The impostor spoke the truth; but I, out of duty of oath, began to assure that all these were empty rumors and that Orenburg had plenty of all kinds of supplies.” Pugachev's associates caught
So, Grinev was convicted on suspicion of treason, of “participating in the plans” of Pugachev, and was convicted on the basis of a false denunciation. I emphasize: the sentence formula - “participation in the plans of the rebels” - is based on Shvabrin’s testimony that Grinev was a spy for Pugachev, that he betrayed his oath and served an impostor. Pushkin not only revealed the deep injustice of the royal court, but also linked together Shvabrin’s false denunciation and the actions of the judges; the gross slander of a vile man and a traitor turned out to be dressed in the form of a court verdict.
- “My judges, who seemed to begin to listen to my answers with some favor, were again prejudiced against me at the sight of my embarrassment. The guards officer demanded that I be confronted with the main informer.”
- “Now tell me what the state of your city is.
Yes, Grinev left Orenburg to “exchange fire with Pugachev’s riders,” but he did not convey to them any written news for Pugachev. True, one day he ran into a Cossack and “was ready to hit him with his Turkish saber,” but he recognized him as a constable Maksimych, who gave him a letter from Marya Ivanovna, in which she reported on the oppression of Shvabrin. Yes, Grinev traveled with Pugachev from Berdskaya Sloboda to the Belogorsk fortress, but he traveled in order to help out the captain’s daughter. Mironov.
The possibility of Grinev’s betrayal seemed to be suggested to the judges by Grinev’s strange fate: he was not hanged by Pugachev, he was at a “feast” with the “villains”, he accepted “gifts from the main villain, a fur coat, a horse and half a piece of money.”
This testimony was an outright lie, a gross slander. Pushkin deliberately prepared the reader to perceive their falsity. Yes, Grinev from Orenburg came to the rebellious settlement to visit Pugachev, but he did not serve with Pugachev, was not his spy. Moreover, we know that when asked by Pugachev about the situation in Orenburg, he told a lie.
One of the works of Russian literature in which the image of Catherine the Great is created is “The Captain’s Daughter” by A.S. Pushkin, written in 1836. When creating the work, the writer turned to many historical sources, but he did not exactly follow the historical description: the image of Catherine the Great in Pushkin is subordinated to the general concept of the work.
Literary critic V. Shklovsky quotes words from an article by P.A. Vyazemsky “On Karamzin’s letters”: “In Tsarskoe Selo we must not forget Catherine... Monuments of her reign here tell about her. Having put away the crown from her head and the purple from her shoulders, she lived here as a homely and kind housewife. Here, it seems, you meet her in the form and attire in which she is depicted in the famous painting by Borovikovsky, even more famous from the beautiful and excellent engraving by Utkin.” Further, V. Shklovsky notes that, in contrast to the nobility and Pugachev’s camp, depicted in the “realistic manner”, “Pushkin’s Catherine is deliberately shown in the official tradition” [Shklovsky: 277].
Now let's turn to the story. As we know, Pushkin writes on behalf of the narrator, and the narrator - Grinev - narrates the meeting of Marya Ivanovna with the Empress from the words of Marya Ivanovna, who, of course, recalled the meeting that shocked her many times in her later life. How could these people devoted to the throne talk about Catherine II? There is no doubt: with naive simplicity and loyal adoration. “According to Pushkin’s plan,” writes literary critic P.N. Berkov, “obviously, Catherine II in “The Captain’s Daughter” should not be shown realistically, like the real, historical Catherine: Pushkin’s goal is in accordance with his chosen form of notes of the hero, a loyal nobleman , it was to portray Catherine precisely in the official interpretation: even Catherine’s morning disabiliy was designed to create a legend about the empress as a simple, ordinary woman.”
The fact that Pushkin recreated in the novel the features of the empress, captured by the artist Borovikovsky, emphasized the official “version” of the portrait. Moreover, Pushkin demonstratively renounced his personal perception of the empress and gave the reader a “copy of a copy.” Borovikovsky painted from living nature. It was enough for Pushkin to present a copy of the highly approved portrait. He depicted not a living model, but a dead nature. Catherine II in the novel is not an image of a living person, but a “quote,” as Shklovsky wittily noted. From this secondary nature comes the cold that surrounds Catherine in Pushkin’s novel. The “fresh breath of autumn” has already changed the face of nature - the linden leaves turned yellow, the empress, going out for a walk, put on a “sweat jacket”. Her “cold” face, “full and rosy,” “expressed importance and calm.” The “stern facial expression” that appeared during the reading of Masha Mironova’s petition is associated with the same coldness. This is even emphasized by the author’s remark: “Are you asking for Grinev? - said the lady with a cold look.” There is also coldness in Catherine’s actions: she starts a “game” with Masha, posing as a lady close to the court; she plays, not lives.
