Abstract: “Symbolism and fantasy in the works of A. S.

In the comments to a completely unrelated post, they began to promote the hypothesis that St. Petersburg was not founded from scratch, but on the site of the Swedish Nyenschatzn.
Someone decided that he knew exactly how it all happened, and accused Pushkin of lying.
The crowd came running (the comments about the “Asian hordes” are simply enchanting) and began to promote this post in other LJs. After the author's attention was drawn to obvious contradictions in his version, the kitty was offended and rubbed the comments.

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

To “prove” this statement, quite a few good selection maps of Nyenskans and the Neva delta.
Here, for example, is Nyenschantz’s plan for 1698:
.

Now let's take a closer look at the map. Yes, it reflects Nien quite well. But it lacks one “little thing” - an indication of where St. Petersburg was actually founded. And for that there is good reason- Hare Island (aka Cheerful Island, aka Devil’s Island, aka Lust-holm), on which it stands Peter and Paul Fortress, the bookmark of which is considered the foundation of the city, is simply absent on this map.

Let us take for comparison “A new and reliable plan of the city of St. Petersburg, founded by the Russian Emperor Peter Alekseevich, as well as the Neva River and the canal dug by order of the Russian Emperor, as well as the surrounding areas, published by the Amsterdam geographer Reiner Ottens,” which reflects the state of the city approximately 1715-1718

What do we see - over 15 years of the city’s development, the city’s outskirts have never reached the location of Nyenskans. And only on the map of 1737 we see the development of the former Nyenskans.

Those. a booming city, it took more than 20 years for its outskirts to reach the site proposed as its founding site.

The basis for accusing Pushkin of lying is justified as follows:
The debate about “The Bronze Horseman” is pointless. Your arguments are just your conjectures. There are no names of islands in Pushkin’s lines.
Indeed, there is no topographic reference in the Bronze Horseman. Does it follow from this that it can be tied to an arbitrary island in the Neva delta? Obviously not.
In “The History of Peter I” Pushkin writes:
But Peter the Great decided to fulfill his great intention and on May 16, on an island located near the sea, on the Neva, he founded the fortress of St. Petersburg (laying the fortress with one hand, and defending it with the other. Golikov). He divided the work here too. The first bolter was taken upon himself, the second was entrusted to Menshikov, the third to Count Golovin, the fourth to Zotov (? Chancellor, writes Golikov), the fifth to Prince Trubetskoy, the sixth to Kravchy Naryshkin. Bolverki were nicknamed after them. A wooden church in the name of Peter and Paul was built in the fortress, and near it, on the spot, where was the fisherman's hut , a wooden palace nine fathoms long and three wide, with two chambers with a vestibule and a kitchen, with white-washed canvas wallpaper, simple furniture and a bed.

From here it obviously follows that the fishermen’s huts (the shelter of the Chukhons), at the site where the fortress was founded, were located not far from the Church of Peter and Paul. Which clearly points to Hare Island. There is no reason to assert that Pushkin had any other place in mind in The Bronze Horseman. Which is exactly what needed to be proven.

Upd: As suggested in the comments, the territory of Nien became part of St. Petersburg in 1828, i.e. just 5 years before the writing of "The Bronze Horseman"

Pavel Evseevich Spivakovsky- candidate philological sciences, in 2004-2011. - Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Literature State Institute 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 named after 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 at 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 mostly 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 lowercase letter and is highlighted in italics, however, if we turn to a textologically more carefully prepared edition of the poem in the series “ Literary monuments", then we will see that in Pushkin’s poem the pronoun “He” is given twice, and without any italics and with capital letter. That is, the way it is traditional 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? About what they are both in to the same degree people, 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 art world Pushkin, 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

Cut 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... Interesting question: Why, exactly, 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 gray-haired cynic,

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],

Throwing away the wig, closing 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 does not mean, of course, 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 Old 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 Chinese, 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 is organizing 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 it is not being created beautiful city. 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, it must be said, is by no means 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 “magnificently” and “proudly” is something very suspicious. Despite the fact that this one himself great city Of course he loves it 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. Emphasis in in this case 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 shreds 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.

The Neva in The Bronze Horseman is depicted as 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

Alarm eternal sleep Petra!

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 educated society, he didn’t 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” 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 extremely dangerous situation: within the framework of one country, seemingly of 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 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 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 who are searching 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. Already by mid-19th century, noble birth 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 Evgeniy belongs to noble family, this means that it 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 life rather little man.

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 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 sounds like a description of an assault Belogorsk fortress V " 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 be an honor and 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 reality tramples on nature, then Alexander clearly sees above him God's will and believes that she is obviously above 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 hundreds 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 set off

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<…>.

The mature Pushkin was characterized by a rather negative attitude towards the figure of Napoleon, as the embodiment of an 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 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 the social system, dependence on which was previously so important for him. What makes a little person different? Extremely high dependence on his low social position, on his superiors, on the social pyramid that 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 from the point of view of geographical conditions place. 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 suggests 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 king, 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 folk simplified version Greek language on which it is written New Testament) - this 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 Pillar of Alexandria 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 revolts coincide, then Russia may not survive. 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.

Planet Earth is inhabited by many different nationalities. This nation was written about in ancient chronicles in the fifteenth century. Today you will find out who the Chukhons are and who they call them.

