Time: 1 hour.
Equipment: task cards, presentation, text of the poem “The Bronze Horseman”
Theoretical material:
…Yes, this poem is the apotheosis of Peter the Great, the most grandiose...
V.G. Belinsky. Works of Alexander Pushkin.
…I am still sure that the “idol with a copper head” is not eternal...
V.Ya.Bryusov. Bronze Horseman. Idea for a story, 1909
…Pushkin strove for harmony and wanted to see it in everything, and above all in the relationship between the individual and the state.
N.A. Sosnina. “The Bronze Horseman” by Pushkin, 1997
Pushkin in “The Bronze Horseman” ...strove to depict the tragic collision of contemporary Russia...
M. Drunk. “The Bronze Horseman” by Pushkin, 2000.
In literary criticism, it is customary to distinguish three “groups” of interpreters of The Bronze Horseman.
1. The first group of interpreters included representatives of the so-called “state” concept, the founder of which is considered to be Vissarion Grigorievich Belinsky. Among his followers unexpectedly was his spiritual antagonist Dmitry Merezhkovsky, as well as Grigory Aleksandrovich Gukovsky, Leonid Petrovich Grossman, Boris Mikhailovich Engelhardt, etc.). They make a “semantic bet” on the image of Peter I, believing that Pushkin substantiated the tragic right of state power (which Peter I became the personification of) to dispose of the life of a private person.
In the 11th article of “The Works of Alexander Pushkin” V.G. Belinsky turned to the interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman” by A.S. Pushkin. he was the first interpreter of the St. Petersburg story. Thanks to his aesthetic sense, the critic immediately identified the unclear meaning: “The Bronze Horseman” seems to many to be some kind of strange work, because its theme, apparently, is not fully expressed.” The fact is that Belinsky evaluated the text prepared by Zhukovsky. In particular, Eugene’s words addressed to the Bronze Horseman were removed from the work. This is how the conclusion was born: “the poem is the apotheosis of Peter the Great,” the poet depicted “the triumph of the general over the particular.” Pushkin justifies Peter, the “bronze giant,” who “could not preserve the fate of individuality while ensuring the fate of the people and the state.”
2. Among the supporters of the “state concept” was Dmitry Merezhkovsky, poet, writer, philosopher of the early 20th century.
It should be noted that his assessment of the conflict between the hero – the Bronze Horseman and the “little man” Eugene is very harsh. He remarks: “What does a giant care about the death of the unknown? Isn’t it for this reason that countless, equal, superfluous people are born, so that the great chosen ones will follow their bones to their goals?
According to Merezhkovsky, Evgeny is a “trembling creature”, a “worm of the earth”, he, as a “little one of this world”, is not equal to the great one - Peter, who embodied the superhuman, heroic principle. True, Merezhkovsky notes that “in Eugene’s simple love an abyss can open up, no less than the one from which the hero’s will was born,” he believes that Pushkin glorified the heroic and superhuman beginning of Peter and fears that after Pushkin, all subsequent literature will be “democratic and Galilean uprising against that giant who “raised Russia on its hind legs over the abyss.”
3. The development of the “state” line in the interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman” was undertaken by Monid Petrovich Grossman in 1939. The literary critic supports Belinsky's thought. He idealizes and exalts Peter, while discrediting Eugene, accusing him of selfishness, insignificance and irrepressible impudence. “He (Eugene) is poor, devoid of talents, he lacks “intelligence and money.” Eugene is not a bearer of innovative ideas, like Peter, not a builder, not a fighter... The weak rebel who ended in madness is opposed in “The Bronze Horseman” by a state architect full of “great thoughts.”
4. Among the governors of the 20th century, Grigory Aleksandrovich Gukovsky is considered an adherent of the “state concept”. He wrote: “The actual theme of The Bronze Horseman is, as you know, the conflict of personal and state principles, symbolized by the image of the Falconet monument.” The conflict of the poem is the conflict of “individual human existence, the private goals of a person with the general collective goals of the masses.” Gukovsky believes that Evgeniy is defeated in this conflict. “The individual is subordinated to the general, and this is natural and necessary. Eugene’s private goals and individual happiness must be sacrificed when colliding with state goals... And this law is good,” the literary critic concludes.
1. Representatives of the second “group” - Valery Yakovlevich Bryusov, Georgy Panteleimonovich Makogonenko, A.V. Makedonov, Yu.B. Borev, I.M. Toymin and others stand on the side of “poor” Evgeniy. This concept is called “humanistic”.
This concept began with the interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman” by poet-researcher Valery Bryusov in 1909. Bryusov emphasizes Pushkin’s humanism, whose manifesto was The Bronze Horseman. Exploring Pushkin’s attitude towards Peter I in various works, Bryusov proves the dual nature of Pushkin’s perception of the tsar-transformer. The two faces of Peter in the poem are Bryusov’s discovery. On the one hand, Peter is a brilliant reformer, a “worker on the throne,” a “powerful ruler of fate,” on the other, an “autocratic landowner,” a despot who “despised humanity.”
Bryusov also shows the evolution of Evgeniy’s image. Eugene, a “small and insignificant” official, suddenly felt equal to the Bronze Horseman, found the strength and courage to threaten the “ruler of half the world.” Eugene’s miraculous transformation was determined precisely by his rebellion. A strong personality grew out of the rebellion. Rebelling, Eugene acts as a rival to the “formidable king”, about whom he should speak in the same language. Same with Peter.
In conclusion, Bryusov concludes that Evgeny is defeated, but “the idol with the copper head is not eternal,” for “freedom arises in the depths of the human spirit, and the “fenced rock” will have to be empty.”
2. The humanistic concept of the “Bronze Horseman” proposed by Bryusov has been recognized by many researchers. In 1937, A. Makedonov’s article “Pushkin’s Humanism” was published, which also contained an interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman”. The researcher notes that “a real grassroots person, no matter how small he is,” cannot, to one degree or another, not rebel in defense of his human dignity, and not oppose it to the Bronze Horseman. In addition to the laws of fate, there is also the law of humanity, which is just as necessary as “fate”. Pushkin's sympathies are on the side of “humanity”.
3. Pushkin’s humanistic position is defended by many researchers. Thus, Grigory Panteleimonovich Makogonenko believes that in the 30s of the 19th century Pushkin viewed the state specifically historically, “in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Russian state was an empire, tsarist autocracy, political rule, openly anti-people and anti-human.” It is against such a state that “a protest ripens in the heart of the common man who has turned out to be its victim.” According to Makonenko, Pushkin “brilliantly showed how this rebellion transforms a person, raising him to a lofty goal, but marked by death.”
A similar point of view is supported by literary critic G.G. Krasukhin: “Pushkin’s sympathies are entirely on the side of the hero, spiritually exalted, elevated to an unshakable spiritual height above the most powerful ruler of fate.”
Third group:
Since the 60s of the 20th century, another concept has been emerging - the interpretation of the “Bronze Horseman” - the concept of “tragic intractability of the conflict.” If you believe its supporters, Pushkin, as if withdrawing himself, allowed history itself to make a choice between two “equal-sized” truths - Peter or Eugene, that is, the state or a private individual.
This point of view is shared by literary scholars S.M. Bondi, E.M. Mailin, M.N. Eipstein.
What is it great meaning Pushkin's "Bronze Horseman"? Why was this work written? Why does it excite and shock us to this day? Why was Pushkin so eager to publish it, but refused to change even one word?
E.A. Mailin answers all these questions this way: “As in small tragedies, none of the forces opposed to each other in the poem ultimately wins. The truth is on Eugene’s side to the same extent as on the side of Peter and his great work.” “His entire poem is a great mystery of life, this is a great question about life, which, while reading The Bronze Horseman, many generations of readers thought and reflected on after Pushkin.
Fourth group:
1. Among the interpretations, one cannot help but be attracted by the interpretations of “The Bronze Horseman” by writers and philosophers of the 20th century. So, for example, the philosopher of Russian diaspora Georgy Petrovich Fedotov, considering the complex interaction in the works of A.S. Pushkin of the theme of the Empire, embodied in the statue of the Bronze Horseman, and the theme of freedom, the interaction of the state and the individual, pays special attention to the theme of the elements. He writes that “in The Bronze Horseman there are not two characters (Peter and Eugene) ... Because of them, the image of a third, faceless force clearly arises: this is the element of the raging Neva, their common enemy, to the image of which most of the poem is devoted.” These words are from the article “Singer of Empire and Freedom,” 1937.
At the same time, in 1937, the writer Andrei Platonov’s article “Pushkin is our comrade” was published, unlike Fedotov, Platonov reacted with deep sympathy to poor Evgeniy, whom he perceived as a person, as “a great ethical image - no less than Peter "
2. There are points of view on Petersburg story“The Bronze Horseman” is often harsh, the opposite of all known interpretations.
Thus, Terts-Sinyavsky, the author of the book “Walking with Pushkin,” expresses the following opinion: “But, while compassionate with Evgeniy, Pushkin was merciless. Pushkin was generally cruel to people when it came to the interests of poetry...” In the guise of Evgeny, according to Terts-Sinyavsky, an “unflattering and disappointing portrait” was created.
An interesting interpretation of “The Bronze Horseman” was given by Daniil Aleksandrovich Granin in the essay “Two Faces,” published in 1968 in the magazine “ New world" In Pushkin’s work, the writer saw new facets of its mysterious meaning, namely the duality of the entire figurative system of the “Bronze Horseman”, double feelings, double thoughts. “Two Peters: living Peter and Peter the Bronze Horseman, an idol on a bronze horse. Two Eugenes: an ordinary poor official, submissive to fate, and Eugene, mad, rebellious, who raised his hand against the Tsar, not even against the Tsar - against the authorities... Two Petersburgs: Petersburg of beautiful palaces, embankments, white nights and poor outskirts “under the sea.” Two Neva.
Work order:
Read the operating instructions carefully.
Select the necessary teaching material.
Read the literary text.
Complete practical assignments
Make a conclusion about the practical work done in writing.
Exercise:
1. What is the pathos of the introduction to the poem? Support your thoughts with text.
2. What compositional parts can it be divided into? 3. What does Pushkin see as Peter’s merit in the construction of St. Petersburg (verses 1-43)? How is the past and present contrasted in the first part of the introduction?
5. Find Old Church Slavonicisms and words of high style in the introduction. What role do they play in the text?
6. How is the main conflict of the poem established in the third part of the introduction (“Beauty, city of Petrov...”)? Why does the author mention “Finnish waves” in his wish for the city to stand firm? What characterization of the element does he give? Why does the contrasting breakdown of mood occur in the last lines of the introduction?
7. Individual task. Identify the key images of the introduction that are based on contrast? What does this mean for understanding the conflict in the poem?
8. What is the meaning of the fact that the poem “The Bronze Horseman” opens with a hymn to St. Petersburg? Prove that the city of Petra is not only the setting of the poem, but also its main character.
At the end of the lesson you must pass practical work For checking!
Give yourself a grade for your work_________
Teacher's rating_________________
Literature:
Literature: textbook for students. avg. prof. textbook institutions / edited by G.A. Obernikhina. – M.: Publishing Center “Academy”, 2008. – 656 p.
Chapter 1. “The Bronze Horseman” by Pushkin in the aesthetic-critical self-consciousness of the symbolists.9
Chapter 2. Interpretation of the theme of Peter in the novel by D.S. Merezhkovsky “Antichrist.
Peter and Alexey" and the Pushkin tradition.64
Chapter 3 “The Bronze Horseman” A.S. Pushkin in the context of the novel by Andrei Bely
Petersburg": on the problem of literary receptions.137
Introduction of the dissertation 2002, abstract on philology, Poleshchuk, Lyudmila Zenonovna
The topic of this dissertation is “Pushkin’s tradition (the poem “The Bronze Horseman”) in the works of Russian symbolists: V. Bryusov, D. Merezhkovsky, A. Bely.” Its relevance is due to the fact that with a relatively deep degree of study of the problem “Pushkin and Blok” - in the monographs of Z. G. Mints, P. Gromov and V. Musatov - the problem of the Pushkin tradition in the totality of the proposed names - V. Bryusov, D. Merezhkovsky , Andrei Bely - turned out to be insufficiently studied. Meanwhile, the symbolists themselves raised the problem of genesis and apprenticeship with Pushkin. The same Bryusov declared: “My poetry was born from Pushkin’s.”
We emphasize that the exclusion of Alexander Blok from this series of names is due to the fact that the refraction of the Pushkin tradition (“The Bronze Horseman”) in Blok’s work in its historiosophical and reminiscent aspects was deeply and multifacetedly studied in the monograph by K.A. Medvedeva “The problem of the new man in the works of A. Blok and V. Mayakovsky: Traditions and innovation” (Medvedeva, 1989. pp. 20-128).
In the dissertation essay we turn mainly to Bryusov the critic, leaving outside the scope of the study his artistic creativity, which was sufficiently studied in this aspect in the works of N.K. Piksanov, D.E. Maksimov, E. Polotskaya, K.A. Medvedeva, N.A. Bogomolova, O.A. Klinga and others.
But, unfortunately, literary-critical Pushkinism cannot be considered sufficiently studied at this time. In our opinion, even Bryusov’s well-known article “The Bronze Horseman” and Merezhkovsky’s articles about Pushkin require a new, more in-depth reading and analysis. Without a thorough study of the Pushkin heritage of the Symbolists, a deep understanding of the uniqueness of their work as an integral aesthetic and philosophical system cannot be achieved.
It should be noted that in general, the study of the phenomenon of tradition in the literature of the “Silver Age” is one of the most pressing problems of modern literary criticism.
In a number of studies of Pushkinists - M.P. Alekseeva, D.D. Blagogo, S.M. Bondi, Y.N. Tynyanova, B.V. Tomashevsky, G.A. Gukovsky, V. Zhirmunsky, N.V. Izmailova, Yu.V. Manna, G.P. Makogonenko, N.K. Piksanova, J.I.B. Pumpyansky, MA. Tsyavlovsky, I.L. Feinberg, N.Ya. Eidelman, B.JI. Komarovich, Yu.M. Lotman, Z.G. Mints, E.A. Maimina, V.M. Markovich, B.C. Nepomnyashchy, S.A. Kibalnik - the problem of typology and specificity of refraction of the Pushkin tradition is posed. Works on the creativity of the Symbolists - K.M. Azadovsky, A.S. Ginzburg, V.E. Vatsuro, P. Gromova, L.K. Dolgopolova, D.E. Maksimova, L.A. Kolobaeva, A.D. Ospovat and R.D. Timenchika, N.A. Bogomolova, K.A. Medvedeva, S.A. Nebolsina, V.V. Musatova, E. Polotskaya, N.N. Skatova, V.D. Skvoznikova, Yu.B. Borev, O.A. Kling, I. Paperno - contain the most valuable observations specifically about the symbolist perception of Pushkin’s tradition. Along with this, the phenomenon of the Pushkin tradition was illuminated in the works of representatives of Russian religious philosophy and clergy - V.V. Rozanova, S.L. Frank, S. Bulgakov, I.A. Ilyina and others.
