43 pages • 1 hour read
Ivo AndricThe Bridge on the Drina
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1945A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Character Analysis
Themes
Symbols & Motifs
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaSymbols & Motifs
The Bridge
The eponymous bridge on the Drina is the most distinct symbol in the text. The construction of the bridge occupies the opening passages of the novel, while the destruction of the bridge is the closing image. In that sense, the bridge bookends the text. It is the subject of the narrative, and it also symbolizes the link between the east and the west. It brings together two distinct communities: the eastern, oriental, Muslim Turks and the western, Christian Serbs. With this particular area of the Balkans becoming such a hotbed of nationalism and conflict during the author’s lifetime (and beyond), the symbolic meaning of the bridge suggests that common ground can be found between these two groups, though it is not always easy.
At the center of the bridge is the kapia. This flattened, extended area becomes a center of the community. Men meet, drink, sing, and smoke cigarettes on the kapia. People do business there, and it hosts acts of historical importance, such as executions and suicides. If the bridge is the symbol of the joined communities, then the kapia is the communal space where this unity is tested to its extremes. Over the course of time, however, the occupants of the kapia change. At first, only the Turkish residents are found there. After the Ottomans leave, more Serbs can be found there, enjoying themselves in the same fashion. In the later stages of the text, it is increasingly filled with students who argue about politics and the future. The change in the identity of those who occupy the kapia reflects the changing fortunes of the state: first Turkish, then Christian, then under siege from a growing political movement.
This growing political movement—discussed most frequently by the students—is nationalism. The bridge too comes to embody the rising dangers of nationalism. Fearing attack from Serbian separatists, the Austrians plant a mine in the bridge. The symbolic meaning is clear: The fear of nationalism has brought about the potential destruction of the bond between east and west. Ultimately, the bridge is destroyed during the outbreak of the First World War, the catalyst of which was an attack by a Serbian anarchist. Nationalism, in a sense, destroys the bridge and destroys the link between the communities at the same time.
The River
If the bridge is the symbol of the link between communities, then the river reflects a more ancient and perhaps more powerful force: nature. the construction of the bridge is an attempt to overcome the natural barriers to movement imposed on Višegrad by the local natural geography. The river is strong and powerful, and only one ferryman exists who can help people cross. When the bridge is built, Višegrad immediately becomes important. In Višegrad, they have tamed the powerful Drina. This allows the community to feel elevated and important, as though they have won a major victory over a powerful foe.
However, the threat of the river does not subside. Though the bridge is strong and resolute, the river finds ways to overcome the people of Višegrad. At various times, it bursts its banks and swallows the town in a destructive flood. The worst of these practically destroys many homes and businesses, bringing a ruin from which certain families will never recover. When the water recedes, the bridge remains intact, but the rest of Višegrad is destroyed. Even when the people think they have tamed the river, the Drina is able to remind them of her power. This has an important symbolic meaning, reminding the townspeople (and the audience) of their inherent weaknesses.
Even when the river is low, it is still able to pose a threat. The bridge towers high above the water, meaning that those who jump over the parapet are falling to their death. Fata, promised in marriage to a man she does not love, chooses this mode of suicide. She decides to give herself over to the river, to lose herself in its power, rather than to live with a man whom she will never love. The Drina, in this moment, is a powerful and threatening symbol. It swallows the renowned beauty up, drowning Fata and throwing up her body on the bank downstream. It bruises her skin, rips apart her clothes, and robs her of that humane and natural beauty that drove men to write songs about her. The river is able to steal beauty from the world in such a fashion and thus must be feared. Those who see the body will not talk about it; they have witnessed firsthand what the river can do to even the best among the townspeople. As much as the bridge is a link between the east and the west, it is also an example of man’s attempt to wrest away control from nature. Though the bridge endures, the Drina remains a powerful and potent symbol of what nature can inflict on the people of Višegrad.
The Caravanserai
Built at the same time as the bridge, the caravanserai (and the barracks built on the same site) become a key motif, reflecting the rise and fall of two different empires. With both infrastructure projects facing similar fates, it depicts a cyclical and inevitable collapse that is seemingly inherent to large imperial ventures.
The caravanserai is built by the same crew who build the bridge. In many ways, it is just as essential. Designed as a tavern where travelers can spend the night, the need for such a building is an extension of the importance of the bridge for the local economy. It demonstrates how the construction of the bridge will bring a great deal of passing trade and that the empire has already foreseen the local issues that this can bring, so thus provides a readymade solution, which the locals name the stone han. This suggests that the Ottoman Empire is used for such building projects and has the competency to avoid such issues. However, the means of funding the project is also a comment on imperialism. The funds come from the conquest of Hungary by the Ottomans. This pays for the upkeep of the caravanserai. When the Ottoman Empire faces issues and contracts, leaving Hungary behind, there are no longer any funds for the caravanserai and it falls into disrepair. Just as the construction of the building was a reflection of the empire’s competency, the eventual ruin of the building is a reflection of their waning power.
When the Austrians take over, they institute an infrastructure project of their own. They take down the caravanserai brick-by-brick and build a barracks on the same spot. The locals, however, keep calling the barracks the stone han, an indication that they view this new building as just as much an extension of imperial power as the caravanserai. Like the caravanserai, the barracks are a consecration of imperial power, demonstrating to the locals the importance and the strength of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just like the Ottomans, their power also begins to wane. Eventually, the barracks are destroyed during the First World War, a conflict that will lead to the ultimate destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and, indeed, many imperial projects around the world. The construction and the destruction of the buildings on the site of the caravanserai becomes a symbol for the rise and fall of empires, suggesting that they are alike in more ways than they realize, as well as being more fragile than they ever imagined.
