Poem by N.A. Nekrasov can rightfully be considered an epic of Russian life in the middle of the last century. The author called the poem “his favorite brainchild,” and he collected material for it, as he himself put it, “word by word for twenty years.” Nekrasov raises the main issue of that time with unusual poignancy - the life of feudal Russia and the consequences of breaking down serfdom, the fate of the ordinary Russian people and historical role landowners.
Along with the depiction of peasants, the author introduces us to the life of landowners.
For the first time, the image of the landowner appears in the fifth chapter, which is called “The Landowner.” This is how the peasants saw him:
The landowner was rosy-cheeked,
Stately, planted,
Sixty years old;
Long gray mustache
Well done...
The landowner's name is Gavrilo Afanasyevich Obolt-Obolduev. When asked by the peasants whether he is happy, the master laughs sincerely and for a long time, and then with regret recalls the past years, full of prosperity, fun, idle life and complete self-government:
Time flew by like a falcon,
The landowner's chest was breathing
Free and easy.
During the time of the boyars,
In ancient Russian order
The spirit was transferred!
There is no contradiction in anyone,
I will have mercy on whomever I want,
I'll execute whoever I want.
The law is my desire!
The fist is my police!
But “it’s all gone! everything is over!...", reform of 1861. canceled serfdom, but it clearly showed that it was not completed. Little has changed in the lives of the peasants, but the landowners began to live somewhat differently after the abolition of serfdom:
Disassembled brick by brick
A beautiful manor house,
And neatly folded
Bricks in the columns!
The extensive garden of the landowner
Under the peasant's ax
All laid down, the man admires,
How much firewood came out!
However, even the changes that have occurred in life cannot force Obolt-Obolduev to work and respect the work of others:
Noble classes
We don't learn how to work.
We have a bad official
And he won’t wash the floors,
The stove will not light...
The landowner is not going to learn anything and hopes, as before, to live off the labor of the peasants. Probably for the rest of his life he will remember the old days and yearn for his unlimited power, for idle idleness.
The landowner Utyatin, who “has been weird and foolish all his life,” is a match for him. “But suddenly a thunderstorm struck,” serfdom was abolished in Rus', and the landowner “suffered a blow from grief.” To get the inheritance, his children, in agreement with the peasants, put on a real performance in front of Utyatin. The landowner is told that he was not left “without a patrimony,” but in Rus' there is still serfdom:
New orders, not current ones
He can't bear it.
Take care of your father!
Be silent, bow down
Don't tell the sick man...
So the sick and stupid landowner lives in ignorance:
Sees a plowman in the field
And for his own lane
Barks: and lazy people
And we are couch potatoes!
Yes, the Last One doesn’t know
That it’s been a long time since she’s a lord,
And our streak...
Every day, his former serfs play “gum” in front of Utyatin, listening, for a reward, to the lord’s ridiculous “orders on the estate” and laugh heartily at the landowner who has lost his mind.
Such gentlemen have no future, and N.A. Nekrasov’s accusatory satire clearly shows that renewal of the social system is impossible while such nobles and princes are in power.

Introduction

Starting work on the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus',” Nekrasov dreamed of creating a large-scale work that would reflect all the knowledge about peasants that he had accumulated throughout his life. From early childhood, the “spectacle of national disasters” passed before the poet’s eyes, and his first childhood impressions prompted him to continue studying the way of peasant life. Hard work, human grief, and at the same time the enormous spiritual strength of the people - all this was noticed by Nekrasov’s attentive gaze. And it is precisely because of this that in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” the images of the peasants look so reliable, as if the poet personally knew his heroes. It is logical that the poem, in which the main character is the people, contains a large number of peasant images, but if we look at them more closely, we will be amazed by the diversity and liveliness of these characters.