The need for a new understanding of the Pushkin tradition was recognized by the symbolists primarily in terms of their future literary development, as well as in the context of studying the work of their literary predecessors - F.I. Tyutchev, N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, I.S. Turgenev, following the Pushkin tradition.
The Symbolists were close to Dostoevsky’s idea that Pushkin, with his “worldwide responsiveness,” embodied the essence of the Russian soul and significantly expanded the boundaries of artistic knowledge. The process of understanding the Pushkin tradition at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries became an integral part of spiritual existence, the leading artistic, research, and even life principle of Russian literature. The Symbolists develop a cult of Pushkin as a kind of forerunner of the Symbolists. In an effort to create a new synthetic culture, the symbolists saw in Pushkin’s work a new way of understanding the world, a rich source of eternal plots and images, the quintessence of Russian and European culture.
The appeal to Pushkin was inspired by the philosophical, aesthetic and myth-making aspirations of the Symbolists, who perceived Pushkin’s work as a certain aesthetic standard. On the other hand, the literature of symbolism developed its own version of the “St. Petersburg myth”1, the basis for which was the “St. Petersburg myth” of writers of the 19th century, the origins of which were Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman”. This poem, in a symbolist reading, seemed to contain a philosophical approach to unraveling the most important issues of Russian history, culture, and national identity. That is why the symbolists often turned to this work in their “St. Petersburg texts.”
Myth was understood by symbolists as the most vivid expression of the essence of the creative principles of the world and culture. The mythologization of culture, the revival of the mythological type of thinking leads to the emergence of “myth-texts”, where myth plays the role of a deciphering code, and images and symbols are the essence of mythologems - “collapsed metonymic signs of integral plots”2.
The object of our research is the phenomenon of Pushkin’s tradition (in this case we limit ourselves to his one - final - work - the poem “The Bronze Horseman”), refracted in the “St. Petersburg” prose of the Symbolists, including their literary critical essays touching on the personality and work of Pushkin.
The subject of our research is limited to the actual “St. Petersburg” novels by D.S. Merezhkovsky “Antichrist. Peter and Alexey" and A. Bely "Petersburg", as well as literary critical articles by V. Bryusov (and first of all, the article "The Bronze Horseman"), D. Merezhkovsky (including the article "Pushkin", the treatise "L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky"), Andrei Bely (primarily his work “Rhythm as dialectics and “The Bronze Horseman””, “Symbolism as a worldview”).
Note that the concept of “prose” among the Symbolists extended not only to works of art, but also for literary critical articles, even for historical research. Our use of the concept “prose” in the dissertation
1 See works: Mints Z.G. About some “neo-mythological” texts in the works of Russian symbolists // Scientists, notes of Tartu University. Vol. 459. Tartu, 1979. P. 95; Toporov V.N. Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image: Research in the field of mythopoetic.-M.: Progress-Culture, 1995.P.368-400; Dolgopolov JI.K. The myth of St. Petersburg and its transformation at the beginning of the century // Dolgopolov J1.K. At the turn of the century. About Russian literature late XIX beginning of the 20th century. - JL: Sov. writer, 1977. P. 158-204; Titarenko S. D. Myth as a universal of symbolist culture and the poetics of cyclic forms // silver Age: philosophical, aesthetic and artistic quests. -Kemerovo, 1996. P. 6; Chepkasov A.V. Neo-mythologism in the works of D.S. Merezhkovsky of the 1890-1910s // Abstract of the dissertation. -Tomsk, 1999; Ilyev S.P. The evolution of the myth about Petersburg in the novels of Merezhkovsky (“Peter and Alexei”) and Andrei Bely (“Petersburg”) // D.S. Merezhkovsky. Thought and word. -M.: Heritage, 1999. P. 56-72; Prikhodko I.S. “Eternal Companions” by Merezhkovsky (On the problem of mythologizing culture). // D.S. Merezhkovsky. Thought and word. C198. corresponds to symbolist usage in the sense of artistic and literary-critical texts.
The choice of these prose works by the Symbolists is dictated by the fact that in them the Pushkin tradition is accommodated in the poem “The Bronze Horseman”. And this is not at all accidental. Firstly, the symbolists themselves singled out “The Bronze Horseman” as the most significant and relevant work for their modern times. “The Bronze Horseman - we are all in the vibrations of his copper,” is Blok’s written statement. This means that in the “air of time” at the turn of the era, all the problems and artistic solutions of Pushkin, embodied in this poem, acquired increased relevance for the symbolists. Secondly, the principles of Pushkin’s historicism in “The Bronze Horseman” turned out to be so concentrated and philosophically significant that the symbolists, most of all, in their interpretations of personality, the elements, the historical path of Russia, the theme of St. Petersburg, etc. inevitably “rested” on the problem of historicism - how when comprehending the past, and when comprehending the present. That is why the poem “The Bronze Horseman” received such a wide resonance in artistic creativity and criticism of the symbolists. However, the problem of understanding and holistic interpretation of Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman” in symbolist prose remains, in our opinion, not fully studied.
Hence, the goal of the work is to identify the patterns of symbolist perception of Pushkin’s work and the receptive transformation of Pushkin’s historical, philosophical and artistic tradition (the poem “The Bronze Horseman”) in the articles of symbolists about Pushkin and the “St. Petersburg” novels of Merezhkovsky and Andrei Bely. The goal involves solving the following tasks:
1) Analyze the literary-critical “Pushkiniana” of Bryusov, Merezhkovsky, Bely and others in order to identify the role of Pushkin in the philosophical and aesthetic self-determination of the Symbolists.
2) Conduct an analysis of Merezhkovsky’s novel “Antichrist. Peter and Alexey", revealing the religious and philosophical attitudes and aesthetic and poetic principles of the symbolist writer in comparison with Pushkin's poem "The Bronze Horseman".
2 Mints Z.G. About some “neo-mythological” texts in the works of Russian symbolists // Uch. zap.
3) Identify the reminiscent layer from “The Bronze Horseman” in Andrei Bely’s novel “Petersburg” and the methods of receptive refraction of Pushkin’s historicism in the poetics of the novel.
The methodological basis of the dissertation is literary studies devoted to the problems of the historical and cultural tradition, and in particular the Pushkin tradition (works by L.K. Dolgopolov, Yu.M. Lotman, L.A. Kolobaeva, L.V. Pumpyansky, S.A. Nebolsin , V.V. Musatova). An important methodological guideline for us in analyzing the reminiscent layer of “The Bronze Horseman” was the above-mentioned monograph by K.A. Medvedeva (Vladivostok, 1989).
The Pushkin tradition, in our understanding, revealed, first of all, a unique connection, interdependence of the historical and spiritual experience of the people and the artist’s understanding of it as a representative of the culture of his time (also the “turn of eras”: the late 18th - early 19th centuries). In this regard, we see the main driving force for the development of Pushkin’s creativity in his realistic tendency and the associated historicism of Pushkin. And at the next “turn of the eras” of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, the Symbolists’ comprehension of the Pushkin tradition in its essence was extremely complicated both by the circumstances of the time (the deepening gap between the “people and the intelligentsia”), and by the contradictory aesthetic and social positions of the Symbolists, their eschatological aspirations, expectations and a premonition of universal catastrophes.
Let us note that Bryusov, Merezhkovsky, Andrei Bely addressed topics and problems that were relevant for their time, raised by Pushkin. But the most difficult thing for them turned out to be the comprehension of that “enduringly valuable” thing that was the essence of the Pushkin tradition, as we understand it, that is, the comprehension of the unique connection between the experience of history, the spiritual life of the people with the experience of culture as a phenomenon of “enlightenment”, the consciousness of the “enlightened mind”, cultural figure at the turn of the 18th -19th centuries.
Depending on the formulation of the problem, we turned to historical-cultural, comparative-historical and comparative-typological research methods.
University of Tartu. Vol. 459. - Tartu, 1979. P. 95.
The scientific novelty of the work is determined by the outlined problems and research methodology. The proposed perspective on the topic reveals a “cross-cutting” historical and philosophical tradition from Pushkin’s “golden” to the modernist “silver” age. The dissertation systematically analyzes the attitude of the symbolists to the Pushkin tradition declared in The Bronze Horseman. This made it possible to shed new light on the refraction of Pushkin’s category of historicism, his ideas about the relationship between the individual and the state, the role of the individual in history; to identify the specifics of the implementation of Pushkin’s artistic experience in the aesthetic consciousness of the Symbolists and in the poetics of the “Silver Age”.
The scientific and practical significance of the work is determined by the fact. that it covers a wide range of insufficiently studied problems of literary-historical perception and typological proximity of thematically similar literary texts. The analysis technique for identifying reminiscent motifs in specific texts can be used when writing general works devoted to the phenomenon of literary tradition.
The results of the study can be used when teaching general and special courses on the history of Russian literature, compiling teaching aids on the works of Pushkin, poets of the “Silver” Age for philology students, literature teachers.
The main provisions of the dissertation were tested in reports and speeches at 10 international, interuniversity and regional conferences from 1997 to 2001. in Vladivostok (FESU), Komsomolsk-on-Amur (KSPI), Ussuriysk (UGPI), Neryungri (YSU), in the special course “Russian Symbolism”, read for philology students at FESU.
Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, the material in which is distributed in accordance with the objectives, a conclusion and a list of references.
Conclusion of scientific work dissertation on the topic "Pushkin's tradition (the poem "The Bronze Horseman") in the works of Russian symbolists: V. Bryusov, D. Merezhkovsky, A. Bely"
Conclusion
Let's summarize the results of the study. The Pushkin tradition played a huge role in the “symbolist” space of the “Silver Age”, performing the function of an aesthetic prism that refracted all the key problems of existential-historical existence at the “turn of the century”. The phenomenon of the Pushkin tradition is one of the most important constants ensuring the unity of the philosophical, historical and artistic “picture of the world” of the Symbolists. For the latter, the appeal to the Bronze Horseman was motivated by Pushkin’s formulation of the problem of historicism. At the same time, this problem has become a kind of “stumbling block” in symbolist projections of tragic situations embodied in Pushkin’s poem onto the living specifics of Russian history (the novel by D.S. Merezhkovsky) and modernity (the novel by Andrei Bely). From this combination of life and art, a certain new artistic and historical vision of the “world order” was born. At the same time, the conflictual collisions of Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman” played the role of certain “archetypal keys” to the symbolist comprehension of history and modernity. The range of interpretations of Pushkin's historicism, expressed in his poem, was determined by how a particular artist interpreted the issue of personal freedom (the highest value in the symbolist ethical-aesthetic system) and historical necessity (presuming an autocratic-state organization of the life of the nation). The axiological relevance of the problem of historicism was determined by the eschatological nature of the era.
The tragic intractability of the conflict between the individual and the state, free will and historical conditionality at the beginning of the 20th century determined the symbolist appeal to Pushkin’s poem both at the level of its philosophical and journalistic understanding, and at the level of the receptive inclusion of ideas, images, plot and compositional elements of “The Bronze Horseman” in the motivic structure of his novels. At the same time, the antinomy and ambivalence of the philosophical and ethical conflict specified in the original source was preserved in both Merezhkovsky and Bely, embodied in the poetics of antitheses, figurative oxymorons, duality, semantic inversions, etc. All this
List of scientific literature Poleshchuk, Lyudmila Zenonovna, dissertation on the topic "Russian literature"
1. Azadovsky K.M., Maksimov D.E. Bryusov and “Scales” (On the history of the publication) // Valery Bryusov. - M.: Nauka, 1976. - Literary heritage, vol. 85.P.296.
2. Averintsev S.S. Byzantium and Rus': Two types of spirituality. Art. 2nd. Law and mercy // New world. 1988. No.> 9. P. 234-235.
3. Aikhenvald Yu. Silhouettes of Russian writers. Vol. 1. -M., 1908. P. 92-93.
4. Alexander Blok and Andrey Bely. Correspondence. M., 1940. - P. 7.
5. Altman M.S. Blok’s reminiscence of Pushkin // Philologica. Studies in language and literature. L., 1970. - P. 350-355.
6. Amphiteatrov A. Russian writer and Roman emperor // Amphiteatrov A.V. Literary album. St. Petersburg, 1904.
7. Anastasy (Gribanovsky), Metropolitan. Pushkin and his attitude to religion and the Orthodox Church // A.S. Pushkin: the path to Orthodoxy. M., 1996. -P.66.
8. Antsiferov N.P. Soul of St. Petersburg: Essays. L.: Lira, 1990. - pp. 64.66.
9. Arkhangelsky A.N. Poetic story by A.S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman". -M.: Higher School, 1990. P. 8-44.
10. Yu. Akhmatova A.A. Pushkin and the Nevskoe seaside // Anna Akhmatova. About Pushkin. Articles and notes. Ed. 3rd, rev. and supplemented. -M.: Book, 1989. P. 153.
11. Anchugova T. For tomorrow of Russian poetry! (To the 100th anniversary of Bryusov’s birth) // Siberian Lights, 1973, No. 12. P. 152.
12. Bakhtin N.M. Merezhkovsky and history // D.S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. -SPb: RKhGI, 2001.-P. 362-365.
13. Belinsky V.G. Collection op. in 3 vols. T. 3. M.: Gosizdat. Artist lit., 1948. - P. 603-609.
14. Bely A. Apocalypse in Russian poetry // Bely A. Symbolism as a worldview. M.: Republic, 1994. pp. 411-412.
15. Bely A. Green meadow // Symbolism as a worldview. On the latest theoretical debates in the field of artistic expression. -M.: Republic, 1994. -S. 167.332.
16. Bely A. Gogol’s mastery. M.: MALP, 1996. - 351 p.
17. Bely A. Rhythm as dialectics and “The Bronze Horseman”: Research. M.: Federation, 1929.-S. 175-191.
18. Bely A. Rhythm and reality // Bely A. From the unpublished legacy of Andrei Bely / Publ. E.I. Chistyakova // Culture as an aesthetic problem. -M, 1985. P. 142.
20. Bely A. Symbolism. Book of articles. M., 1910. - P. 382-383.
21. Bely A. About artistic prose // Russian speech. 1990. No. 5. P. 49-53.
22. Berdyaev N.A. New Christianity (D.S. Merezhkovsky) // D.S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 2001. - pp. 331-354.
23. Bernice G. Rosenthal (USA). Merezhkovsky and Nietzsche (On the history of borrowings) // Merezhkovsky D.S. Thought and word. M.: Heritage, 1999. -S. 119-136.
24. Blagoy D.D. Sociology of Pushkin's creativity. M., 1931. - S, 268-269.
25. Blagoy D. Pushkin’s mastery. -M., 1995. P. 220.
26. Blagoy D. From Cantemir to the present day. T. 2. -M.: Khudozh. lit., 1973. P. 406433.
27. Blok A.A. Complete (academic) collection. op. and letters in 20 volumes. T. 5 (Poems and poems 1917-1921). M.: Nauka, 1999. - P. 96 (568 e.).