This image of Catherine II reveals Pushkin’s intention to contrast this image of the ruling empress with the image of Pugachev, the “peasant king.” Hence the contrast between these two figures. Pugachev’s mercy, based on justice, is contrasted with Catherine’s “mercy,” which expressed the arbitrariness of autocratic power.
This contrast, as always, was acutely aware and perceived by Marina Tsvetaeva: “The contrast between Pugachev’s blackness and her (Catherine II’s) whiteness, his liveliness and her importance, his cheerful kindness and her condescending one, his masculinity and her ladylikeness could not help but disgust from her childish heart, one-loving and already committed to the “villain” [Tsvetaeva].
Tsvetaeva doesn’t just set out her impressions, she analyzes the novel and carefully argues her thesis about the contrast in the portrayal of Pugachev and Catherine II and Pushkin’s attitude towards these antipodes: “Against the fiery background of Pugachev - fires, robberies, blizzards, wagons, feasts - this one, in a cap and the shower jacket, on the bench, between all sorts of bridges and leaves, seemed to me like a huge white fish, a whitefish. And even unsalted. (Ekaterina’s main feature is amazing blandness)” [Tsvetaeva].
And further: “Let’s compare Pugachev and Catherine in reality: “Come out, beautiful maiden, I will give you freedom. I am the sovereign." (Pugachev leading Marya Ivanovna out of prison). “Excuse me,” she said in an even more affectionate voice, “if I interfere in your affairs, but I am at court...” [ibid.].
The assessment given to Ekaterina Tsvetaeva may be somewhat subjective and emotional. She writes: “And what a different kindness! Pugachev enters the dungeon like the sun. Catherine’s affectionateness even then seemed to me sweetness, sweetness, honeyedness, and this even more affectionate voice was simply flattering: false. I recognized and hated her as a lady patroness.
And as soon as it started in the book, I became sucking and bored, its whiteness, fullness and kindness made me physically sick, like cold cutlets or warm pike perch in white sauce, which I know I will eat, but - how? For me, the book fell into two couples, into two marriages: Pugachev and Grinev, Ekaterina and Marya Ivanovna. And it would be better if they got married like that!” [ibid].
However, one question that Tsvetaeva asks seems very important to us: “Does Pushkin love Ekaterina in The Captain’s Daughter? Don't know. He is respectful to her. He knew that all this: whiteness, kindness, fullness - things were respectable. So I honored him.
But there is no love - enchantment in the image of Catherine. All of Pushkin’s love went to Pugachev (Grinev loves Masha, not Pushkin) - only official respect remained for Catherine.
Catherine is needed so that everything “ends well” [ibid].
Thus, Tsvetaeva sees mainly repulsive features in the image of Catherine, while Pugachev, according to the poet, is very attractive, he “fascinates”, he is more like a tsar than an empress: “How much more regal in his gesture is a man who calls himself a sovereign, than an empress posing as a hanger-on” [Tsvetaeva].
Yu.M. Lotman objects to the crudely straightforward definition of Pushkin’s view of Catherine II. Of course, Pushkin did not create a negative image of Catherine and did not resort to satirical colors.
Yu.M. Lotman explains the introduction of the image of Catherine II into the novel “The Captain's Daughter” by Pushkin’s desire to equalize the actions of the impostor and the reigning empress in relation to the main character Grinev and his beloved Marya Ivanovna. The “similarity” of the action lies in the fact that both Pugachev and Catherine II - each in a similar situation acts not as a ruler, but as a person. “In these years, Pushkin was deeply characterized by the idea that human simplicity forms the basis of greatness (cf., for example, “Commander”). It was precisely the fact that in Catherine II, according to Pushkin’s story, a middle-aged lady living next to the empress, walking in the park with a dog, allowed her to show humanity. “The Empress cannot forgive him,” says Catherine II to Masha Mironova. But not only the empress lives in her, but also a person, and this saves the hero, and prevents the unbiased reader from perceiving the image as one-sidedly negative” [Lotman: 17].
