Conflict between Eugene and Medny. Conflict in The Bronze Horseman: Another Russian Rebellion

The first result of the conflict is Eugene's insanity. But is this madness? Perhaps we can say that there are truths full meaning which the weak cannot withstand human mind. Great Emperor, like a watchdog chasing the smallest of his subjects, is a funny and terrible figure at the same time. Therefore, Eugene’s laughter is understandable, but his mental illness is also understandable: he came face to face with the state itself, with its copper, merciless face.

So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. The revolt is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is 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. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. 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 whether Eugene, who was so in vain and casually destroyed, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol?

A state that endlessly suppresses its subjects in the name of its goals is impossible. They, the subjects, are more important and primary than the state itself. Figuratively speaking, the Finnish waves will forget “their enmity and their ancient captivity” when Evgenia, to be happy with her Parasha, does not need anyone’s permission. Otherwise, the element of popular revolt, no less terrible than the element of flood, will carry out its judgment, without distinguishing between right and wrong. This, in my opinion, is the essence of the conflict between man and the state.

There are a number of differing opinions as to what the main idea of ​​the poem is " Bronze Horseman". V. G. Belinsky, who claimed that the main idea The poem lies in the triumph of the “general over the particular,” with the author’s obvious sympathy for “the suffering of this particular,” obviously, he was right. A. S. Pushkin sings the anthem to the capital of the Russian state:

I love you, Petra's creation,

I love your strict, slender appearance,

Neva sovereign current,

Its coastal granite,

Your fences have a cast iron pattern...

“Pompously, proudly” the city rose “from the darkness of the forests and swamps of blat” and became the heart of a mighty state:

Show off, city Petrov, and stand

Unshakable, like Russia.

The poem “The Bronze Horseman” was written by Pushkin in 1833. In it, the author, for the first time in Russian literature, contrasted the state, personified in the image of Peter I, and a person with his personal interests and experiences.

The reforms of Peter I in Russian history were a deep and comprehensive revolution that could not be accomplished easily and painlessly. The tsar demanded that the people devote all their strength to achieve the goals he had outlined, and this caused grumbling and discontent. The same ambiguous attitude was towards Peter’s favorite brainchild - St. Petersburg. The city personified both the greatness of Russia and the slavery of its people. On the one hand, it was a beautiful city with palaces, monuments and golden domes, but at the same time, St. Petersburg shocked with its poverty, misery and the highest mortality rate in Russia.

Another misfortune of St. Petersburg was the terrible floods that destroyed houses and claimed human lives. While building a city on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, in a swamp, Peter did not care at all about the future residents of his capital. St. Petersburg was built “to spite the arrogant neighbor” and nature. And the elements seemed to take revenge on people for their deeds. In “The Bronze Horseman” Pushkin describes one of the most terrible floods, which occurred in 1824 and caused terrible destruction:

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!

The poem has two main characters: Peter I, who personifies the state, and the poor official Eugene. He is a descendant of a noble but impoverished family. This is a hardworking young man who wants to create his own happiness with his own hands. He has a bride whom he loves and on whom, having received a good place wants to get married:

Perhaps a year or two will pass -

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...

But his dreams are not destined to come true, since Parasha and her mother die during a flood. Eugene himself goes crazy, unable to bear the mental turmoil. Mad, he wanders around the city and one day finds himself near the monument to Peter I. This is the Bronze Horseman. And it becomes clear to Eugene who was responsible for the death of his bride, his broken life and happiness. He challenges: “Good, miraculous builder! “He whispered, trembling angrily, “Too bad for you!” And suddenly it seems to the madman that the formidable king leaves the rock and gallops after him to punish him for his insolence:

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.

After this scary night Evgeniy tried to avoid this place, and if he passed by, “he took off his worn cap and did not raise his embarrassed eyes.” In other words, he was completely destroyed and crushed by the state, the personification of which was Peter I.

The poem ends with the death of Eugene: he was found dead near the collapsed house of Parasha. Eugene is one of the unwitting victims of Peter’s case, and the Tsar is the indirect culprit of the hero’s death. Pushkin sympathizes with Eugene, he calls him unfortunate, poor, but the ending of the poem is a hymn to statehood, a hymn to Peter I - the most powerful of the Russian autocrats, the founder new capital, bringing Russia closer to the West.