28. Blok A.A. Collection op. in 7 vols. T. 5. M.-L., 1962. - P. 334-335.
29. Blok collection (1). Proceedings of scientific conf., dedicated, studied, life and work of A.A. Blok. Tartu, 1964. - P. 377.
30. Bogomolov N.A. Life among poems // Valery Bryusov. Among the poems. 18941924: Manifestos, articles, reviews. M.: Sov. writer, 1990. - pp. 5-6.
31. Borev Yu. The art of interpretation and evaluation: The experience of reading “The Bronze Horseman”. M.: Sov. writer, 1981. - pp. 289-290.
32. Bryusov V.Ya. My Pushkin: Articles, research, observations. -M.: GIZ, 1929. -318 p.
33. Bryusov V.Ya. Collection op. in 7 vols. -M.: Artist. lit., 1975. T. 7.
34. Bryusov V. In work on Pushkin // Literary archive. Materials on the history of literature and social movements. M. - L., 1938. - P. 302.
35. Bryusov V.Ya. Lyceum poems by Pushkin. Based on manuscripts of the Moscow Rumyantsev Museum and other sources. To the criticism of the text. M.: Scorpion, 1907. P. 3-19.
36. Bryusov V.Ya. Initial editions, options, programs, plans for publishing the complete works of Pushkin // RGALI. Fund 56, op. 2, units hr. 71. P. 3.
37. Bryusov V.Ya. Plan of the course of lectures given in the literary studio: “The Pushkin period and its significance in Russian literature” // RGALI. Fund 56, op. 2, units hr. 37. 2 p.l.
38. Bryusov V.Ya. RGALI. Fund 56, op.2, units. hr. 32. 1p.l.
39. Bryusov V. Ya. Pushkin and Baratynsky. M.: University Printing House, 1900. -S. 1.
40. Bryusov V. From my life: Autobiographical and memoir prose. M.: Terra, 1994.-S. 24.
41. Bryusov V. From a letter to I.L. Shcheglov-Leontiev (1904). Publ. N.L. Stepanova // Literary archive. Vol. 1. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1938. - P.80.
42. Bryusov V.Ya. Letters to P.P. Pertsov 1894-1896. (On the history of early symbolism) // Texts and materials. Vol. III. M.: State. academic artist Sciences, 1927.-82 p.
43. Bryusov readings 1962. Yerevan: Publishing house Yerevan, state. ped. inst., 1963. -S. 366-400.
44. Bryusov readings 1963. Yerevan: Yerevan State Publishing House. ped. inst., 1964. -572 p.
45. Bulgakov S.N. Apocalypticism and socialism (Religious and philosophical parallels) // Bulgakov S.N. Op. in 2 vols. T. 2: Selected articles. M., 1993. - P. 430-431.
46. Burkhart D. Semantics of space. Semantic analysis of the poem “The Bronze Horseman” by Pushkin. Per. G. Hergett // University Pushkin collection. Rep. Ed. B.V. Kataev.-M.: MSU, 1999. -P.195, 197.
47. Burkhart D. On the semiotics of space: “Moscow text” in Andrei Bely’s “Second (dramatic) Symphony” // Moscow and Andrei Bely’s “Moscow”: Collection. articles. M.: Russian. state humanist univ., 1990. - pp. 72-90.
48. Burlakov N.S. Valery Bryusov. Essay on creativity. M.: Education, 1975. -S. 201.
49. Veidle V.V. Bryusov after many years // Mochulsky K. Valery Bryusov. -Paris: Ymca-Press, 1962. P. 1-5.
50. Vetlovskaya V.E. Russian literature and folklore. Second half of the 19th century. -L, 1982.-S. 31-32.
51. Volynsky A. Literary notes// Northern Bulletin. 1893, No. 3. -P.112.
52. Vorontsova T.V. Pushkin and Merezhkovsky. “One’s own in another’s” in the trilogy “Christ and Antichrist” // Pushkin and Russian culture: Works of young scientists. Vol. 2. -M.: Dialog MSU, 1999. P. 120-121.
53. Vorontsova T.V. The concept of history in the trilogy by D.S. Merezhkovsky "Christ and Antichrist". Author's abstract. dis. Ph.D. Philol. Sci. -M., 1998.
54. Memories of Andrei Bely / Comp. and entry Art. V.M. Piskunova. M.: Republic, 1995. - 591 p.
55. Vygotsky L.S. Literary notes: “Petersburg”. A novel by Andrei Bely. - “New Way”, 1916, No. 47. P. 27-32.
56. Galitsina V.N. Pushkin and Blok // Pushkin collection. Pskov, 1962. - P.57-93.
57. Gasparov B.M. Pushkin's poetic language as a fact of Russian history literary language. St. Petersburg, 1999. pp. 292-293. (First ed.: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sonderband 27. Wien, 1992).
58. Gindin S.I. Bryusov’s unrealized plan (towards the study of the poet’s literary-critical heritage) // Questions of literature. 1970. No. 9. P. 200.
59. Ginzburg A.S. Pushkin and Bryusov // Young Guard, 1934. No. 10.
60. Gippius Merezhkovskaya Z.N. From the book: Dmitry Merezhkovsky // Questions of literature. 1990, No. 5. - P. 241-246.
61. Grinevich P. Reader’s Notes (“Resurrected Gods”) // Russian wealth. 1900. No. 4.
62. Gromov P. Blok, his predecessors and contemporaries. M. - L., 1966. - P. 1822.
63. Dal V.I. About beliefs, superstitions and prejudices of the Russian people. St. Petersburg, 1994. P. 115.
64. Dvortsova N. Prishvin and Merezhkovsky // Questions of literature. 1993. Vol. III. -WITH. 118.
65. Dilaktorskaya O.G. Petersburg story by Dostoevsky. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1999. -352 p.
66. Dolgopolov JI. K. Andrei Bely and his novel “Petersburg”: Monograph. JL: Sov. writer, 1988. - 416 p.
67. Dolgopolov JI.K. At the turn of the century. About Russian literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. L.: Sov. writer, 1977. - pp. 158-204, 253.
68. Dolgopolov L.K. Symbolism of personal names in the works of Andrei Bely // Cultural heritage of Ancient Rus'. M., 1976.
69. Dolgopolov L.K. Start of dating. About the personal and literary fate of Andrei Bely // Andrei Bely. Problems of creativity: Articles, memories, publications: Collection. -M.: Sov. writer, 1988.-P.25-103.
70. Dolgopolov L.K. Creative history and historical and literary significance of A. Bely’s novel “Petersburg” // A. Bely “Petersburg”. M.: Nauka, 1981 - 527 p.
71. Ermilova E.V. Theory and figurative world of Russian symbolism. -M.: Nauka, 1989. -S. 214; 150-151.
72. Zhirmunsky V. Valery Bryusov and the legacy of Pushkin. Pb., 1922. P. 81.
73. Ivanitsky A.I. About the subtext of the poem by A.S. Pushkin “The Bronze Horseman” // Russian language abroad. M., 1993. No. 2. - P. 77.
74. Ivanov E.P. Rider. Something about the city of St. Petersburg // A.S. Pushkin: pro et contra. The personality and creativity of A. Pushkin in the assessment of Russian thinkers and researchers. St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 2000.
75. Ivanov Vyach. By the stars. St. Petersburg, 1909. - pp. 37-38.
76. Izmailov N.V. “The Bronze Horseman” A.S. Pushkin // A.S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman". L.: Nauka, 1978. pp. 227-242.
77. Ilyev S.P. The evolution of the myth about Petersburg in the novels of Merezhkovsky (“Peter and Alexey”) and Andrei Bely (“Petersburg”) // D.S. Merezhkovsky. Thought and word. M.: Heritage, 1999. - pp. 56-72.
78. Ilyin I.A. Creativity of Merezhkovsky // Ilyin I.A. Lonely artist. -M., 1993.-S. 139.
79. Ilyin I.A. Creativity of Merezhkovsky // Moscow, 1990, No. 8. P. 186-196.
80. Ilyin I. Merezhkovsky the artist // D.S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. SPb.: RKhGI, 2001.-P. 374-389.
81. History of Russian literature in 4 vols. T. 4. Literature of the late XIX - early XX centuries (1881-1917). - L.: Nauka, 1983. - 500 p.
82. Kozhevnikova N.A. On types of repetition in the prose of A. Bely // Lexical units and organization of the structure of a literary text. Kalinin, 1983. - P. 52-70.
83. Kozhevnikova N.A. Streets, alleys, crooked streets, houses in Andrei Bely’s novel “Moscow” // Moscow and Andrei Bely’s “Moscow”: Collection of articles / Rep. ed. M.L. Gasparov. -M.: Rossiysk. state humanist Univ., 1999.-P.90-113.
84. Kibalnik S.A. Pushkin's artistic philosophy. SPb.: Academician, science. Petropolis, 1999. -200 p.
85. Kiseleva L.F. Pushkin in the world of Russian prose. -M.: Heritage, 1999.-362 p.
86. Kling O.A. Grotesque as a way of symbolic transformation of reality (A. Bely) // Science Fiction and Russian Literature of the 20th Century. M., 1994.
87. Kolobaeva L.A. Merezhkovsky novelist // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. lit. and language. T. 50. No. 5. - M., 1991. - P. 447-449.
88. Kolobaeva L.A. Total unity of the artistic world. (Merezhkovsky-novelist) // Merezhkovsky D.S. Thought and word. M.: Heritage, 1999. - P. 5-19.
89. Komarovich V.L. About the “Bronze Horseman” // Literary Contemporary, 1937, No. 2.-S. 205.
90. Koreneva M.Yu. Merezhkovsky and German culture // At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. From the history of international relations of Russian literature: Sat. scientific Works.-L.: Nauka, 1991.- P. 56,63.
91. Krasnov G.V. The poem “The Bronze Horseman” and its traditions in Russian poetry // Boldin Readings. Gorky, 1997. - P. 98.
92. Kuzmin M.A. Tsarevich Alexey // Conventions: Articles about art. Tomsk, 1996.-S. 77-78.
93. Lavrov A.V. Memoir trilogy and the memoir genre of Andrei Bely // Andrei Bely. At the turn of two centuries. Memoirs: In 3 books. Book 1. -M.: Khudozh. lit., 1989. P. 9.
94. Litvin E.S. V.Ya. Bryusov about Pushkin // Bryusov readings of 1963. -Yerevan, 1964. P. 202-227.
95. Literary archive: vol. 1. ANSSSR.-M.-L., 1938.-S. 304-351.
96. Literary encyclopedic Dictionary/LES/. M.: Sov. encyclopedia, 1987.-P. 322.
97. Likhachev D.S. Preface // Andrey Bely “Petersburg”. M.: Nauka, 1981. -S. 3-5.
98. Likhachev D.S. About the Russian intelligentsia // New World. 1993, No. 2.- P. 6-8.
99. Lee Hyun Suk “The Bronze Horseman” by Pushkin in the context of A. Bely’s novel “Petersburg” (to the problem of intertextuality) // Candidate, dissertation. -M.: MSU, 1998.- 178 p.
100. Losev A.F. Essays on ancient symbolism and mythology.-M., 1993.-P.27-38.
101. Lotman Yu.M. Symbolism of St. Petersburg and the problem of semiotics of the city // Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles: In 3 vols. 2. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. - P. 921.
102. Lotman Yu.M., Mints Z.G. Images of natural elements in Russian literature (Pushkin Dostoevsky - Blok) // Pushkin. - St. Petersburg: Art-SPb, 1995.-S. 814-820.
103. Lyubimova E.N. Trilogy “Christ and Antichrist” // D.S. Merezhkovsky. Collection op. in 4 volumes. T. 2. M., 1990. - P. 762.
104. Makarovskaya G.V. “The Bronze Horseman”: Results and problems of study. -Saratov: Publishing House Saratov, Univ., 1978.
105. Maksimov D.E. Bryusov. Poetry and position. L.: Sov. writer, 1969.-239p.
106. Maksimov D.E. Bryusov the critic // V. Bryusov. Collection op. in 7 vols. T. 6. M: Khudozh. lit., 1975.-S. 5-8.
107. Maksimov D.E. About the novel-poem “Petersburg” by Andrei Bely. On the question of catharsis // Russian poets of the beginning of the century: Essays. L.: Sov. writer, 1986.- P. 326.
108. Makogonenko G.P. Creativity of A.S. Pushkin in the 1830s (1833-1836). L.: Khudozh.lit., 1982.-S. 175.
109. Malchukova T.G. Ancient and Christian traditions in the poetry of A.S. Pushkin. Author's abstract. dissertation (.) Doctor of Philology, Sciences. Novgorod, 1999. -70 p.
111. Markovich V.M. Petersburg stories by N.V. Gogol: Monograph. L.: Artist. lit., 1989.-S. 105-106.
112. Medvedeva K.A. The problem of the new man in the works of A. Blok and V. Mayakovsky: Traditions and innovation. Vladivostok: Dalnevost Publishing House. unta, 1989. -292 p.
113. Medvedeva K.A. Bryusov as a researcher of the “Bronze Horseman” // One hundred years of the Silver Age: Materials of the international scientific conference: Neryungri, May 23-25, 2001 / Scientific. ed. B.S. Bugrov, L.G. Whoops. M.: MAKS Press, 2001. - 244 p.
114. Medvedeva K.A. Article by V.Ya. Bryusov “The Bronze Horseman” (to the assessment of a Pushkin critic) // Problems Slavic culture and civilization: Collection of articles. Ussuriysk: UGPI, 2001. - P. 181 -182.
115. Meilakh B.S. Pushkin. Essay on life and creativity. M.
116. Merezhkovsiy D.S. Pushkin //D. Merezhkovsky. Eternal companions. Pushkin. 3rd ed. SPb.: Publishing house. M.V. Pirozhkova, 1906. - 90 p.
117. Merezhkovsky D.S. Pushkin // Merezhkovsky D.S. L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Eternal companions. M.: Republic, 1995. - pp. 487-522.
118. Merezhkovsky D. Pushkin // Pushkin in Russian philosophical criticism. M.: Book, 1990.-P. 144.
119. Merezhkovsky D.S. On the causes of decline and new trends in modern Russian literature // Sokolov A.G., Mikhailova M.V. Russian literary criticism of the end of the beginning of the century: a reader. - M., 1982.-P.266.
120. Merezhkovsky D.S. M.Yu. Lermontov. Poet of superhumanity // Merezhkovsky D.S. In the still waters. M., 1991. - P. 312.
121. Merezhkovsky D.S. Ivanovich and Gleb // Acropolis: Izbr. lit.-critical articles. -M., 1991.-S. 227-246.
122. Merezhkovsky D.S. The Mystery of the West. Atlantis Europe. - Belgrade, 1931. - P. 18.
123. Minsky N. Testaments of Pushkin II World of Art. 1899, No. 13-14 P.21-36.
124. Mints Z.G. About some “neo-mythological” texts in the works of Russian symbolists // Uch. zap. University of Tartu. Vol. 459. Blok collection Sh. Tartu, 1979.-P. 95.
