The main problem is who can live well in Rus'. Moral problems in Nekrasov's poem: who can live well in Rus'?
Introduction
“The people are liberated, but are the people happy?” Nekrasov asked this question, formulated in the poem “Elegy,” more than once. In his final work, “Who Lives Well in Rus',” the problem of happiness becomes the fundamental problem on which the plot of the poem is based.
Seven men from different villages (the names of these villages - Gorelovo, Neelovo, etc. make it clear to the reader that they have never seen happiness in them) set off on a journey in search of happiness. The plot of searching for something in itself is very common and is often found in fairy tales, as well as in hagiographic literature, where a long and dangerous journey to the Holy Land was often described. As a result of such a search, the hero acquires a very valuable thing (remember the fairy-tale I-don’t-know-what), or, in the case of pilgrims, grace. What will the wanderers find from Nekrasov’s poem? As you know, their search for happiness will not be crowned with success - either because the author did not have time to finish his poem, or because, due to their spiritual immaturity, they are still not ready to see a truly happy person. To answer this question, let’s look at how the problem of happiness is transformed in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'.”
Evolution of the concept of “happiness” in the minds of the main characters
“Peace, wealth, honor” - this formula of happiness, derived at the beginning of the poem by the priest, exhaustively describes the understanding of happiness not only for the priest. It conveys the original, superficial view of the happiness of wanderers. Peasants who have lived in poverty for many years cannot imagine happiness that is not supported by material wealth and universal respect. They form a list of possible lucky ones according to their ideas: priest, boyar, landowner, official, minister and tsar. And, although Nekrasov did not have time to realize all his plans in the poem - the chapter where the wanderers would reach the tsar remained unwritten, but already two from this list - the priest and the landowner, were enough for the men to be disappointed in their initial view for luck.
The stories of the priest and the landowner, met by wanderers on the road, are quite similar to each other. Both sound sadness about the past happy, satisfying times, when power and prosperity themselves fell into their hands. Now, as shown in the poem, the landowners were taken away everything that made up their usual way of life: land, obedient slaves, and in return they were given an unclear and even frightening covenant to work. And so the happiness that seemed unshakable disappeared like smoke, leaving only regrets in its place: “... the landowner began to cry.”
After listening to these stories, the men abandon their original plan - they begin to understand that real happiness lies in something else. On their way they come across a peasant fair - a place where many peasants gather. The men decide to look for the happy one among them. The problematic of the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” changes - it becomes important for wanderers to find not just an abstract happy person, but a happy one among the common people.
But none of the recipes for happiness proposed by people at the fair - neither the fabulous turnip harvest, nor the opportunity to eat enough bread, nor magical power, nor even a miraculous accident that allowed us to stay alive - convinces our wanderers. They develop an understanding that happiness cannot depend on material things and the simple preservation of life. This is confirmed by the life story of Ermil Girin, told there at the fair. Yermil always tried to act truthfully, and in any position - burgomaster, scribe, and then miller - he enjoyed the love of the people. To some extent, he serves as a harbinger of another hero, Grisha Dobrosklonov, who also devoted his whole life to serving the people. But what kind of gratitude was there for Yermil’s actions? They shouldn’t consider him happy, they tell the men, Yermil is in prison because he stood up for the peasants during the riot...
The image of happiness as freedom in the poem
A simple peasant woman, Matryona Timofeevna, offers wanderers a look at the problem of happiness from the other side. Having told them the story of her life, full of hardships and troubles - only then was she happy, as a child she lived with her parents - she adds:
"The keys to women's happiness,
From our free will,
Abandoned, lost..."
Happiness is compared to a thing unattainable for a long time for peasants - free will, i.e. freedom. Matryona obeyed all her life: to her husband, his unkind family, the evil will of the landowners who killed her eldest son and wanted to flog the younger one, injustice, because of which her husband was taken into the army. She receives some kind of joy in life only when she decides to rebel against this injustice and goes to ask for her husband. This is when Matryona finds peace of mind:
"Okay, easy,
Clear in my heart"
And this definition of happiness as freedom, apparently, is to the liking of the men, because already in the next chapter they indicate the goal of their journey as follows:
“We are looking, Uncle Vlas,
Unflogged province,
Ungutted parish,
Izbytkova village"
It is clear that here the first place is no longer given to “excess” - wealth, but to “purity”, a sign of freedom. The men realized that they would have wealth after they had the opportunity to manage their own lives. And here Nekrasov raises another important moral problem - the problem of servility in the minds of Russian people. Indeed, at the time of the creation of the poem, the peasants already had freedom - the decree on the abolition of serfdom. But they have yet to learn to live as free people. It is not for nothing that in the chapter “The Last One” many of the Vakhlachans so easily agree to play the role of imaginary serfs - this role is profitable, and, what is there to hide, habitual, not forcing one to think about the future. Freedom of speech has already been obtained, but the men still stand in front of the landowner, taking off their hats, and he graciously allows them to sit down (chapter “Landowner”). The author shows how dangerous such pretense is - Agap, supposedly flogged to please the old prince, actually dies in the morning, unable to bear the shame:
“The man is raw, special,
The head is unbowed”...
