The conflict between the individual and the state in the poem by A.S. Pushkin's "The Bronze Horseman"

Essay text:

The poem "The Bronze Horseman" occupies a special place in Pushkin's work. In my opinion, this feature lies in the fact that the current reader can see in it predictions that have come true in contemporary history. The conflict between the state and the individual still occurs today. As before, the individual risks his freedom and life, and the state its authority. The poem begins with a wonderful picture of St. Petersburg, which appears to the reader as "the beauty and wonder of the midnight lands." The sight of an incredible city, which, by human will, stood "on the banks of the Neva" is amazing. It seems that it is full of harmony and high, almost divine, meaning. Nevertheless, it was built by people who carried out human will. This man, whose will is obedient to millions, who embodied the idea of ​​the state, Peter. Undoubtedly Pushkin's attitude towards Peter as a great man. And here, in the first lines of the poem, he appears as such. Having squeezed out the meager nature, dressed the banks of the Neva in borders, creating a city that has never existed before, it is truly majestic. But Peter here is also a creator, and therefore a man. Peter is standing on the shore, "full of great thoughts." Thoughts, thoughts are another feature of his human appearance. Thus, we see in the first part of the poem the dual image of Peter. On the one hand, he is the personification of the state, almost God, creating a fairy-tale city from scratch with his sovereign will; on the other hand, he is a man, a creator. But, having once appeared like this at the beginning of the poem, then Peter will be completely different. At the time when the action of the poem takes place, the human essence of Peter already becomes the property of history. What remains is the copper image of Peter, an object of worship, a symbol of sovereignty. The very material of the monument, copper, speaks volumes. This is the material of bells and coins. Religion and the church as the pillars of the state, finance, without which it is unthinkable, are all united in copper. The sonorous, but dull and greenish metal is very suitable for the “state horseman”. Unlike him, Evgeniy is a living person. He is a complete antithesis of Peter and in everything else. Evgeniy did not build cities; he can be called a philistine. He “doesn’t remember the relationship,” although his last name, as the author clarifies, is one of the noble ones. Evgeniy’s plans are simple: Well, I’m young and healthy, I’m ready to work day and night, I’ll somehow arrange a shelter for myself, humble and simple, and in it I’ll calm Parasha. To explain the essence of the conflict in the poem, it is necessary to talk about its third main character, the elements. The strong-willed pressure of Peter, who created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. And this violence, having changed in a historical perspective, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements. You can even see the opposite contrast between the images of Peter and the elements. Just as motionless, although majestic, Peter is, so unbridled and mobile is the element. Element, which, ultimately, he himself gave birth to. Thus, Peter, as a generalized image, is opposed by the elements, and specifically by Eugene. It would seem, how can an insignificant man in the street even be compared with the bulk of a copper giant? To explain this, it is necessary to see the development of the images of Eugene and Peter, which occurred at the time of their direct collision. Having long ceased to be a man, Peter is now a copper statue. But his metamorphosis does not stop there. A beautiful, magnificent horseman reveals the ability to become something that most closely resembles a watchdog. After all, it is in this capacity that he chases Eugene around the city. Evgeniy is also changing. From an indifferent philistine he turns into a frightened philistine (the rampage of the elements!), and then desperate courage comes to him, allowing him to shout: “Wow!” So ​​two personalities meet in a conflict (for now Evgeniy is also a personality), walking towards him , each, their own way. The first result of the conflict is Eugene's insanity. But is this madness? Perhaps we can say that there are truths, the full meaning of which cannot be sustained by the weak human mind. The great emperor, like a watchdog, chasing after the smallest of his subjects, is a funny and terrible figure at the same time. Therefore, Eugene’s laughter is understandable, but his mental illness is also understandable: he came face to face with the state itself, with its copper, merciless face. So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. Bunҭ is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is large. Nothing can withstand the flood. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by the torrential waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. In a strong-willed, violent manner, Peter established a city among the wild nature, which will now forever be subject to attacks from the elements. How can I know whether Eugene, who was so in vain and casually destroyed, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol? A state that endlessly suppresses its subjects in the name of its goals is impossible. They, the subjects, are more important and primary than the state itself. Figuratively speaking, I will forget the “enmity and captivity of my ancient” Finnish waves when Evgenia, for happiness with her Parasha, does not need anyone’s permission. Otherwise, the element of popular revolt, no less terrible than the element of flood, will carry out its judgment, without distinguishing between right and wrong. This, in my opinion, is the essence of the conflict between the individual and the state in Pushkin’s poem “The Bronze Horseman”. Author of the essay: Maria