There is no doubt that in depicting the Empress, Pushkin must have felt especially constrained by political and censorship conditions. His sharply negative attitude towards “Tartuffe in a skirt and a crown,” as he called Catherine II, is evidenced by numerous judgments and statements. Meanwhile, he could not show Catherine in such a way in a work intended for publication. Pushkin found a double way out of these difficulties. Firstly, the image of Catherine is given through the perception of an eighteenth-century nobleman, officer Grinev, who, with all his sympathy for Pugachev as a person, remains a loyal subject of the empress. Secondly, in his description of Catherine, Pushkin relies on a certain artistic document.
As already mentioned, the image of the “lady” with the “white dog”, whom Masha Mironova met in the Tsarskoye Selo garden, exactly reproduces Borovikovsky’s famous portrait of Catherine II: “She was in a white morning dress, a night cap and a shower jacket. She seemed to be about forty years old. Her face, plump and rosy, expressed importance and calmness, and her blue eyes and light smile had an inexplicable charm” [Pushkin 1978: 358]. Probably, any reader familiar with the indicated portrait will recognize Catherine in this description. However, Pushkin seems to be playing with the reader and forcing the lady to hide the fact that she is the empress. In her conversation with Masha, we immediately pay attention to her compassion.
At the same time, Pushkin unusually subtly - without any pressure and at the same time extremely expressively - shows how this familiar “Tartuffe” mask instantly falls from Catherine’s face when she finds out that Masha is asking for Grinev:
“The lady was the first to break the silence. “Are you sure you’re not from here?” - she said.
Exactly so, sir: I just arrived from the provinces yesterday.
Did you come with your family?
No way, sir. I came alone.
One! But you are still so young.”
I have neither father nor mother.
Surely you are here on some business?
Exactly so, sir. I came to submit a request to the Empress.
You are an orphan: perhaps you complain about injustice and insult?
No way, sir. I came to ask for mercy, not justice.
Let me ask, who are you?
I am the daughter of Captain Mironov.
Captain Mironov! The same one who was the commandant in one of the Orenburg fortresses?
Exactly so, sir.
The lady seemed touched. “Excuse me,” she said in an even more affectionate voice, “if I interfere in your affairs; but I am at court; Explain to me what your request is, and maybe I will be able to help you.” Marya Ivanovna stood up and thanked her respectfully. Everything about the unknown lady involuntarily attracted the heart and inspired confidence. Marya Ivanovna took a folded paper out of her pocket and handed it to her unfamiliar patron, who began to read it to herself. At first she read with an attentive and supportive look; but suddenly her face changed, and Marya Ivanovna, who followed all her movements with her eyes, was frightened by the stern expression of this face, so pleasant and calm for a minute.
“Are you asking for Grinev?” - said the lady with a cold look. - “The Empress cannot forgive him. He stuck to the impostor not out of ignorance and gullibility, but as an immoral and harmful scoundrel.”
Oh, that's not true! - Marya Ivanovna screamed.
“How untrue!” - the lady objected, flushing all over” [Pushkin 1978: 357-358].
As we see, not a trace remains of the “inexplicable charm” of the stranger’s appearance. Before us is not a welcomingly smiling “lady,” but an angry, imperious empress, from whom it is useless to expect leniency and mercy. All the more clearly in comparison with this does the deep humanity emerge in relation to Grinev and his fiancée Pugacheva. It is precisely in this regard that Pushkin gets the opportunity, both as an artist and bypassing the censorship slingshots, to develop - in the spirit of folk songs and tales about Pugachev - a remarkable work, with clearly expressed national-Russian features. It is no coincidence that V. Shklovsky notes: “The motive for Pugachev’s pardoning of Grinev is gratitude for a minor service that a nobleman once provided to Pugachev. The motive for Ekaterina’s pardon of Grinev is Masha’s petition.” [Shklovsky: 270].
Catherine's first reaction to Masha's request is a refusal, which she explains by the impossibility of forgiving the criminal. However, the question arises: why does the monarch, when administering justice, condemn based on denunciation and slander, and not try to restore justice? One answer is this: justice is alien to autocracy by nature.
However, Catherine II not only approves the unjust sentence, she also, according to many researchers, shows mercy: out of respect for the merits and advanced years of Grinev’s father, she cancels the execution of her son and sends him to Siberia for eternal settlement. What kind of mercy is it to exile an innocent person to Siberia? But this, according to Pushkin, is the “mercy” of the autocrats, radically different from the mercy of Pugachev, it contradicts justice and is in fact the arbitrariness of the monarch. Need I remind you that Pushkin, from his personal experience, already knew what the mercy of Nicholas I amounted to. With good reason, he wrote about himself that he was “shackled by mercy.” Naturally, there is no humanity in such mercy.