Pushkin was always attracted by the figure of Peter I, he dedicated many of his works to him, and the opinions of critics about whose side Pushkin was on differed. Some believed that the poet substantiated the right of the state to dispose of a person’s life, and took the side of Peter, because he understood the need and benefits of his transformations. Others consider Eugene’s sacrifice unjustified. It seems to me that Pushkin, for the first time in Russian literature, showed all the tragedy and intractability of the conflict between the state and the individual.

Russia, it seems, is the only state whose history knows the existence of two capitals at once - Moscow and St. Petersburg. Officially, the title of capital was, of course, in different time only one city, but in terms of its power and significance for the state, the second could rightly be called by this honorable name. In this they are twins, but there is a significant difference: Moscow is an old city, it grew out of ancient Slavic settlements, and the first mention of it (that is, its appearance in chronicles, which does not at all mean its birth at this time - it happened much earlier ) date back to 1147. Petersburg is the creation of the hands of Peter I, it was erected by the will of the emperor, it cannot in any way be called spontaneously appeared, Petersburg is a “synthetic” city. Even its names are not of Russian origin and sound unusual to Russian ears, unlike Moscow, whose name is somehow connected with Ancient Russia.

Petersburg was built on a geographically inconvenient and even dangerous place for the population (the city was often subject to natural disasters - floods); however, on a national scale, its location was much more advantageous: the proximity of neighboring developed countries, the shore of the Gulf of Finland, the opportunity to “open a window to Europe” - all this contributed to the strengthening of Russia in the international arena. Nevertheless, for many Russian people, St. Petersburg remained a “non-Russian”, cold city, the personification of evil, the brainchild of Satan (who, accordingly, was Peter I). Any human tragedy within its borders, she could seem like a victim to this merciless monster - St. Petersburg.

Among the Russian classics, the city became somewhat akin to a living creature that could control human lives. Works with this image are also present in writers of the 19th century V. - Gogol, Dostoevsky, and even among the symbolists belonging to the 20th century - Merezhkovsky, A. Bely. The image of “living” Petersburg is also found in Pushkin – in the poem “The Bronze Horseman”. In general, this image here is ambiguous: it is both a symbol of the entire era of Peter I, and simply a city suffering a flood, and a huge monument to its founder, and the personification of the entire state.

On November 7, 1824, a flood occurred in St. Petersburg. Many residents died. Main character In the poem, Eugene mentally connected the raging elements that brought him misfortune with the city itself where it happened, and the city with its founder Peter I. Thus, drawing a parallel, he placed all the blame on the emperor. The flood turned into a tragedy for him: although he himself escaped the sad fate, his bride Parasha was not saved. The house where she lived was washed away, as if it had never existed. Evgeny goes crazy from despair.

These are the main events of the poem, which, not coincidentally, has the subtitle “The Petersburg Tale.” Having carefully read the work, we see Eugene in two roles. Firstly, he is a specific hero, with his own experiences and biography, to which Pushkin does not pay much attention, but still one fact related to his family history, takes place: Pushkin hints that Evgeny may belong to a previously famous but impoverished family:

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.

Only this fact sets him apart from the general mass of the population of St. Petersburg. In general, Evgeniy is every resident of the city; his life is like two drops of water similar to the lives of others. That is why we only know about him that he “serves somewhere,” is poor, but full of strength and desire to work, dreams of marrying Parasha and living a long, quiet life:

Perhaps a year or two will pass -
I’ll get a place - Parashe
I will entrust our farm
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...

The dream is the most ordinary one. Therefore, Evgeny, with all his independent features and biographical facts, should be classified as a class of so-called “little” people.

Nevertheless, he is a separate representative of this group of people, and it is in this capacity that he is opposed to the stormy elements - the Neva, which overflowed its banks. This river in Pushkin is to some extent correlated with the state: it also controls human lives.

Basically, Pushkin’s depiction of St. Petersburg is built on contrast: at the beginning of the poem, “the city of Petrov” is seen as a “window to Europe,” a formidable personification of the power of the state, its “strict, slender appearance” inspires awe; during the flood northern capital no less formidable, but already helpless: the Neva, a part of itself, is tearing the city apart from the inside, breaking out of its granite shackles. Petersburg, at the beginning of the work creating the impression of being somewhat mythical and even mysterious city, subsequently reveals its essence, the river lifts all the dirt from its bottom and carries “coffins from a washed-out cemetery” through the streets. After the flood, the “sovereign” city reveals another side of itself – indifference, coldness towards its residents. In the image of St. Petersburg, both “evil children” appear, throwing stones at the mad Eugene, and coachmen lashing him with whips.

