elements of popular rebellion, with something like Pugachevism. And the author was very interested in her, looked at her very seriously. He saw this as a danger.
So, if we take what has been said literally, then the Finnish waves, who were dressed in granite, have lost their freedom and want to take revenge, they are rebelling against the slavery to which they were doomed. If you remember historical context, then it is worth recalling that Peter I introduced human trafficking (such a small trifle). In addition, Peter’s cultural revolution itself (and I think that Klyuchevsky is right when he is inclined to believe that Peter was not a reformer, but a revolutionary) gave rise to a very large social danger. The fact is that before that there was only one, integral ancient Russian culture. Suppose a boyar, who sat in the Boyar Duma, and the simplest serf - they, in principle, were carriers of the same culture. There could be more of it, there could be less of it, but the culture by its nature was united. Peter focused all his “reforms” only on the educated society; he did not touch the peasants at all. Therefore, peasant culture after Peter remained almost unchanged (besides, it is generally super-traditionalist), and educated society began to speak foreign languages, focus on European models. And this is wonderful, it gave birth to the Russian culture that we all know and love. The only problem is that representatives of Russian culture of the Western type and traditional peasant culture have almost ceased to understand each other. They began to speak directly and figuratively in different languages.
IN early XIX centuries, nobles spoke most often French. But even if they spoke Russian... Pushkin has a very interesting article “Journey from Moscow to St. Petersburg”, this is a very sharp criticism of Radishchev, and there the author says: “They once asked old peasant woman, did she marry her husband out of passion [that’s how Pushkin did it, separately]? “Out of passion,” answered the old woman, “I became stubborn, but the headman threatened to whip me.” Such passions are ordinary,” notes Pushkin. In general, they we talked, and, it seems, in the same language. But at the same time, everyone had something different in mind, and they completely did not understand each other.
In other words, the illusion of communication arises, but communication as such did not exist and is not expected. And this is an extremely dangerous situation: within the framework of one country, seemingly one religion, one people, two cultures arise, the representatives of which almost do not understand each other. Pushkin thought a lot about this and really wanted to connect these cultures. In his opinion, this was possible among the Russian provincial nobility: only in the village do these two cultures meet, only there can one understand each other. This is Tatyana Larina, and “The Young Lady-Peasant”, these are the Grinevs and Mironovs...
But one way or another, the separation of cultures occurred. And this, in turn, was fraught with a powerful social explosion, because if the peasants do not understand the nobles, then it is very easy to attribute the most terrible things to them, and this is a reason for unrest, for a riot, senseless and merciless.
In fact, it turns out that his cultural revolution Peter plants a bomb in Russia, which will most likely explode sooner or later. This happened in 1917, and Pushkin was one of the first to seriously think about it. He is very concerned about this issue, he is acutely aware of these dangers, he feels that something truly terrible is approaching.
For example, in the poem “It was time: our holiday is young...” he describes the past, writes enthusiastically about Alexander I, whom he previously disliked very much, wrote very angry epigrams about him, but then, over time, he appreciated him in many ways liberal reforms and began to treat him incomparably better. And then
<…> new king, stern and mighty
At the turn of Europe he became cheerful,
And new clouds came over the earth,
And a hurricane of them
We look into the future and feel that something terrible is coming. Late Pushkin is generally full of gloomy forebodings. In particular, this is manifested in “The Bronze Horseman”.
It was a terrible time
The memory of her is fresh...
About her, my friends, for you
I'll start my story.
My story will be sad.
Pushkin addresses his friends - why? Yes, in general, because there is very little hope for understanding. At the end of Onegin, he thinks about what kind of readers expect his work. Those looking for grammatical errors? Or those who are looking for material for a magazine controversy? There are others, but they are very few.
Or the poem “To the Poet”: “Poet! do not value people’s love...” Pushkin, especially the late Pushkin, writes very complexly: the simplicity of his poetics is deceptive. And in 1830, he was faced with a choice: either to please the public, who do not understand him, who say that “Onegin” lacks action, etc., or to write with the expectation that descendants will understand, but this is very difficult psychologically for the writer. Yes, he chooses the second, but this does not add optimism at all.
Over darkened Petrograd
November breathed the autumn chill.
Splashing with a noisy wave
To the edges of your slender fence,
Neva was tossing around like a sick person
Restless in my bed.
Before us is the Neva again: with the help of comparison, she is depicted as a living being, this line continues.
At that time from the guests home
Young Evgeniy came...
We will be our hero
Call by this name. It
Sounds nice; been with him for a long time
My pen is also friendly.
We are, of course, talking about Eugene Onegin. Yuri Lotman writes that Pushkin’s choice of the name “Evgeniy” is connected with literary tradition. This is the novel by Alexander Izmailov “Eugene, or the Disastrous Consequences bad upbringing and communities”, where a hero named Evgeny Negodyaev was developed. Or “Satires” by Cantemir. In both cases, Eugene is a young man of a noble family, unworthy of his noble ancestors; he is significantly worse than them for one reason or another.
We don't need his nickname,
Although in times gone by
Perhaps it shone
And under the pen of Karamzin
In native legends it sounded;
But now with light and rumor
It's forgotten.
So, the essential things are being said here. Evgeniy is a man of a very noble family, and in Pushkin’s era this is by no means a trifle. By the middle of the 19th century, noble origin will gradually lose its weight, but for now it is extremely important. However, it is not the formal affiliation with the nobility that is important. So, Griboyedov’s Molchalin, of course, received the nobility, but this does not mean anything, they did not care about it. Of course, everyone perceives him as a commoner, and, of course, Chatsky despises him primarily for this, like the other commoners who are mentioned there, in particular from Repetilov’s circle. This is a completely typical position for a nobleman of that time.
And vice versa, if even such a poor person as Eugene belongs to a noble family, this means that he can be accepted into best houses. This means that, in principle, it should be taken very seriously. The hero of the poem has such an opportunity, he does not use it, but Eugene’s belonging to a noble family here, in the artistic construction of the poem, is extremely important.
On the other hand, the hero leads the life of a little person.
Our hero
Lives in Kolomna; serves somewhere
He shies away from the nobles and does not bother
Not about deceased relatives,
Not about forgotten antiquities.
It seems that this is all he wants. He has a fiancee, Parasha, he thinks about her:
“Perhaps a year or two will pass -
I’ll get a place, Parashe
I will entrust our family
And raising children...
And we will live, and so on until the grave
We'll both get there hand in hand
And our grandchildren will bury us..."
These are the thoughts of a purely private person, the psychology of a petty official.
It is interesting that in the draft version Pushkin had:
You can get married - I'll arrange it
A humble corner for yourself
And in it I will calm Parasha -
Friend - kindergarten - cabbage soup pot -
Yes, he is big - why should I care?
« Yes, there's a pot of cabbage soup, it's a big one“, - I think you remember: these are the words of the author in Onegin’s Travels, about himself. Let this be said as a joke, but there is some kind of echo here.
And yet Evgeniy is very far from the author here. Eugene's immediate literary predecessor was Ivan Yezersky from the unfinished poem "Yezersky". In a sense, in style, this is a transitional work from “Eugene Onegin” to “The Bronze Horseman”. And there Pushkin complains that
From the bar we climb into tiers étât
[third estate],
That our grandchildren will be poor,
And thank us for that
It seems no one will say".
This is a purely noble position, which was very characteristic of Pushkin; he defended the exceptional importance of the noble class and really did not want its representatives to lose the memory of their origin.
And it seems that Evgeniy is the “directly opposite” image. He has the psychology of a petty official. Well, what is a little man? This is a literary character whose psychology and behavior are determined by his extremely low social position. And it seems that everything is almost like this. Almost, but not quite.
What was he thinking about? about
That he was poor, that he worked hard
He had to deliver to himself
Both independence and honor<…>.
But independence and honor- these are already categories of the psychology of a nobleman, something that is unusual for a small person. But so far in the actant that we observe here, this seems to be unimportant, because the beginning associated with the little man dominates, and everything else is forgotten.
Or almost forgotten.
A new day is coming.
Terrible day!
Neva all night
Longing for the sea against the storm,
Without overcoming their violent foolishness...
And she was unable to argue...
In the morning over its banks
There were crowds of people crowded together,
Admiring the splashes, mountains
And the foam of angry waters.
But the strength of the winds from the bay
Blocked Neva
She walked back, angry, seething,
And flooded the islands...
The weather became even more ferocious,
The Neva swelled and roared,
A cauldron bubbling and swirling,
And suddenly, like a wild beast,
She rushed towards the city. In front of her
Everything ran, everything around
Suddenly it was empty - suddenly there was water
Flowed into underground cellars,
Channels poured into the gratings,
And Petropol surfaced like Triton,
Waist-deep in water.
Siege! attack! evil waves,
Like thieves, they climb into windows.
Look at the description. "Siege! attack!" - obviously, this is similar to the description of the assault on the Belogorsk fortress in “ The captain's daughter" “Like thieves climbing through windows,” that is, water does not just destroy something, it is the actions of a criminal and a robber.