However, let’s see if in the episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with Ekaterina and in the description of the previous circumstances there is still an author’s attitude towards them. Let us recall the facts that took place from the moment Grinev appeared in court. We know that he stopped his explanations to the court about the true reason for his unauthorized absence from Orenburg and thereby extinguished the “favor of the judges” with which they began to listen to him. Sensitive Marya Ivanovna understood why Grinev did not want to justify himself before the court, and decided to go to the queen herself to tell everything sincerely and save the groom. She succeeded.
Now let us turn once again to the very episode of the meeting of the queen with Marya Ivanovna. Grinev’s innocence became clear to Catherine from Marya Ivanovna’s story, from her petition, just as it would have become clear to the investigative commission if Grinev had finished his testimony. Marya Ivanovna told what Grinev did not say at the trial, and the queen acquitted Masha’s groom. So what is her mercy? What is humanity?
The Empress needs Grinev's innocence more than his guilt. Each nobleman who went over to Pugachev's side harmed the noble class, the support of her throne. Hence Catherine’s anger (her face changed while reading the letter and became stern), which after Marya Ivanovna’s story “changes to mercy.” The queen smiles and asks where Masha is staying. She, apparently, makes a decision favorable to the petitioner and reassures the captain’s daughter. Pushkin, giving the right to tell Grinev, forces him at the same time to report facts that allow us to draw our conclusions. Ekaterina speaks kindly to Marya Ivanovna and is friendly with her. In the palace, she picks up the girl who has fallen at her feet, shocked by her “mercy.” She utters a phrase, addressing her, her subject, as her equal: “I know that you are not rich,” she said, “but I am indebted to the daughter of Captain Mironov. Don't worry about the future. I take it upon myself to arrange your condition.” How could Marya Ivanovna, who from childhood was brought up in respect for the throne and royal power, perceive these words?
Pushkin wrote about Catherine that “her... friendliness attracted her.” In a small episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with the Empress through the lips of Grinev, he speaks about this quality of Catherine, about her ability to charm people, about her ability to “take advantage of the weakness of the human soul.” After all, Marya Ivanovna is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, whose feat the queen knew about. Catherine distributed orders to officers who distinguished themselves in the war against the Pugachevites, and also helped orphaned noble families. Is it any wonder that she took care of Masha too. The Empress was not generous to her. The captain's daughter did not receive a large dowry from the queen and did not increase Grinev's wealth. Grinev's descendants, according to the publisher, i.e. Pushkin, “prospered” in a village that belonged to ten landowners.
Catherine valued the attitude of the nobility towards her and understood perfectly well what impression the “highest pardon” would make on the loyal Grinev family. Pushkin himself (and not the narrator) writes: “In one of the master’s wings they show a handwritten letter from Catherine II behind glass and in a frame,” which was passed down from generation to generation.
And so “the legend was created about the empress as a simple, accessible to petitioners, an ordinary woman,” writes P.N. Berkov in the article “Pushkin and Catherine”. And this is exactly how Grinev, one of the best representatives of the nobility of the late 18th century, considered her.
However, in our opinion, Catherine II ultimately wanted to protect her power; if she lost the support of these people, then she would lose power. Therefore, her mercy cannot be called real, it is rather a trick.
Thus, in “The Captain's Daughter” Pushkin portrays Catherine in a very ambiguous way, which can be understood not only by some hints and details, but also by all the artistic techniques that the author uses.
Another work that creates the image of Catherine, which we chose for analysis, is the story by N.V. Gogol's "The Night Before Christmas", which was written in 1840. In time, this story is separated from “The Captain’s Daughter” by only 4 years. But the story is written in a completely different way, in a different tone, and this makes the comparison interesting.
The first difference is related to the portrait characteristics. In Gogol’s portrait of Catherine there is some kind of doll-like quality: “Then the blacksmith dared to raise his head and saw standing in front of him a short woman, somewhat portly, powdered, with blue eyes and at the same time that majestic smiling look that was so able to conquer everything. and could only belong to one reigning woman.” Like Pushkin, blue eyes are repeated, but Gogol’s Catherine smiles “majesticly.”
The first phrase that Catherine utters shows that the empress is too far from the people: “His Serene Highness promised to introduce me today to my people, whom I have not yet seen,” said the lady with blue eyes, looking at the Cossacks with curiosity. “Are you well kept here?” she continued, coming closer” [Gogol 1940: 236].