Conclusion
So, as we see, in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” the problems are quite complex and detailed and cannot be reduced in the end to simply finding a happy person. The main problem of the poem is precisely that, as the wandering of the men shows, the people are not yet ready to become happy, they do not see the right path. The consciousness of wanderers gradually changes, and they become able to discern the essence of happiness beyond its earthly components, but every person has to go through this path. Therefore, instead of the lucky one, at the end of the poem the figure of the people's intercessor, Grisha Dobrosklonov, appears. He himself is not from the peasant class, but from the clergy, which is why he so clearly sees the intangible component of happiness: a free, educated Rus' that has recovered from centuries of slavery. Grisha is unlikely to be happy on his own: fate is preparing for him “consumption and Siberia.” But he embodies in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” the people's happiness, which is yet to come. Along with the voice of Grisha, singing joyful songs about free Rus', one can hear the convinced voice of Nekrasov himself: when the peasants are freed not only verbally, but also internally, then each individual person will be happy.
The given thoughts about happiness in Nekrasov’s poem will be useful to 10th grade students when preparing an essay on the topic “The problem of happiness in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'”.”
Work test
The problem of happiness in the poem by N. A. Nekrasov “Who Lives Well in Rus'”
One of Nekrasov’s central works is the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” It reflected most of the motives and ideas that can be traced in Nekrasov’s works throughout his entire career: the problems of serfdom, features of the Russian national character, the motives of people’s suffering and people’s happiness - all this can be seen on the pages of the poem. A kind of depth is also created by the “incompleteness” of the poem, because the scale of the narrative and the lack of a clear ending forces readers to look at the questions posed by Nekrasov as general historical ones. Thanks to this, the narrow time frame described in the poem expands, covering several centuries of the history of the Russian people, reflecting all aspects of the life of the peasant class. And the definition of national happiness requires especially deep and serious consideration.
According to the plot, seven men meet “on a high street”:
They came together and argued:
Who has fun?
Free in Rus'?
While arguing, they did not notice how “the red sun had set” and evening came. Realizing that they were “about thirty miles away” from the house, the men decided to spend the night “under the forest along the path.” In the morning, the argument continued with renewed vigor, and the men decide that they will not return home “until they find out” that they are truly happy in Rus'.
They go in search of a happy person. Here it makes sense to note that their criteria for happiness are quite vague, because “happiness” is a rather multifaceted concept. It is quite possible that men do not notice a happy person simply because their concepts of happiness differ from this person. This is precisely why wanderers do not see a happy person in anyone they meet. Although, for example, the sexton says:
...happiness is not in pastures,
Not in sables, not in gold,
Not in expensive stones.
“And what?” - “In complacency!..”
The happiness of a soldier lies in the fact that he has been in many battles, but remained intact, that he did not starve or be beaten to death with sticks:
...firstly, happiness,
That in twenty battles I was killed and not killed!
And secondly, more important than that,
Even in times of peace I walked neither full nor hungry,
But he didn’t give in to death!
And thirdly - for offenses,
Great and small
I was beaten mercilessly with sticks,
Just touch it - it's alive!
In turn, the landowner Gavrila Afanasyich Obolt-Obolduev has completely different values:
...Your villages are modest,
Your forests are dense,
Your fields are all around!
Will you go to the village - the peasants will fall at your feet,
You will go through forest dachas - Forests will bow to hundred-year-old trees!..
Too different ideas about happiness are found in the poem. The reader can find in the work reflections on peasant happiness,
the landowner's happiness, but there is no female happiness in “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” And Matryona Timofeevna explains this to us exhaustively:
The keys to women's happiness,
From our free will Abandoned, lost from God himself!