The image of the main wanderer characters

The first peasants with whom the reader meets are truth-seeking peasants who argued about who lives well in Rus'. For the poem, it is not so much their individual images that are important, but the overall idea that they express - without them, the plot of the work would simply fall apart. And, nevertheless, Nekrasov gives each of them a name, a native village (the names of the villages themselves are eloquent: Gorelovo, Zaplatovo...) and certain character traits and appearance: Luka is an inveterate debater, Pakhom is an old man. And the views of the peasants, despite the integrity of their image, are different; each does not deviate from his views even to the point of fighting. In general, the image of these men is a group image, which is why it highlights the most basic features characteristic of almost any peasant. This is extreme poverty, stubbornness and curiosity, the desire to find the truth. Let us note that while describing the peasants dear to his heart, Nekrasov still does not embellish their images. He also shows vices, mainly general drunkenness.

The peasant theme in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is not the only one - during their journey, the men will meet both the landowner and the priest, and will hear about the life of different classes - merchants, nobles, and clergy. But all other images, in one way or another, serve to more fully reveal the main theme of the poem: the life of peasants in Russia immediately after the reform.

The poem includes several crowd scenes - a fair, a feast, a road along which many people are walking. Here Nekrasov portrays the peasantry as a single whole, which thinks alike, speaks unanimously and even sighs at the same time. But at the same time, the images of peasants depicted in the work can be divided into two large groups: honest working people who value their freedom and serf peasants. In the first group, Yakim Nagoy, Ermil Girin, Trofim and Agap stand out.

Positive images of peasants

Yakim Nagoy - typical representative the poorest peasantry, and he himself resembles “Mother Earth”, like “a layer cut off by a plow”. All his life he works “to death”, but at the same time remains a beggar. His sad story: he once lived in St. Petersburg, but started a lawsuit with a merchant, ended up in prison because of it, and returned from there “like a piece of velcro” – does not surprise listeners in any way. There were many such destinies in Rus' at that time... Despite the hard work, Yakim has enough strength to stand up for his compatriots: yes, there are many drunk men, but there are more sober ones, they are all great people “in work and in revelry.” Love for truth, for honest work, a dream of transforming life (“thunder should thunder”) – these are the main components of the image of Yakima.

Trofim and Agap complement Yakima in some ways; each of them has one main character trait. In the image of Trofim, Nekrasov shows the endless strength and patience of the Russian people - Trofim once carried away fourteen pounds, and then returned home barely alive. Agap is a lover of truth. He is the only one who refuses to participate in the performance for Prince Utyatin: “The possession of peasant souls is over!” When he is forced, he dies in the morning: it is easier for a peasant to die than to bend back under the yoke of serfdom.

Yermil Girin is endowed by the author with intelligence and incorruptible honesty, and for this he was chosen as burgomaster. He “didn’t bend his soul,” and once he had strayed from the right path, he could not live without the truth, and he repented before the whole world. But honesty and love for their compatriots do not bring happiness to the peasants: the image of Yermil is tragic. At the time of the story, he is sitting in prison: this is how his help to the rebellious village turned out.

Images of Matryona and Savely

The life of peasants in Nekrasov's poem would not be completely depicted without the image of a Russian woman. To reveal the “female share”, which is “grief is not life!” the author chose the image of Matryona Timofeevna. “Beautiful, strict and dark,” she tells in detail the story of her life, in which only then was she happy, as she lived with her parents in the “girls’ lounge.” Afterwards, hard work began, equal to men, the nagging of relatives, and the death of the first-born distorted the fate. For this story, Nekrasov allocated an entire part of the poem, nine chapters - much more than the stories of the other peasants occupy. This well conveys his special attitude, his love for a Russian woman. Matryona amazes with her strength and resilience. She endures all the blows of fate without complaint, but at the same time she knows how to stand up for her loved ones: she lies down under the rod in place of her son and saves her husband from the soldiers. The image of Matryona in the poem merges with the image of the people's soul - long-suffering and long-suffering, which is why the woman's speech is so rich in songs. These songs are often the only opportunity to pour out your melancholy...

The image of Matryona Timofeevna is accompanied by another curious image - the image of the Russian hero, Savely. Living out his life in Matryona’s family (“he lived for one hundred and seven years”), Savely thinks more than once: “Where have you gone, strength? What were you useful for? All the strength was lost under rods and sticks, wasted during back-breaking labor on the Germans and wasted away in hard labor. The image of Savely shows the tragic fate of the Russian peasantry, heroes by nature, leading a life completely unsuitable for them. Despite all the hardships of life, Savely did not become embittered, he is wise and affectionate with those without rights (he is the only one in the family who protects Matryona). His image also shows the deep religiosity of the Russian people, who sought help in faith.