Further conversation with the Cossacks makes it possible to imagine Catherine, at first glance, sweet and kind. However, let’s pay attention to the fragment when Vakula compliments her: “My God, what a decoration!” - he cried joyfully, grabbing his shoes. “Your Royal Majesty! Well, when you have shoes like these on your feet, and, hopefully, your honor, go to the ice in them, what kind of feet should they be? I think, at least from pure sugar” [Gogol 1040: 238]. Immediately after this remark comes the author’s text: “The Empress, who certainly had the most slender and charming legs, could not help but smile when hearing such a compliment from the lips of a simple-minded blacksmith, who in his Zaporozhye dress could be considered handsome, despite his dark face” [ ibid.]. It is undoubtedly permeated with irony, which is based on alogism (remember, “a short woman, somewhat portly”).
But even more irony is contained in the fragment describing the end of the meeting with the queen: “Delighted with such favorable attention, the blacksmith already wanted to ask the queen thoroughly about everything: is it true that kings eat only honey and lard, and the like - but, having felt, that the Cossacks were pushing him in the sides, he decided to remain silent; and when the Empress, turning to the old people, began to ask how they lived in the Sich, what customs there were, he, moving back, bent down to his pocket, said quietly: “Take me out of here quickly!” and suddenly found himself behind a barrier” [ibid.]. The meeting ended seemingly at the behest of Vakula, but Gogol’s subtext is this: it is unlikely that the empress would listen with sincere attention to the life of the Cossacks.
The background on which Catherine appears is also different in the works. If for Pushkin it is a beautiful garden, creating a feeling of calm and tranquility, then for Gogol it is the palace itself: “Having already climbed the stairs, the Cossacks passed through the first hall. The blacksmith timidly followed them, fearing at every step he would slip on the parquet floor. Three halls passed, the blacksmith still did not cease to be surprised. Entering the fourth, he involuntarily approached the picture hanging on the wall. It was the Most Pure Virgin with the Baby in her arms. “What a picture! what a wonderful painting! - he reasoned, - it seems he’s talking! seems to be alive! and the Holy Child! and my hands were pressed! and grins, poor thing! and the colors! My God, what colors! here the vokhas, I think, weren’t even worth a penny, it’s all fire and cormorant: and the blue one is still burning! important work! the soil must have been caused by bleivas. As surprising as these paintings are, however, this copper handle,” he continued, going up to the door and feeling the lock, “is even more worthy of surprise.” Wow, what a clean job! All this, I think, was done by German blacksmiths for the most expensive prices...” [Gogol 1978: 235].
Here, what attracts attention is not so much the surrounding luxury itself, but rather the thoughts and feelings of the petitioners: the blacksmith “follows timidly” because he is afraid of falling, and the works of art decorating the walls raise the assumption that all this was done by “German blacksmiths, for the most expensive prices.” This is how Gogol conveys the idea that ordinary people and those in power seem to live in different worlds.
Together with Ekaterina, Gogol portrays her favorite Potemkin, who is worried that the Cossacks would not say anything unnecessary or behave incorrectly:
“Will you remember to speak as I taught you?
Potemkin bit his lips, finally came up himself and whispered imperiously to one of the Cossacks. The Cossacks rose up” [Gogol 1978: 236].
The following words of Catherine require special comment:
“- Get up! - the empress said affectionately. - If you really want to have such shoes, then it’s not difficult to do. Bring him the most expensive shoes, with gold, this very hour! Really, I really like this simplicity! Here you are,” the empress continued, fixing her eyes on a middle-aged man standing further away from the others with a plump but somewhat pale face, whose modest caftan with large mother-of-pearl buttons showed that he was not one of the courtiers, “an object worthy of your witty pen!” » [Gogol 1978: 237].
Catherine shows the satirical writer what he should pay attention to - the innocence of ordinary people, and not the vices of those in power. In other words, Catherine seems to shift the writer’s attention from statesmen, from the state (power is inviolable) to the small “oddities” of ordinary, illiterate people.
Thus, in Gogol’s work, Catherine is depicted more satirically than in Pushkin.
CONCLUSIONS
The study allowed us to draw the following conclusions:
1) the study of historical and biographical materials and their comparison with works of art gives reason to say that there is an undoubted dependence of the interpretation of historical and biographical facts related to the life of the empresses on the peculiarities of the worldview of the authors of these works;
2) different assessments of the activities of the empresses presented in works of art - from categorically negative to clearly positive, bordering on delight, are due, firstly, to the complexity and contradictory nature of the characters of the women themselves, and secondly, to the moral attitudes of the authors of the works and their artistic priorities; thirdly, the existing differences in the stereotypes of assessing the personality of these rulers by representatives of different classes;
3) the fate of Cixi and Catherine II has some common features: they went through a long and difficult path to power, and therefore many of their actions from a moral point of view are far from unambiguous;
4) artistic understanding of the contradictory and ambiguous figures of the great empresses Cixi and Catherine II in works of historical prose of China and Russia contributes to a deeper understanding of the significance of the role of an individual in the historical process and understanding of the mechanisms of formation of a moral assessment of their actions at a certain historical period of time.