125. Mints Z.G. At the origins of the symbolist Pushkin // Pushkin Readings: Tartu-Tallinn, 1987. pp. 72-76.
126. Mints Z.G., Bezrodny M.V., Danilevsky A.A. “Petersburg text” and Russian symbolism // Uch. zap. Tartu University. Vol. 664. Semiotics of the city and urban culture. Tartu, 1984. - P. 81.
127. Mints Z.G. Blok and Pushkin // Uch. zap. Tartu University. T. XXI. Literary studies. Tartu, 1973.-S. 142.
128. Mints Z.G. About the trilogy by D.S. Merezhkovsky "Christ and Antichrist". Comments //Merezhkovsky D.S. Christ and Antichrist. Reprint of the 1914 edition. In 4 volumes. T. 4.-M.: Book, 1990. P.598-636.
129. Myths of the peoples of the world in 2 vols. T. 1. M.: Russian Encyclopedia, 1982. - P. 92.
130. Mochulsky K.V. Block. White. Bryusov. -M.: Republic, 1997. 479 p.
131. Mochulsky K. Andrey Bely. Tomsk: Aquarius, 1997. - pp. 150-155.
132. Musatov V.V. Pushkin tradition in Russian poetry of the first half of the 20th century (A. Blok, S. Yesenin, V. Mayakovsky). M.: Prometheus, 1991. - P. 832.
133. Nebolsin S.A. Classical tradition and the problem of creative activity. /Pushkin and modernism/. Candidate, dissertation. -M.: IMLI, 1979. 165 p.
134. Unpublished Pushkin. St. Petersburg, 1994. - P. 34.
135. Neklyudova M.G. Traditions and innovation in Russian art of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. M.: Art, 1991. - 396 p.
136. Nepomnyashchy B.C. Poetry and fate: Articles and notes about Pushkin. M.: Sov. writer., 1983. - 368 p.
137. Niva Georges. Andrey Bely // History of Russian literature: 20th century. Silver Age / Ed. J. Niva. M.: Progress - Litera, 1995. - P. 106127.
138. Nikitina M.A. Testaments of realism in the novels of older symbolists. "Christ and Antichrist" Dm. Merezhkovsky, “The Little Demon” by F. Sologub // Link of Times: The Problem of Continuity in Russian Literature of the Late XIX - Early XX Century. -M., 1992.-S. 207-214.
139. Nikolyukin A.N. Merezhkovsky phenomenon // D.S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 2001. - pp. 7-29.
140. Novikov L.A. Stylistics of Andrei Bely's ornamental prose. M.: Nauka, 1990.- 181 p.
141. Odoevtseva I.V. On the banks of the Neva: Literary materials. M.: Artist. lit., 1989.-S. 117.
142. Orlitsky Yu.B. “Anapestic” “Petersburg” and “iambic” “Moscow”? // Moscow and “Moscow” by Andrei Bely: Sat. articles. / Rep. ed. M.L. Gasparov. -M.: Russian. state humanist Univ., 1999. pp. 200-212.
143. Ospovat A.L., Timenchik R.D. “It’s a sad story to keep.”: About the author and readers of “The Bronze Horseman.” M.: Book, 1985. - pp. 139-147.
144. Otradin M.V. Petersburg in Russian poetry of the XVIII - early XX centuries // Petersburg in Russian poetry (XVIII - early XX centuries): Poetic anthology. -L.: Leningrad University Publishing House, 1988. P. 5.
145. Paperno I. Pushkin in the life of a man of the Silver Age // Modern American Pushkin Studies. Collection of articles / Ed. MIND. Todd III St. Petersburg, Academic. project, 1999. - 334 p.
146. Paperny V.M. Andrei Bely and Gogol // Uch. zap. Tartu University. Vol. 683. Works on Russian and Slavic philology. Tartu, 1986. - pp. 59-60.
147. Pertsov P.P. D. Merezhkovsky. Eternal companions // World of Art. 1899, No. 10, May. Dept. II.-S. 114-116.
148. Pertsov P.P. Bryusov at the beginning of the century // Znamya, 1940, No. 3. P. 248.
149. Piksanov N.K. Preface // Bryusov V. My Pushkin: Articles, research, observations. -M.-L.: GIZ, 1929-318 p.
150. Piskunov V. The second space of A. Bely’s novel “Petersburg” // Questions of literature. 1987, No. 10. P. 141.
151. Piskunova S., Piskunov V. Comments on A. Bely’s novel “Petersburg” // Bely A. Op. in 2 tenge. T. 2. Prose. M.: Artist. lit., 1990.- P. 635.
152. Piskunova S., Piskunov V. Culturological utopia of Andrei Bely // Questions of literature. 1995. Vol. 3. P. 225.
153. Povartsov S.N. The trajectory of the fall (On the literary and aesthetic concepts of D. Merezhkovsky) // Questions of literature. 1986, no. 11. pp. 169, 175.
154. Polotskaya E. Articles about Pushkin // V. Bryusov. Collection op. at 7t. T. 7. M.: Khudozh. lit., 1975. - pp. 442-450.
155. Polyakova S.V. From observations on the poetics of the novel “Petersburg”. Material equivalents of characters // S.V. Polyakov “Oleinikov and about Oleinikov” and other works on Russian literature. St. Petersburg: INAPRESS, 1997. - pp. 293-300.
156. Ponomareva G.M. Sources of the image of the “Mother of God of Joy of All Who Sorrow” in D. Merezhkovsky’s novel “Peter and Alexei” // Uchen. zap. Tartu State University, 1990. Issue. 897. pp. 72-80.
157. Prikhodko I.S. “Eternal Companions” by Merezhkovsky (On the problem of mythologizing culture) // Merezhkovsky D.S. Thought and word. M.: Heritage, 1999.-P. 198.
158. Pumpyansky JI.B. About the “Bronze Horseman”, about St. Petersburg, about its symbol. // JI.B. Pumpyansky. Classical tradition: Collection of works on the history of Russian literature. M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 2000. - P.595-599.
159. Pushkin and Russian culture. Vol. 2. M.: Dialogue-MSU, 1999. - 156 p.
160. Ranchin A.M. Brodsky’s poetry and “The Bronze Horseman” // A.M. Ranchin. Joseph Brodsky and Russian poetry of the 18th-20th centuries. M.: Max-Press, 2001. - P. 119.
161. Rozanov V. A.S. Pushkin // New time. 1899, No. 8348. pp. 2-3.
162. Rozanov I.N. People's trail. On the occasion of the 125th anniversary of A.S. Pushkin // World illustration. 1924. No. 3,4. P. 32.
163. Rozanov V.V. New job about Tolstoy and Dostoevsky (D. Merezhkovsky. JI. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky) // New time. 1900. June 24, No. 8736.
164. Rozanov V.V. Among foreign speakers // Rozanov V.V. About writing and writers. -M., 1995.-S. 150.
165. Rudich V. Dmitry Merezhkovsky // History of Russian literature: 20th century. Silver Age. / Ed. J. Niva. M.: Progress - Litera, 1995. -S. 214225.
166. Rudnev V.P. Dictionary of 20th century culture. Key concepts and texts. M.: Agraf, 1999.-S. 113.
167. Russian writers of the 19th century about Pushkin. L., 1938. - pp. 12-18.
168. Skatov N.N. Distant and near. -M., 1981. P. 27.
169. Sadovsky B. Valery Bryusov. Paths and crossroads. Collection of poems.T.Z. All tunes (1906-1909) // Russian thought. 1909. No. 6. P. 139.
170. Silard Lena Poetics of the symbolist novel of the late XIX - early XX centuries (Bryusov, Sologub, Bely) // Problems of the poetics of Russian realism of the late XIX - early XX centuries: Collection. articles. L.: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1984. - P. 87.
171. Sipovsky V.V. Pushkin. Life and art. St. Petersburg, 1907. - P. 49.
172. Skvoznikov V.D. About lyrics // Theory of literature: Main problems in historical coverage. Types and genres of literature. M.: Nauka, 1964. - pp. 219-224.
173. Sologub F. Collection. op. vX-titg.T. X. -SPb., 1913.-S. 159-197.
174. Sologub F. About the coming boor of Merezhkovsky // Golden Fleece. 1906, No. 4. P. 103.
175. Spasovich V.D. D.S. Merezhkovsky and his “Eternal Companions” // Bulletin of Europe. 1897, no. 6. pp. 558-603.
176. Stepun F.A. The former and the unfulfilled. M.: St. Petersburg, 1995. -S. 112.
177. Sugai L. “And he draws shining arabesques” // Andrey Bely. Symbolism as a worldview. -M.: Republic, 1994. P. 11-14.
178. Timenchik R.D. “The Bronze Horseman” in the literary consciousness of the early 20th century // Problems of Pushkin Studies: Collection of articles. scientific works Riga, 1983. - 90 p.
179. Titarenko S.D. Motives and images of F. Nietzsche in the poetics of early Bryusov // Bryusov readings. Stavropol, 1994. - P. 43.
180. Titarenko S.D. Myth as a universal of symbolist culture and the poetics of cyclic forms // Silver Age: philosophical, aesthetic and artistic quests. Kemerovo, 1996. - P. 6.
181. Tikhancheva E.P. Two lectures by V.Ya. Bryusov about Pushkin // Bryusov readings of 1962. Yerevan, 1963. - P. 366-400.
182. Tolstaya S.M. Evil spirits // Mythological dictionary. -M., 1991. P. 396. Stlb. 2.
183. Tomashevsky B.V. Poetic heritage of Pushkin // Tomashevsky B.V. Pushkin: Works different years. M.: Book, 1990. - P. 252.
184. Toporov V.N. Myth. Ritual. Symbol. Image: Studies in the field of mythopoetic. -M.: Progress-Culture, 1995. P. 368-400.
185. Tynyanov Yu.N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. -M.: Nauka, 1968. P. 153-154.
186. Fedotov G.P. Singer of Empire and Freedom // Pushkin in Russian philosophical criticism. -M.: Book, 1990. P. 362-363.
187. Feinberg I.L. Unfinished works of Pushkin. M., 1979. - P. 44.
188. Feinberg I.L. Through the pages of “The History of Peter” // Reading Pushkin’s notebooks. -M., 1985.-S. 203-305.
189. Frank S.L. Sketches about Pushkin / Preface. D.S. Likhacheva. M.: Consent, 1999.-178 p.
190. Khaev E.S. The epithet “copper” in the poem “The Bronze Horseman” // Temporary of the Pushkin Commission. L., 1985. - pp. 180-184.
191. Khalizev V.E. Theory of literature. M., 1999. - P. 352-356.
192. Herdman J. The double in nineteenth century fiction // Basingatoba, L. Macmillan, 1990. P. 5.
193. Khodasevich V.F. About Pushkin // Khodasevich V.F. Collection op. in 4 vols. T. 3. M.: Consent, 1996.- P. 395-512.
194. Khodasevich V.F. Petersburg stories of Pushkin // Khodasevich V.F. Collection op. in 4 vols. T. 2. M.: Consent, 1996. - P. 60-63.
195. Khodasevich V.F. Oscillating tripod. M.: Sov. writer, 1991.P.180.
196. Tsurkan V.V. Bryusov's concept of Pushkin's creativity. Candidate, dissertation. -M.: MGPU, 1995. 181 p.
197. Tsyavlovsky M.A. Bryusov the Pushkinist // Valery Bryusov: collection, dedicated. 50th anniversary of the poet's birth. -M., 1924, 94 p.
198. Chelyshev E.P. Pushkin studies. Results and prospects // Pushkin and modern culture. -M., 1996. P. 3-30.
199. Chepkasov A.V. Neo-mythologism in the works of D.S. Merezhkovsky 1890-1910s // Author's abstract. candidate dis. Tomsk, 1999. - 20 p.
200. Chukovsky K. Two poets // Smena. 1936, no. 9.
201. Shestov JI. The power of ideas (D.S. Merezhkovsky. L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky) // D.S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 2001. - pp. 109-135.
202. Eidelman N.Ya. Pushkin: History and modernity in the artistic consciousness of the poet. M.: Sov. writer, 1984. - 368 p.
203. Eikhenbaum B.M. About Pushkin // B.M. Eikhenbaum. About poetry. L.: Sov. writer, 1969. - pp. 321-324.
204. Eikhenbaum B.M. D.S. Merezhkovsky critic // D.S. Merezhkovsky: pro et contra. - St. Petersburg: RKhGI, 2001. - P. 322-331.
205. Eliot T.S. Tradition and individual talent // foreign aesthetics and theory of literature of the 19th-20th centuries. Treatises, articles, essays. -M., 1987. -P.169-178.
206. Ellis (Kobylinsky L.L.) Russian symbolists. Tomsk: Publishing house "Aquarius", 1998.-288 p.
207. Epstein M. Paradoxes of novelty (On the literary development of the 19th and 20th centuries).-M., 1988.-P. 174.
208. Jacobson P.O. Statue in the poetic mythology of Pushkin (translated from English by N.V. Pertsova) // Jacobson R. Works on poetics. M., 1987. - pp. 147-148.
209. Yarantsev V.N. Intertextual problems of symbolist text. “The Bronze Horseman” A.S. Pushkin and “Petersburg” by A. Bely // Siberian Pushkin Studies Today: Collection of scientific articles. Novosibirsk, 2000. - P. 220-222.
210. Yarantsev V.N. “Emblematics of meaning” in Andrei Bely’s novel “Petersburg”. Author's abstract. diss. . .cand. Philol. Sci. Novosibirsk, 1997. - 18 p.
The works of Etienne Maurice Falconet are one of the most famous symbols of the Northern capital. The first poem about the monument was written a year after its opening, and since then monumental image appears in the literature. Let us remember “copper Peter” and his incarnation in Russian poetry.
Ermil Kostrov and the “demigod” on the stone stronghold
Who is this, exalted on a rocky stronghold,
Seated on a horse, stretching out his hand to the abyss,
Drawing steep waves to the clouds
And shake the stormy whirlwinds with your breath? -
That's Peter. With his mind Russia has been renewed,
And the universe is filled with his high-profile deeds.
He, seeing the foreshadowed fruit of his loins,It will spit joyfully from the highest heights.
And the copper that the sight of him on the shore represents,
Shows himself to be sensitive to fun;
And his proud horse, lifting the lightness of his legs,
He wishes that the demigod sitting on him
The porphyrogenitus flew to kiss the maiden,
Congratulate the Russians on the newly risen day.From the poem “Eclogue. Three Graces. For the birthday of Her Highness Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna", 1783
Alexey Melnikov. Unveiling of the monument to Peter I on Senate Square in St. Petersburg. Engraving from 1782
Ermil Kostrov - Russian poet of the 18th century. According to the memoirs of Alexander Pushkin, he served as a poet at Moscow University: he wrote official poems on special occasions. Yermil Kostrov was the first in Russia to translate masterpieces of ancient literature - Homer's Iliad and Apuleius's The Golden Ass.