Chelny
From the run the windows are smashed by the stern.
Trays under a wet veil,
Wrecks of huts, logs, roofs,
Stock trade goods,
The belongings of pale poverty,
Bridges demolished by thunderstorms,
Coffins from a washed-out cemetery
Floating through the streets!
On the one hand, Pushkin sought to describe the flood as accurately as possible, he emphasizes this in his comments. This externally perceived reality. On the other hand, all the time a plot is unfolding before us, created with the help of metaphors and comparisons, a plot associated with the elements of popular rebellion. Moreover, the comparisons “line up in one line” and thus through one image, through one focalization we can see a completely different one. This is absolutely amazing literary device, which would do honor to a modern writer. You can’t say at all that this is such a 19th century...
People
He sees God's wrath and awaits execution.
Alas! everything perishes: shelter and food!
Where will I get it?
The people see in what happened a manifestation of God’s wrath, that is, it is not the element of the Neva waves itself that is something of God, of course, this is not so, but the fact that God allows this to happen turns out to be significant, and in this the people see a manifestation of God’s wrath. Why not? Perhaps the people are right...
In that terrible year
The late Tsar was still in Russia
He ruled with glory. To the balcony
Sad, confused, he went out
And he said: “With God's element
Kings cannot control.”
This place is extremely important because it is here that the position of Alexander I is actually opposed to the position of Peter. If Peter does not want to see anything above him except the faceless forces of nature, and in fact tramples on nature, then Alexander clearly sees God’s will above him and believes that it is obviously higher than the will of the king. Humbly admits this. And when he says this, the excitement subsides.
He sat down
And in the Duma with sorrowful eyes
I looked at the evil disaster.
There were stacks of lakes,
And in them there are wide rivers
The streets poured in. Castle
It seemed like a sad island.
The king said - from end to end,
Along nearby streets and distant ones
On a dangerous journey through stormy waters
The generals started him
To save and overcome with fear
And there are drowning people at home.
So, if we take what is depicted literally, then we have a documentary reproduction of what happened in 1824; Pushkin writes in a special note that generals were sent. It's clear why. Since there is chaos and confusion on the streets as a result of the flood, there can be theft and anything else. An army is needed to restore order so that there are no troubles.
Yes, but on another level, where the elements of popular rebellion are depicted, generals are also needed there... As you know, Pugachevism was suppressed, in particular, by Suvorov himself.
Then, on Petrova Square,
Where a new house has risen in the corner,
Where above the elevated porch
With a raised paw, as if alive,
There are two guard lions standing<…>.
A specific house is described here, and now Pushkin scholars are arguing about which of the lions Eugene was sitting on.
Riding a marble beast,
Without a hat, hands clasped in a cross,
Sat motionless, terribly pale
Evgeny.
So, he sits astride a lion “without a hat, his hands clasped in a cross” - just below it says that the wind “suddenly tore his hat off.” For Pushkin's contemporaries, the literary reference was completely obvious. Here you can simply quote “Eugene Onegin”, a description of the main character’s office:
And a post with a cast iron doll
Under a hat, with a cloudy brow,
With hands clenched in a cross.
In Pushkin’s era, there was no need to explain who he was; everyone recognized Napoleon immediately. Almost all the romantic poets wrote about him, and often pointedly kept silent about whom they were talking about. He was already recognized by these mythologized features.
What does the figure of Napoleon mean here? Onegin says:
Having destroyed all prejudices,
We respect everyone as zeros,
And in units - yourself.
We all look at Napoleons;
There are millions of two-legged creatures
For us there is only one weapon<…>.
For mature Pushkin it is more typical negative attitude to the figure of Napoleon, as the embodiment of the atheistic-deist axiology. It is in this regard that Napoleon turns out to be a negative figure, although Pushkin admires him as a genius, and despite the very harsh characteristics of Peter in The Bronze Horseman. The late Pushkin writes “The Feast of Peter the Great,” where he admires how the tsar makes peace with his subject. That is, the attitude to the person and attitude to activities The poet fundamentally shares the emperor.
Here he brings Eugene closer to Napoleon. Firstly, Eugene is on the verge of rebellion, and Napoleon is a usurper, a man who seized power. And here it is especially significant that Eugene is a noble nobleman. In general, the logic of Eugene’s rebellion is connected with the logic of noble disobedience to authority. There is a dispute over which island Eugene was buried on. So, Akhmatova believed that this was Goloday Island, on which the bodies of five executed Decembrists were buried. There are different opinions on this matter. Personally, I am more inclined to join the point of view of Yuri Borev, who says that, regardless of which island is depicted in the poem, the artistic logic of the work points to the Decembrist theme, which Pushkin was forced to hide very carefully, because the slightest mention of it was prohibited.
In addition, Eugene riding a lion resembles the Bronze Horseman himself: he is also a kind of horseman...
But Evgeniy is not yet rebelling.
His desperate glances
Pointed to the edge
They were motionless. Like mountains
From the indignant depths
The waves rose there and got angry,
There the storm howled, there they rushed
Debris... God, God! there -
Alas! close to the waves,
Almost at the very bay -
The fence is unpainted, but the willow
And a dilapidated house: there it is,
Widow and daughter, his Parasha,
His dream... Or in a dream
Does he see this? or all ours
And life is nothing like an empty dream,
The mockery of heaven over earth?
We have the point of view of the hero of the poem, and we see that before he rebels against Peter, Eugene rebels against God.
And he seems to be bewitched
As if chained to marble,
Can't get off! Around him
Water and nothing else!
And with my back turned to him,
In the unshakable heights,
Above the indignant Neva
Stands with outstretched hand
Idol on a bronze horse.
The poem was not published during Pushkin’s lifetime: it was too clearly an anti-Petrine work. After his death, censorship corrections were introduced by V.A. Zhukovsky, and here instead of the word “idol” the word “giant” appears. Obviously, the word “idol” is associated with a pagan idol: “You shall not make for yourself an graven image” (Deut. 5:8). In this case, it turns out that Peter creates an idol out of himself...
But now, having had enough of destruction
And tired of insolent violence,
The Neva was drawn back,
Admiring your indignation
And leaving with carelessness
Your prey. So villain
With his fierce gang
Having burst into the village, he breaks, cuts,
Destroys and robs; screams, gnashing,
Violence, swearing, anxiety, howling!..
And, burdened with robbery,
Afraid of the chase, tired,
The robbers are hurrying home,
Dropping prey on the way.
The image of the elements of popular revolt continues again. All these characteristics of the water element - villain, robbers - all these words were mentioned when talking about the Pugachevites. And here we see a continuation of the same plot. In fact, one can imagine (but in Pushkin’s era it was impossible) like film stills, when through one image a translucent another shines through: through one plot we see a completely different one.
Next. Eugene, at the risk of his life, hires a ferryman and sails on a boat through the raging waves in order to find the house of his bride. He sees that everything there is destroyed, everything is terrible, the house was demolished, dead bodies are lying around.
Evgeniy
Headlong, not remembering anything,
Exhausted from torment,
Runs to where he is waiting
Fate with unknown news,
Like with a sealed letter.
The time will come when he will receive this terrible letter.
Evgeniy is going crazy:
And suddenly hitting his forehead with his hand,
I started laughing.
<…>
Morning ray
Because of the tired, pale clouds
Flashed over the quiet capital,
And I haven’t found any traces
Yesterday's troubles; purple
The evil was already covered up.
Everything returned to the same order.
The streets are already free
With your cold insensibility
People were walking.
The description of the city is distinctly ominous. Yes, Pushkin loves it, yes, this city is beautiful, but at the same time it is monstrous.
As you know, what is commonly called the St. Petersburg text begins with The Bronze Horseman. This is a complex of myths in which St. Petersburg is conceptualized as a mystical, ominous city, gradually destroying all living things.
Here's an interesting detail:
Brave trader,
Not discouraged, I opened
Neva robbed basement<…>.
Look, if the Neva simply flooded this basement, its contents would simply be ruined. But he robbed, that is, we have before us an image of people’s actions. These are the features of the second plot that hides behind appearance of reality, which, however, is also present, it is even significant in its own way, but only this, that other much more significant.
Count Khvostov,
Poet beloved by heaven
Already sang in immortal verses
The misfortune of the Neva banks.
Count Khvostov - an epigone of classicism, kindest person, rich, printed his works in his own printing house. Romantics made fun of him because the way he wrote looked like an absurd anachronism. Pushkin also laughs in the poem “You and I”:
You are rich, I am very poor;
You are a prose writer, I am a poet;
<…>
Aphedron, you're so fat
You wipe with calico;
I'm a sinful hole
I don't indulge in children's fashion
And Khvostov’s harsh ode,
Even though I wince, I struggle.
This is hooliganism, of course: it’s inconvenient to rub, because Khvostov’s paper is good, thick...