The rights to the essay “The Conflict of the Individual and the State” belong to its author. When quoting material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to

At all times, the relationship between the individual and the authorities has worried people. Sophocles was one of the first to raise the topic of conflict between the individual and the state in literature back in the 5th century BC. This conflict was inevitable, this problem remained relevant in the 19th century, during the time of Pushkin, and it is still relevant to this day.

The poem "The Bronze Horseman" occupies a special place in Pushkin's work. This peculiarity lies in the fact that the current reader can see in it predictions that have come true in contemporary history. The conflict between the state and the individual still occurs today. As before, the individual risks his freedom and life, and the state, its authority.

The poem begins with a wonderful picture of St. Petersburg, presented to the reader as “midnight lands of beauty and wonder.” Petersburg appears completely different to us in the poem “The Bronze Horseman,” written by Pushkin in 1833. This is the capital of a strong European state, brilliant, rich, magnificent, but cold and hostile for the “little man”. The sight of an incredible city, which, by human will, stood “on the banks of the Neva” is amazing. It seems that it is full of harmony and high, almost divine, meaning. Nevertheless, it was built by people who carried out human will. This man, to whose will millions are obedient, who embodied the idea of ​​the state, is Peter. Undoubtedly, Pushkin treats Peter as a great man. That is why, in the first lines of the poem, he appears as such. Having squeezed out the meager nature, dressed the banks of the Neva in granite, creating a city that has never existed before, it is truly majestic. But Peter here is also a creator, and therefore a man. Peter stands on the shore “full of great thoughts.” Thoughts, thoughts are another feature of his human appearance.

So, in the first part of the poem we see the dual image of Peter. On the one hand, he is the personification of the state, almost God, creating a fairy-tale city from scratch with his sovereign will, on the other hand, he is a man, a creator. But, having once appeared like this at the beginning of the poem, Peter will later be completely different.

At the time when the action of the poem takes place, Peter’s human essence already becomes the property of history. What remains is the copper Peter - an idol, an object of worship, a symbol of sovereignty. The very material of the monument - copper - speaks volumes. This is the material of bells and coins. Religion and the church as the pillars of the state, finance, without which it is unthinkable, are all united in copper. Resonant, but dull and green-tinged metal, very suitable for a “state horseman”.

Unlike him, Evgeny is a living person. He is the complete antithesis of Peter in everything else. Evgeniy did not build cities; he can be called a philistine. He “does not remember his kinship,” although his surname, as the author clarifies, is one of the noble ones. Evgeniy's plans are simple:

"Well, I'm young and healthy,

Ready to work day and night,

I’ll arrange something for myself

Shelter humble and simple

And in it I will calm Parasha..."

To explain the essence of the conflict in the poem, it is necessary to talk about its third main character, the elements. Peter's force of will, which created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. And this violence, having changed in a historical perspective, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements. You can even see the opposite contrast between the images of Peter and the elements. Just as motionless, although majestic, Peter is, so unbridled and mobile is the element. An element that, ultimately, he himself gave birth to. Thus, Peter, as a generalized image, is opposed by the elements, and specifically by Eugene. It would seem, how can an insignificant man in the street even be compared with the bulk of a copper giant?

To explain this, it is necessary to see the development of the images of Eugene and Peter, which occurred at the time of their direct collision. Having long ceased to be a man, Peter is now a copper statue. But his metamorphoses do not stop there. A beautiful, magnificent horseman reveals the ability to become something that most closely resembles a watchdog. After all, it is in this capacity that he chases Eugene around the city. Evgeniy is also changing. From an indifferent philistine he turns into a frightened philistine (the riot of the elements!), and then desperate courage comes to him, allowing him to shout: “Already for you!” This is how two personalities meet in a conflict (for now Evgeniy is also a personality), each going their own way to it.