The state has enormous power, and its symbol is the statue of Peter I. On horseback, the Bronze Horseman climbs onto a block of stone and extends his hand, protecting the city and at the same time asserting his power and authority. Against the backdrop of such power, people seem like puppets. Indeed, Pushkin presents Petersburg in such a way that the reader becomes clear: in this city a person is not an independent person, but only a doll controlled “from above” (by the city). And in such a situation, only the insane Eugene has the courage to “threaten” the mighty ruler, even if he turns to the Bronze Horseman. Although he is out of his mind, for him the statue is alive, so in this situation, dissatisfaction expressed to the monument is tantamount to an accusation thrown in the face of the emperor.

“Welcome, miraculous builder!”
He whispered, trembling angrily, -
Already for you!.."

But the power of influence of the state on the minds is great, and even the insane Eugene seems as if the Bronze Horseman is tearing off his pedestal and rushing after him in order to punish him for his insolence.

Such a conflict cannot end with a determination of which of them is Evgeniy (one of characteristic representatives"little" people) or the Bronze Horseman (in the person of whom is represented government) - will be the winner, and who will be the loser. There is fundamentally no answer to such a question, which is what Pushkin shows: the chase ends in nothing, it is meaningless and ineffective. By this the poet wanted to say that the confrontation between man and power will never stop; he repeatedly developed this theme in other works. His point of view is this: the conflict will exist, each side is confident that it is right, but at the same time, both of them are mistaken in their own way, pursuing only their own benefit. Man and power are interconnected, and this connection is sometimes tragic. The legendary “He” mentioned in the Preface is the personification of the state and cares only about state interests, about the fate of Russia; undoubtedly, this is important, but this is like a bird’s eye view, which does not take into account the simple, everyday interests of all people and each individual. At first glance, the state stronger than man, his authority is unshakable (after his “threat” Eugene, passing by the monument, shrinks with fear every time), but in the example of Peter I, who failed to bind people with an “iron bridle” (or rather, his statue), it is clearly visible how a person , with the power of his heart and memory, evokes the terrible but powerless anger of the “idol”.

In Russian literary criticism, a tradition has developed of perceiving A. S. Pushkin’s poem “The Bronze Horseman” in the context of the ideologeme “personality ↔ state.” This conflict is really outlined in the poem. Another thing is: how is it implemented and what lies at its basis?

The structuring of the text, its division into “Preface”, “Introduction”, “Part One”, “Part Two” and “Notes” seems unexpected. As for the “Preface,” it, at first glance, seems unnecessary, because it does not add anything significant to the text, it only points to a certain source: “The incident described in this story is based on the truth. Details of the flood are taken from magazines of the time. The curious can consult the news compiled by V.N. Berkh." But exactly what the preface does not contain important information, and attracts attention and makes you think about its “masking” character.

Unlike the “Preface,” the style and tonality of the “Introduction” reveal the presence in it of the voice of the author-narrator and do not allow thoughts of mystification or falsehood: the poet unambiguously glorified Peter and Russia in the person and deeds of the great “power of half the world.” But Pushkin gives two notes to the introduction - still seeming redundant and unimportant. The first refers to F. Algarotti, an authoritative connoisseur of art, who in 1738–1739. traveled around Russia and who “said somewhere”:

“St. Petersburg is the window through which Russia looks at Europe” (French). This note is, if not mandatory, then informative and indicates the source of the poetic metaphor implemented by Pushkin in the poem. But the second note “See the poems of the book. Vyazemsky to Countess Z***” forces us to think more seriously about its meaning. It seems that Pushkin refers to the poem by P.A. Vyazemsky “Conversation on April 7, 1832 (to Countess E.M. Zavadovskaya).” However, for comparison, another poem by Vyazemsky would be more suitable - “Petersburg”, with its solemn pathos: “I see the wonderful, majestic city of Petrov...”. Against its solemn background, the message to Countess Zavadovskaya looks “accidental”, for it is a playful conversation about the charms of the interlocutor, where the love for St. Petersburg is explained almost exclusively by the fact that Z*** was born and reigns there. But Pushkin’s appeal to this particular poem was not accidental. It was important for Pushkin to indicate the game, because the opening line of Vyazemsky’s poem “No, no, don’t believe me...” made it possible to give a hint, to point out a certain hidden meaning, must be guessed in the poem.