Here our epigone is depicted, it would seem, from a very, very positive perspective: before us is a kind of poetic service rapid response. An event has just happened, and he is already singing about it, and in completely immortal verses...
But my poor, poor Evgeniy...
Alas! His confused mind
Against terrible shocks
I couldn't resist. Rebellious noise
The Neva and the winds were heard
In his ears.
It turns out that Eugene’s rebellion is provoked, in particular, by a popular revolt. Approximately this situation is depicted by Pushkin in Dubrovsky. First, the peasants want to rebel, and at the same time the nobles also want to rebel.
He was tormented by some kind of dream.
A week passed, a month - he
He did not return to his home.
Evgeniy leads the lifestyle of a homeless tramp; he, it would seem, does not at all look like a rebellious nobleman.
He'll be out soon
Became alien. I wandered on foot all day,
And he slept on the pier; ate
A piece served into the window.
His clothes are shabby
It tore and smoldered. Angry children
They threw stones after him.
Often coachman's whips
He was whipped because
That he didn't understand the roads
Never again; it seemed he
Didn't notice. He's stunned
Was the noise of internal anxiety.
And so he is his unhappy age
Dragged, neither beast nor man,
Neither this nor that, nor the inhabitant of the world,
Not a dead ghost...
So, what's going on with Eugene? He completely falls out of that social system, dependence on which was previously so important for him. What makes a little person different? Extremely high dependence on one's low social status, from the authorities, from that social pyramid which is above him. And now over Evgeniy has nothing. Yes, he leads the most miserable, most wretched life, that’s all, but there is no longer any authority over him. And therefore, we can no longer assume that we have a small person in front of us. The little man disappears, and only the rebellious nobleman remains.
Grim Shaft
Splashed on the pier, grumbling fines
And hitting the smooth steps,
Like a petitioner at the door
Judges who don't listen to him.
Look: the same plot continues again. The popular revolt was crushed, and now petitioners, relatives of those who took part in the uprising, are walking around and asking for their relatives: “He is not guilty, forgive him, he was stupid...” This plot consistently continues all the time.
Evgeny jumped up; remembered vividly
He is a past horror; hastily
He stood up; went wandering, and suddenly
Stopped and around
He quietly began to move his eyes
With wild fear on your face.
He found himself under the pillars
Big house. On the porch
With a raised paw, as if alive,
The lions stood guard,
And right in the dark heights
Above the fenced rock
Idol with outstretched hand
Sat on a bronze horse.
"In the Dark Heights": darkness above…
Evgeny shuddered. cleared up
The thoughts in it are scary. He found out
And the place where the flood played,
Where the waves of predators crowded,
Rioting angrily around him,
And Lviv, and the square, and Togo
[“Togo” again with a capital letter: our earthly deity is like this...],
Who stood motionless
In the darkness with a copper head,
The one whose will is fatal
The city was founded under the sea...
“Under the sea” - what does it mean? Firstly, this is due to the fact that St. Petersburg was built below sea level: the most unfavorable place in terms of geographical conditions was chosen. It's swampy and will flood. In general, “we are destined by nature to be here...”. Granite banks were necessary, gradually this granite was built higher and higher, and yet St. Petersburg periodically floods.
But there is something else here.
The 23rd Psalm, well known in Pushkin’s era, since it is included in the rule read before Communion: “The earth is the Lord’s and what fills it, the universe and everything that lives in it, for He founded it on the seas and established it on the rivers” (Ps 23 : 1–2). God founded the earth on seas and on rivers, and the self-proclaimed earthly god does the exact opposite. This is such a demiurge, even great in his own way, but what he does is initially with a wormhole...
He is terrible in the surrounding darkness!
[this is the center of darkness again]
What a thought on the brow!
What power is hidden in it!
And what fire there is in this horse!
Where are you galloping, proud horse?
And where will you put your hooves?
O mighty lord of fate!
Aren't you above the abyss?
At the height, with an iron bridle
Raised Russia on its hind legs?
He raised Russia on its hind legs over the abyss, keeping it from falling. It’s good, of course, that he kept it, but the question only arises: who brought her to the abyss?
Around the foot of the idol
[this word “idol” is repeated again - a pagan idol]
The poor madman walked around
And brought wild glances
On the faces of the ruler of half the world.
For now, let’s remember this line about “the ruler of half the world.”
His chest felt tight. Chelo
It lay down on the cold grate
[it is clear that it is associated with a feeling of lack of freedom],
My eyes became foggy,
A fire ran through my heart,
Blood boiled. He became gloomy
Before the proud idol<…>.
An idol is a soulless idol. And in the censored version, Zhukovsky says simply wonderful: “Before the marvelous Russian giant,” which, by the way, caused Belinsky to be wildly delighted and gave rise to a magnificent interpretation of the poem, supposedly telling about the conflict between the individual and the state. Allegedly, Peter I embodies state necessity, and Eugene is a person who suffers. But still, state necessity is more important... So, based on the censored text, a very strange interpretation arose, which, alas, is still alive today.
And, clenching my teeth, clenching my fingers,
As if possessed by black power,
“Welcome, miraculous builder! -
He whispered, trembling angrily, -
Already for you!..”
The word “good” in the mouth of Eugene is a clever antithesis to the words “for evil” at the beginning of the poem, which we hear from the lips of Peter. This is “good” in which there is not a drop of good: the evil generated by Peter, in turn, gives rise to reciprocal evil on the part of Eugene, whose rebellion Pushkin, of course, does not sympathize with. The description here is quite negative: “As if overcome by black power,” “trembling angrily.”
Pushkin did not approve of the noble rebellion. He ideologically disagreed with the Decembrists even during the writing of “Boris Godunov” in 1824–1825, this is manifested already in the poem “October 19” of 1825, where a lyrical subject psychologically very close to the author raises a toast to the Tsar, which is extremely unlikely from a pro-Decembrist-oriented person. In fact, from that time on, Pushkin became a monarchist, albeit with complex reservations. But at the same time he becomes a very unorthodox monarchist, inclined to criticize a lot - a monarchist who often irritates the tsar himself. At some point, Pushkin was even going to go over to the opposition... Everything was very complicated there.
But in general, Pushkin’s political orientations were rather monarchical: he did not like democracy, and, reading Tocqueville, he perceived his book about democracy in America with horror. In no case did Pushkin want anything like this for Russia. However, in a predominantly peasant country there could be no democracy, and in this sense the poet was situationally right. Democracy arises in countries where the majority of the population lives in cities, where there is a powerful middle class, this implies a completely different situation. In Russia at that time, nothing like this was even planned, and therefore Pushkin did not approve of the Decembrist rebellion. Another thing is that he very much supported the Decembrists as his friends. Moreover, he felt guilty that they had suffered very seriously, while he, who had shared their ideas for several years, suffered almost no harm at all. So the relationship was not easy.
Pushkin considered it right to be friends with both the Tsar and the Decembrists. And when the poet was accused of flattery to the tsar, he gave an angry rebuke to this - the poem “To Friends.” Pushkin, of course, was not a flatterer; he had his own difficult position, which many did not accept, but it was what it was.
And suddenly headlong
He started to run. It seemed
He is like a formidable king,
Instantly ignited with anger,
The face quietly turned...
The Bronze Horseman's head turns. Obviously, this looks like a scene from The Stone Guest.
And its area is empty
He runs and hears behind him -
It's like thunder roaring -
Heavy ringing galloping
Along the shaken pavement.
And, illuminated by the pale moon,
Stretching out your hand on high,
The Bronze Horseman rushes after him
On a loud galloping horse.
"Illuminated by the pale moon." Here we see a very interesting technique, generally characteristic of Pushkin. Pushkin was not very fond of frontal, straightforward references, especially since censorship was also not very conducive to this kind of love. And yet, when reading this text, an association naturally arises with the famous fragment of the “Apocalypse”: “I looked, and behold, a pale horse and a rider on it, whose name was “death”; and hell followed him; and he was given authority over the fourth part of the earth<…>"(Rev 6:8). In Pushkin, Peter is hyperbolically called “the ruler of half the world.”
“The horse is pale,” - very controversial issue how to correctly translate this word. In Greek (more precisely, in Koine, the popular simplified version of the Greek language in which the New Testament is written) it is “χλωρός” (can be understood as “pale”, or “pale green”, there are other options). Pushkin's pale it turns out the moon, the reference here is demonstratively not direct. By the way, in the poem “I erected a monument to myself not made by hands...” we see something similar. “He ascended higher with the head of the rebellious / Alexandrian pillar.” Alexandrian is from the word Alexandria, and not from the word Alexander. Back in 1937, Henri Gregoire drew attention to this. The Alexandria Pillar is, formally speaking, the Pharos lighthouse, one of the seven ancient wonders of the world. It is also worth considering that Pushkin’s poem refers us to Derzhavin and Horace. However, on the other hand, as Oleg Proskurin convincingly showed, the word “pillar” in the Pushkin era and by Pushkin himself was used precisely in the meaning of a pillar, and not a pyramid, although, in principle, such a meaning was possible. And yet Alexandrian. Proskurin, in particular, says that Alexandrian motifs may also be present here, yes, but in any case, we have an indirect reference that works in such a way that external level this is the Faros Lighthouse, but it was impossible not to remember the structure, which was called not the “Alexandrian Pillar”, but the “Alexander Pillar”, it was impossible. It was impossible not to see this hidden reference.