The image of peasant serfs

Another type of peasant depicted in the poem are serfs. Years of serfdom have crippled the souls of some people who are accustomed to groveling and can no longer imagine their lives without the power of the landowner over them. Nekrasov shows this using examples of the images of the slaves Ipat and Yakov, as well as the elder Klim. Jacob is the image of a faithful slave. He spent his whole life fulfilling the whims of his master: “Yakov had only joy: / To groom, protect, please the master.” However, you cannot live with the master “ladkom” - as a reward for Yakov’s exemplary service, the master gives his nephew as a recruit. It was then that Yakov’s eyes were opened, and he decided to take revenge on his offender. Klim becomes the boss thanks to the grace of Prince Utyatin. A bad owner and a lazy worker, he, singled out by the master, blossoms from a sense of self-importance: “The proud pig: itched / Oh the master’s porch!” Using the example of the headman Klim, Nekrasov shows how terrible yesterday’s serf is when he becomes a boss - this is one of the most disgusting human types. But it is difficult to fool an honest peasant’s heart - and in the village Klim is sincerely despised, not afraid.

So, from the various images of the peasants “Who Lives Well in Rus'” a complete picture of the people is formed as a huge force, which is already beginning to gradually rise up and realize its power.

Work test

In the poem by N.A. Nekrasov, unlike the peasants, the landowners do not evoke sympathy. They are negative and unpleasant. The image of landowners in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is collective. The poet's talent was clearly manifested in his ability to see in individual traits the general characters of an entire social stratum of Russia.

Landowners of Nekrasov's poem

The author introduces readers to the images of landowner Rus', serf and free. Their attitude towards to the common people causes indignation. The lady loves to flog men who accidentally utter words that are familiar to them - swear words for literate gentlemen. The landowner seems a little kinder than Polivanov, who, having bought the village, “freedoms” and reigns in it “in a terrible way.”

Fate laughed at the cruel landowner. The master pays his faithful servant with ingratitude. Yakov says goodbye to life before his eyes. Polivanov spends the whole night driving away wolves and birds, trying to save his life and not go crazy from fear. Why did faithful Yakov punish Polivanov this way? The master sends his servant's nephew to serve, not wanting to marry him to a girl who he himself liked. Sick, practically immobile (his legs gave out), he still hopes to take away from the men what he liked. The master has no feeling of gratitude in his soul. The servant taught him and revealed the sinfulness of his actions, but only at the cost of his life.

Obolt-Obolduev

Master Gavrila Afanasyevich already looks similar to the images of landowners throughout Rus': round, mustachioed, pot-bellied, ruddy. The author uses in the description diminutive suffixes with a dismissive, affectionate pronunciation - -enk and others. But this does not change the description. Cigarette, C grade, sweetness does not cause affection. There is a sharply opposite attitude towards the character. I want to turn away and pass by. The landowner does not evoke pity. The master tries to act brave, but it doesn’t work out. Seeing strangers on the road, Gavrila Afanasyevich got scared. The peasants who received their freedom did not deny themselves the desire to take revenge for many years of humiliation. He pulls out a pistol. The weapon in the hands of the landowner becomes a toy, unreal.

Obolt-Obolduev is proud of his origin, but the author also doubts it. Why he received the title and power: the ancestor amused the queen by playing with a bear. Another progenitor was executed for attempting to burn down the capital and rob the treasury. The landowner is accustomed to comfort. He is not yet used to not being served. Talking about his happiness, he asks the men for a pillow for comfort, a carpet for comfort, a glass of sherry for mood. The continuous celebration of the landowner with many servants is a thing of the past. Dog hunts and Russian fun delighted the lordly spirit. Obolduev was pleased with the power he possessed. I liked beating men. Nekrasov selects vivid epithets for Gavrila Afanasyevich’s “blows”:

• Sparking;
• Teeth-crushing;
• Zygomaticomatous.