"Eclogue. Three Graces. On the birthday of Her Highness Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna,” Kostrov wrote when Paul I’s eldest daughter Alexandra was born. The poem, created in ancient traditions, is structured as a conversation between three graces (goddesses of beauty and joy): Euphrosyne, Thalia and Aglaia. Aglaya speaks about the monument to Peter I and the Tsar himself in the eclogue. With Kostrov’s work, a literary tradition began to depict copper Peter as the patron of the city, capable of protecting it from harm. The image of the “proud horse” from the eclogue will later appear in “The Bronze Horseman” by Alexander Pushkin.
Alexander Pushkin and the Bronze Horseman
Bronze Horseman
On the shore of desert waves
He stood there, full of great thoughts,
And he looked into the distance. Wide before him
The river rushed; poor boat
He strove along it alone.
Along mossy, marshy banks
Blackened huts here and there,
Shelter of a wretched Chukhonian;
And the forest, unknown to the rays
In the fog of the hidden sun,
There was noise all around.And he thought:
From here we will threaten the Swede,
The city will be founded here
To spite an arrogant neighbor.
Nature destined us here
Open a window to Europe,
Stand with a firm foot by the sea.Here on new waves
All the flags will visit us,
And we’ll record it in the open air.
Alexander Benois. Bronze Horseman. 1903
Some researchers consider the author of the “Bronze Horseman” metaphor to be the Decembrist poet Alexander Odoevsky. His 1831 poem "Saint Bernard" contains the following line: “In the midnight darkness, in the snow, there is a horse and a bronze rider”. However, this expression became stable after the publication of Pushkin’s poem of the same name. The poet wrote the work about Eugene, who lost his beloved after the flood of 1824, during the Boldin autumn of 1833. In 1834, only its first part was published - with censorship edits by Nicholas I. But the entire poem was published only three years later, after the death of Alexander Pushkin. The text was prepared for publication in Sovremennik by Vasily Zhukovsky.
“Pushkin is as much the creator of the image of St. Petersburg as Peter the Great was the builder of the city itself.”
Nikolai Antsiferov, Soviet historian and cultural scientist
Composer Reinhold Gliere wrote a ballet based on the plot of The Bronze Horseman. Its fragment - “Hymn to the Great City” - became the anthem of St. Petersburg.
Valery Bryusov. “With outstretched hand you fly on a horse”
To the Bronze Horseman
Isaac turns white in the frosty fog.
Peter rises on a snow-covered block.
And people pass in the daylight twilight,
As if speaking to him
for reviewYou also stood here, splashed
and in the foam
Above the dark plain of troubled waves;
And the poor thing threatened you in vain
Eugene,
Seized by madness, full of rage.You were standing between the screams and the roar
The bodies of the abandoned army lay down,
Whose blood smoked in the snow and flashed
And she couldn’t melt the earth’s pole!Taking turns, the generations made noise around,
Houses rose like your crops...
His horse trampled the links with mercilessness
The curved snake is powerless under him.But the northern city is like a foggy ghost,
We humans pass by like shadows in a dream.
Only you through the centuries, unchanged, crowned,
With outstretched hand you fly on a horse.
Alexander Beggrov. Bronze Horseman. 19th century
About 15 St. Petersburg addresses are associated with the name of Osip Mandelstam in St. Petersburg: these are apartments in which the poet lived at different times. Many of his works are created in the genre of urban lyrics. The poet wrote about the architecture of St. Petersburg as a man-made fifth element: “The rule of the four elements is pleasant to us, / But a free man created the fifth”("Admiralty")
The monument to Peter I by Falconet has long become a symbol of St. Petersburg and was sung by many Russian poets. Alexander Pushkin dedicated the poem “The Bronze Horseman” to the monument, and since then the monument has been given a second, unofficial name. Full of power and dynamics, the sculpture inspired Adam Mickiewicz, Boris Pasternak, Pyotr Vyazemsky, Anna Akhmatova, Osip Mandelstam. The Bronze Horseman also left his mark in the work of Valery Bryusov.
The poet wrote the poem “To the Bronze Horseman” in St. Petersburg on January 24-25, 1906. The work was included in the collection “All Tunes”, where it opens the cycle “Greetings”. In 1909, the Scorpion publishing house published the collected works of Valery Bryusov, “Paths and Crossroads.” The poem “To the Bronze Horseman” was first published in it.
In his works, Bryusov often turned to historical events, literary sources, works of painting, sculpture, and architecture. This intellectual feature was characteristic of outstanding poets, but in the work of Valery Bryusov it is especially clearly expressed. Some critics even reproached the poet for such immersion in the world cultural and historical layer. For example, Julius Aikhenvald called Valery Yakovlevich “a thinker of other people’s thoughts” and a “stepfather” of ideas.
In fact, Bryusov builds his poetic castles on a solid foundation of history, art and literature. And an individual approach does not make these designs any less majestic and beautiful. In the poem “To the Bronze Horseman,” describing winter Petersburg, Bryusov draws attention to the harsh architecture of the capital: “Isaky turns white in the frosty fog,” “the northern city is like a foggy ghost,” “houses stood up like crops.” The author also mentions important historical events, such as the Decembrist uprising and the most destructive flood in St. Petersburg in 1824: “the bodies of the abandoned army lay,” “above the dark plain of troubled waves.” A literary motif is unexpectedly woven into the memory of the flood. Bryusov recalls the hero of Pushkin’s novel, “poor Evgeniy,” who “threatens in vain” the monument.
But the main character of the story is the Bronze Horseman himself. Following Pushkin, Bryusov reveals the symbolism of this image. The heaviness and power embodied in the word “copper,” as well as the association of rapid movement in the word “horseman,” ideally characterize Peter I. His “unchanging” monument “rises on a snow-covered block” and at the same time flies “through the centuries.”
The “Eternal” statue is contrasted with the Bryusovs short life person. Generations change, people are “shadows in a dream,” even the city is a “foggy ghost,” but the monument to the reformer king remains unchanged, trampling on the links of the snake.
The poem “To the Bronze Horseman” is not replete with colors and sounds, which is atypical for Bryusov’s creative style. There is almost no color here, there is only the verb “whitens”. True, there is a lot of fog and shadows. The sound appears exclusively when describing the December events of 1825: “between screams and roars.”
The poem “To the Bronze Horseman” is written in amphibrach tetrameter with cross rhyme. Movement is conveyed using a large number of verbs, participial and adverbial phrases: passing, speaking, flying, taking turns, getting up, lying down, prostrate, curved.
To achieve greater emotional expressiveness, Bryusov widely used comparisons: “houses are like crops”, “like shadows in a dream”, “as if... at a review”, as well as epithets: “frosty fog”, “snow-covered block”, “forsaken army” . There are many inversions in the work: “on a snow-covered block”, “with an outstretched hand”, “a foggy ghost”, “the earth’s pole”, “your crops”.
In this poem, Bryusov masterfully created original, capacious images. The “dark plain of tossed waves” represents the flood; “houses are like crops” - the growth of the city; “blood on the snow... could not melt the earth’s pole” - the failed uprising of the Decembrists. The antithesis “daylight twilight” is no less effective in the poem.
In his work, Valery Bryusov returned more than once to the sculptural symbol of the northern capital. The majestic monument is found in the poems “Three Idols”, “Variations on the Theme of the Bronze Horseman”, as well as in a critical study of the poem of the same name by Alexander Pushkin. We can safely talk about the consonance of the image created by Falcone with the deep strings of Valery Bryusov’s soul.
- “To the Young Poet”, analysis of Bryusov’s poem
- “Sonnet to Form”, analysis of Bryusov’s poem
BRONZE HORSEMAN
STORY IDEA
The first thing that strikes you in “The Bronze Horseman” is the discrepancy between the plot of the story and its content.
The story tells about a poor, insignificant St. Petersburg official, some Eugene, stupid, unoriginal, no different from his brothers, who was in love with some Parasha, the daughter of a widow living by the seaside. The flood of 1824 destroyed their house; the widow and Parasha died. Evgeniy could not bear this misfortune and went crazy. One night, passing by the monument to Peter I, Eugene, in his madness, whispered several angry words to him, seeing in him the culprit of his disasters. Eugene’s frustrated imagination imagined that the bronze horseman was angry with him for this and chased him on his bronze horse. A few months later the madman died.
But this simple story of love and grief of a poor official is associated with details and entire episodes that would seem to be completely inappropriate for it. First of all, it is preceded by an extensive “Introduction,” which recalls the founding of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great and gives, in a number of paintings, the entire appearance of this “creation of Peter.” Then, in the story itself, the idol of Peter the Great turns out to be like a second character. The poet speaks very reluctantly and sparingly about Eugene and Parasha, but a lot and with passion - about Peter and his feat. The pursuit of Eugene by the bronze horseman is depicted not so much as the ravings of a madman, but as a real fact, and thus an element of the supernatural is introduced into the story. Finally, individual scenes of the story are told in an upbeat and solemn tone, making it clear that we are talking about something extremely important.
All this forced criticism, from its first steps, to look for a second, internal meaning in “The Bronze Horseman”, to see in the images of Eugene and Peter incarnations, symbols of two principles. Many varied interpretations of the story have been proposed, but all of them, it seems to us, can be reduced to three types.
Some, including Belinsky, saw the meaning of the story in the comparison of collective will and individual will, personality and the inevitable course of history. For them, the representative of the collective will was Peter, the embodiment of the personal, individual principle was Eugene. “In this poem,” Belinsky wrote, “we see the sad fate of an individual suffering as if as a result of choosing a place for the new capital, where so many people died... And with a humble heart we recognize the triumph of the general over the particular, without giving up our sympathy for the suffering of this particular... When we look at the giant, proudly and unshakably rising in the midst of general death and destruction and, as if symbolically realizing the indestructibility of his creation, we, although not without a shudder of heart, admit that this bronze giant could not save the fate of individuals , ensuring the fate of the people and the state, which is a historical necessity for him and that his view of us is already his justification... This poem is the apotheosis of Peter the Great, the most daring that could only come to the mind of a poet who is fully worthy of being the singer of the great transformer." . From this point of view, of the two colliding forces, the representative of “historical necessity,” Peter, is right.
Others, whose thoughts were most clearly expressed by D. Merezhkovsky, saw in the two heroes of “The Bronze Horseman” representatives of two original forces fighting in European civilization: paganism and Christianity, the renunciation of one’s self in God and the deification of one’s self in heroism. For them, Peter was the exponent of the personal principle, heroism, and Eugene was the exponent of the impersonal principle, the collective will. “Here (in “The Bronze Horseman”),” writes Merezhkovsky, “is the eternal contrast of two heroes, two principles: Tazit and Galub, old Gypsy and Aleko, Tatiana and Onegin... On the one hand, the small happiness of a small, unknown Kolomna official , reminiscent of the humble heroes of Dostoevsky and Gogol, on the other - a superhuman vision of a hero... What does a giant care about the death of the unknown? Isn't it for this that countless, equal, superfluous ones are born, so that the great chosen ones will follow their bones to their goals?.. But what , if in the weak heart of the most insignificant of the insignificant, the “trembling creature” emerging from the dust, an abyss opens in his simple love, no less than the one from which the hero’s will was born? What if the worm of the earth rebels against his god?.. The challenge is thrown. The judgment of the small over the great is pronounced: “Good, miraculous builder!.. Already for you!” The challenge is thrown, and the calm of the proud idol is broken... The bronze horseman pursues the madman... But the prophetic delirium of the madman, the weak whisper of his indignant conscience will no longer cease, will not be drowned out by a thunder-like roar, the heavy tramp of the Bronze Horseman." From his point of view, Merezhkovsky justifies Evgeny, justifies the rebellion of the “small”, “insignificant”, the revolt of Christianity against the ideals of paganism.
Still others, finally, saw in Peter the embodiment of autocracy, and in the “evil” whisper of Eugene - a rebellion against despotism.
A new justification for this understanding of the Bronze Horseman was recently given by Prof. I. Tretiak/*Józef Tretiak. Mickiewicz i Puszkin. Warsaw. 1906. We used the presentation of Mr. S. Brailovsky. ("Pushkin and his contemporaries", issue VII.) (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/, which showed the dependence of Pushkin’s story on Mickiewicz’s satire “Ustçp”. Mitskevich's satires appeared in 1832 and then became known to Pushkin. In Pushkin's papers there were lists of several poems from these satires made by him in his own hand/* Moscow Rumyantsev Museum. Notebook N2373. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov).*/. A whole series of poems in “The Bronze Horseman” turn out to be either a dissemination of Mickiewicz’s poems or, as it were, a response to them. Mitskevich depicted the northern capital in too gloomy colors; Pushkin responded with an apology for St. Petersburg. Comparing "The Bronze Horseman" with Mickiewicz's satire "Oleszkiewicz", we see that it has a common theme with it - the flood of 1824, and a general idea: that weak and innocent subjects are punished for the misdeeds of rulers. If we compare “The Bronze Horseman” with Mickiewicz’s poems “Pomnik Piotra Wielkiego”, we will find an even more important similarity: in Mickiewicz, “the poet of the Russian people, famous for his songs throughout the midnight” (i.e., Pushkin himself), brands the monument with the name “cascade of tyranny "; in "The Bronze Horseman" the hero of the story curses the same monument. In the notes to "The Bronze Horseman" the name of Mickiewicz and his satires are mentioned twice, with "Oleszkiewicz" being named one of his best poems. On the other hand, Mitskevich in his satires definitely hints at Pushkin several times, as if challenging him to respond.
Prof. Tretyak believes that in Mitskevich’s satires Pushkin heard an accusation of betrayal of the “freedom-loving” ideals of youth that he once shared with the Polish poet. Mickiewicz’s reproach in his poem “Do przyjaciól Moskali”, addressed to those who “with a bribed tongue glorify the triumph of the Tsar and rejoice in the torment of their friends,” Pushkin should have applied to himself. Pushkin could not remain silent in response to such a reproach and did not want to respond to his great adversary in the tone of official patriotic poems. In a truly artistic creation, in majestic images, he expressed everything that he thought about the Russian autocracy and its significance. This is how the “Bronze Horseman” arose.
What does this answer from Pushkin to Mitskevich say? Prof. Tretiak believes that both in Mickiewicz’s poems “Pomnik Piotra Wielkiego” and in Pushkin’s “Petersburg story”, European individualism comes into conflict with the Asian idea of the state in Russia. Mickiewicz predicts the victory of individualism, and Pushkin predicts its complete defeat. And Pushkin’s answer to Prof. Tretyak tries to retell it in the following words: “True, I was and remain a herald of freedom, an enemy of tyranny, but wouldn’t I be crazy to openly fight the latter? If you want to live in Russia, you must submit to the almighty idea of the state, otherwise it will destroy me.” persecute Evgeniy like a madman." These are the three types of interpretations of the Bronze Horseman. It seems to us that the last of them, which sees in Peter the embodiment of autocracy, should be closest to Pushkin’s true plan. It was not typical for Pushkin to personify in his creations such abstract ideas as “paganism” and “Christianity” or “historical necessity” and “the fate of individuals.” But, living in recent years
In motley and fruitless anxiety
Big light and yard,
He could not help but think about the meaning of autocracy for Russia. His diligent studies of Russian history and especially the history of Peter the Great should have brought him to the same thoughts. Prof.'s arguments also seem convincing to us. Tretiak about the connection between The Bronze Horseman and Mickiewicz’s satyrs. However, in addition to these satires, Pushkin could not help but know that his rapprochement with the court by many, and even some of his friends, was interpreted as a betrayal of the ideals of his youth. Back in 1828, Pushkin found it necessary to respond to such reproaches with stanzas:
No, I'm not a flatterer when I reign
I offer free praise...