By introducing readers to various concepts of happiness, Nekrasov not only shows the ambiguity of the problem, but also explains the existence of a huge gap between classes that has persisted in Russia for many centuries. The question of the source of the people's suffering is also ambiguous here. It would seem that the answer is obvious: the existing tsarist regime, popular poverty and oppression and, of course, serfdom, the abolition of which in no way changed or simplified the painful existence of the peasants, are to blame for everything:
You work alone
And the work is almost over,
Look, there are three shareholders standing:
God, king and lord!
However, the author's position here is somewhat different. Nekrasov does not deny the terrible burden of peasant labor, but he also portrays the men themselves as powerful, unbending, capable of withstanding any work. He shows that all misfortunes happen to men by chance, as if regardless of the oppression of the landowners: Yakim Nagoy suffers from a fire, and Savely, having accidentally dozed off, loses Demushka.
By this, Nekrasov wants to show that the true reasons for the people’s suffering lie much deeper and that the Russian peasant will not find happiness in gaining freedom. From the author’s point of view, true happiness requires something completely different.
The reader can see this completely different, true happiness in the image of Grigory Dobrosklonov - a character in which Nekrasov combined the features of the leading people of that time, the features of people who were especially close to the author (among them was N. G. Chernyshevsky):
Fate had prepared a glorious path for him, a great name
People's Defender,
Consumption and Siberia.
Grigory Dobrosklonov, being a people's defender, is a truly happy person, Nekrasov believes. Despite his difficult fate, he does not become a slave to circumstances, but continues his difficult path. Love for his homeland is the most natural feeling for him, comparable to love for his mother:
And soon in the boy’s heart With love for his poor mother Love for all the Vakhlachina Merged...
The hero's real happiness lay in this boundless love and struggle for the happiness of the people:
“I don’t need any silver or gold, but God willing,
So that my fellow countrymen and every peasant may live freely and cheerfully throughout all holy Rus'!”
Dobrosklonov understands that society requires radical changes, that Russian people must destroy their slavish submission to fate and fight to improve the lives of themselves and those around them:
Enough! Finished with past settlement,
The settlement with the master has been completed!
The Russian people are gathering strength and learning to be citizens.
This is how the author sees the problem of national happiness in a multifaceted way. In addition to the ambiguity of the very concept of “happiness,” the reader also sees different ways to achieve it. In addition, in the poem you can see the most beautiful idea of happiness, coupled here with the achievement of the public good. Nekrasov did not complete the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” but pointed out the right path to achieving civil ideals, as well as freedom and personal happiness of people.
The question of happiness is central to the poem. It is this question that drives seven wanderers around Russia and forces them, one after another, to sort out the “candidates” for the happy ones. In the ancient Russian book tradition, the genre of travel, pilgrimage to the Holy Land was well known, which, in addition to visiting “holy places,” had a symbolic meaning and meant the pilgrim’s internal ascent to spiritual perfection. Behind the visible movement was hidden a secret, invisible - towards God.
Gogol was guided by this tradition in the poem “Dead Souls”; its presence is also felt in Nekrasov’s poem. The men never find happiness, but they get another, unexpected spiritual result.
“Peace, wealth, honor” is the formula of happiness proposed to the wanderers by their first interlocutor, the priest. The priest easily convinces the men that there is neither one nor the other, nor the third in his life, but at the same time he does not offer them anything in return, without even mentioning other forms of happiness. It turns out that happiness is exhausted by peace, wealth and honor in his own ideas.
The turning point in the men’s journey is a visit to a rural fair. Here the wanderers suddenly understand that true happiness cannot consist either in a wonderful turnip harvest, or in heroic physical strength, or in the bread that one of the “happy” eats to the full, or even in a saved life - the soldier boasts that he came out alive from many battles, and a man going to bear - that he outlived many of his fellow craftsmen. But none of the “happy” people can convince them that they are truly happy. The seven wanderers gradually realize that happiness is not a material category, not related to earthly well-being or even earthly existence. The story of the next “lucky” one, Ermila Girin, finally convinces them of this.
Wanderers are told the story of his life in detail. Whatever position Ermil Girin finds himself in - clerk, mayor, miller - he invariably lives in the interests of the people, remains honest and fair to the common people. According to those who remembered him, this, apparently, was what his happiness should have consisted of - in selfless service to the peasants. But at the end of the story about Girin, it turns out that he is unlikely to be happy, because he is now sitting in prison, where he ended up (apparently) because he did not want to take part in pacifying the popular revolt. Girin turns out to be the harbinger of Grisha Dobrosklonov, who will also one day end up in Siberia for his love of the people, but it is this love that constitutes the main joy of his life.