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

So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. The revolt is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is high. Nothing can withstand the elements of flooding. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by muddy waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. In a strong-willed, violent manner, Peter established a city among the wild nature, which will now forever be subject to attacks from the elements. And who knows whether Eugene, who was so in vain and casually destroyed, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol?

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

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

I love you, Petra's creation,

I love your strict, slender appearance,

Neva sovereign current,

Its coastal granite,

Your fences have a cast iron pattern...

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

Show off, city Petrov, and stand

Unshakable, like Russia.

FI__________________________________________________________________________________________

Educational research

Historical and “private” themes in the poem by A.S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman".

Conflict between the interests of the individual and the state. Image of the elements

Problem:

Target:

Tasks:

Main part

1. The history of the creation of the poem “The Bronze Horseman”:

2. Disputes surrounding the poem “The Bronze Horseman”:

3. The main characters of the poem “The Bronze Horseman”. Their role in the story:

4. Historical theme in the poem “The Bronze Horseman”:

5. “Private” theme in the poem “The Bronze Horseman:

6. How does the poem present the conflict between the interests of the individual and the state?

7. How is the image of the elements shown?

Conclusion

How do you think, The rebellion of Eugene, who has gone crazy, threatening the idol on a bronze horse (“Wow!..”) can lead to any positive changes for the hero, or is this a senseless and punishable rebellion?

Give reasons for your answer.

Thematic direction(underline):

"Reason and Feeling";

"Honor and Dishonor";

"Victory and defeat";

“Experience and mistakes”;

"Friendship and enmity."

Literature:

Didactic material.

Yu.V. Lebedev. Literature. 10th grade. Part 1. – M.: Education, 2007 (pp. 142-146).

Self-esteem:

Didactic material

A.S. Pushkin. Poem "The Bronze Horseman"

The poem “The Bronze Horseman” is one of Pushkin’s most capacious, mysterious and complex poems. He wrote it in the fall of 1833 in the famous Boldin. The idea of ​​Pushkin’s “Bronze Horseman” clearly echoes the works of writers who lived much later and dedicated their works, firstly, to the theme of St. Petersburg, and secondly, to the theme of the clash between the great power idea and the interests of the “little man.” The poem has two opposing characters and an insoluble conflict between them.

Pushkin worked intensively on the poem and finished it very quickly - in just twenty-five October days. The history of the creation of the poem “The Bronze Horseman” is closely connected not only with realistic motives and documents of the era, but also with the mythology that has developed around the great man and the city that arose according to his highest will.

Censorship restrictions and controversy surrounding the poem

“The Petersburg Tale,” as the author designated its genre, was censored by Emperor Nicholas I himself, who returned the manuscript with nine pencil marks. The disgruntled poet printed the text of the introduction to the poem “The Bronze Horseman” (the history of the creation of the poetic story is overshadowed by this fact) with eloquent voids in place of the king’s notes. Later, Pushkin nevertheless rewrote these passages, but in such a way that the meaning embedded in them did not change. Reluctantly, the sovereign allowed the publication of the poem “The Bronze Horseman.” The history of the creation of the work is also connected with the heated controversy that flared up around the poem after its publication.

Points of view of literary scholars

The controversy continues to this day. It is traditional to talk about three groups of interpreters of the poem. The first includes researchers who affirm the “state” aspect that shines in the poem “The Bronze Horseman”. This group of literary scholars, led by Vissarion Belinsky, put forward the version that Pushkin in the poem substantiated the right to carry out fateful deeds for the country, sacrificing the interests and the very life of a simple, inconspicuous person.

Humanistic interpretation

Representatives of another group, led by the poet Valery Bryusov, Professor Makagonenko and other authors, completely took the side of another character - Evgeniy, arguing that the death of even the most insignificant person from the point of view of the idea of ​​power cannot be justified by great achievements. This point of view is called humanistic.