Such metaphors do not fit with the landowner's stories. He claimed that he took care of the men, loved them, and treated them on holidays. It’s a pity for Obolduev of the past: who will have mercy on a man if he can’t beat him. The connection between the ruling class and the peasant was severed. The landowner believes that both sides suffered, but it is felt that neither the wanderers nor the author support his words. The landowner's economy is in decline. He has no idea how to return it to its previous state, because he cannot work. The words of Obolt sound bitter:

“I smoked God’s heaven, wore the royal livery, littered the people’s treasury and thought of living like this forever...”

Landowner nicknamed the Last One

A prince with a telling surname, which the poet loves, Utyatin, who became among the people the Last One, is the last landowner of the described system. During his “reign,” the beloved serfdom was abolished. The prince did not believe it, and he was hit with anger. The cruel and stingy old man kept his relatives in fear. The heirs of the peasants persuaded them to pretend and lead their old lifestyle when the landowner was nearby. They promised the men land. The peasants fell for false promises. The peasants played their role, but were deceived, which was not surprising to anyone: neither the author nor the wanderers.

The appearance of a landowner is the second type of gentleman in Rus'. A frail old man, thin as a hare in winter. There are also signs of predators in appearance: a hawk-like sharp nose, a long mustache, a caustic look. The appearance of such a dangerous master of life hidden under a soft mask, cruel and stingy. The tyrant, having learned that the peasants were “returned to the landowners,” makes a fool of himself even more than before. The master's whims are surprising: playing the violin on horseback, bathing in an ice hole, marrying a 70-year-old widow to a 6-year-old boy, forcing cows to be silent and not moo, setting a poor deaf-mute as a watchman instead of a dog.

The prince dies happy, he never learned about the abolition of the right.

One can recognize the author's irony in the image of each landowner. But this is laughter through tears. The grief that rich fools and ignoramuses have inflicted on the peasantry will last for more than one century. Not everyone will be able to rise from their knees and use their will. Not everyone will understand what to do with it. Many men will regret the lordship, so firmly has the philosophy of serfdom entered their brains. The author believes: Rus' will rise from sleep, rise, and happy people will fill Russia.

It would be wrong to say that every meeting makes heroes poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” wiser. So, meeting the “round gentleman” - landowner Obolt-Obolduev, the peasants continue their same speech:

Tell us in a divine way,
Is the life of a landowner sweet?
How are you - at ease, happily,
Are you living as a landowner?

The behavior and reaction of the wanderers to the landowner’s story testifies to how difficult the process of real liberation - already moral - of the Russian peasants is going: their timidity in front of the landowner, reluctance to sit in his presence - all these details add up to the characteristics of “village Russian people” who are accustomed to this that they are people of “low birth”.

In essence, the entire chapter is a “master’s measure” - the landowner’s opinion about the landowner class and the peasants is mainly presented here. And at the same time, the men are not silent witnesses to the story: not daring to object to the landowner, they are free in their thoughts. And these thoughts allow us to compare the “master’s measure” with the “peasant measure”, to see the other side of the idyllic life of landowners and peasants under serfdom depicted by Obolt-Obolduev, and at the same time to comprehend the peasant soul.

The chapter reveals the abyss that has formed during the years of slavery: the landowner and peasants speak different languages, the same event is perceived differently by them. What the landowner considers “good” for the peasant does not seem “happiness” to the wanderers. The peasants and the landowner have different understandings of “honor,” which opens up a conversation about genealogy. It is no coincidence that the author begins the conversation about the “happiness” of the landowner with the history of his family. The history of Obolt-Obolduev's ancestors reveals, with all its satirical sharpening, the real features of Russian life: the arbiters of peasant destinies received nobility for their ability to amuse the Russian sovereign. “Honor” for the landowner is the antiquity of the family, and not his true services to the state, to the people.