After the fair, the wanderers meet Obolt-Obolduev. The landowner, like the priest, also speaks of peace, wealth, and honor (“honor”). Only one more important component is added by Obolt-Obolduev to the priest’s formula - for him, happiness also lies in power over his serfs.
“Whom I want, I will have mercy, / Whom I want, I will execute,” Obolt-Obolduev dreamily recalls about past times. The men were late, he was happy, but in his former, irretrievably gone life.
Then the wanderers forget about their own list of happy ones: landowner - official - priest - noble boyar - minister of the sovereign - tsar. Only two from this long list are inextricably linked with the life of the people - the landowner and the priest, but they have already been interviewed; an official, a boyar, especially a tsar, would hardly add anything significant to a poem about the Russian people, a Russian plowman, and therefore neither the author nor the wanderers ever turn to them. A peasant woman is a completely different matter.
Matryona Timofeevna Korchagina opens to readers another page of the story about the Russian peasantry dripping with tears and blood; she tells the men about the suffering she suffered, about the “spiritual storm” that invisibly “passed” through her. All her life, Matryona Timofeevna felt squeezed in the clutches of other people's, unkind wills and desires - she was forced to obey her mother-in-law, father-in-law, daughters-in-law, her own master, and unfair orders, according to which her husband was almost taken as a soldier. Her definition of happiness, which she once heard from a wanderer in a “woman’s parable,” is also connected with this.
The keys to women's happiness,
From our free will,
Abandoned, lost
From God himself!
Happiness is equated here with “free will”, that’s what it turns out to be - in “free will”, that is, in freedom.
In the chapter “A Feast for the Whole World,” the wanderers echo Matryona Timofeevna: when asked what they are looking for, the men no longer remember the interest that pushed them on the road. They say:
We are looking, Uncle Vlas,
Unflogged province,
Ungutted parish,
Izbytkova sat down.
“Not flogged”, “not gutted”, that is, free. Excess, or contentment, material well-being are placed in last place here. The men have already come to the understanding that excess is just the result of “free will.” Let us not forget that external freedom by the time the poem was created had already entered peasant life, the bonds of serfdom had disintegrated, and provinces that had never been “flogged” were about to appear. But the habits of slavery are too ingrained in the Russian peasantry - and not only in the courtyard people, whose ineradicable servility has already been discussed. Look how easily the former serfs of the Last One agree to play a comedy and again pretend to be slaves - the role is too familiar, habitual and... convenient. They have yet to learn the role of free, independent people.
The peasants mock the Last One, not noticing that they have fallen into a new dependence - on the whims of his heirs. This slavery is already voluntary - all the more terrible it is. And Nekrasov gives the reader a clear indication that the game is not as harmless as it seems - Agap Petrov, who is forced to scream allegedly under the rods, suddenly dies. The men who portrayed the “punishment” did not even touch it with a finger, but invisible reasons turn out to be more significant and destructive than visible ones. Proud Agap, the only one of the men who objected to the new “collar,” cannot stand his own shame.
Perhaps the wanderers do not find happy people among the common people also because the people are not yet ready to be happy (that is, according to Nekrasov’s system, completely free). The happy one in the poem is not the peasant, but the sexton’s son, seminarian Grisha Dobrosklonov. A hero who understands well the spiritual aspect of happiness.
Grisha experiences happiness by composing a song about Rus', finding the right words about his homeland and people. And this is not only creative delight, it is the joy of insight into one’s own future. In Grisha’s new song, not cited by Nekrasov, the “embodiment of people’s happiness” is glorified. And Grisha understands that it will be he who will help the people “embody” this happiness.
Fate had in store for him
The path is glorious, the name is loud
People's Defender,
Consumption and Siberia.
Grisha is followed by several prototypes at once, his surname is a clear allusion to the surname of Dobrolyubov, his fate includes the main milestones of the path of Belinsky, Dobrolyubov (both died of consumption), Chernyshevsky (Siberia). Like Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, Grisha also comes from a spiritual environment. In Grisha one can also discern the autobiographical traits of Nekrasov himself. He is a poet, and Nekrasov easily conveys his lyre to the hero; Through Grisha’s youthful tenor, Nikolai Alekseevich’s dull voice clearly sounds: the style of Grisha’s songs exactly reproduces the style of Nekrasov’s poems. Grisha is just not Nekrasov-like cheerful.
