Essay On Historical, Social And Philosophical Context Of Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman”

During my first reading of “The Bronze Horseman” I have come to idea that the poem and its narrative character are quite difficult for understanding. The one who is not familiar with the historical context of the poem may not catch the main idea of Pushkin’s work. So I decided to learn more about Russia and its history.
I have consulted many sources, read some books and information from the Internet. And I have once again become convinced how helpful it could be for the understanding of literary work. Besides broadening my outlook, it helped me to realize what Pushkin had intended to express in his poem.
During the research I have found that Alexander Pushkin is one of the most favourite poets among the Russians. Pushkin’s "The Bronze Horseman" is the poem full of issues exercising him during the creation of the work, in 1833, for example, issues concerning the relationship between the State and the individual, the incompatibility between their interests. But now I am fully convinced that "The Bronze Horseman" is not only social and philosophical poem, but historical too. Having in mind the historical background of the work, I agree that the essence of the poem is Pushkin’s reflections on the fate of Russia, its historical development.
As I can see, the emphasis in the poem is made on the understanding of the personality of Peter the Great as sovereign and its role in formation and development of Russia.
In the poem Peter the Great is full of great ideas about taming nature, about how he will construct a great new city. But great ruler does not notice the problems of the poor. This man does not care about the life of undistinguished people because he imagines only the picture of the future greatness of the northern capital. Both the joys and sorrows of the Russian poor are nothing for him in comparison with the public interest. So Peter violates the course of life settled in these locations. The lives of ordinary people are not included in Peter’s grand designs. But that’s worth of effort.
My friend who had been to Saint Petersburg told me once that it is a great and wonderful seaport town. There are a lot of palaces, towers, and incredible green gardens. Pushkin’s poem confirms these observations.
But, as I have understood from the poem and from the historical reality, the strong will of Peter which led to the creation of the town was not only an act of creativity, but also an act of violence. Now I am fully convinced that Petersburg was actually built on the bones of the people. Moreover, this city was built at the cost of unprecedented effort and sacrifice as a challenge to the elements of nature, as it is laid on the ground not suitable for large city, and for large number of people. I have found that even the geometrically correct planning of the new capital, based on strictly equal straight lines and angles, was opposed to the surrounding natural environment, expressing the triumph of reason over the elements of nature.
I have discovered that at the time when the poem was created sharp debate about the ways of development of the country were taking place. Opponents of the Emperor, its reform activities felt that by building a new town, which played a crucial role in accelerating the Europeanization of Russia, strengthening its political and military strength, Peter did not take into account natural conditions where Petersburg was built, i.e. marshiness, as well as the disposition of the Neva River to floods. I have found that Petersburg was then opposed to Moscow, which had been created not by the will and draft of one person, albeit endowed with immense power, but by Divine Providence. Flooding incident in St. Petersburg at the beginning of 1820-x, resulted in great loss of lives, was seen as the revenge of the natural forces for the violence.
As I have understood the building of Petersburg was kind of personification of all the activities of Peter I and of his era. Everything he done was in varying degrees of violence. Peter the Great managed to build a powerful State, but he created it on the bones and blood of people, ignoring them, their lives and desires. But, as I think, any violence entails retribution, and the patience of the people is eternal.
It was quite interesting for me to read how Pushkin compares the outrage of nature’s elements to people’s revolt. But then I’ve discovered that at that point of time the country had already shocked by the rebellion headed by Yemelyan Pugachev. “Indeed, isn't it elements, sweeping everything on its path?”, I thought then.
In "The Bronze Horseman" I can also see that the element of nature merges exactly with a revolt of the people, but only through the protest of its representative, Evgenii. This rebellion is suppressed, and so was the Pugachev’s rebellion. But the image of the protest, as well as the image of the element is passing through the whole poem. I think that it can be the caution for the powerful rulers of all times and peoples. The destruction in the city is immense; there are large numbers of victims. Nothing could resist the elements of flood.
Bronze Horseman, Peter’s personification, himself stands surrounded by muddy waves. He is powerless too to stop their onslaught. Strong-willed Peter the Great settled among wildlife the city that now forever will be subjected to attacks. And who knows, maybe, Evgenii is a microscopic droplet of anger of the Russian people, a huge wave of which can sweep the ruler.
As I think, a long and prosperous existence of a State is not possible if its ruler suppresses his own citizens and neglects them in the name of his goals. Conversely, the State must act for their benefit. After all, as I think Pushkin intended to say, the revolt is a manifestation of God's wrath, which now hits the city in the form of natural disasters, but in the future will result in a new people’s rebellion, like Pugachev’s one. And it won’t be less terrible than the element of floods, holding a court indiscriminately of who is right and who is wrong.
The philosophical concept of the poem, to my mind, is not less important than historical one. And the comparison of public will and forces of nature was expressed as the philosophical position of Pushkin. As I see, the river resembles a raging beast, seeking to destroy the man-made obstacles. The State was not able to protect the city and its residents from the devastating effects. The power suppresses the identity of the individual and its interests, but it is not able to withstand the elements and to protect against it.
Natural disaster is terrible and it can take revenge for its defeat not only the winner, but their descendants. Victim of rioting Neva became. And the citizens, especially the poor islanders became the victims of the rioting Neva River.
Now, when I have read the poem once again, I realize that it is important, in order to understand the conceptual meaning of the poem, to compare the very beginning of the poem and the end of the second part, and to find an original framing. At the beginning Peter is dreaming about mighty power and the construction of a great city. And the city stands up unwaveringly. But later the rioting nature returns a part of a small island in the starting conditions.
Now I am sure that the concept of the poem may be quite helpful for the nowadays rulers. Indeed, divine retribution in the form of rioting elements, both nature’s and people’s, may be sent to them and their citizens, because some of them became idols and others became slaves. And, as I have found, the history of Russia proves it.