In addition, the understanding of Peter in The Bronze Horseman as an incarnation, as a symbol of autocracy, to some extent includes other interpretations of the story. Russian autocracy arose due to “historical necessity.” The entire course of development of Russian history inevitably led to the autocracy of the Moscow kings. At the same time, autocracy has always been the deification of the individual. Lomonosov openly compared Peter the Great to God. Contemporaries even called Alexander I God. The rebellion of the individual against the autocracy involuntarily becomes a rebellion against “historical necessity” and against the “deification of the individual.”
But, joining the basic views of prof. Tretyak, we absolutely do not accept his conclusions. Seeing with him in “The Bronze Horseman” Pushkin’s answer to Mitskevich’s reproaches, we understand this answer differently. We believe that Pushkin himself put into his creation a completely different meaning from what they want to read in it.
If you look closely at the characteristics of the two heroes of "The Bronze Horseman", it will become clear that Pushkin sought by all means to make one of them - Peter - as "great" as possible, and the other - Eugene - as "small", "insignificant" as possible. “Great Peter,” according to the poet’s plan, was to become the personification of the power of autocracy in its extreme manifestation; “poor Eugene” is the embodiment of the extreme powerlessness of an isolated, insignificant personality.
Peter the Great was one of Pushkin's favorite heroes. Pushkin carefully studied Peter, thought a lot about him, dedicated enthusiastic stanzas to him, introduced him as a character in entire epics, and at the end of his life he began working on the extensive “History of Peter the Great.” In all these studies, Peter seemed to Pushkin to be an exceptional being, as if exceeding human dimensions. “The genius of Peter broke out beyond the boundaries of his age,” Pushkin wrote in his “Historical Remarks” of 1822. In The Feast of Peter the Great, Peter is called a “giant miracle worker.” In the Stanzas, his soul is given the epithet “comprehensive.” On the fields of Poltava Peter -
Powerful and joyful, like battle.
...............................
....... . His face is terrible...
He's like God's thunderstorm.
In "My Pedigree" he is gifted with almost supernatural strength,
Who moved our earth,
Who gave a powerful run to the sovereign
The stern of the mother ship.
However, Pushkin always saw in Peter an extreme manifestation of autocracy, bordering on despotism. "Peter I despised humanity“maybe more than Napoleon,” Pushkin wrote in “Historical Remarks.” It was immediately added that under Peter the Great in Russia there was “universal slavery and silent obedience.” “Peter the Great was simultaneously Robespierre and Napoleon, embodied revolution", wrote Pushkin in 1831. In “Materials for the History of Peter the Great,” Pushkin at every step calls Peter’s decrees either “cruel,” “barbaric,” or “tyrannical.” In the same “Materials” we read: “The Senate and Synod present him with the title: Father of the Fatherland, All-Russian Emperor and Peter the Great. Peter did not stand on ceremony for long and accepted them." In general, in these “Materials” Pushkin, briefly mentioning those institutions of Peter, which are “the fruits of an extensive mind, full of benevolence and wisdom”, diligently writes out those of his decrees, about which he has to talk about “willfulness and barbarism”, about “injustice and cruelty”, about “the arbitrariness of the autocrat”.
In "The Bronze Horseman" the same traits of power and autocracy in the image of Peter are taken to the extreme.
The story opens with the image of a ruler who, in the harsh desert, plans his struggle with the elements and with people. He wants to turn the deserted land into “the beauty and wonder of full-fledged countries,” to erect a magnificent capital from the swamps of swamps, and at the same time “to open a window to Europe” for his half-Asian people. In the first verses there is not even the name of Peter, it is simply said:
On the shore of desert waves
stood He, thoughts of the great poly.
/*In the original version of the “Introduction” we read:
On the shore of the Varangian waves
I stood there, thinking deeply,
Great Peter. It's wide in front of him... etc.
(Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/
Peter doesn’t utter a word, he just thinks his thoughts, and then, as if by a miracle, a
There is beauty and wonder in full countries,
From the darkness of the forests, from the swamps of blat.
Pushkin enhances the impression of the miraculous by making a number of parallels of what was and what has become:
Where was the Finnish fisherman before?
Nature's sad stepson
Alone on the low banks
Thrown into unknown waters
Your old net is 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.
In one rough draft of these verses, after the words about the “Finnish fisherman,” Pushkin has an even more characteristic exclamation:
Spirit of Petrov
Nature's resistance!
/*All quotes, both this one and the previous and subsequent ones, are based on self-study The author of this article is Pushkin's manuscripts. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/
With these words we need to bring together the place in the story “The Blackamoor of Peter the Great”, which describes Petersburg in the time of Peter. “Ibrahim,” says Pushkin, “looked with curiosity at the newborn capital, which was rising from the swamps according to the mania of autocracy. Exposed dams, canals without embankment, wooden bridges everywhere showed victory of human will over the resistance of the elements." Obviously, in the poems of “The Bronze Horseman” Pushkin initially wanted to repeat the idea of victory over the “resistance of the elements” - the human, sovereign will.
"Introduction" after the picture of Petersburg, contemporary to Pushkin, directly named "creation Peter" ends with a solemn call to the elements to come to terms with one's defeat and with my captivity.
Unshakable, like Russia!
May he make peace with you
AND defeated element:
Enmity and captivity old one
Let the Finnish waves forget...
But Pushkin felt that the historical Peter, no matter how much his charm was exaggerated, would still remain only a man. Sometimes, from under the appearance of a demigod, the appearance of simply “a tall man, in a green caftan, with a clay pipe in his mouth, who, leaning on the table, reading Hamburg newspapers” (“Arap of Peter the Great”) will inevitably appear. And so, in order to make his hero a pure embodiment of autocratic power, in order to distinguish him from all people in appearance, Pushkin moves the action of his story forward a hundred years (“A hundred years have passed...”) and replaces Peter himself with his statue, his in an ideal way. The hero of the story is not the same Peter who planned to “threaten the Swede” and invite “all the flags to visit him,” but the “Bronze Horseman,” the “proud idol” and, above all, the “idol.” It is precisely the “idol”, that is, something deified, that Pushkin himself most willingly calls the monument to Peter. /*The expression “giant” does not belong to Pushkin; This is Zhukovsky's amendment. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/
In all the scenes of the story where the “Bronze Horseman” appears, he is depicted as a superior being, who knows nothing equal to himself. On his bronze horse he always stands “high”; he alone remains calm in the hour of general calamity, when “everything around was empty,” “everything ran,” everything was “in trembling.” When this Bronze Horseman gallops, a “heavy stomp” is heard, similar to “thunder rumble”, and the entire pavement is shocked by this galloping, for which the poet took a long time to choose the appropriate definition - “heavy-measured”, “far-resonant”, “heavy-resonant”. Speaking about this idol, towering above the fenced rock, Pushkin, always so restrained, does not stop at the most daring epithets: this is the “lord of Fate”, and the “ruler of half the world”, and (in rough sketches) “a terrible king”, “a powerful king", "husband of Destiny", "ruler of half the world".
This deification of Peter reaches its highest power in those verses where Pushkin, having forgotten his Eugene for a while, himself thinks about the meaning of the feat accomplished by Peter:
Oh, powerful lord of Fate!
At the height of an iron bridle
Raised Russia on its hind legs?
The image of Peter is exaggerated here to the extreme. This is not only the winner of the elements, it is truly the “lord of Fate.” With his “fatal will” he directs the life of an entire people. With an iron bridle, he holds Russia on the edge of the abyss, into which she was already ready to collapse/*We understand this place this way: Russia, rapidly rushing forward along the wrong path, was ready to collapse into the abyss. Her “rider,” Peter, in time, right over the abyss, reared her and thereby saved her. Thus, in these verses we see the vindication of Peter and his work. Another interpretation of these verses, interpreting Pushkin’s thought as a reproach to Peter, who raised Russia so much that she could only “put her hooves down” in the abyss, seems arbitrary to us. Let us note by the way that in all authentic manuscripts are read "raised on its hind legs" and not "strung up on its hind legs" (as has hitherto been printed and is being printed in all publications). (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/. And the poet himself, overwhelmed horror in front of this superhuman power, he does not know how to answer himself who it is in front of him.
He is terrible in the surrounding darkness!
What a thought on the brow!
What power is hidden in it!
.......................................
Where are you galloping, proud horse?
And where will you put your hooves?
This is the first hero of the “St. Petersburg story”: Peter, the Bronze Horseman, a demigod. - Pushkin made sure that the second hero, “poor, poor Eugene,” was the true opposite of him.
In the original draft of The Bronze Horseman, a lot of space was devoted to the characterization of the second hero. As is known, the passage, which was later separated into a special whole under the title “The Genealogy of My Hero,” was first included in the “St. Petersburg Tale,” and none other than “my Yezersky” later turned into “poor Eugene.” Namely, by telling how
from the guests home
Young Evgeniy came,
Pushkin first continued:
So let's be our hero
We call then what is my tongue
I'm already used to the sound.
Let's start ab ovo: my Evgeniy
Descended from generations
Whose daring sail among the seas
Was the horror of days gone by.
However, later Pushkin found it inappropriate to talk about the ancestors of that hero, who, according to the plan of the story, should be the most insignificant of the insignificant, and not only singled out all the stanzas dedicated to his genealogy into a separate work, but even deprived him of his “nickname,” i.e., his surname (in various sketches the hero of the “St. Petersburg story” is called either “Ivan Yezersky”, then “Young Zorin”, or “Young Rulin”). The long pedigree was replaced by a few words:
We don't need his nickname,
Although in times gone by
It might have sparkled...
Not content with this, Pushkin tried to completely depersonalize his hero. In the early editions of the story, Evgeniy is still quite a lively person. Pushkin speaks definitely and in detail about his everyday situation, and about his mental life, and about his external appearance. Here are a few such sketches:
He was a poor official
The face is a little pockmarked.He was intricate, not rich,
I'm blond...He was a very poor official
Rootless, orphan.Poor official
Thoughtful, thin and pale.
He dressed carelessly
I was always buttoned crookedly
His green, narrow tailcoat.
Like everyone else, I thought a lot about money,
And Zhukovsky smoked tobacco,
Like everyone else, he wore a uniform tailcoat.
From all this, in the final processing, all that remained was the information that “our hero” was “serving somewhere” and that “he was poor.”
It is also characteristic that the original hero of the story seemed to Pushkin to be a much more significant person than the later Eugene. At one time, Pushkin even thought of making him, if not a poet, then a person somehow interested in literature. In the rough drafts we read:
My official
Was writer and lover,
Like everyone else, he did not behave strictly,
Like us, wrote poetry a lot of.
Instead, in the final version, Pushkin makes Evgeni dream:
What could God add to him?
Mind and money...
Where can a person who himself admits that he lacks intelligence think about writing?
In the same way, the original hero stood much higher than Eugene on the social ladder. Pushkin at first called him his neighbor and even spoke of his “luxurious” office.
In your luxurious office,
At that time, Rulin was young
I sat thoughtfully...My neighbor came home
He entered his peaceful office.
/*As for the passage given by many publications as a variant of the verses of “The Bronze Horseman”:
Then, along the stone platform
Sand strewn canopy.
Run up the sloping steps
His wide staircase... etc. -
The connection of these verses with the “Petersburg story” seems to us very doubtful. (Note 8. Ya. Bryusova.)*/
All these features gradually changed. The "peaceful" cabinet was replaced by a "modest" cabinet; then instead of the word “my neighbor” a descriptive expression appeared: “in the house where I stood”; finally, Pushkin began to define the dwelling of his hero as “the kennel of the fifth dwelling,” “attic,” “closet,” or with the words: “Lives under the roof.” In one draft, a characteristic amendment in this regard was preserved: Pushkin crossed out the words “my neighbor” and wrote instead “my eccentric”, and the following verse:
He entered his peaceful office. -
Changed it like this:
He went in and unlocked his attic.
Pushkin extended his severity to the point that he deprived this very “attic” or “closet” of all individual features. In one of the early editions we read:
Sighing, he looked around the closet,
Bed, dusty suitcase.
And a table covered with papers,
And the wardrobe, with all its goodness;
Found everything in order: then,
Satisfied with the smoke of his cigar,
He undressed himself and went to bed,
Under a well-deserved overcoat.
Of all this information, only a vague mention remained in the final edition:
Lives in Kolomna... -
Yes, two dry verses:
So, I came home, Evgeniy
He shook off his overcoat, undressed, and lay down.
Even in the whitewashed manuscript submitted to the sovereign for censorship, there still remained a detailed description of Eugene’s dreams, introducing the reader to his inner world and his personal life:
Marry? Well? Why not?
And really? I'll arrange
A humble corner for yourself,
And in it I will calm Parasha.
A bed, two chairs, a pot of cabbage soup.
Yes, he’s big... what more do I need?
Sundays in the summer in the field
I will walk with Parasha:
I’ll ask for 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.
After the tsar viewed the manuscript and banned it, Pushkin threw out this place too, inexorably taking away from his Eugene all personal features, all individual traits, just as he had previously taken away his “nickname”.
This is the second hero of the “St. Petersburg story” - an insignificant Kolomna official, “poor Evgeniy,” “citizen of the capital,”
What kind of darkness do you meet,
Not at all different from them
Neither in face nor in mind.
/*In this edition, these verses are included in one of the manuscripts of The Bronze Horseman. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/
At the beginning of the “Introduction,” Pushkin did not find it necessary to name his first hero, since it is enough to say “He” about him to make it clear who we are talking about. Having introduced his second hero, Pushkin also did not name him, finding that “we do not need a nickname for him.” From everything that is said in the story about Peter the Great, it is impossible to form a definite image: everything blurs into something huge, immeasurable, “terrible.” “Poor” Eugene also has no appearance, who is lost in the gray, indifferent mass of “metropolitan citizens” similar to him. The methods of depicting both, the conqueror of the elements and the Kolomna official, are closer to each other, because both of them are personifications of two extremes: the highest human power and the utmost human insignificance.
The “introduction” of the story depicts the power of the autocracy triumphing over the elements, and ends with a hymn to it:
Show off, city Petrov, and stand
Unshakable, like Russia!
The two parts of the story depict two rebellions against autocracy: the rebellion of the elements and the rebellion of man.
The Neva, once enslaved, “taken captive” by Peter, has not forgotten her “ancient enmity” and with “vain malice” rebels against the enslaver. The “defeated element” is trying to crush its granite shackles and is attacking the “slender masses of palaces and towers” that arose due to the mania of autocratic Peter.
Describing the flood, Pushkin compares it either to military operations or to an attack by robbers:
Siege! attack! Evil waves
Like thieves climbing through the windows...So villain
With a fierce gang his,
Having burst into the village, he catches, cuts,
Destroys and robs; screams, gnashing,
Violence, swearing, anxiety, howling!..