He is happy, but wanderers are not destined to know about this; the feelings overwhelming Grisha are simply inaccessible to them, which means their path will continue. If we, following the author’s notes, move the chapter “Peasant Woman” to the end of the poem, the ending will not be so optimistic, but deeper.
In “Elegy,” one of his most “soulful,” by his own definition, poems, Nekrasov wrote: “The people are liberated, but are the people happy?” The author’s doubts also appear in “The Peasant Woman.” Matryona Timofeevna does not even mention the reform in her story - is it because her life changed little even after her liberation, that there was no more “free spirit” in her?
The poem remained unfinished, and the question of happiness open. Nevertheless, we caught the “dynamics” of the men’s journey. From earthly ideas about happiness, they move to the understanding that happiness is a spiritual category and to achieve it, changes are necessary not only in the social, but also in the spiritual structure of every peasant.
Nekrasov’s work is undoubtedly interesting to every reader, because the author managed to touch upon such important and relevant problems for our time. Here we can find the author’s thoughts not only about the national hero and happiness, but also get acquainted with his opinion about universal human values.
I would like to consider how Nekrasov interprets such a concept as “happiness”, what he sees as its features and how he expresses it in his poem.
To begin with, it is worth noting the fact that since the author uses Russian folklore in his work and depicts fairy-tale heroes who go in search of happiness, we can conclude that for Nekrasov this concept is associated primarily with something magical, with faith, with higher powers.
We see that the main characters of the poem, the Nekrasovs, have set themselves an important goal - to find “peasant happiness.” And they decided to walk around Mother Rus' until they found someone “Who lives happily and at ease in Rus'.” In Nekrasov's poem, discussions about happiness are described in the form of an argument. Each of the travelers talks about happiness in his own understanding.
The first they met was a priest who sees happiness in peace, honor and wealth. So our heroes met many different people on their way, who, in turn, openly told the wanderers their perception of “happiness.” So, for the landowner Gavrila Afanasyevich, happiness lies in unlimited power over the peasant. For the peasants, it is to have a productive year, so that everyone is healthy and well-fed, the soldier considers himself happy because he was in twenty battles and survived, the old woman is happy because she had up to a thousand turnips born on a small ridge, For the Belarusian peasant, happiness is in the bread. Peasant Matryona Timofeevna, who carried human dignity, nobility and rebellion through all the horrors of her life. Ermil Girin - beloved by his fellow villagers for his honesty, intelligence and selfless devotion to the interests of the peasants - mayor. During seven years of fair service, Yermila “sinned” once: “...he shielded his younger brother Mitri from the recruiting force,” and instead of Mitri, he gave the widow’s son as a soldier. Out of remorse, Girin wanted to hang himself. But thanks to the prince, the widow’s son was nevertheless returned, and Mitri was sent to serve. Also, he sided with the rebellious peasants, for which he was sent to prison. Happiness for him is in helping people.
It is worth saying that Nekrasov’s question about who is happy smoothly flows into: “What is happiness?”
We see that for Nekrasov, happiness lies not only in making oneself happy, but in giving warmth and kindness to the people around him, so to speak, giving them a piece of happiness.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I fully share the position of the author of the work “Who Lives Well in Rus'?” It is unlikely that a person will fully feel happy when everyone around him is unhappy, which is why I believe that happiness lies in giving it to people.
N.A.’s work continued for about fourteen years, from 1863 to 1876. Nekrasov on the most significant work in his work - the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'”. Despite the fact that, unfortunately, the poem was never completed and only individual chapters of it have reached us, later arranged by textual critics in chronological order, Nekrasov’s work can rightfully be called “an encyclopedia of Russian life.” In terms of the breadth of coverage of events, the detailed depiction of characters, and amazing artistic accuracy, it is not inferior to “Eugene Onegin” by A.S. Pushkin.
In parallel with the depiction of folk life, the poem raises questions of morality, touches on the ethical problems of the Russian peasantry and the entire Russian society of that time, since it is the people who always act as the bearer of moral norms and universal ethics in general.
The main idea of the poem follows directly from its title: who in Rus' can be considered a truly happy person?
One of the main categories of morality underlying the concept of national happiness, according to the author. Loyalty to duty to the Motherland, service to one’s people. According to Nekrasov, those who fight for justice and “happiness of their native corner” live well in Rus'.
The peasant heroes of the poem, looking for “happy”, do not find it either among the landowners, or among the priests, or among the peasants themselves. The poem depicts the only happy person - Grisha Dobrosklonov, who devoted his life to the struggle for people's happiness. Here the author expresses, in my opinion, an absolutely indisputable idea that one cannot be a true citizen of one’s country without doing anything to improve the situation of the people, who constitute the strength and pride of the Fatherland.