Honest and open Finns

Finns number about seven million people. But Finns live not only in their native Finland, but also in other parts of our planet. The Slavs always called them Chukhons.

In the first century AD. The Roman scientist Tacitus described the Chukhonians. The Finns themselves call their country “ Suomi" The word "Suomi" has German roots. The formation of the Finnish language and traditions was greatly influenced by Germany.

The Finnish population was finally formed at the beginning of the second millennium AD. and a huge role in this process played Karelians. At the very beginning of the twentieth century, Finns lived not only in villages and villages, but also in St. Petersburg. In 1870, the very first printed edition was published, in educational institutions St. Petersburg teachers and students spoke Finnish.

Since 1918, concerts and festivals have been held annually in the city on the Neva. Almost all documents were translated into Finnish, and a Finnish publishing house was opened. But, unfortunately, in the mid-thirties of the last century, friendly relations between cold Finland and the country of the Soviets deteriorated sharply, and this greatly affected the Finns permanently residing in the Soviet Union. Almost fifty thousand people were forced to leave the territory of the USSR.

///In 1937, all newspapers and magazines of Finnish publishing houses disappeared from the shelves of all kiosks, and teachers stopped teaching in Finnish.

Talented and enlightened Estonians

In the Middle Ages, Estonia was divided into two parts, northern and southern. The northern territory bordered Scandinavia and Finland, and Southern Territory bordered with Slavic lands. In the eleventh century, Yaroslav the Wise built a huge fortress in Estonia. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the inhabitants of Estonia were converted to the Catholic faith.

At the same time, Estonian residents began active education, namely:

• The Catholic Bible was translated into Estonian;
• In 1632, the University of Tartu opened its doors;
• In the nineteenth century, the first Estonian epic was printed;
• Estonian publishing houses produced various printed publications;
• Activities for children have opened.

Estonia became independent during liberation war and revolutions. In 1940, the Estonian state became part of the Soviet Union, from which it left in 1991. Estonians live not only in their homeland, but also in America, Sweden and Russia.

Izhora peoples

In the seventeenth century, the Izhora land completely came under the influence of the Swedes, as a result of which the Izhoras began to actively migrate. Finns also began to actively move to Izhora lands. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Izhorians were first mentioned in chronicles.

Main activities of Izhora:

1. Fishing;
2. The men worked in factories and were gifted carpenters;
3. Women raised children and did handicrafts.

///Gradually the Izhorians began to get closer to the Russians and Finns. According to the population census in 1926, the number of Izhors was 16,130 people. During the war, some Izhoras were forcibly taken to Finland, and some to cold Siberia. According to the latest census, more than three hundred people live in the city on the Neva. And they are fluent not only in their native language, but also communicate well in Russian.

Small ethnic group of Karelas

In the eighth century, Karelians were first mentioned in the Scandinavian sagas. Among the Slavs, Karelians were first mentioned in Novgorod charter. They mainly lived in Mezhozerye and Ladoga region.

In the seventeenth century, during the period of unrest, the lands of Karelia and the Ladoga region were occupied by the Swedes, but in 1649 Russia bought the Karelians from the Swedes and they began to settle down on Slavic land.

In 1920, the Karelian Labor Commune was formed, and three years later it was transformed into autonomous republic. In 1940 official language Karelian was not the native language of the republic, although it was taught in gymnasiums and lyceums and printed publications were published, but Finnish.

During the war, many Karelians were deported, which also led to economic decline.

At the end of the eighties of the last century, teaching in the Karelian language was resumed and printed publications in the Karelian language began to be published.

Hardworking Vepsians

In the eleventh century, the Vepsians were captured by Novgorod feudal lords and Christianity spread in the Novgorod lands. Over the next two centuries, the Vepsians mixed with the Karelians and became part of Karelian people. But even in later centuries, the Vepsians continued to mix with the Karelians. This led to a significant reduction in the Vepsians and the preservation of their way of life.

Main occupations of the Vepsians:

• Agriculture;
• Livestock;
• Fishing;
• Hunting;
• Harvest;
• Hauling;
• Pottery.

Women wore long skirts, loose blouses and woolen dresses, and the stronger sex often wore hats, trousers and ties. The food of the Vepsians was very modest - rye bread, boiled fish, beer and kvass.

Vepsian folklore is very similar to Karelian folk art. Most Vepsians live in the territory of modern St. Petersburg. According to the latest population census in Russian Federation More than eight thousand Vepsians live.

There are still many different nationalities in our world, but today we learned who the Chukhon people are, their customs, traditions, culture, language, way of life and religion. These are modern Estonians and Finns.

Video about the Chukhonians

In this video there is a recording from a video recorder in which the Chukhonians got confused on the border of Russia and Finland:

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 accomplishments, great sovereign does not notice either the “poor boat” or the “shelter of a wretched Chukhon”. This person does not care about the lives of unremarkable 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 founded on a place that was not very suitable for large city, for living large quantity 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 is suppressed, suppressed and Pugachev uprising, but his 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-: well, element popular uprising, no less terrible than the flood element, which carries out its judgment without distinguishing between right and wrong.

Thus, Peter I changed the natural course historical development Russia: from a backward semi-Asian country he made a European one 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: “senseless and merciless riot” had already shocked Russia in 1917. Great country over the abyss even now: 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, was sent and strong of the world this, and to the people because some 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.