Listening to the landowner's idyllic story about the past "prosperity", the peasants perceive this "prosperity" in their own way, especially when the story concerns the "patrimony". They do not argue with the landowner, do not object to him. But the thoughts of the men conveyed by the author reveal the true meaning of the “idyll”, behind which stand the same humiliation of the peasants and violence against their souls. Thus, when the landowner paints a picture of the “spiritual kinship” of landowners and peasants who prayed together in the manor’s house during “every revered twelfth holiday,” the peasants, agreeing out loud, are perplexed to themselves:

“You knocked them down with a stake, or what?”
Pray in the manor’s house?..”

What constituted the “happiness” of the landowner in his recent life? The first thing that the landowner is so proud of, which he calls “honor,” is the obedience of the peasants and even nature itself:

Will you go to the village -
The peasants fall at their feet,
You'll go through the forest dachas -
Centenary trees
The forests will bow down!

His story really convinces: “he lived like Christ in his bosom”: holidays, hunting, free and idle life made up the “happy” life of the landowners. But the people were also “happy,” the landowner assures. His “happiness,” as Obolt-Obolduev believes, lay in the affection of the landowner, in pleasing the landowner. Remembering the recent past, when he was the undivided owner of the estate (“There is no contradiction in anyone, / I will have mercy on whomever I want, / I will execute whoever I want. / The law is my desire! / The fist is my police!”<...>"), he is sincerely convinced that before he “lived well” with his “patrimony.”

But the “lord’s standard” does not coincide with the peasant standard. Agreeing that the landowner’s “life” was indeed enviable, the wandering peasants listen very skeptically to his stories about the “happiness” of the estate. It is no coincidence that to Obolt-Obolduev’s question: “So, benefactors, / I lived with my estate, / Isn’t it good?..”, the peasants in their answer recognize only the life of the landowner as “good”: “Yes, it was for you, landowners, / Life is much enviable, / No need to die!”

However, the landowner’s current misfortunes do not seem far-fetched or funny to the wanderers. Behind the landowner's complaints there really is a very important problem Russian life. Entire generations of the Russian nobility, who lived off the free labor of others, turned out to be absolutely incapable of a different life. Having remained the owners of the land, but having lost free laborers, they perceive the land that belongs to them not as a mother-breadwinner, but as a “stepmother”. For them, work is incompatible with “delicate feelings” and “pride.” To paraphrase Nekrasov, we can say that “the habit is strong even over the landowner” - the habit of an idle life. And therefore, the reproaches to the organizers of the reform, sounding from the lips of the landowner, are not so much funny as they are full of drama - behind them is a certain attitude to life that has been formed over the centuries:

And if indeed
We misunderstood our duty,
And our purpose
It’s not that the name is ancient,
Noble dignity
Willingly to support
Feasts, all kinds of luxury
And live by your labor,
It should have been like this before
Say... What did I study?

It is no coincidence that in the center of the chapter there is a symbolic picture of a funeral bell ringing. The landowner perceives the funeral bell for a deceased peasant as a farewell to the life of the landowner: “They are not ringing for the peasant! / Through the life of a landowner / They call!.. Oh, life is wide! / Sorry - goodbye forever! / Farewell to landowner Rus'!” And, what is important, this drama of the landowner is also recognized by the peasants: it is their thoughts about general troubles that the chapter ends with:

The great chain has broken,
It tore and splintered:
One way for the master,
Others don't care!..

The crowning achievement of N. A. Nekrasov’s work is the folk epic poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” In this monumental work, the poet sought to show as fully as possible the main features of contemporary Russian reality and to reveal the deep contradictions between the interests of the people and the exploitative essence of the ruling classes, and above all the local nobility, which in the 20-70s of the 19th century had already completely outlived its usefulness as an advanced class and began to hinder the further development of the country.

In the dispute among men about “who lives happily and freely in Rus',” the landowner was declared the first contender for the right to call himself happy. However, Nekrasov significantly expanded the plot framework outlined by the plot of the work, as a result of which the image of the landowner appears in the poem only in the fifth chapter, which is called “The Landowner”.

For the first time, the landowner appears before the reader as the peasants saw him: “Some kind of gentleman, round, mustachioed, pot-bellied, with a cigar in his mouth.” With the help of diminutive forms, Nekrasov conveys the condescending, contemptuous attitude of men towards the former owner of living souls. The following author's description of the appearance of the landowner Obolt-Obolduev (Nekrasov uses the device of the meaning of the surname) and his own story about his “noble” origin further enhances the ironic tone of the narrative.