True, Nekrasov’s happiness is very relative: for the “people's protector” Grisha, “fate was preparing... consumption and Siberia.” However, it is difficult to argue with the fact that fidelity to duty and a clear conscience are necessary conditions for real happiness.
The poem also acutely addresses the problem of the moral decline of Russian people, who, due to their horrific economic situation, are placed in conditions in which people lose their human dignity, turning into lackeys and drunkards. Thus, the stories of the footman, the “beloved slave” of Prince Peremetyev, or the yard man of Prince Utyatin, the song “About the exemplary slave, the faithful Yakov” are a kind of parables, instructive examples of what kind of spiritual servility and moral degradation the serfdom of the peasants led to, and before of all - servants, corrupted by personal dependence on the landowner. This is Nekrasov’s reproach to a great people, powerful in their inner strength, who have resigned themselves to the position of a slave.
Nekrasov’s lyrical hero actively protests against this slave psychology, calls the peasantry to self-awareness, calls on the entire Russian people to free themselves from centuries-old oppression and feel like citizens. The poet perceives the peasantry not as a faceless mass, but as a creative people; he considered the people the real creator of human history.
However, the most terrible consequence of centuries of slavery, according to the author of the poem, is that many peasants are satisfied with their humiliated position, because they cannot imagine another life for themselves, they cannot imagine how they can exist in any other way. For example, the footman Ipat, subservient to his master, talks with reverence and almost with pride about how the master dipped him into an ice hole in winter and forced him to play the violin while standing in a flying sleigh. Prince Peremetyev’s lackey is proud of his “lordly” illness and the fact that “he licked the plates with the best French truffle.”
Considering the perverted psychology of the peasants as a direct consequence of the autocratic serfdom system, Nekrasov also points to another product of serfdom - incessant drunkenness, which has become a real disaster in the Russian countryside.
For many men in the poem, the idea of happiness comes down to vodka. Even in the fairy tale about the warbler, seven truth-seekers, when asked what they would like, answer: “If only we had some bread... and a bucket of vodka.” In the chapter “Rural Fair”, wine flows like a river, people are getting drunk en masse. The men return home drunk, where they become a real disaster for their family. We see one such man, Vavilushka, who drank to the last penny, and who laments that he cannot even buy goatskin boots for his granddaughter.
Another moral problem that Nekrasov touches on is the problem of sin. The poet sees the path to the salvation of a person’s soul in the atonement of sin. This is what Girin, Savely, Kudeyar do; Elder Gleb is not like that. Burmister Ermil Girin, having sent the son of a lonely widow as a recruit, thereby saving his own brother from soldiering, atones for his guilt by serving the people, remaining faithful to them even in a moment of mortal danger.
However, the most serious crime against the people is described in one of Grisha’s songs: the village headman Gleb withholds the news of emancipation from his peasants, thus leaving eight thousand people in the bondage of slavery. According to Nekrasov, nothing can atone for such a crime.
The reader of Nekrasov’s poem develops a feeling of acute bitterness and resentment for their ancestors, who hoped for better times, but were forced to live in “empty volosts” and “tightened up provinces” more than a hundred years after the abolition of serfdom.
Revealing the essence of the concept of “people's happiness,” the poet points out that the only true way to achieve it is a peasant revolution. The idea of retribution for the people's suffering is most clearly formulated in the ballad “About Two Great Sinners,” which is a kind of ideological key to the entire poem. The robber Kudeyar throws off the “burden of sins” only when he kills Pan Glukhovsky, known for his atrocities. Killing a villain, according to the author, is not a crime, but a feat worthy of a reward. Here Nekrasov’s idea comes into conflict with Christian ethics. The poet conducts a hidden polemic with F.M. Dostoevsky, who asserted the inadmissibility and impossibility of building a just society on blood, who believed that the very thought of murder is already a crime. And I can’t help but agree with these statements! One of the most important Christian commandments is: “Thou shalt not kill!” After all, a person who takes the life of someone like himself, thereby kills the person in himself, commits a grave crime before life itself, before God.
Therefore, justifying violence from the position of revolutionary democracy, Nekrasov’s lyrical hero calls Russia “to the axe” (in Herzen’s words), which, as we know, led to a revolution that turned into the most terrible sin for its perpetrators and the greatest disaster for our people.