These kind of indirect textual parallels are, in principle, characteristic of Pushkin, and, most likely, the same thing happened with the island of Goloday. Moreover, in the prose oral passage “A Secluded House on Vasilyevsky” Pushkin gives a topographical description of Goloday, without calling him by name: he was clearly interested in this place.
So the Bronze Horseman pursues the rebellious nobleman, and then the riot is put down.
And from the time when it happened
He should go to that square,
His face showed
Confusion. To your heart
He hastily pressed his hand,
As if subduing him with torment,
A worn out cap,
Didn’t raise embarrassed eyes
And he walked aside.
In Pushkin’s draft, instead of “cap” there is “kalpak” - not with an “o”, but with an “a”. The kalpak evokes associations with the holy fool’s cap, so perhaps there is a more meaningful option hidden here.
And then on the “small island” we see the deceased Eugene.
So, what is the meaning of what is revealed to us? In fact, we have before us a combination, the superposition of two revolts on top of each other - the common people-peasant and, albeit disguised, but still noble. Why is this so? Pushkin does not approve of either rebellion. He describes them rather with horror. The poet is full of gloomy forebodings, and, apparently, we are talking primarily about the fact that if these two rebellions coincide, then Russia may not be able to resist. As a matter of fact, this is what will happen during the revolution.
There is another symbolism here. The flood of 1824, which is described here, occurred on November 7, although according to the old style. Pushkin, of course, could not understand this ontological symbolism.
But in general, what happened happened. Thank you.
Video: Victor Aromshtam
Educational lecture hall of the portal “Orthodoxy and Peace” has been operating since the beginning of 2014. Lecturers include teachers from religious and secular universities, scientists and popularizers of science. Video recordings and texts of all lectures are published on.
The plot of the poem is based on the St. Petersburg myth.
There are two options for interpreting the conflict in the poem:
1) V.G. Belinsky: the general historical necessity embodied in the image of Peter I, which is interpreted positively, and the individual will, embodied in the image of Eugene, which is interpreted negatively, are contrasted;
2) V. Bryusov: the equal importance and necessity of the two principles - in the scene of the revolt, Eugene is stylistically equated with Peter I. The revolt of the “little man” is doomed, but natural, in this rebellion the “little man” rises.
E. Maimin: Pushkin does not evaluate, but analyzes.
The Petersburg myth (subtitle - “The Petersburg Tale”) is based on the fact that there are three heroes in the work: Peter I, Eugene and the city of St. Petersburg.
Perception of Peter I
State consciousness: he is the demiurge, the creator, the creator new world, transforming the old world
Old Believers: Peter I – Antichrist
It was perceived accordingly city: 1) the appearance of a city is a miracle, since chaos is ordered, limits are imposed on it, it is a triumph human mind; symbolism of the stone: associated with the Apostle Peter (Peter is the stone of faith), the city is built of stone, and not only city buildings are being built, but also a temple - the Cathedral of Peter and Paul;
2) this is the city of the Antichrist, a city that must fall, it is no coincidence that it is doomed to floods; the city was built immediately, it has no historical past, which means there will be no future (A. Akhmatova “Poem without a Hero”: “And sworn by Queen Avdotya, Dostoevsky and possessed. The fog went into the city...”). The city was built from scratch, its signs are ghostliness, fog, white nights, a ghost town and the people in it are ghosts. The city arises contrary to cultural-historical law (not in the center, but on the outskirts of the empire). The city is being created out of spite(to the Swedes, history, nature - built in an inconvenient place): “And he thought: / From here we will threaten the Swede, / Here the city will be founded / To spite the arrogant neighbor.” Those. the city is being built evil force(demonic connotations).
Vladimir Nikolaevich Toporov in his book " Petersburg and the “Petersburg text” of Russian literature" noted:
“The myth of the end determines, perhaps, not only the main theme of St. Petersburg mythology, but also its secret nerve. This end is not somewhere far away, far away, and not sometime in the distant future, and not even just close and soon: it is here and now, because the idea of the end has become the essence of the city, has entered his consciousness. And this catastrophic consciousness is perhaps worse than the catastrophe itself. The latter listens to everything at once, and in front of her the person is la quantité negligeable. But the awareness of a catastrophe before it has occurred confronts a person with the problem of choice, which he cannot avoid. And in this situation a person - significant value. The consciousness of the end, or rather, the possibility of it, which, like the sword of Damocles, hangs over the city, gives rise to psychological type waiting for a disaster. This attitude of expectation is supported by almost annual rehearsals of the end: over the 290 years of the city’s existence, it has experienced more than 270 floods, when the water rose one and a half meters above normal or more and began to flood the city both from the outside and from the inside - through city rivers and water supply hatches. The folklore tradition, more precisely, perhaps, the “grassroots” one, stood firmly on the inevitability of the end from the very foundation of St. Petersburg and even before it: legend tells (and in in some cases it is also confirmed by the practice of later times), that the first inhabitants of the Neva delta did not build solid dwellings and did not burden themselves with property, but tied their ropes to a tree and, when the elements played out, sat down, taking with them the necessary minimum, into the rope and entrusted their lives to fate , which often took them to the Dudergof heights, like the forefather Noah and his companions to Ararat. If St. Petersburg suffered from water, then Moscow suffered from fire, also from almost annual fires, and Muscovites, also in anticipation of the fires, did not really care about restoring housing, which was about to be burned down again by a new fire. But if the cataclysm became an obsession in St. Petersburg and formed the basis of the St. Petersburg eschatological myth, then Muscovites showed greater fatalism and greater carelessness - they expected fires, but ekpirosis [Greek. “destroying fire”] were not made the object-theme of their mythology.
The folk myth of water death was also adopted by literature, which created a kind of St. Petersburg “flood” text. Much has been written about this, and therefore there is no point in returning to this topic in its entirety. However, for general orientation, it is appropriate to identify a number of rather different names associated with the theme, which plays out on a supra-empirical plane - either eschatological or historiosophical. In this series, first of all, it is worth noting the poem by S.P. Shevyrev’s “Petrograd” (in the autograph it was originally called “Petersburg”), 1829, published in “Moskovsky Vestnik” for 1830, No. 1. In two respects it deserves mention in this work: in the introduction to “The Bronze Horseman” Pushkin, not When naming the author, I took into account this poem 74, firstly, and, secondly, the construction on which the theme rests is a genre of debate-duel between two principles - Peter and the sea, man and the elements, with a strong mythologizing element: Peter won:
Why does the bosom of the waters turn black?
Why do the waves of the sea make noise?
He brings gifts to Peter
Defeated element... –
and although the rider, who took off “on a fragment of wild mountains,”
A keen guardian of his works
With his gaze he holds back the sea
And mockingly calls:
“Which of us is powerful in a dispute?”
Peter's victory is ambiguous. Its price is
And the basis of unsteady connections
Millions have settled down, -
Temples are rising from the communities,
And the palaces, and the columns... -
under Peter and
Remembers the ancient enmity,
Remembers the vengeful sea
And yes, he will accept vengeance.
Sends flood and grief to the hail -
to this day."
V.N. Toporov pointed out the duality of the city’s image, noting the signs of this duality at all levels: the same signs, depending on the ideological coordinate system in which they are perceived, can be assessed in diametrically opposed ways, i.e. The ideological context is important.
The duality in the plot of the poem is associated primarily with the image of Peter I. So, for example, the activity of Peter I finds analogies with the history of the creation of the world: “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. 1). :2). This view is reflected in the “Introduction”, where Pushkin uses a sublime style; it is no coincidence that the “Introduction” resembles an ode (NB! Odic myth of M.V. Lomonosov about Russia, Peter I and other sovereigns: taming the wild forces of nature). The divinity of Peter I, the sacredness of his image is also in the fact that here he is not named, here – “He”.
On the shore of desert waves
stood He, full of great thoughts,
And he looked into the distance. Wide before him
The river rushed; poor boat
He strove along it alone.
Along mossy, marshy banks
Blackened huts here and there,
Shelter of a wretched Chukhonian;
And the forest, unknown to the rays
In the fog of the hidden sun,
There was noise all around.
And he thought:
From here we will threaten the Swede,
The city will be founded here
To spite an arrogant neighbor.
Nature destined us here
Cut a window to Europe, 1
Stand with a firm foot by the sea.
Here on new waves
All the flags will visit us,
And we’ll record it in the open air.
A hundred years have passed, and the young city,
There is beauty and wonder in full countries,
From the darkness of the forests, from the swamps of blat
He ascended magnificently and proudly;
Where was the Finnish fisherman before?