Finally, in relation to the “Introduction”, the last stanza “There was terrible time...”, on which Pushkin worked a lot and for a long time. As a result, the appearance of the address “my friends” leaves no doubt that this is an autoquote. The words about friends clearly correspond with the famous “My friends, our union is wonderful...” and allow us to talk about the dedication of the poem to friends. The dates of work on the text, October 6–30, leave no doubt. And then the appearance in the “Preface” of the name V.N. Berkha, in fact, named after F.V. Bulgarin, based on the materials of which he worked, becomes understandable: Thaddeus Bulgarin for the time being professed liberal views and was friendly with A.S. Griboyedov, K.F. Ryleev, A.A. and N.A. Bestuzhev, V.K. Kuchelbecker and others. After the defeat of the uprising, he hid Ryleev’s archive, thereby helping Griboyedov and other defendants during the investigation. In this context, the late insertion into the preface of “details of the flood” reveals the author’s task to hide a direct reference to the events of December 14, 1825, to divert attention from the seditious association. The choice of poems and Vyazemsky’s name in this context is also motivated: to the dedicated reader he suggested an allusion not to “Conversation...” or even to “Petersburg,” but to “The Sea,” written by Vyazemsky in the summer of 1826, immediately after the news of the execution of five Decembrists . According to Pushkin, the name Vyazemsky should have turned the “quick-witted” reader to famous poem, in which the poet embodied the image of the uprising and its participants in symbolic image sea ​​waves. It becomes clear that the purpose of including the “Preface” and “Notes” in the poem was to disavow those important signs-signals that made it possible to explicate the deep (hidden) layer of the text.

Usually the problem of “the individual and the state” is solved in the poem through the system of relationships between Peter and Eugene. However, as the text shows, the battle for the city unfolds through another pair of heroes - Peter and the elements, Peter and the waves. Evgeny is only her casual witness. The picture of the flood takes on the features of a metaphorical revolt: nature, the sea, the river rebelled, the rise of water is defined as a “siege” and an “attack”, the city is threatened by “evil waves”. And then Peter, who once reclaimed the wild shores from nature, again enters the battle, pointing with an outstretched hand at the rebellious elemental enemy in an attempt to protect his city. During the narrative, Pushkin combines the real and the symbolic, the natural and the social. If at the beginning of the first part the narrator spoke about the November time (“November breathed the autumn cold...”, i.e. the chronotope of the poem was marked with the date of the flood on November 7), then to the line “And the pale day is already coming...” Pushkin gives a note: “Mickiewicz described in beautiful verse the day preceding the St. Petersburg flood, in one of his best poems - Oleszkiewicz. It's just a pity that the description is not accurate. There was no snow - the Neva was not covered with ice,” which associatively hints at another “terrible day,” December, with snow on the pavements and ice on the river. And now the chronotope of the poem takes on a different date - December 14. The battle unfolds as if in two layers, in two time coordinates. The names of the tsarist generals, Miloradovich and Benkendorf, sounding after the “re-dating” in the “Note”, with all the random non-coincidence, localize the events of the poem within the limits of (the revolt on) Senate Square. Miloradovich - as a victim of the tragic shot by Kakhovsky, Benkendorf - as one of the most active participants in the investigation into the Decembrist case.