The basis of Obolduev’s satirical image is the striking contrast between the significance of life, nobility, learning and patriotism, which he ascribes to himself with “dignity,” and the actual insignificance of existence, extreme ignorance, emptiness of thoughts, baseness of feelings. Sad about the pre-reform times dear to his heart, with “all luxury,” endless holidays, hunting and drunken revelry, Obolt-Obolduev takes on the absurd pose of a son of the fatherland, a father of the peasantry, caring about the future of Russia. But let us remember his confession: “I littered the people’s treasury.” He makes ridiculous “patriotic” speeches: “Mother Rus' willingly lost its knightly, warlike, majestic appearance.” Obolt-Obolduev's enthusiastic story about landowner life under serfdom is perceived by the reader as an unconscious self-exposure of the insignificance and meaninglessness of the existence of former serf owners.

For all his comedy, Obolt-Obolduev is not so harmlessly funny. In the past, a convinced serf owner, even after the reform he hopes, as before, to “live by the labor of others,” which is what he sees as the purpose of his life.

But still, the times of such landowners are gone. Both the serf owners and the peasants themselves feel this. Although Obolt-Obolduev speaks to the men in a condescending and patronizing tone, he still has to endure the unequivocal mockery of the peasants. Nekrasov also feels this: Obolt-Obolduev is simply unworthy of the author’s hatred and deserves only contempt and unkind ridicule.

But if Nekrasov speaks of Obolt-Obolduev with irony, then the image of another landowner in the poem - Prince Utyatin - is depicted in the chapter “The Last One” with obvious sarcasm. The very title of the chapter is symbolic, in which the author, sharply sarcastically using to some extent the technique of hyperbolization, tells the story of a tyrant - the “last man” who does not want to part with the serfdom of landowner Rus'.

If Obolt-Obolduev still feels that there is no return to the old ways, then the old man Utyatin, who has lost his mind, even in whose appearance there is little human left, over the years of lordship and despotic power has become so imbued with the conviction that he is “by the grace of God” a master who “has the family is written to watch over the stupid peasantry,” that peasant reform seems to this despot to be something unnatural. That is why it was not difficult for his relatives to assure him that “the landowners were ordered to turn back the peasants.”

Talking about the wild antics of the “last man” - the last serf owner Utyatin (which seem especially wild in the changed conditions), Nekrasov warns of the need for a decisive and final eradication of all remnants of serfdom. After all, it was they, preserved in the minds of not only former slaves, that ultimately destroyed the “unyielding” peasant Agap Petrov: “If it weren’t for such an opportunity, Agap would not have died.” Indeed, unlike Obolt-Obolduev, Prince Utyatin, even after serfdom, remained virtually the master of life (“It is known that it was not self-interest, but arrogance that cut him off, he lost the Mote”). Wanderers are also afraid of Utyatina: “Yes, the master is stupid: sue later...” And although the Posledysh himself - the “foolish landowner,” as the peasants call him - is more funny than scary, by the end of the chapter Nekrasov reminds the reader that the peasant reform did not bring true liberation to the people and real power still remains in the hands of the nobility. The prince's heirs shamelessly deceive the peasants, who ultimately lose their water meadows.

The entire work is imbued with a feeling of the inevitable death of the autocratic system. The support of this system - the landowners - are depicted in the poem as the “last-born”, living out their days. The ferocious Shalashnikov has long been gone, Prince Utyatin died as a “landowner,” and the insignificant Obolt-Obolduev has no future. The picture of an empty manor’s estate, which is being taken away brick by brick by servants (chapter “Peasant Woman”), has a symbolic character.

Thus, in the poem we contrast two worlds, two spheres of life: the world of the landowners and the world of the peasantry. Nekrasov, with the help of satirical images of landowners, leads readers to the conclusion that the happiness of the people is possible without Obolt-Obolduev and the Utyatins and only when the people themselves become the true masters of their lives.