Nature's sad stepson
Alone on the low banks
Thrown into unknown waters
Your old net, now there
Along busy shores
Slender communities crowd together
Palaces and towers; ships
A crowd from all over the world
They strive for rich marinas;
The Neva is dressed in granite;
Bridges hung over the waters;
Dark green gardens
Islands covered her,
And in front of the younger capital
Old Moscow has faded,
Like before a new queen
Porphyry widow.
<…>I love you, Petra's creation,
I love your strict, slender appearance,
Neva sovereign current,
Its coastal granite
<…>Show off, city Petrov, and stand
Unshakable like Russia,
May he make peace with you
And the defeated element;
Enmity and ancient captivity
Let the Finnish waves forget
And they will not be vain malice
Disturb Peter's eternal sleep!
Image of water
On the one hand, water is compared with a sick person, with a criminal, with demonic forces bursting out, and on the other hand, as biblical flood- a symbol of God's punishment, God's wrath - in such a terrible way admonishes a person. Those. The Neva has a dual origin.
Over darkened Petrograd
November breathed the autumn chill.
Splashing with a noisy wave
To the edges of your slender fence,
Neva was tossing around like a sick person
Restless in my bed.
<…>Siege! attack! evil waves,
Like thieves, they climb into windows.
People
He sees God's wrath and awaits execution.
Alas! everything perishes: shelter and food!
Where will I get it?
In that terrible year
The late Tsar was still in Russia
He ruled with glory. To the balcony
Sad, confused, he went out
And he said: “With God's element
Kings cannot control.” He sat down
And in the Duma with sorrowful eyes
I looked at the evil disaster.
But now, having had enough of destruction
And tired of insolent violence,
The Neva was drawn back,
Admiring your indignation
And leaving with carelessness
Your prey. So villain
With his fierce gang
Having burst into the village, he breaks, cuts,
Destroys and robs; screams, gnashing,
Violence, swearing, anxiety, howling!..
And, burdened with robbery,
Afraid of the chase, tired,
The robbers are hurrying home,
Dropping prey on the way.
St. Petersburg is also double: it is both the city of Peter (apostle) and Petropol (paganism), thus the city itself bears punishment.
ð The St. Petersburg myth is based on two myths: about the birth of the world and about its end. NB! Compositionally, these two principles are separated: in the “Introduction” the birth myth is presented, but there is no Eugene here, and as soon as Eugene appears, the apocalyptic myth begins to sound.
The image of Peter I is doubled: he bears divine traits - God the Creator and infernal traits - a pagan god.
Those. may be noted: 2 Peter I, 2 St. Petersburg, 2 Neva.
Eugene is a kind of parody, a reduced double of Peter I. Peter I in the “Introduction” has no name, Eugene has no surname, therefore, has no historical roots and, therefore, is similar to St. Petersburg. Both heroes are shown in the same situations: thinking, thinking, internal monologue– and on the same background: water.
But my poor, poor Evgeniy...
Alas! his confused mind
Against terrible shocks
I couldn't resist. Rebellious noise
The Neva and the winds were heard
In his ears. Terrible thoughts
Silently full, he wandered.
The image of Evgeniy begins to split in two in the scene at the monument before the riot (Evgeniy’s analogy with the holy fool from “Boris Godunov”).
Those. we can note the technique of compositional symmetry - the “trademark” of Pushkin’s poetics, based on his dialectics.
The scene of Eugene's rebellion: not everything suggests that Eugene has been raised to Divine heights. The words “as if possessed by black power” testify to the power of demonic principles, and the words “a flame ran through the heart” indicate the divine component.
The riot scene combines two stylistic layers: low and high.
Evgeny jumped up; remembered vividly
He is a past horror; hastily
He stood up; went wandering, and suddenly
Stopped - and around
He quietly began to move his eyes
With wild fear on your face.
He found himself under the pillars
Big house. On the porch
With a raised paw, as if alive,
The lions stood guard,
And right in the dark heights
Above the fenced rock
Idol with outstretched hand
Sat on a bronze horse.
Evgeny shuddered. cleared up
The thoughts in it are scary. He found out
And the place where the flood played,
Where the waves of predators crowded,
Rioting angrily around him,
And lviv, and the square, and that,
Who stood motionless
In the darkness with a copper head,
The one whose will is fatal
A city was founded under the sea...
He is terrible in the surrounding darkness!
What a thought on the brow!
What power is hidden in it!
And what fire there is in this horse!
Where are you galloping, proud horse?
And where will you put your hooves?
O mighty lord of fate!
Aren't you above the abyss?
At the height, with an iron bridle
Raised Russia on its hind legs? 5
Around the foot of the idol
The poor madman walked around
And brought wild glances
The face of the ruler of half the world.
His chest felt tight. Chelo
It lay down on the cold grate,
My eyes became foggy,
A fire ran through my heart,
Blood boiled. He became gloomy
Before the proud idol
And, clenching my teeth, clenching my fingers,
As if possessed by black power,
“Welcome, miraculous builder! –
He whispered, trembling angrily, -
Already for you!..” And suddenly headlong
He started to run. It seemed
He is like a formidable king,
Instantly ignited with anger,
The face quietly turned...
And its area is empty
He runs and hears behind him -
Like thunder roaring -
Heavy ringing galloping
Along the shaken pavement.
And, illuminated by the pale moon,
Stretching out your hand on high,
The Bronze Horseman rushes after him
On a loud galloping horse;
And all night long the poor madman,
Wherever you turn your feet,
Behind him is the Bronze Horseman everywhere
He galloped with a heavy stomp.
Protest can be seen as both divine and demonic, and each time they switch places.
Those. Pushkin speaks not only about the mutual correctness of Peter I and Eugene, but also about their mutual wrongness. Each hero is both exalted and degraded relative to the other.
And he seems to be bewitched
As if chained to marble,
Can't get off! Around him
Water and nothing else!
And with my back turned to him,
In the unshakable heights,
Above the indignant Neva
Stands with outstretched hand
Idol on a bronze horse.
But victories are full of triumph,
The waves were still boiling angrily,
It was as if a fire was smoldering underneath them,
The foam still covered them,
And Neva was breathing heavily,
Like a horse running back from battle.
And from the time when it happened
He should go to that square,
His face showed
Confusion. To your heart
He hastily pressed his hand,
As if subduing him with torment,
A worn out cap,
Didn’t raise embarrassed eyes
And he walked aside.
At the beginning of the poem, a picture of the desert area is given, of what was in place future capital- St. Petersburg:
The river rushed; poor boat
He strove along it alone.
Along mossy, marshy banks
Blackened huts here and there,
Shelter of a wretched Chukhonian;
And the forest, unknown to the rays
In the fog of the hidden sun,
There was noise all around.
Against this background, Peter appears before us. He is “full of great thoughts,” thinking about taming the elements, about how he will build a city from “topi blat”* from where “we will threaten the Swede,” in which “all the flags will visit us.” Reflecting on these great achievements, the great sovereign does not notice either the “poor boat” or the “shelter of a wretched Chukhonets”. This man doesn't care about life notable people, because a picture of future greatness opens before his eyes northern capital. Peter mortgaged his city “to spite his arrogant neighbor,” destroying what was dear to “the Finnish fisherman, the sad stepson of nature.” And what are the joys and sorrows of some poor fisherman worth compared to the interests of the state? So Peter disrupts the measured flow of life that has been established in these places since time immemorial. The “miraculous builder” does not include life in his great plans ordinary people. Next, a miraculous transformation takes place before the readers: instead of poor huts - “slender masses are crowded with palaces and towers”, instead of a “poor boat” - “ships ... from all over the earth”, instead of “mossy, swampy” shores - “ dark green gardens“... It was as if the labor, sacrifices, and struggle never happened. An incredible city, “full of beauty and wonder,” which, by human will, stood “on the banks of the Neva,” delights.
But the strong-willed pressure of Peter, who created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. Petersburg was built on the bones of the people. Moreover, this city was built as a challenge to the elements of nature, since it was built on a place that was not very suitable for a large city, for living a large number of people, at the cost of unprecedented efforts and sacrifices. Even geometrically correct layout new capital, based on strictly straight lines and right angles, was opposed to the surrounding natural environment, expressing the triumph of reason over the elements of nature.
At the time when the action of the poem takes place, Peter’s human essence already becomes the property of history. All that remained was the copper Peter - an object of worship, a symbol of sovereignty, a “proud idol”, “an idol on a bronze horse”. And the violence that he committed, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements, taking revenge not on his offender, but on his descendants - the innocent inhabitants of the city.
The creation of St. Petersburg is a kind of personification of all the activities of Peter I, his entire era. Everything he did was violent to one degree or another. The “Terrible Tsar” built a powerful state, but he created it on the bones and blood of people, neglecting them, their lives, their desires. But any violence entails retribution, and the patience of the people does not last forever. It is not for nothing that at the beginning of the second part the author gives the following comparison of the raging elements:
So villain
With his fierce gang
Having burst into the village, he breaks, cuts,
Destroys and robs; screams, gnashing,
Violence, swearing, anxiety, howling!..