In the first part of the story, Evgeniy’s line also acquires its own plot. Like Peter, seated on a formidable rearing horse, the poor hero “above the elevated porch” also saddled a marble lion. It seems that Eugene’s likeness to an idol is ironically reduced, but it is ironically, but ideologically significant, doubled by comparison with the guessed Napoleon, the object of worship for more than one generation. Comparison with Napoleon not only ironizes, but attributes the involvement of poor Eugene special type people whose “forbidden” names are invisibly scattered throughout the text of “The Bronze Horseman,” including the author himself. Those. The image of Evgeniy becomes “two-faced” in Pushkin, a two-part bearer of two essences. Conventionally, one Eugene is the hero of the plot line of the poem (its real component), the other Eugene is the hero storyline, actually from literary. If one face embodies the image of a dreamy and naive lover losing his mind, then the other represents “high aspirations.” In other words, what appears before the sovereign Peter is no longer a sick madman, but another “madman.” More precisely, both, but their “rebellion” and the threat “Too bad for you!..” take on a radically opposite meaning. If at the level of one plot (visible, superficial) the cause of the rebellion is the death of Parasha, the pain of losing his beloved, then at the level of the second - hidden, secret plot - the challenge posed to the autocracy. And if in the first case the “evil whisper” sounds from the lips of a madman and his reproach to Peter is understandable, but absurdly groundless (Peter fought against the elements of the flood, saved the city, but he could not save Parasha; Parasha - random victim), then in the second row the challenge is thrown by the “noble madman”, pierced by the “noise internal anxiety». Last words- again an autoquote: that “monotonous noise of life” that was present in Pushkin’s poem “A vain gift, an accidental gift...”, where the hero was looking for “goals... before himself.” Those. the image of Eugene in the poem is image-mask, a cryptonym image in which two entities merged: a poor (essentially random) madman and a tall (disturbing the author) madman. That. so-called " little hero", "little man" Eugene - in violation of the established tradition in literary criticism - as it turns out, has nothing to do with the rebellion against Peter and the autocracy. It is his “ghost”, his double, the real prototype that enters into an ideological conflict with the autocrat. The nature of the “rebellion-indignation” of Evgeniy (each of the Evgeniyevs) turns out to be deeply different.

The traditionally accepted conflict of the poem “person ↔ state”, “little man” ↔ autocrat” crumbles just as the idea of ​​​​the contradictory image of Peter turns out to be irrelevant. Perhaps the only indication of the possibility of Pushkin’s contradictory attitude towards the personality of Peter can be considered the last note given by the commentator to the stanza “Where are you galloping, proud horse,” where he refers to Mickiewicz: “See the description of the monument in Mickiewicz. It was borrowed from Ruban - as Mickiewicz himself notes." It was the comparison with Mickiewicz that gave rise to the idea that Pushkin, following the Polish poet, could give a harsh assessment of Peter in The Bronze Horseman. However, by the time the poem was written, Pushkin had already distanced himself from his friend the poet, whom he had previously “listened to greedily.” In 1833, Pushkin had already created the poem “He Lived Among Us,” in which he spoke about the “poison of Mickiewicz’s poems” addressed to Peter and St. Petersburg, “To Russian friends.” Therefore, references to Mickiewicz in the notes should be read not as consonant, but as contrapuntal, as Pushkin directly states:

“It’s just a pity that his description is not accurate. Our description is more accurate...”. In the second reference to Mickiewicz (note 5), the “commentator” again deliberately distances himself from the point of view of the Polish poet and refuses the authorship of the words about the monument to Peter, entrusted by Mickiewicz to his poet friend (i.e. Pushkin). Mitskevich’s flattering description does not keep Pushkin from deliberately redirecting his words about the monument to another person: “It was borrowed from Ruban.” At the same time, it is symptomatic that the words attributed by Mitskevich to Pushkin did not really belong to him (but not to Ruban either). In Vyazemsky’s letter to P.I. Bartenev dated March 6, 1872 contains information that these words were spoken by Vyazemsky himself. Pushkin, as a participant in the mentioned conversation, could not help but know this, nevertheless he refers to V.G. Ruban, a poet alien to him both in his views and in his manner of writing. Thus, Pushkin once again reveals disagreement with Mickiewicz in the interpretation of the monument (and deeds) of Peter, which he began already in the “Introduction”.

To summarize, it is necessary to make a judgment that the previously steadily existing tradition of isolating the conflict “individual and state” and its subsequent implementation through the figurative pair “Eugene - Peter” should be adjusted (especially within the framework school curriculum). Problem " little man"must give way to the subtextual line of embodiment of the other literary type, so-called " extra person"(although the range of problems associated with this hero-type is not actualized by Pushkin in the poem). Just as we must abandon the assertion that the image of Peter was created by Pushkin in the poem as a contradictory image, as the image of a tyrant creator. The relevance of such interpretations is supplanted in “The Bronze Horseman” by another goal: creating a monument to glory and tragedy.

Bibliography

1. Vyazemsky P. A. Poems. BP. BS. 3rd ed. M.: Soviet writer, LO, 1986. 544 p.

2. Pushkin A.S. Collection cit.: in 10 volumes / under general. ed. D. D. Blagogo, S. M. Bondi and others. M.: Khudozhestvennaya litera, 1960. T. II. Poems 1823–1836. 799 pp. T. III. Poems. Fairy tales. 542 pp.