Convinced of Grinev’s innocence, Masha Mironova considers it her moral duty to save him. She travels to St. Petersburg, where her meeting with the Empress takes place in Tsarskoe Selo.
Catherine II appears to the reader as a benevolent, gentle and simple woman. But we know that Pushkin had a sharply negative attitude towards Catherine II. How can one explain her attractive appearance in the story?
Let's look at the lifetime portrait of Catherine II, painted by the artist V.L. Borovikovsky in 1794. (In 1827, an engraving of this portrait appeared, made by the outstanding Russian engraver N.I. Utkin.) Here is how V. Shklovsky compares the portraits of Catherine II made by V.L. Borovikovsky and the narrator in the story “The Captain’s Daughter”: “In the portrait of Catherine depicted in a morning summer dress, in a night cap; at her feet there are trees and the Rumyantsev Obelisk. The empress’s face is full and rosy. Pushkin writes: “The sun illuminated the tops of the linden trees, which had turned yellow under the fresh breath of autumn. ". Further, Pushkin reports: “She [Ekaterina] was in a white morning dress, a night cap and a shower jacket." The shower jacket made it possible not to change Catherine’s clothes, despite the cold weather... The dog from Borovikovsky’s painting also ended up in “The Captain’s Daughter”, this She was the first to notice Marya Ivanovna." There are discrepancies between the text and the image - the empress is 20 years younger, dressed in white, not blue. The second version of the portrait is described - with the Rumyantsev Obelisk; most likely, Pushkin was inspired by the engraving, and not by the original, which Rumyantsev had and was difficult to view.
And here are the words from P.A. Vyazemsky’s article “On Karamzin’s Letters,” which V. Shklovsky cites: “In Tsarskoe Selo, Catherine must not be forgotten... The monuments of her reign here tell about her. Having laid the crown from her head and the purple from her shoulders, Here she lived as a homely and kind housewife. Here, it seems, you meet her in the form and attire in which she is depicted in the famous painting by Borovikovsky, even more famous from the beautiful and excellent engraving by Utkin.”
We see that the portrait of V.L. Borovikovsky, the engraving of N.I. Utkin and the words of P.A. Vyazemsky express a noble, tender and admiring attitude towards the “gracious hostess” of Tsarskoe Selo.
Now let's turn to the story. As we know, Pushkin writes on behalf of the narrator, and the narrator - Grinev - narrates the meeting of Marya Ivanovna with the Empress from the words of Marya Ivanovna, who, of course, recalled the meeting that shocked her many times in her later life. How could these people devoted to the throne talk about Catherine II? There is no doubt: with naive simplicity and loyal adoration. “According to Pushkin’s plan,” writes the literary critic P.N. Berkov, “obviously, Catherine II in “The Captain’s Daughter” should not be shown realistically, like the real, historical Catherine: Pushkin’s goal is in accordance with the form he chose for the notes of the hero, the loyal subject nobleman, it was necessary to portray Catherine precisely in the official interpretation: even Catherine’s morning debauchery was designed to create a legend about the empress as a simple, ordinary woman."
However, let’s see if in the episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with Ekaterina and in the description of the previous circumstances there is still an author’s attitude towards them. Let us recall the facts that took place from the moment Grinev appeared in court. We know that he stopped his explanations to the court about the true reason for his unauthorized absence from Orenburg and thereby extinguished the “favor of the judges” with which they began to listen to him. Sensitive Marya Ivanovna understood why Grinev did not want to justify himself before the court, and decided to go to the queen herself to tell everything sincerely and save the groom. She succeeded. Now let's turn to the episode of the queen's meeting with Marya Ivanovna.
Grinev’s innocence became clear to Catherine from Marya Ivanovna’s story, from her petition, just as it would have become clear to the investigative commission if Grinev had finished his testimony. Marya Ivanovna told what Grinev did not say at the trial, and the queen acquitted Masha’s groom. So what is her mercy? What is humanity?
The Empress needs Grinev's innocence more than his guilt. Each nobleman who went over to Pugachev's side harmed the noble class, the support of her throne. Hence Catherine’s anger (her face changed while reading the letter and became stern), which after Marya Ivanovna’s story “changes to mercy.” The queen smiles and asks where Masha is staying. She apparently makes a decision favorable to the petitioner and reassures the captain’s daughter.