For a moment it seems that the “defeated element” is triumphant, that Fate itself is for it:
Sees god's wrath and awaits execution.
Alas! everything is dying...
Even the “late king,” the successor of this conqueror of the elements, becomes dismayed and is ready to admit himself defeated:
Sad, confused, he went out
And he said: "S God's element
Kings cannot control...
However, in the midst of universal confusion, there is One who remains calm and unshakable. This is the Bronze Horseman, the ruler of half the world, the miraculous builder of this city. Eugene, riding a marble lion. he fixes his “desperate gaze” on the distance where, “like mountains,” “from the indignant depths,” terrible waves rise. -
And my back is turned to him,
In the unshakable heights,
Above the indignant Neva,
Stands with outstretched hand
Idol on a bronze horse.
In the original sketch of this place, Pushkin had:
And right in front of him from the waters
Arose with a copper head
Idol on a bronze horse,
Neve rebellious/*Option: "crazy". (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/ in silence
Threatening with a motionless hand...
But Pushkin changed these verses. The Bronze Horseman despises the "vain anger" of the Finnish waves. He does not deign to threaten the “rebellious Neva” with his outstretched hand.
This is the first clash between poor Eugene and the Bronze Horseman. Chance made it so that they were left alone, two in an empty square, above the water that had “conquered everything around,” one on a bronze horse. the other on a stone beast. The Bronze Horseman with contempt “turns his back” to an insignificant little man, to one of his countless subjects, not. sees, does not notice him. Eugene, although his desperate gaze is fixed motionlessly “on the edge alone,” cannot help but see the idol emerging from the waters “right in front of him.”
The Bronze Horseman turns out to be right in his contempt for the “vain malice” of the elements. It was simply a “brazen riot,” a bandit attack.
Fed up with destruction
AND brazen riot tired,
The Neva was drawn back,
Admiring your indignation
And leaving with carelessness
Your prey...
(So) burdened with robbery,
Afraid of the chase, tired,
They're in a hurry robbers home,
Dropping prey along the way.
Just a day later, traces of the recent rebellion had already disappeared:
Because of the tired, pale clouds
Flashed over the quiet capital,
And I haven’t found any traces
Yesterday's troubles...
Everything returned to the same order.
But the rebellion of the elements causes another revolt: human soul. Eugene's troubled mind cannot bear the "terrible shocks" he experienced - the horrors of the flood and the death of his loved ones. He goes crazy, becomes alien to the light, lives, not noticing anything around, in the world of his thoughts, where the “rebellious noise of the Neva and the winds” is constantly heard. Although Pushkin now calls Evgeny “unfortunate,” he still makes it clear that madness has somehow elevated and ennobled him. In most editions of the story, Pushkin talks about the crazy Eugene -
Was wonderful internal anxiety.
/*This is how these verses are read in the white manuscript presented to the sovereign for review. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/
And in general, in all the poems dedicated to the “mad” Eugene, there is a special sincerity, starting with the exclamation:
But my poor, my poor Eugene!
/*In the same year as “The Bronze Horseman” the poems “God forbid I go crazy” were written, where Pushkin admits that he himself “would be glad” to part with his reason. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/
A year passes, the same stormy autumn night comes as it was before the flood, the same “rebellious noise of the Neva and the winds” that constantly sounds in Eugene’s thoughts is heard all around. Under the influence of this repetition, the madman recalls with particular “vivacity” everything he experienced and the hour when he remained “on Petrov Square” alone with the formidable idol. This memory leads him to the same square; he sees the stone lion on which he once sat astride, and the same pillars of a large new house and “above the fenced rock”
Idol on a bronze horse.
“His thoughts became terribly clear,” says Pushkin. The word “scary” makes it clear that this “clarification” is not so much a return to common sense as some kind of insight/* "It became terribly clear" - in the final version; in earlier editions: "Weird have become clear,” which further enhances the meaning we give to this place. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/. Evgeniy in the “idol” suddenly recognizes the culprit of his misfortunes,
The one whose will is fatal
The city was founded above the sea.
Peter, saving Russia, raising her on her hind legs over the abyss, leading her with his “fatal will” along his chosen path, founded a city “above the sea”, erected towers and palaces in the swamps of swamps. Through this, all the happiness, all of Eugene’s life, perished, and he drags out his unhappy life as a half-man, half-beast. And the “proud idol” still stands like an idol in the dark heights. Then a rebellion is born in the soul of a madman against the violence of someone else’s will over the fate of his life, “As if overwhelmed by black power,” he falls to the bars and, gritting his teeth, angrily whispers his threat to the ruler of half the world:
"Welcome, miraculous builder! Already for you!"
Pushkin does not reveal Evgeniy’s threat in more detail. We still don’t know what exactly the madman wants to say with his “Wow!” Does this mean that the “small”, “insignificant” will be able to “already” take revenge for their enslavement and humiliation by a “hero”? Or that voiceless, weak-willed Russia will raise its hand “already” against its rulers, who are hard forcing them to test their fatal will? There is no answer, /*As you know, “The Bronze Horseman” was first published not in the form in which it was written by Pushkin. This gave rise to the legend that Pushkin put into Evgeniy’s mouth in front of the “proud idol” some particularly harsh monologue that could not appear in the Russian press. Book P. P. Vyazemsky in his brochure “Pushkin according to the documents of the Ostafevsky Archive” reported as a fact that Pushkin himself made a stunning impression when reading the story monologue a distraught official in front of the monument to Peter, containing about thirty verses in which “the hatred of European civilization sounded too energetically.” “I remember,” continued Prince P. P. Vyazemsky, “the impression he made on one of the listeners, A. O. Rossetti, and I seem to remember that he assured me that he would make a copy for the future.” Message from the book. P.P. Vyazemsky must be considered completely absurd. Nothing has been preserved anywhere in Pushkin’s manuscripts except those words that are now read in the text of the story. The harshest expression that Pushkin put into the mouth of his hero was “Too bad for you!” or “Already for you!”, according to the spelling of the original. In addition, “hatred of European civilization” does not at all fit with the entire course of the story and with the main idea of the story. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/ and by the very vagueness of his expressions, Pushkin seems to be saying that the exact meaning of the reproach is unimportant. The important thing is that small and insignificant, the one who recently humbly admitted that “God could give him more wisdom,” whose dreams did not go beyond the modest wish: “I’ll ask for a place,” suddenly felt equal to the Bronze Horseman, found strength in himself and the courage to threaten the “ruler of half the world.”
The expressions with which Pushkin describes Evgeniy’s state at that moment are typical:
It lay down on the cold grate,
My eyes became foggy,
A fire ran through my heart,
Blood boiled...
The solemnity of the tone, the abundance of Slavicisms (“brow”, “cold”, “flame”) show that the “black power” with which Eugene is possessed forces us to treat him differently than before. This is no longer “our hero” who “lives in Kolomna and serves somewhere”; this is the rival of the “formidable king,” who should be spoken of in the same language as Peter.
And the “idol”, which remained standing motionless above the indignant Neva, “in an unshakable height,” cannot treat the threats of the “poor madman” with the same contempt. The face of the formidable king flares up with anger; he leaves his granite foot and “with a heavy stomp” chases poor Eugene. The Bronze Horseman pursues the madman in order to force him, with the horror of his pursuit, his “heavy, ringing gallop,” to resign himself, to forget everything that flashed through his mind at that hour when “the terribly clear thoughts in him.”
And all night long, poor madman
Wherever you turn your feet,
Behind him is the Bronze Horseman everywhere
He galloped with a heavy stomp.
The Bronze Horseman achieves his goal: Eugene resigns himself. The second rebellion was defeated, just like the first. How after the riot of the Neva, “everything returned to the same order.” Eugene again became the most insignificant of the insignificant, and in the spring his corpse, like the corpse of a tramp, was buried by fishermen on a deserted island, “for God’s sake.”
In his early youth, Pushkin joined the liberal political movement of his era. He was on friendly terms with many Decembrists. “Outrageous” (according to the terminology of that time) poems were one of the main reasons for his exile to the south. In essence, Pushkin's political ideals were always moderate. In his most daring poems, he invariably repeated:
Lords, you have a crown and a throne
The law gives, not nature!
In such poems as “Liberty”, “Dagger”, “Andrei Chenier”, Pushkin distributes the most unflattering epithets of “inglorious blows”, “criminal ax”, “fiend of rebellion” (Marat), “frenzied Areopagus” (revolutionary tribunal of 1794 .). But still, in that era, under the influence of general fermentation, he was still ready to sing “the last judge of shame and resentment, the punishing dagger” and believe that over the “rebellious square” could rise
Great day, inevitable
Freedom bright day...
However, in the mid-20s, even before the event of December 14, a certain revolution took place in Pushkin’s political views. He became disillusioned with his revolutionary ideals. He began to look at the question of “freedom” not so much from a political, but from a philosophical point of view. He gradually came to the conviction that “freedom” could not be achieved by a violent change in the political system, but would be a consequence of the spiritual education of mankind. /*The evolution of Pushkin’s political views, schematically outlined by us, is traced in more detail in the article by Alexander Slonimsky - “Pushkin and the December Movement” (vol. II, p. 503). (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/ These views form the basis of The Bronze Horseman. Pushkin chose as his hero the most powerful of all the autocrats who have ever rebelled on earth. This is a giant miracle worker, a demigod who commands the elements. The spontaneous revolution does not frighten him, he despises it. But when the free spirit of an individual person rises up against him, the “ruler of half the world” falls into confusion. He leaves his "walled rock" and all night long pursues the madman, just to drown out the rebellion of his soul with his heavy stomping.
“The Bronze Horseman” is indeed Pushkin’s answer to Mickiewicz’s reproaches for betraying the “freedom-loving” ideals of his youth. “Yes,” Pushkin seems to say, “I no longer believe in the fight against despotism by the forces of spontaneous rebellion; I see all its futility. But I have not betrayed the high ideals of freedom. I am still confident that the “idol with a copper head” is not eternal “no matter how terrible he is in the surrounding darkness, no matter how elevated he is “to an unshakable height.” Freedom will arise in the depths of the human spirit, and the “fenced rock” will have to be empty.”
ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION OF THE STORY
Annenkov suggests that “The Bronze Horseman” constituted the second half of a large poem, conceived by Pushkin before 1833 and not completed by him. Annenkov sees an excerpt from the first half of this poem in “The Pedigree of My Hero.” However, we have no reason to accept such an assumption.
Neither in Pushkin's papers, nor in his letters before 1833, there is any indication of the great poem he conceived, of which "The Bronze Horseman" would be included as a part. Quite strong arguments suggest that Pushkin was pushed to work on “The Bronze Horseman” by Mitskevich’s satires, which he could have become acquainted with no earlier than the end of 1832. /*Cm. previous article. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov).*/ If Pushkin had an idea for a poem before 1833 that had something in common with “The Bronze Horseman,” it was only in the most general terms. Thus, in one of the drafts of the “Introduction,” Pushkin says that the idea to describe the St. Petersburg flood of 1824 came to him under the impression of the first stories about it. Pushkin even hints that he saw this as his duty, the poet’s duty to the “sad hearts” of his contemporaries:
It was a terrible time!
I'll start a story about her.
It's been a long time since I first
I heard a sad legend,
Sad hearts, for you
Then I made a promise
Verses believe your story.
As for the "Pedigree of My Hero", the evidence of the manuscripts leaves no doubt about its origin. This - Part"The Bronze Horseman", separated from its composition and processed as a separate whole. In the initial drafts, “The Genealogy of My Hero” was precisely the genealogy of the later “poor Eugene,” but Pushkin soon became convinced that these stanzas violated the harmony of the story, and excluded them. Later he made them into an independent work, giving a genealogy some a hero, not a hero of this or that story, but a “hero” in general. In addition, “The Bronze Horseman” is such a complete creation, its idea is so fully expressed, that it is impossible to consider the “St. Petersburg Tale” as part of some broader whole.
“The Bronze Horseman” was written in Boldin, where Pushkin, after a trip to the Urals, spent about a month and a half, from October 1, 1833 to mid-November. Under one of the first drafts of the story there is a note: “October 6”; under the first list of the entire story: “October 30.” Thus, the entire creation of the story took less than a month.
It is possible, however, not without probability to assume that the idea of writing “The Bronze Horseman” arose in Pushkin before his arrival in Boldino. Probably, some sketches had already been made in St. Petersburg, for example those that were written not in notebooks, but on separate sheets (this is the passage “Over Darkened Petersburg...”). We have evidence that on the way to the Urals, Pushkin thought about the flood of 1824. Regarding the strong westerly wind that caught him on the road, he wrote to his wife (August 21): “What happened to you, St. Petersburg residents? Did you have any new floods? what if and It's me skipped? It would be a shame."
From Boldin, Pushkin wrote to almost no one except his wife. With his wife, he spoke about his poems only as a profitable item and, moreover, certainly in the tone of a joke. Therefore, from Pushkin’s Boldino letters we learn nothing about the progress of his work on the “Petersburg Tale.” On October 2, he reported: “I’m writing, I’m in trouble.” October 21: “I work lazily, I’m throwing the deck down. I’ve started a lot, but I have no desire for anything; God knows what’s happening to me. I’ve become old and have a bad mind.” October 30: “I recently signed and have already written the abyss.” November 6: “I’ll bring you a lot of poems, but don’t divulge this, otherwise the almanacs will eat me.” The very title of “The Bronze Horseman” is not mentioned here, and the general tone of the joke does not allow us to trust Pushkin’s confession that while working on the story he “had no desire for anything.”
Turning to the manuscripts, we see that the story cost Pushkin enormous work. Each of its passages, each of its verses, before taking on its final form, appeared in several - sometimes up to ten - modifications. From the initial rough sketches, where many connecting parts were still missing, Pushkin, in a special notebook, made the first set of the entire story. This collection, marked “October 30,” is the second edition of the story, since much has been changed in it, compared with the first drafts. This list is covered with new amendments. giving the third edition. It also came to us in Pushkin’s own copy, made for presenting the story to the sovereign. Finally, already on this white list (and, moreover, after prohibition of the story by the “highest censorship”) Pushkin also made a number of changes, entire passages were thrown out, many expressions and entire poems were replaced by others, etc. Thus, the currently printed text should be considered the fourth edition of the story.
To give an idea of the work spent by Pushkin on The Bronze Horseman, it is enough to say that the beginning of the first part is known to us in six, fully processed, editions. Already one of the first seems to be such a complete creation that it almost makes you regret the rigor of the “demanding” artist, who omitted many features from it:
Over darkened Petersburg
The autumn wind drove the clouds.
Neva, in the indignant current,
Noisy, rushing. gloomy shaft,
Like a restless petitioner,
Splashed into the granite fence of the slender
Wide Neva banks.
Among the running clouds
The moon was not visible at all.
The lights were shining in the houses,
Ashes rose in the street
And the violent whirlwind howled sadly,
The swirling hem of the night sirens
And drowning out the sentries.