In the thirties, all works of A. S. Pushkin were under double censorship. The poet has developed final opinion about Nicholas I: “There is a lot of the ensign in him, and a little of Peter the Great.” Pushkin is convinced that the “ensign” is not able to imitate Peter I, therefore there is no longer a need to idealize the image of Peter.

In 1833, the poet turned to the poem “The Bronze Horseman”. In it he declares the sacrifices on which the progressive cause was built.

The conflict is based on the clash between the glorious monarch and the pitiful, but in his own right, Eugene.

Pushkin outlines the conclusion: the very nature of the autocratic state, and not the cruel character of the tsar, is the reason that the interests of the common man have to be neglected.

The work, which is small in volume, is distinguished by its thoughtfulness and harmonious composition. The exhibition depicts the era of Peter. The poet gives historical justification for the monarch’s plan:

Here on new waves
All the flags will visit us,
And we’ll record it in the open air.

More in the poem the king is like actor doesn't appear. He “erected an immortal monument to himself” - St. Petersburg, the apotheosis of which the entire second part sounds like. The first is devoted to a description of the flood that befell the city on November 7, 1824. The king himself is powerless in the face of the elements:

To the balcony
He came out sad and confused
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.

Evgeniy, a small worker of St. Petersburg, a descendant of a once noble but impoverished noble family, “cannot cope” with the Neva.

Before us is a poor man who has not remembered his “deceased relatives” for a long time. He knows that only through labor can he “give himself both independence and honor,” he understands “that God could add intelligence and money to him.” Evgeny doesn’t ask much from fate:

“Perhaps a year or two will pass -
I'll get a place. Parashe
I will entrust our family
And raising children..."

The hero's ideal of life is simple and modest, like himself. However, the flood takes away the only happiness from life, Parasha. Evgeniy is looking for the culprit of the tragic fate. The victorious Bronze Horseman (monument to Peter I by Falconet) personifies the one who caused the poor man’s misfortune. Mad Eugene shouts to the Tsar with insolence:

“Welcome, miraculous builder! -
He whispered, trembling angrily, -
Already for you!..”

This episode is the culmination of the poem. It is noteworthy that the Bronze Horseman comes into conflict not only with our hero. "Finnish waves" are disturbing " last sleep Petra." Both the elements and the grief-stricken man are inherent common features, in which - the meaninglessness of the uprising against the cause of Peter. It is interesting that the epithet “mad” is often used by Pushkin to describe Evgeniy. The poet apparently wants to show that both the rebellion of nature and the rebellion of man are vain and useless. The “brazen riot” of the Neva crashed against the granite of Peter’s brainchild. Petersburg remained unshakable. The poet seems to call on the forces of nature to submit to the will of man:

Enmity and ancient captivity
Let the Finnish waves forget
And they will not be vain malice
Disturb Peter's eternal sleep!

Evgeniy’s protest is also meaningless. However, the poet poses another problem - the problem of just rebellion, the right of a poor person to happiness. His rage is insane because it is unfair. The hero hates the work of Peter, opposes his actions, which the poet glorifies in the introduction.

The scene of Eugene's flight, when a revived horseman pursues him, confirms the injustice of the riot. About

No matter how deeply science comprehends the personality and activities of Peter, no matter how impressive art creates his image, it is natural for every reader to want to compose own opinion, look into the face of the “strange monarch” with your own eyes...

The poem “The Bronze Horseman” completes the theme of Peter I in the work of A. S. Pushkin. The majestic appearance of the Tsar-Transformer is depicted in the very first, sometimes solemn, lines of the poem: On the shore of the desert waves He stood, the thoughts of the great ones flowing, And he looked into the distance. Tsar-transformer...

The poem The Bronze Horseman, authored by A.S. Pushkin, is written in poetic form. The poem essentially has two main characters: the young man Eugene and the monument - the Bronze Horseman. The poem begins with an introduction that says...

The essence of knfl m/d state. authorities and private individuals. The poem "The Bronze Horseman" was written in 1833. In it, Pushkin, in a generalized figurative form, contrasts two forces - the state, personified in Peter I (and then in the symbolic image of the revived...