Eternal conflict

Representatives of the third group of researchers express a system of views about the tragic intractability of this conflict. They believe that Pushkin gave an objective picture in the story “The Bronze Horseman”. History itself has resolved the eternal conflict between the “miraculous builder” Peter the Great and “poor” Eugene, an ordinary city dweller with his modest needs and dreams. The two truths - that of the common man and that of the statesman - remain equal, and neither is inferior to the other.

Terrible events and the poem “The Bronze Horseman”

The history of the creation of the poem, of course, fits firmly into the cultural and historical context of the time when it was created. Those were the times of debate about the place of personality in history and the influence of great transformations on the destinies of ordinary people. This topic worried Pushkin since the late 1820s. Taking as a basis the documentary information about the flood that happened in St. Petersburg on November 7, 1824, about which newspapers published, the brilliant poet and thinker comes to major philosophical and social generalizations. The personality of the great and brilliant reformer Peter, who “put Russia on its hind legs,” appears in the context of the personal tragedy of the insignificant official Eugene with his narrow-philistine dreams of his little happiness, which is not so unconditionally great and worthy of praise. Therefore, Pushkin’s poem “The Bronze Horseman” is not limited to odic praise of the transformer who opened the “window to Europe.”

Contrasting Petersburg

The northern capital arose thanks to the strong-willed decision of Tsar Peter the Great after the victory over the Swedes. Its foundation was intended to confirm this victory, to show the strength and power of Russia, and also to open the paths of free cultural and trade exchange with European countries. The city, in which the greatness of the human spirit was felt, manifested in a strict and harmonious architectural appearance, the telling symbolism of sculptures and monuments, appears before us in the story “The Bronze Horseman”. The history of the creation of St. Petersburg is based, however, not only on greatness. Built on topi blat, which contained the bones of thousands of unknown builders, the city is engulfed in an ominous and mysterious atmosphere. Oppressive poverty, high mortality, superiority in diseases and the number of suicides - this is the other side of the magnificent crowned capital in the times about which Alexander Pushkin wrote. The two faces of the city, appearing one through the other, enhance the mythological component of the poem. The “transparent twilight” of pale city lighting gives the inhabitants the feeling that they live in some mysteriously symbolic place in which monuments and statues can come to life and move with ominous determination. And the history of the creation of the “Bronze Horseman” is also to a large extent connected with this. Pushkin, as a poet, could not help but be interested in such a transformation, which became the culmination of the plot. In the artistic space of the story, a cold bronze monument, echoing along the deserted pavement, came to life, pursuing Eugene, distraught with grief after the loss of his beloved and the collapse of all his hopes.

Introduction idea

But before we hear how the earth shakes under the hoof of an iron horse, we have to experience the sad and cruel events that happened in the life of the unfortunate Eugene, who will blame the great Builder for building the city on lands prone to destructive floods, and also realize the bright and the majestic introduction with which the poem “The Bronze Horseman” opens. Peter stands on the bank of a wild river, on the waves of which a frail boat sways, and dense gloomy forests rustle around, and here and there wretched huts of the “Chukhons” stick out. But in his mind’s eye, the founder of the northern capital already sees a “wonderful city”, rising “proudly” and “magnificently” above the granite-clad Neva, a city associated with future state successes and great achievements. Pushkin does not name Peter - the emperor is mentioned here using the pronoun “he”, and this emphasizes the ambiguity of the odic structure of the introduction. Reflecting on how Russia will someday “threaten the Swede” from here, the great figure does not at all see today’s “Finnish fisherman” who threw his “decrepit” net into the water. The Emperor sees a future in which ships are heading to rich marinas from all over the world, but does not notice those who sail in a lonely canoe and huddle in rare huts on the shore. When creating a state, the ruler forgets about those for whose sake it is created. And this painful discrepancy fuels the idea of ​​the poem “The Bronze Horseman.” Pushkin, for whom history was not just a collection of archival documents, but a bridge thrown into the present and future, feels especially keenly and expressively conveys this conflict.

Why did the bronze horseman turn out to be copper in the poet’s mouth?