The plot of "The Bronze Horseman" belongs to Pushkin, but individual episodes and pictures of the story were created not without outside influence.
The idea of the first verses of the “Introduction” is borrowed from Batyushkov’s article “Walk to the Academy of Arts” (1814). “My imagination,” writes Batyushkov, “introduced to me Peter, who for the first time surveyed the banks of the wild Neva, now so beautiful... A great idea was born in the mind of a great man. There will be a city here,” he said, a wonder of the world. “I will call everything here.” "the arts, all the arts. Here the arts, the arts, civil institutions and laws will conquer nature itself. He said - and Petersburg arose from a wild swamp." The verses of the "Introduction" repeat some of the expressions of this passage almost literally.
Before beginning his description of St. Petersburg, Pushkin himself makes a note: “See the poems of Prince Vyazemsky to Countess Z.” In this poem the book. Vyazemsky (“Conversation on April 7, 1832”), indeed, we find several stanzas reminiscent of Pushkin’s description:
I love St. Petersburg with its slender beauty,
With a shining belt of luxurious islands,
With a transparent night - a rival to the sultry day,
And with the fresh greenery of his young gardens... etc.
In addition, the description of Pushkin was influenced by two satires by Mickiewicz: “Przedmiescia stolicy” and “Petersburg”. Prof. Tretyak/*See. previous article. Here too we use the presentation of Mr. S. Brailovsky. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/ proved that Pushkin almost step by step follows the paintings of the Polish poet, responding to his reproaches with an apology for the northern capital. So, for example, Mickiewicz laughs at that. that St. Petersburg houses stand behind iron bars; Pushkin objects:
Your fences have a cast iron pattern.
Mickiewicz condemns the harshness of the climate of St. Petersburg: Pushkin responds:
I love your cruel winter
Still air and frost.
Mickiewicz speaks contemptuously of northern women, white as snow, rosy-cheeked as crayfish; Pushkin glorifies -
Maiden linden trees are brighter than roses
There is an analogy between the image of the “idol” in “The Bronze Horseman” and the description of the same statue in Mickiewicz’s satire “Pomnik Piotra Wieikiego”.
The image of the animated statue could have been inspired in Pushkin by M. Yu. Vielgorsky’s story about a certain wonderful dream. In 1812, the sovereign, fearing an enemy invasion, intended to take away the monument to Peter from St. Petersburg, but he was stopped by Prince. A.I. Golitsyn, reporting that recently one major had a wondrous dream: as if the Bronze Horseman was galloping through the streets of St. Petersburg, drove up to the palace and said to the sovereign: “Young man! What have you brought my Russia to! But for now I’m in place, my city there is nothing to fear." However, the same image could have been suggested by the episode with the statue of the commander in Don Juan.
The description of the flood of 1824 was compiled by Pushkin based on eyewitness testimony, since he himself did not see it. He was then in exile, in Mikhailovskoye. /* Having received the first news of the disaster, Pushkin at first treated it half-jokingly and in a letter to his brother even made a joke of rather dubious merit about the flood. However, having learned more closely the circumstances of the case, he completely changed his judgment and, in another letter to his brother, wrote: “This flood does not make me crazy: it is not at all as funny as it seems at first glance. If you want to help some unfortunate person, help from Onegin’s money, but I ask without any fuss.” (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/ Belinsky wrote: “The picture of the flood is painted by Pushkin with colors that a poet of the last century, obsessed with the idea of writing the epic poem Flood, would be willing to buy at the cost of his life... Here you don’t know what to marvel at more, whether the enormous grandeur of the description or its almost prosaic simplicity, which taken together amounts to the greatest poetry." However, Pushkin himself stated in the preface that “the details of the flood were borrowed from magazines of that time,” and added: “those who are curious can consult the news compiled by V.N. Berkh.”
Consulting Berch's book ("Detailed historical news about all the floods that occurred in St. Petersburg"), one has to admit that Pushkin's description, for all its vividness, is indeed "borrowed." Here, for example, is what Berch says: “The rain and the penetrating cold wind from the very morning filled the air with dampness... With dawn... Crowds of curious people flocked to the banks of the Neva, which is high rose foamy waves and with terrible noise and splashes smashed them against the granite shores... The vast expanse of water seemed boiling abyss... White foam swirled over the water masses, which, constantly growing, finally rushed furiously to the shore... People were saved as best they could." And further: "Neva, having encountered an obstacle in its course, grew in its banks, filled the canals and gushed through underground pipes as fountains to the streets. In an instant the water poured across the edges of the embankments."
All the main features of this description were repeated by Pushkin, partly in the final edition of the story, partly in rough drafts.
...rain sad
There was a knock on the window and wind howl
In the morning over its banks
Crowds of people crowded around
Admiring splashes, mountains
AND foam angry waters.Neva wandered, became furious,
She rose and seethed,
The cauldron is bubbling and swirling.Neva all night
Longing for the sea against the storm
And she was unable to argue!
And from them/*It is not entirely clear what the word “their” refers to, both here and in the corresponding place in the final edition:Longing for the sea against the storm,
Without defeating their powerful be stupid.Probably, Pushkin had in mind the “sea” and “storm”, or “winds”, which are discussed further: But by force winds from the Bay of Blocked Neva...
By the way, all publications have so far printed “winds” instead of “winds” (as read in all manuscripts). (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/ ferocious stupidity
It started bubbling and swirling.
And suddenly, like a tiger, going berserk,
Through the iron fence
The hail flowed in waves.Everything ran, everything around
Suddenly it was empty... Water suddenly
Flowed into underground cellars;
Channels poured into the gratings.The people fled. Towards her
The channels flooded; from pipes
Fountains splashed.
In the initial versions of the description, Pushkin reproduced in verse an anecdote about the city that circulated around the city. V.V. Tolstoy, later told by the book. P. A. Vyazemsky/*See. V History of the text. (Note by V. Ya. Bryusov.)*/.
In any case, Pushkin had the right to say in one of his notes, comparing his description of the flood with the description of Mickiewicz (who depicts the evening before the flood): “our description or rather"...
In terms of the number of verses, "The Bronze Horseman" is one of Pushkin's shortest poems. It contains only 464 verses in the final version, while in “Gypsies” - 537, in “Poltava” - about 1500, and even in “Bakhchisarai Fountain” - about 600. Meanwhile, the concept of “The Bronze Horseman” is extremely broad, hardly wider than in all other poems of Pushkin. In less than 500 verses, Pushkin managed to fit Peter’s thoughts “on the shore of the Varangian waves”, and a picture of St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 19th century, and a description of the flood of 1824, and the story of love and madness of poor Eugene, and his thoughts on Peter’s case. Pushkin even found it possible to allow himself, as a luxury, a few jokes, for example, a mention of Count Khvostov.
The language of the story is extremely diverse. In those parts where the life and thoughts of an official are depicted, he is simple, almost prosaic, willingly allowing colloquial expressions (“life is so easy,” “I’ll entrust the housekeeping,” “big himself,” etc.). On the contrary, where the fate of Russia is spoken of, the language changes completely, preferring Slavic forms of words, avoiding everyday expressions, such as:
A hundred years have passed - and young hail
full-fledged countries beauty and wonder.
From the darkness of the forests, from the swamp blat
Ascended magnificently, proudly.
However, Pushkin clearly avoids truncated adjectives, and in the entire story there are only three of them: “spring days”, “past times”, “sleepy eyes”.
A peculiar feature of the verse of “The Bronze Horseman” is the abundance of caesuras. In none of his poems, written in iambic tetrameter, did Pushkin allow himself as often as in “The Bronze Horseman” to pause in meaning within the verse. Apparently, in “The Bronze Horseman” he deliberately sought to ensure that the logical divisions did not coincide with the metric divisions, thereby creating the impression of extreme ease of speech. There are especially many such examples in poems telling about Eugene, for example:
Sat motionless, terribly pale
Eugene. He was afraid, poor thing
Not for myself.Evgeniy for his goods
NS came. He'll be out soon
Became alien. I wandered on foot all day,
And he slept on the pier.At Nevskaya pier. Days of summer
We were approaching autumn. Breathed
Stormy wind.
It is remarkable that almost all new sections of the story (as if its individual chapters) begin with a half-verse. In general, in approximately a third of the verses of “The Bronze Horseman” there is a period in the middle of the verse, and in more than half there is a logical stop of speech within the verse.
In the use of rhymes in The Bronze Horseman, Pushkin remained true to his rule, which he expressed in The Little House in Kolomna:
I need rhymes, I’m ready to save everything.
In "The Bronze Horseman" there are many ordinary rhymes (nights - eyes, horse - fire, etc.), even more verbal ones (sat - looked, got angry - rushed, recognized - played, etc.), but there are also several “rare” (sun - chukhontsa, cuts - grinding) and a whole series of “rich” (living - sentinels, stumps - steps, howling - washing away, head - fatal, etc.). As in other poems, Pushkin’s pronunciation freely rhymes adjectives with th with adverbs ending in o (carefree - willingly).
In terms of sound imagery, the verse of “The Bronze Horseman” has few rivals. It seems that in none of his creations did Pushkin use as often as in the “Petersburg Tale” all the means of alliteration, playing with vowels and consonants, etc. An example of them is the quatrain:
And the shine, and the noise, and the talk of balls,
And at the time of the feast the bachelor
Shi singing pen clean glasses
AND P unsha P blue flame.
But the verse of “The Bronze Horseman” reaches the pinnacle of depiction in the scene of the persecution of poor Eugene. By repeating the same rhymes, repeating the initial letter several times in adjacent words and persistent repetition of sounds k, g And X- Pushkin gives a vivid impression of “heavy, ringing galloping,” the echo of which sounds across the empty square like the rumble of thunder.
And he P O P horses P mouth Ouch
He runs and hears himself Ouch
TO A To as if G Roma G rumble,
Heavy-clanging To oh s To A To anye
By p shaken bridges Ouch.
And, illuminated by the moon pale,
Stretching out your hand on high,
Behind n them n yes IN gardener Copper
To the ringing To o s To aching To one;
And all night long the madman poor
Wherever you turn your feet,
Follow him Sun yudu Sun adnik Copper
WITH T heavy T later sk A To al.
However, in the story there are also traces of some haste in the processing of the form. Three verses remained completely without rhyme, namely:
She rushed towards the city. In front of her...
And I haven't found any traces...
And he slept on the pier. Ate...
In the original editions, the first and last of these verses have their own rhyme:
With all my heavy strength
She went on the attack. In front of her
The people fled and disappeared suddenly.And he slept on the pier. Ate
A thrown piece from the windows;
I almost didn’t undress anymore,
And the dress he's wearing is shabby
It tore and smoldered...
As is known, in 1826 the sovereign expressed a desire to personally be Pushkin’s censor. Before they were published, Pushkin had to submit all his new works, through Benckendorff, to this “highest censorship.”
On December 6, 1833, shortly after returning from Boldin, Pushkin addressed a letter to Benckendorff, asking permission to present to his Excellency a “poem” that he would like to publish. We must assume that it was the “Bronze Horseman”. On December 12, the manuscript of “The Bronze Horseman” was already returned to Pushkin. The “highest censorship” found a number of reprehensible passages in the story.
We do not know how Pushkin himself reacted to the banning of the story. He spent the last years of his life in strict spiritual solitude and, apparently, did not initiate anyone into his inner life. In his letters he became extremely restrained and no longer allowed himself that fascinating chatter about everything that interests him, which constitutes the main charm of his letters from Mikhailovsky. Even in the entries in his diary, which he kept during the last years of his life, Pushkin was very careful and did not allow a single unnecessary word.
In this diary, on December 14, it is written: “On the 11th I received an invitation from Benckendorff to appear to him the next morning. I arrived. They are returning me Bronze Horseman with the sovereign's remarks. The word idol is not passed by the highest censorship; poetry:
And in front of the younger capital
Old Moscow has faded,
Like before a new queen
Porphyry widow -
Scratched out. In many places it is placed - ? - . All this makes a big difference to me. I was forced to change the terms with Smirdin."
We learn nothing more from Pushkin’s letters. In December 1833, he wrote to Nashchokin: “Here I had financial troubles: I conspired with Smirdin and was forced to destroy the agreement, because the censorship did not let the Bronze Horseman through. This is a loss to me.” Pushkin repeated to him in another, later letter: “The Bronze Horseman was not allowed through - losses and troubles.” Pogodin, in response to his question, Pushkin said briefly: “You are asking about the Bronze Horseman, about Pugachev and about Peter. The first one will not be published.”
From these dry messages one can only conclude that Pushkin wanted to publish the “Petersburg story” (which means he considered it finished, processed) and that he introduced his friends to it.
Pushkin himself believed that his manuscripts were examined directly by the sovereign. He believed that the manuscript of “The Bronze Horseman” had also been returned to him “with the sovereign’s comments.” But at present it is sufficiently clear that Pushkin’s manuscripts were examined in the office of Benckendorff and that the sovereign only repeated, sometimes retaining all the polemical attacks, critical remarks of this office. The inner meaning of "The Bronze Horseman", of course, was not understood by this censorship, but a whole series of individual expressions seemed unacceptable to it.
Apparently, the same manuscript that was submitted to the sovereign for consideration has reached us (Pushkin writes: “I returned The Bronze Horseman..."). In this manuscript, the poems about "faded Moscow" that Pushkin talks about in his diary are crossed out in pencil and marked on the side with the sign NB. A question mark is placed against those verses where the Bronze Horseman first appears.
Above the indignant Neva
Stands with outstretched hand
Idol on a bronze horse.
In the second part, a question mark is placed against the repetition of these verses:
Idol with outstretched hand
Sat on a bronze horse.
Who stood motionless
In the darkness with a copper head,
The one whose will is fatal
The city was founded above the sea.
O mighty lord of Fate,
Aren't you above the very abyss,
At the height, with an iron bridle,
Raised Russia on its hind legs?
Finally, the expressions “proud idol” and “miraculous builder” are underlined and all verses are crossed out, starting with the words of the madman addressed to the “idol” to the end of the page.
In another manuscript, a list made by a clerk's hand, traces of Pushkin's amendments were preserved, apparently begun with the aim of softening the expressions indicated to him. Pushkin replaced the word “idol” with the word “rider” and in the quatrain about “faded Moscow” he restored the original version of the second verse (“Moscow bowed its head”). However, Pushkin did not complete his amendments and chose to refuse to publish the story. “Pushkin’s poem about the flood is excellent, but it is erased (that is, erased by censorship), and therefore is not published,” wrote Prince. P. Vyazemsky to A. I. Turgenev.
During Pushkin's lifetime, only an excerpt from the "Introduction" under the title "Petersburg" was published from The Bronze Horseman. After Pushkin's death, the story was published with amendments by Zhukovsky, who in his own way softened all the controversial passages. For a long time, Russia knew one of Pushkin’s most significant creations only in a distorted form. Correction of the text from Pushkin's original manuscripts, begun by Annenkov, continued until recently. The authentic reading of poems about the “idol” was restored only in the 1904 edition of P. Morozov. However, some poems only appear in this edition for the first time in the form as Pushkin wrote them.