This comparison is associated with popular revolt. After all, the country was already shaken by the uprising of Emelyan Pugachev. Isn't this an element that sweeps away everything in its path? In “The Bronze Horseman” we see that the elements of nature merge precisely with the rebellion of the people, but this is so far a protest of only one of its representatives - the little man Eugene. This rebellion was suppressed, as was the Pugachev uprising, but its image, like the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem, remains a warning for the powers that be, for the rulers of all times and peoples. The destruction in the city is enormous, and the number of victims is high. Nothing can withstand the elements of flooding. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by muddy waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. “Tsars cannot cope with God’s elements,” and even more so a copper idol. In a strong-willed, violent manner, Peter established among wildlife a city that will now forever be subject to attacks from the elements. And who knows, perhaps Eugene, so violently and casually destroyed, is a microscopic drop of the anger of the Russian people, a huge wave of which can sweep away the “idol with outstretched hand.” After all, the long and prosperous existence of a state that endlessly suppresses its subjects and neglects them in the name of its goals is impossible. On the contrary, the state must act for their benefit. After all, according to Pushkin, both flood and popular revolt, “senseless and merciless,” is a manifestation of God’s wrath, which has fallen on the city so far in the form of a natural disaster, and in the future may result in a new Pugachev-like: well, the element of a popular uprising, no less terrible than the element of flood, administering its judgment without distinguishing who is right and who is wrong.
Thus, Peter I changed the natural course historical development Russia: from a backward semi-Asian country he made a European great power, he
Above the abyss
At the height, with an iron bridle
Raised Russia on its hind legs...
Our country is above this abyss to this day, although what Pushkin foresaw has already come true: a “senseless and merciless rebellion” already shook Russia in 1917. A great country above the abyss even now: the rulers, including modern ones, have not learned a lesson from history. What will happen? Will Russia fall into the abyss? Will he jump over the abyss? Or will it remain on its edge? I would like to hope for the best. In my opinion, this depends not only on the rulers, but also on the people themselves. After all God's punishment in the form of an angry element, both natural and popular, sent both to the powerful of this world and to the people because some have turned into idols, and others into slaves. Pushkin equally hates both “wild lordship” and “skinny slavery,” which he talks about not only in the poem “The Bronze Horseman,” but in all his civil lyrics.
On the shore of desert waves
He stood there, full of great thoughts,
And he looked into the distance. Wide before him
The river rushed; poor boat
I strove for it alone
(The Bronze Horseman A. Pushkin).
On May 24, 1703, in the court journal of Peter the Great, there is a strange entry that tells that having ordered to cut down trees and build a palace for himself on St. Petersburg Island, which is now called Zayachiy, Peter goes to HIMSELF, to Kanetskaya Sloboda. Moreover, Menshikov does not advise him to cut down a house from a new forest, offering to take any house from the Kanets settlements, of which there are a great many there. Excuse me, but what about Pushkin’s lines “on the shore of deserted waves, he stood, full of great thoughts”? Was he really lying? great poet and the secret gendarme of the empire about the events of that time?
Let's not rush and accuse Pushkin of insolvency. This poet demands careful reading. Moreover, in the poem “The Bronze Horseman” we're talking about specifically about the Bronze Horseman, and not about Peter the Great.
I wrote in other works that this monument stood long before the appearance of Peter on the banks of the Neva and it was erected to the founder of this city, George the Victorious, the Grand Duke and Great Khan George Danilovich.
Falcone did not cast the monument, he only remade it: his student Colo replaced the head, and Falcone changed the position right hand– pulling her towards the Neva. Remove these alterations and before you is St. George, placed here long before the Romanov invasion of Rus' and the creation of a new state formation from Rus'-Horde-Great Tartaria - the Russian Empire.
The Bronze Horseman is not copper. There is little copper there. But, nevertheless, Pushkin calls him such. I managed to unravel this mystery, and what is told next will surprise my new reader, and for the one who is familiar with my works, what he read will help put together a real picture of knowledge about St. Petersburg before St. Petersburg. About the Russian city of Oreshek.
Nicholas I, who graciously greeted "Poltava" and even "Boris Godunov", showed strange intolerance towards "The Bronze Horseman", despite the glorification of his "great ancestor" in it. Judging by the handwritten copy of the poem stored in the Lenin Library in Moscow, the monarch’s censor’s pencil went mainly over those lines of the poem that seemed insufficiently respectful towards Emperor Peter (and therefore, after Pushkin’s death, they were carefully smoothed out by V. Zhukovsky).
Did Zhukovsky really dare to rule over Pushkin himself? Yes, I dared! By decree of the king himself, who wanted to hide the secret of the Bronze Horseman from generations.
Today, you won't find an explanation Slavic word copper. Nodding to Media, Midgard, and other names does not clarify much. Latin interpretations, as a rule, associated with the place of copper mining, are completely misleading.
Meanwhile, in the manuscript there is an edit by the king, affecting the name of the horseman. There he is COPPER, that is, LONG or ANCIENT. For a more complete understanding, I will cite the word AGO, meaning RECENTLY or at a previous time.
The word copper means old. Metal oxidizes in air and gives the impression of antiquity, antiquity, after a short time. If copper is not cleaned, it turns into decrepitude and its appearance speaks of old age. Looking at the oxidized copper jam bowl, made less than a year ago, I find myself thinking that it has lain in the ground for many years, although I know exactly when it was purchased.
The young official Eugene encounters not Peter, remade by Falconet, but the Ancient Horseman who founded this city in 1350.
In general, the idea of the desolation of those places belongs to Peter the Great. It was he who created the legend that the city was founded in deserted places where no one lived. Pushkin writes about the opposite: there are boats and Chukhon huts here. That is, what Peter no longer saw when he arrived on the shores where the Great City already stood. Moreover, the Bronze Horseman looks at the other side of the Neva, where the Chukhons lived. Oh, not a word about the left side of the river at the beginning of the poem. Despite the fact that Evgeniy is an official, supposedly from Pushkin’s time, he is a witness to the flood, the disaster that claimed the life of his beloved girl named Parasha. Moreover, the flood is described with such force that there is no doubt - an extraordinary catastrophe for these places, accustomed to floods. Pushkin depicts some kind of event that happened long before Peter, which led to the madness of the main character. Something similar to the death of Pompeii, as a result of which the city was completely destroyed. And this event is a flood of extraordinary force.
So, Peter, who visited modern Hare Island, orders the forest there to be cut down, emphasizing that there are wild thickets in this place. In response to a reasonable remark that there are plenty of houses in the Kanets settlements, Peter nevertheless orders the emptiness of these places to be noted in the journal. But here’s a strange thing: on the Swedish maps the Lanckrona fortress is clearly visible, in the place where the Okhta flows into the Neva, other settlements are also shown. But the left bank seems to have been worn out and worn out not so long ago, perhaps just the other day. On Russian maps there is nothing similar to the Swedish copies, neither settlements nor the fortress of Nyenschanz or Kanets in Russian.
However, the surviving house of Peter shows that the house’s construction was clearly Scandinavian, and it was painted to look like brick. The Russians have round logs, and the crowns are knitted differently. In Peter's house the technology is backward: the logs are poorly fitted, with diamond-shaped ends. That is, Peter still listened to Menshikov and brought the house from the Kanets settlement. By the way, the canopy there is not Russian - it’s small in size. And even weddings took place in the Russian entryway! In general, Chukhonskaya is a hut.
Sloboda is a village along the road leading to the city. As a rule, the inhabitants of the settlement were exempted from taxes by the prince. Therefore, I assume that Kanets is one of the fortresses that covered some kind of big city.. And it was placed in the most vulnerable place.
The word cann appears in many city names. I’ll give Kansk as an example. Obviously the word CAN is independent. This is what I decided to explore. Let's start with the fact that the majority Turkic peoples, the word means BLOOD. This discovery led me to another, namely KHAN.
Khan is the title of the supreme ruler of eastern peoples;, more ancient form hakan.
Already Shelun changed the title shen-yu, which his predecessors bore, to “khakan” (in China “kho-han”), which had the meaning of “emperor”. Gradually, all the sovereigns of Central Asia accepted the title of Khakan.
Gregory of Typsky calls the leader of the Huns "chaganus". Byzantine historians designate the king of the Avars with the names caganoV and cagan. In a letter to Mauritius Tiberius in 598, the Turkic sovereign calls himself “khagan.” The Armenian historian Moses Khorensky uses the expression “great khakan” (vezourk khakan) to designate one eastern prince.
That is, the Kanets settlements mentioned by Menshikov are nothing more than Khan settlements or Khakan settlements, that is, imperial settlements. And this suggests that since there are such settlements, there is even the Kanets fortress (imperial fortress), which means there is an imperial city itself. By the way, in Peter’s journals these settlements are very numerous and even make rafts for sending timber to Sweden.