The point, of course, is not only that the writers of the 19th century did not see a significant semantic difference between bronze and copper. It is deeply symbolic that this is the Bronze Horseman. The history of writing the poem in this case merges with the biblical allegory. It is no coincidence that the poet calls the statue of Peter “an idol” and an “idol” - the authors of the Bible use exactly the same words when talking about the golden calves, which the Jews worshiped instead of the Living God. Here the idol is not even gold, but only copper - this is how the author reduces the brilliance and grandeur of the image, sparkling with external dazzling luxury, but hiding inside it is not at all precious content. These are the subtexts behind the creation of The Bronze Horseman.

Pushkin cannot be suspected of unconditional sympathy for the sovereign idea. However, his attitude towards the fictional idyll constructed in Eugene’s dreams is ambiguous. The hopes and plans of the “little man” are far from deep spiritual quests, and in this Pushkin sees their limitations.

Climax and resolution of the plot

After a colorful introduction and a declaration of love for the city, Pushkin warns that what follows will be about “terrible” events. A hundred years after what happened on the shores of the Gulf of Finland, St. Petersburg official Evgeniy returns home after serving and dreams of his bride Parasha. He is no longer destined to see her, since she, like her modest house, will be carried away by the “frenzied” waters of the “enraged” Neva. When the elements fall silent, Eugene will rush to search for his beloved and make sure that she is no longer alive. His consciousness cannot withstand the blow, and the young man goes crazy. He wanders around the unpleasant city, becomes a target for ridicule from the local children, and completely forgets the way home. Eugene blames Peter for his troubles, who built the city in an inappropriate place and thereby exposed people to mortal danger. In despair, the madman threatens the bronze idol: “Too bad for you!..” Following that inflamed consciousness, he hears a heavy and ringing “jumping” on the stones of the pavement and sees a Horseman rushing after him with an outstretched hand. After some time, Evgeniy is found dead at the threshold of his house and buried. This is how the poem ends.

Poem and monument

The opening of the monument to Peter the Great on Senate Square in St. Petersburg took place at the end of the summer of 1782. The monument, impressive with grace and grandeur, was erected by Catherine the Second. Above creation equestrian statue French sculptors Etienne Falconet, Marie Anne Collot and the Russian master Fyodor Gordeev worked, who sculpted a bronze snake under the frantic hoof of Petrov's horse. A monolith, nicknamed the thunder stone, was installed at the foot of the statue; its weight was slightly less than two and a half tons (the entire monument weighs about 22 tons). From the place where the block was discovered and found suitable for the monument, the stone was carefully transported for about four months.

After the publication of Alexander Pushkin’s poem, the hero of which the poet made this particular monument, the sculpture was named the Bronze Horseman. Residents and guests of St. Petersburg have an excellent opportunity to contemplate this monument, which, without exaggeration, can be called a symbol of the city, almost in its original architectural ensemble.

The conflict between the individual and the state in the poem 8220 The Bronze Horseman 8221

Russia, it seems, is the only state whose history knows the existence of two capitals at once - Moscow and St. Petersburg. Officially, the title of capital was, of course, in different times only one city, but in terms of its power and significance for the state, the second could rightly be called by this honorable name. In this they are twins, but there is a significant difference: Moscow is an old city, it grew out of ancient Slavic settlements, and the first mention of it (that is, its appearance in chronicles, which does not at all mean its birth at this time - it happened much earlier ) date back to 1147. Petersburg is the creation of the hands of Peter I, it was erected by the will of the emperor, it cannot in any way be called spontaneously appeared, Petersburg is a “synthetic” city. Even its names are not of Russian origin and sound unusual to Russian ears, unlike Moscow, whose name is somehow connected with Ancient Russia. Petersburg was built on a geographically inconvenient and even dangerous place for the population (the city was often subject to natural disasters - floods); however, on a national scale, its location was much more advantageous: the proximity of neighboring developed countries, the shore of the Gulf of Finland, the opportunity to “open a window to Europe” - all this contributed to the strengthening of Russia in the international arena. Nevertheless, for many Russian people, St. Petersburg remained a “non-Russian”, a cold city, the personification of evil, the brainchild of Satan (who, accordingly, was Peter I). Any human tragedy within its borders she could seem like a victim to this merciless monster - St. Petersburg.