Pushkin, giving the right to tell Grinev, forces him at the same time to report facts that allow us to draw our own conclusions. Ekaterina speaks kindly to Marya Ivanovna and is friendly with her. In the palace, she picks up the girl who has fallen at her feet, shocked by her “mercy.” She utters a phrase, addressing her, her subject, as her equal: “I know that you are not rich,” she said, “but I'm in debt in front of the daughter of Captain Mironov. Don't worry about the future. I take it upon myself to arrange your fortune." How could Marya Ivanovna, who from childhood was brought up in respect for the throne and royal power, perceive these words?
Pushkin wrote about Catherine that “her... friendliness attracted her.” In a small episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with the Empress through the lips of Grinev, he speaks about this quality of Catherine, about her ability to charm people, about her ability to “take advantage of the weakness of the human soul.” After all, Marya Ivanovna is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, whose feat the queen knew about. Catherine distributed orders to officers who distinguished themselves in the war against the Pugachevites, and also helped orphaned noble families. Is it any wonder that she took care of Masha too. The Empress was not generous to her. The captain's daughter did not receive a large dowry from the queen and did not increase Grinev's wealth. Grinev's descendants, according to the publisher, i.e. Pushkin, “prospered” in a village that belonged to ten landowners.
Catherine valued the attitude of the nobility towards her and understood perfectly well what impression the “highest pardon” would make on the loyal Grinev family. Pushkin himself (and not the narrator) writes: “In one of the master’s wings they show a handwritten letter from Catherine II behind glass and in a frame,” which was passed down from generation to generation.
This is how “the legend of the empress was created as a simple, accessible to petitioners, an ordinary woman,” writes P.N. Berkov in the article “Pushkin and Catherine.”
In order to describe the image of Catherine II, you will need to refer to the work. As we already know, the narrator is Grinev, and he tells us about Marya Ivanovna’s meeting with the empress. His narration is based on Marya’s words, and she, of course, remembered this event for a very long time. What could she say about the great empress?
“According to Pushkin’s plan,” wrote P.N. Berkov, “probably the queen in “The Captain’s Daughter” should not have been depicted realistically, as a true ruler. The author wanted to show her the official interpretation: after all, even the early disabiliy of the empress was calculated on the creation of a legend about Catherine, as a simple and most ordinary person.
It is necessary to think whether there is still an author’s attitude towards them in the interaction of Masha Mironova with Ekaterina and in the description of previous events. It is necessary to recall the facts that have taken place since Grinev answered in court. It is known that he interrupted his speech in court about the real circumstances of his departure from Orenburg and this prevented favor in court.. It was clear to Marya why Grinev did not want to justify himself to the judge, and she dared to go to the empress to honestly tell her everything and save your loved one. She did it.
The queen understood from her conversation with Marya that Grinev was completely innocent of anything. She initiated her into what Grinev kept secret, and the queen returned the honest name of the beloved petitioner.
It was beneficial to her that Greene was innocent. Every nobleman who sided with Pugachev harmed the noble class, the pillar of her rule. Because of the discontent of the ruler, which after a conversation with Marya changed to mercy. Catherine smiles and finds out where the girl is staying. She probably makes a good decision for the girl and gives her hope.
The author wrote that the empress’s friendliness attracted people. In a short meeting between Mironova and Catherine through the mouth of Grinev, he talks about this quality of the queen, that she is able to charm any person, about her ability to take advantage of the weakness of a person’s soul. After all, Marya is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, she knew everything about his merits. She did not spare the order for those who distinguished themselves in the battle with the Pugachevites, and also provided assistance to the orphaned families of nobles. What is amazing is that she treated Masha with care, and besides, she did not show generosity towards her.
The Empress appreciated the attitude of the nobles towards her and was well aware of the impression her “greatest mercy” would make on the Grinevs.
Essay about Catherine II
One of the most famous novels by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, “The Captain's Daughter,” is historical, so many of the actions described in it actually happened, of course, with the author’s changes and modifications.
Throughout the entire work, the narrative is told from the perspective of the main character - the elderly officer Pyotr Grinev. Therefore, the image of Catherine II, the Great, plays an important role, which shows the attitude of the common people towards the empress. In communication with Marya Ivanovna, she appears as a good-natured, calm woman, without arrogant and arrogant behavior, and is easy to communicate with. And the fact that she was walking in the garden simply in a nightgown, without security, also shows that the woman is not trying to seem “higher” than others just because of her social status. She listens to Grinev’s wife completely, does not rush or interrupt.