The presence of a huge number of castles around St. Petersburg is attributed to late Catherine’s construction projects. Pavlovsk, Pushkin, Peterhof, even the Engineering Castle, all these are buildings that existed previously, declared official history times These fortresses protected the approaches to the main city - Northern Palmyra.
Today Oreshk is the name of a very small fortress on the island. This crafty renaming is not accidental: Krestovsky Island became Hare Island for a reason. Something was hidden very much. And they hid our Russian history, creating a myth about the desolation of these places.
Allow the reader a small digression? Working on the very complex genre of historical detective fiction, I have to fit a whole symbiosis of knowledge into a small miniature. Unfortunately, I am not a novelist, but chose the path in the literature of Prosper Merimee and Valentin Pikul. The miniatures of the latter are little known, but it was they who influenced me indelible impression volume of information. I was convinced that behind every phrase of the author there is a meaning, which can only be fully understood by working on the material yourself. And then, the direction set by the author turns into a real novel. The author gives everyone the opportunity to turn into a researcher and surpass him in creativity.
Therefore, you should not be offended that I do not provide the links that my critics demand about me. The miniature is designed to announce knowledge and the desire to awaken creativity and search in you. Everything that has been said can easily be verified independently, and I am writing for people who want to think, and not for those who, casually, throwing out the word “nonsense” (and sometimes worse), went their own way, whistling through the nasal holes in their heads, not wanting to ventilate their thoughts attic.
I know that I am right and my works will still be studied by my descendants. Where does this confidence come from? The reason is simple - when I work, I catch myself thinking that someone is leading me along the path of research. And this someone seriously decided that the time had come to reveal the truth. I am not a seer or a prophet. No and no! Simply, due to my specialty as an operative, I am inclined to analyze and possibly deduce Sherlock Holmes. It would not be amiss to say that I am a descendant of an ancient noble family and my title (very rare and little-known) means not an ordinary nobleman, but a nobleman who has clergy by birthright. I warn the jokers, I am not a king or even the Pope. Everything is much more prosaic, but, at the same time, surprising. The legends of my family are more than wonderful. And then it’s not a matter of literary fame, my ancestors gave me the opportunity to be equal in any society, and I myself achieved sufficient success, to say to yourself: “I have succeeded.” The point here is the desire to pass on knowledge and tell the world who the Slavs, and Russian people in general, really are. Therefore, after reading my works, try to develop the topic yourself, and you will see what horizons will open up for you. What I see now is breathtaking from the greatness of my land and my people. I am happy to be a Russian person and thank God for His mercy to me.
Continuing the story about Oreshka, I must tell you about the reason Russian-Swedish wars. There are many of them, and they are not only from Peter’s times. They were always organized by the bishop of Rome, who now calls himself pope. The ancient estates of Rus' on the Neva River have always attracted this pontiff, but you will find out why at the very end of the story. The discovery of the secrets of the pyramids by humanity will produce less of a shock on you than what you are about to hear, buddy. And Pushkin, and also a number of French artists, will help me with this.
In the meantime, I want to explain what happened during the time of Georgy Danilovich. We know him as different names. These are George the Victorious, Saint Yuri, Gyur Khan, Alexander the Great and others.
During the reign of this prince, he had another title - GREAT KHAN (KHAKAN). It is translated into Turkic as GENGISIS KHAN.
None Tatar-Mongol invasion there was none in Rus'. This term conceals the formation of the great Russian state, Great Tartary, Rus', and the Horde. Moreover, the horde is not so much a state as a large military formation- all armed forces of the country. To be summoned to the horde meant to be summoned to Stalin's headquarters. Either a shortcut to reign, or head and shoulders. The formation of Rus' is noted in the Bible and in spiritual books in general as the appearance of a yoke oppressing the world. Like the emergence of BABYLON. Like the creation of a huge empire that subjugated the then known world. As the common homeland of all humanity. That is, the dream of globalizers has already come true once
Strictly speaking, Babylonia is Rus' and means a huge crowd of people.
Today Babylon is known as one of the largest cities The ancient world, the capital of Babylonia, and then the power of Alexander the Great. That is, George the Victorious or Great Khan Georgy Danilovich. The distribution of this name in Rus' is slightly smaller than the surname Ivanov. Cities, villages, rivers, streams, fields, wastelands, etc., one way or another, bear indirect references to Babylon. There are especially many of them in Altai.
Naturally, Georgy Danilovich built his own capital, despite the fact that it had previously been the entire set of cities of the Golden Ring of Russia - the Master of Veliky Novgorod. This is the so-called Tsarist Rome between the Oka and Volga rivers
The construction of Babylon is noted in spiritual books as the Babylonian Pandemonium. Indeed, many buildings with columns and free-standing pillars were erected in the city. It was a city of great architecture. You can see it today in the remains of old St. Petersburg.
Yes, my friend, the city of St. Peter is BABYLON, which will then perish during the Great Flood, the flood described in Pushkin’s poem THE ANCIENT HORSEMAN.
Obviously, in the 16th century there will be a flood of unprecedented force. It will be associated with a volcanic eruption, most likely Vesuvius or Etna, possibly an Icelandic volcano. Here you need to work with geologists. A tsunami covered the great city and it was destroyed. It was so destroyed that people could no longer restore it to its previous form. But something remains. Peter and Paul Fortress, Spit of Vasilyevsky Island, Exchange, St. Isaac's, Kazan Cathedral, Hermitage, Arch of the General Staff, Field of Mars, Pillar of Alexandria, Neva embankment in granite, Anichkov Bridge, Moika embankment and much more. And of course the Bronze Horseman. You can read about this in my series of miniatures “Around and Around Peter”. Fortresses-castles that defended Babylon from all directions of the world also remained. In fact, the city ceased to exist, but people lived on its ruins.
You might think that such an event would have left no trace in the Middle Ages. This is wrong. And now we turn to the artists whose works exist in abundance in the human world. Many of them are presented in the Hermitage.
Hubert Robert (French Hubert Robert, May 22, 1733, Paris - April 15, 1808, ibid.) is a French landscape painter who gained European fame for his large canvases with romanticized images of ancient ruins surrounded by idealized nature. His nickname was "Robert des Ruines".
He is known for his pictorial fantasies, whose main motif is parks and real, and more often imaginary, “majestic ruins” (in Diderot’s words), for which he made many sketches during his stay in Italy.
Robert's capriccios were highly valued by his contemporaries; Jacques Delisle wrote about him in the poem “Imagination” (1806); Voltaire chose him to decorate his castle in Ferney. His paintings are presented in the Louvre, the Carnival Museum, the St. Petersburg Hermitage and other palaces and estates in Russia, in many major museums in Europe, the USA, Canada, and Australia.
The artist used to leave his signature marks on the canvases. In each painting, among the inscriptions on the wall of a ruin, on a monument, a stone fragment, even on the brand of a cow, etc., one can find the name: “Hubert Robert”, “H. Robert" or the initials "H.R." In some paintings, among the people depicted, the artist left his self-portrait (a gray-haired middle-aged man). Today it is considered an artist's joke. Historians especially make fun of his painting Ancient Temple (trans. Hermitage), where he depicted himself near the magnificent ruins. Like, a joke from a genius. No, my friends, the genius saw these ruins during his lifetime and painted pictures from life. If you look closely at this picture, you will see that this temple today is built into the Winter Palace and is called the Old Hermitage, and the “Architectural Landscape with a Canal” of 1783 is nothing more than the Winter Canal. Those who wish will find in his works both Isaac and the colonnade of the current Kazan Cathedral and the monument to Alexander in front of Isaac. And also sculptures from the Anichkov Bridge.
I repeat, Robber writes what he saw with his own eyes - the destroyed Russian capital - ancient Babylon, the city of Oreshek, founded by Georgy Danilovich in 1350. Only destroyed by flood. Look at these works and you will see residents living in them everyday life, among the ruins, dressed in clothes according to the fashion of the time. Today these paintings are considered to be images of Italy. This is wrong. All of them are dedicated to Babylon. And a landscape artist sees these ruins on the left bank of the Neva at the end of the 18th century, during the reign of Catherine and the massive falsification of the history of the Russian people, the conversion of Babylonian ruins into new temples. More precisely, what they were able to redo. The rest was simply destroyed. St. Isaac's and the Kazan Cathedral were not built. They were being repaired.
There are many such artists. Obviously. They were attracted by the landscapes of the ancient city reflected in the Bible. Realizing that this city was built by all the peoples of the world and the best craftsmen, they rushed to capture at least what was left.
Hubert was born in Paris in 1733. As a nineteen-year-old boy, he began to visit the workshop of the sculptor Slodtz, who instilled in him a love of antiquity and told him about Rome-Babylon in the north, about northern Palmyra. Three years later, Robert arrived in Rome as a supernumerary pensioner French Academy and began working under the direction of Panini, one of the leading masters of architectural landscape in Italy. But he listened especially carefully to the advice of the outstanding master D.–B. Piranesi, who visited the north, in Rome. It was under his influence that the young artist gradually developed as a “painter of ruins.”