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

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

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

We don't need his nickname.

Although in times gone by

Perhaps it shone

And under the pen of Karamzin

In native legends it sounded;

But now with light and rumor

It's forgotten.

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

Perhaps a year or two will pass -

I’ll get a place - Parashe

I will entrust our farm

And raising children...

And we will live, and so on until the grave

We'll both get there hand in hand

And our grandchildren will bury us...

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

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

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

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

“Welcome, miraculous builder! –

He whispered, trembling angrily, -

Already for you!..”

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

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

Think about which works of Russian literature depict the confrontation between the individual and the state, and what brings these works closer to Solzhenitsyn’s story?

The conflict between a “private” person and the state is reflected in the poem by A.S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman". The similarities in the works can be traced both at the plot level (both heroes die in the finale) and at the ideological level (conflict between the individual and the state).

The personality of Peter and his actions in the poem is contrasted with “ little man» Evgeniy. This is a simple official, with ordinary everyday thoughts. “A humble and simple shelter,” tranquility, life with his beloved Parasha, a patriarchal family - these are Evgeniy’s ideals. But the hero’s happiness did not materialize; he was destroyed by a ruthless element. Like Solzhenitsyn’s Matryona, Pushkin’s hero dies in the finale. In both Pushkin and Solzhenitsyn, the life of an ordinary person is contrasted with the huge machine of the Russian state.

This is how a tragic confrontation arises: personality, the life of a simple person with its simple events, simple joys - and the inexorable movement of history, subjugating circumstances and destinies. Can a person influence the course of history? And what is the role of history in the life of every person? Here we see the contrast between two heroes, two principles. “On the one hand - small happiness of small... simple love simple heart, on the other hand, Peter’s superhuman vision. The will of the hero and the uprising of the primeval elements in nature - a flood raging at the foot of the Bronze Horseman; the will of the hero and the spontaneous protest in the human heart - a challenge thrown in the face of the hero by one of those doomed to death by this will - this is the meaning of the poem. What does a giant care about the death of the unknown? Isn’t it for this reason that countless, equal, smaller ones are born, so that the great chosen ones will follow their bones to their goals? Let the perishing one submit to the one “by whose fatal will the city was founded over the sea...”. But what if in the weak heart of an insignificant official, a “trembling creature,” 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? Will pitiful threats reach the copper heart of a giant and make him tremble? So they stand forever opposite each other - small and great. Who is stronger, who will win? Nowhere in Russian literature have two world principles converged in such a terrible collision,” wrote D.S. Merezhkovsky.

The little man, having lost his happiness (his dreams are destroyed by a flood), loses his mind and is imbued with a burning hatred of the autocrat. Evgeny threatens him: “Too bad for you!” Here the hero turns into an accuser, but this happens only for a moment. And then “confusion” takes possession of his soul. And the poor official dies. “One perishes solely as a representative of the human principle, the other perishes solely because he personifies the objective process of history, which does not take into account the fate of individual individuals,” wrote Engelhardt.

So, the theme of “The Bronze Horseman” is the dramatic gap between the state and the individual. The spontaneous protest of an individual cannot be equal to the social forces opposing it. But where is the way out of this conflict? We do not find its final resolution in the plot of the poem. According to the author, this confrontation between the individual and the state is deeply dramatic.

The same author's position and in the story by A.I. Solzhenitsyn. The writer in this story also denotes the confrontation between the individual and the state: his heroine, trying to defend her rights, faces insurmountable bureaucratic barriers. According to Solzhenitsyn, the state is indifferent to the fate of a simple village woman. Talking about Matryona’s troubles, the author uses the technique of syntactic parallelism in the narrative: “go again”, “the third day go again”, “the fourth day go because...”. All these artistic techniques give rise to bitter reflections in the reader’s soul.
Thus, the author’s position is similar in these works: both Pushkin and Solzhenitsyn depict the conflict between the individual and the state, calling on the reader to think about this problem. In addition, the authors treat their characters with great empathy and sympathy.