Of course, Pushkin is not describing the real empress. According to his plan, he wanted to present Catherine the Great not as a formidable ruler, but as a simple, ordinary person. The image of the benefactor is a disguise of the author's real attitude towards the ruler. And besides, the narrator of this story is Grinev, a simple military man who saw the empress exactly like that and felt a kind of adoration for her.
The queen is courteous towards Maria, even independently helping a girl who had fallen at her feet due to shock to get up. She talks to Maria as an equal, with respect, and not as a subject. By showing mercy, the empress showed her caring attitude towards the problem of a poor military family. Yes, even if she did not provide Grinev’s wife with a rich dowry, she still tried to help them.
Of course, Catherine II could not do otherwise, because the girl’s father tried to resist the uprising, heroically fought with Pugachev’s army and died in the process. Pugachev and his army were enemies of autocratic power, and, consequently, opponents of Catherine II herself.
Pushkin's true attitude towards Catherine II is expressed only in his notes on Russian history of the 18th century. And it was radically different from the “Grinev” attitude.
Several interesting essays
- Essay on Savrasov's painting Winter 3rd grade description
The painting “Winter” stands out from all the author’s creative works. A narrow path divided the canvas into two parts. On the left, a dense forest and a couple of trees by the side of the road open to our attention. On the right there are only two lifeless birches.
The images of Emelyan Pugachev and Empress Catherine II are symbols of power. We can say that these historical figures are at different poles, they are radically opposite.
Pushkin gave a real portrait of the empress in this episode: “She was in a white morning dress, a nightcap and a shower jacket. She seemed to be about forty years old. Her face, plump and ruddy, expressed importance and calmness, and her blue eyes and light smile had an inexplicable charm.”
The image of Catherine II, fair, merciful, grateful, was written by Pushkin with undisguised sympathy, fanned with a romantic aura. This is not a portrait of a real person, but a generalized image. Catherine is the shrine that the nobles defended in the war with Pugachev.
Catherine listens carefully to Masha Mironova and promises to look into her request, although the empress’s attitude towards the “traitor” Grinev is sharply negative. Having learned all the details of the case and being imbued with sincere sympathy for the captain’s daughter, Ekaterina has mercy on Masha’s fiancé and promises to take care of the girl’s material well-being: “... but I am indebted to the daughter of Captain Mironov. Don't worry about the future. I take it upon myself to arrange your condition.”
The Empress needs Grinev's innocence more than his guilt. Each nobleman who went over to Pugachev's side harmed the noble class, the support of her throne. Hence Catherine’s anger (her face changed while reading the letter and became stern), which after Marya Ivanovna’s story “changes to mercy.” The queen smiles and asks where Masha is staying. She apparently makes a decision favorable to the petitioner and reassures the captain’s daughter.
Pushkin, giving the right to tell Grinev, forces him at the same time to report facts that allow us to draw our own conclusions. Ekaterina speaks kindly to Marya Ivanovna and is friendly with her. In the palace, she picks up the girl who has fallen at her feet, shocked by her “mercy.” She utters a phrase, addressing her, her subject, as her equal: “I know that you are not rich,” she said, “but I am indebted to the daughter of Captain Mironov. Don’t worry about the future. I take it upon myself to arrange your fortune " How could Marya Ivanovna, who from childhood was brought up in respect for the throne and royal power, perceive these words?
Pushkin wrote about Catherine that “her... friendliness attracted her.” In a small episode of Masha Mironova’s meeting with the Empress through the lips of Grinev, he speaks about this quality of Catherine, about her ability to charm people, about her ability to “take advantage of the weakness of the human soul.” After all, Marya Ivanovna is the daughter of the hero, Captain Mironov, whose feat the queen knew about. Catherine distributed orders to officers who distinguished themselves in the war against the Pugachevites, and also helped orphaned noble families. Is it any wonder that she took care of Masha too. The Empress was not generous to her. The captain's daughter did not receive a large dowry from the queen and did not increase Grinev's wealth. Grinev's descendants, according to the publisher, i.e. Pushkin, “prospered” in a village that belonged to ten landowners.
Catherine valued the attitude of the nobility towards her and understood perfectly well what impression the “highest pardon” would make on the loyal Grinev family. Pushkin himself (and not the narrator) writes: “In one of the master’s wings they show a handwritten letter from Catherine II behind glass and in a frame,” which was passed down from generation to generation.
But Pugachev’s help to Grinev was much more real - he saved his life and helped save Masha. This is a striking contrast.