“Rome, even when destroyed, teaches,” he wrote on one of the drawings. Robert expressed his admiration for antiquity in the painting “The Artists.” Among the fragments of giant columns and statues, two figures of painters sketching the ruins are barely distinguishable. It is interesting to note that they are depicted with portrait features of Robert and Piranesi himself. There is nothing strange about this. Both artists worked in Oreshok. They wrote what they saw with their own eyes, and historians, who were unable to explain their work, habitually explained the work of chroniclers and draftsmen with their fantasies. And not for the first time! Half of our rarities were written or made by crazy dreamers. Although there is a place for historians in a mental hospital. These gentlemen were pathological lies, ready to sell themselves for another grant or beneficiaries of the Roman throne, passionately wanting to hide the true Epic of the world.
No wonder Robert was struck by the contrasts of Oreshok, the combination of majestic ruins with modern life cities. A cabbage market located around an antique column, cows grazing in the Forum, workers transporting an antique statue that had just been pulled out of the ground. These everyday scenes attracted him close attention. Him and Piranesi. But these are the times of Catherine and Elizabeth. The times of restoration of the great Babylon. Pale restoration and attribution of importance to the creation of a city on the Neva, built on the principle of the Constantine Forum in modern Istanbul (Byzantium, Troy, Yorosalim, Constantinople, Kyiv, Constantinople, Second Rome and others - all these are the names of the same city on the Bosphorus-Jordan , MOTHER OF RUSSIAN CITIES).
By the end of the 18th century, Robert became one of the most fashionable artists. His paintings are popular not only among French patrons. Russian nobles Stroganov, Shuvalov, Yusupov strive to decorate their palaces with his paintings. Catherine II purchased canvases for Tsarskoye Selo, and Emperor Paul ordered four decorative panels in 1782 for Gatchina Palace. All paintings are painted from life. However, stories about the splendor of Oreshok could lead to great trouble for the Romanovs. That is why a legend is created about the painting of these paintings in Italy or the rest of Europe. As a result, the author dies during french revolution, which in fact turned out to be only preparation for the Vatican’s campaign against Babylonia-Rus.
His teacher, Piranesi, is even more impressive. His black and white engravings impress with their realism.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi (Italian: Giovanni Battista Piranesi, October 4, 1720, Mogliano Veneto (near the city of Treviso) - November 9, 1778, Rome) - Italian archaeologist, architect and graphic artist, master of architectural landscapes. Did large number drawings and blueprints, but he erected few buildings, which is why the concept of “paper architecture” is associated with his name. Died under strange circumstances. All the boards from the etchings, as usual, are kept in the Vatican. Access to them is prohibited due to the inscriptions on them. downsides, the places where the sketches were made. The word Babylon is one of the main ones there. Naturally, it was impossible to admit that in the 18th century there was a person who saw Babylon with his own eyes. Piranesi was poisoned by mercury. He was buried in the church of Santa Maria del Priorato.
Jean Honoré Fragonard (April 5, 1732, Grasse - August 22, 1806, Paris) - French painter and engraver. He worked in the Rococo style. He created more than 550 paintings (not counting drawings and engravings). The drawings of Babylon amaze with their vitality. The most famous artist of his time. By official version, died in Paris, forgotten by everyone. All engraver boards in the Vatican.
The paintings of these masters clearly show that the people depicted in them live among ruins and are absolutely unable to even bring them into decent shape, not to mention some kind of restoration. Either people were very lazy, or they could not work on such a scale and using technology unknown to them. The first is inappropriate, people are always accustomed to work, another thing is forgotten technology. Forgotten after the Romanov coup and Great Troubles. What kind of technology this is, I told you earlier.
Unfortunately, due to the ignorance of our ancestors, not many remains of the Neva Babylon have reached our times, but the existing copies pose quite a lot of uncomfortable questions for historians, who either modestly remain silent or speak complete nonsense, thereby polluting the historical memory of the great past. There is no science of history. There is mythology, well paid by the powers that be.
Find the works of these masters, reader, and you will understand what Leningrad looked like before.
However, back to Pushkin.
It's November. A young man named Evgeniy is walking along the streets. He is a petty official who is afraid of noble people and embarrassed by his position. Evgeny walks and dreams of his prosperous life, he thinks that he misses his beloved girl Parasha, whom he has not seen for several days. This thought gives rise to calm dreams of family and happiness. The young man comes home and falls asleep to the “sound” of these thoughts. The next day brings terrible news: a terrible storm broke out in the city, and a severe flood claimed the lives of many people. Natural force did not spare anyone: the violent wind, the fierce Neva - all this frightened Evgeniy. He sits with his back to the “bronze idol”. This is the Bronze Horseman monument. He notices that there is nothing on the opposite bank, where his beloved Parasha lived. Vasilyevsky Island is bare and destroyed. Terrible destruction everywhere. It seems to him that the flood has swept over the whole world and the world has perished.
Evgeniy heads headlong there and discovers that the elements did not spare him, a poor petty official, he sees that yesterday’s dreams will not come true. Evgeny, not understanding what he is doing, not understanding where his feet are leading, goes there, to his “bronze idol”. The Bronze Horseman stands proudly on Senate Square. It seems that this is the steadfastness of the Russian character, but you can’t argue with nature... The young man blames the Horseman for all his troubles, he even reproaches him for the fact that he built this city, erected it on the wild Neva. But then an insight occurs: the young man seems to wake up and look with fear at the Bronze Horseman. He understands that he has been rude to Alexander the Great himself, the Great Khakan, the Grand Duke, and the Providence of God. This is not just a prince lying in a stone sarcophagus in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, this is the Scourge of God. He runs, runs as fast as he can, no one knows where, no one knows why. He hears the clatter of hooves and the neighing of horses behind him, he turns around and sees that the “bronze idol” is rushing after him. St. George the Victorious fell off a cliff and decided to punish the daring one. Evgeniy realized who was standing in front of him. This realization drove him crazy.
This was a very difficult miniature for the author. I haven't said a millionth part of what I know. For example, who are Eugene and Parasha and how they are presented in the Bible. This riddle is not complicated; the seeker will receive an answer to it, especially if he looks at the biblical Esther on the iconostasis of Peter and Paul Fortress. This is what is written on the icon: "Queen Esther." There was no place for a story about the rivers of Babylon. The Swedes and the capture of their fortress in the 15th century by Russian troops are not mentioned. Peter did not conquer these places, but bought them, which I described in other works. Although he took the Nyenschanz fortress. Much has not been told, and how can this be done in a short miniature? However, I did the main thing - I showed the forgotten Babylon to the world and I know that I am right in this research. The direction of the search is given, and I finish the miniature satisfied. I think that not only Pushkin: “Oh yes Pushkin, oh yes son of a bitch! Qatar is also not the last of the operas in this world. It’s not for nothing that the commissioner is.
I will return to Peter in my works. I studied there and it is my duty. There is a lot there that the reader has no idea about. But this is already a minor job. The main thing has been found. Now for a leisurely walk through the city of my youth, forgotten Babylon. We have something to say to each other. Moreover, while I was still a cadet, I climbed onto the croup of a horse named Bucephalus and examined Peter’s welded head.
Here is what the Greek historian Arrian writes:
“At the place where the battle took place, and at the place from where Alexander crossed the Hydaspes, he founded two cities; one called it Nicaea, because he defeated the Indians here, and the other Bucephalus, in memory of his horse Bucephalus, who fell here not from anyone’s arrow, but broken by the heat and years (he was about 30 years old). He shared many labors and dangers with Alexander; only Alexander could sit on it, because he didn’t care about all the other riders; He was tall and of noble character. Its distinctive feature was its head, similar in shape to that of a bull; from her, they say, he got his name. Others say that he was black, but had a white spot on his forehead, very reminiscent of a bull’s head.”
As you can see, Lisette Petra is clearly not her favorite horse. The St. George horse in St. Petersburg has a different gender. I cleaned this floor for him myself with GOI paste. Some cadets have this sign. Old St. Petersburg residents know her.
Many researchers believe that Bucephalus was a representative of the Friesian horse breed. It is also worth noting that Bucephalus had distinctive feature- the horse’s legs were equipped with rudiments of fingers on the sides of the horn-covered middle finger, which, in fact, forms the hoof.
Those who wish can examine the legs of the Bronze Horseman themselves, and I end the miniature with the verses of the great Pushkin:
But now, having had enough of destruction
And tired of insolent violence,
The Neva was drawn back,
Admiring your indignation
And leaving with carelessness
Your prey. So villain
With his fierce gang
Having burst into the village, he breaks, cuts,
Destroys and robs; screams, gnashing,
Violence, swearing, anxiety, howling!..
And, burdened with robbery,
Afraid of the chase, tired,
The robbers are hurrying home,
Dropping prey on the way.
