“The people are liberated, but are the people happy? The people are liberated, but are the people happy? The people have been liberated.
Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” was, as it were, a departure from the general idea of many works of that time - the revolution. In addition, in almost all works the main characters were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, merchants, and philistines. In the poem the main heroes are former serfs who became free after the decree of 1861. And the main idea of the novel was to search for happy people in Russia. The seven men, the main characters of the poem, put forward different hypotheses about the happiest person in Russia, and these were, as a rule, rich people who were obliged to be happy - merchants, nobles, landowners, boyars, the tsar. But the men went to the people to look for happiness. And the people are those same newly liberated peasants. Peasants are the poorest and most powerless class, and it is more than strange to look for a happy one among them. But there is happiness among the peasants, but at the same time they have much more misfortunes. The peasants are happy, of course, with their freedom, which they received for the first time in hundreds of years. Happy for various reasons: some are happy with an unusually large harvest, others with their great physical strength, others with a successful, non-drinking family. But nevertheless, it is difficult to call the peasants happy, even a little bit. Because with their release they had a lot of their own problems. And the happiness of peasants is usually very local and temporary.
And now, in order... The peasants are freed. This is a happiness that they have not seen for hundreds of years, and perhaps that they have never seen at all. Happiness itself came quite unexpectedly; many were not ready for it and, once released, they were birds raised in a cage and then released into the wild. As a result, the new class of temporarily obliged, freed peasants became the poorest. The landowners did not want to inflate their land, and almost all peasant land belonged either to the landowners or to the community. The peasants did not become free, they only found new look dependent on yourself. Of course, this dependence is not the same as serfdom, but it was dependence on the landowner, on the community, on the state. It is very difficult to call this complete freedom or happiness. But the Russian people, accustomed to everything, could find happy moments here too. For a Russian man, the greatest happiness is vodka. If there is a lot of it, then the man becomes very happy. For Russian women, happiness is a good harvest, a clean house, a fed family. This happened quite rarely, so women were less happy than men. The peasant children were also not very happy. They were forced to work for an adult, but at the same time eat for a child, run for vodka, they constantly received from drunken parents and, growing up, became one themselves. But there were individuals who considered themselves happy - people who rejoiced at what an ordinary person might find disgusting or incomprehensible. One rejoiced that his landowner had a “favorite slave.” He and his retinue drank the best overseas wines, ate the best dishes and suffered from the “royal” disease - gout. He was happy in his own way and his happiness should be respected, but ordinary men didn’t like it very much. Others were happy about at least some kind of harvest that could feed them. And this was truly happiness for those peasants who were not at all happy, they were so poor. But this was not the kind of happiness the seven wanderers were looking for. They were looking for true, complete happiness, and therefore one in which nothing else was needed. But such happiness cannot be found. This doesn’t even talk about peasants; the upper classes always have their own problems too. The landowners cannot possibly be happy because their time has passed. Serfdom was abolished and the landowners at the same time lost the enormous influence of their class, which means that Nkha did not have any happiness in her life. But these are landowners, and we were talking about peasants...
Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” was, as it were, a departure from the general idea of many works of that time - the revolution. In addition, in almost all works the main characters were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, merchants, and philistines. In the poem, the main characters are former serfs who became free after the decree of 1861. And the main idea of the novel was to search for happy people in Russia. The seven men, the main characters of the poem, put forward different hypotheses about the happiest person in Russia, and these were, as a rule, rich people who were obliged to be happy - merchants, nobles, landowners, boyars, the tsar. But the men went to the people to look for happiness. And the people are those same newly liberated peasants. Peasants are the poorest and most powerless class, and it is more than strange to look for a happy one among them. But there is happiness among the peasants, but at the same time they have much more misfortunes. The peasants are happy, of course, with their freedom, which they received for the first time in hundreds of years. Happy for various reasons: some are happy with an unusually large harvest, others with their great physical strength, others with a successful, non-drinking family. But nevertheless, it is difficult to call the peasants happy, even a little bit. Because with their release they had a lot of their own problems. And the happiness of peasants is usually very local and temporary.
And now, in order... The peasants are freed. This is a happiness that they have not seen for hundreds of years, and perhaps that they have never seen at all. Happiness itself came quite unexpectedly; many were not ready for it and, once released, they were birds raised in a cage and then released into the wild. As a result, the new class of temporarily obliged, freed peasants became the poorest. The landowners did not want to inflate their land, and almost all peasant land belonged either to the landowners or to the community. The peasants did not become free, they only acquired a new kind of dependence on themselves. Of course, this dependence is not the same as serfdom, but it was dependence on the landowner, on the community, on the state. It is very difficult to call this complete freedom or happiness. But the Russian people, accustomed to everything, could find happy moments here too. For a Russian man, the greatest happiness is vodka. If there is a lot of it, then the man becomes very happy. For Russian women, happiness is a good harvest, a clean house, a fed family. This happened quite rarely, so women were less happy than men. The peasant children were also not very happy. They were forced to work for an adult, but at the same time eat for a child, run for vodka, they constantly received from drunken parents and, growing up, became one themselves. But there were individuals who considered themselves happy - people who rejoiced at what an ordinary person might find disgusting or incomprehensible. One rejoiced that his landowner had a “favorite slave.” He and his retinue drank the best overseas wines, ate the best dishes and suffered from the “royal” disease - gout. He was happy in his own way and his happiness should be respected, but ordinary men didn’t like it very much. Others were happy about at least some kind of harvest that could feed them. And this was truly happiness for those peasants who were not at all happy, they were so poor. But this was not the kind of happiness the seven wanderers were looking for. They were looking for true, complete happiness, and therefore one in which nothing else was needed. But such happiness cannot be found. This doesn’t even talk about peasants; the upper classes always have their own problems too. The landowners cannot possibly be happy because their time has passed. Serfdom was abolished and the landowners at the same time lost the enormous influence of their class, which means that Nkha did not have any happiness in her life. But these are landowners, and we were talking about peasants...
References
To prepare this work, materials were used from the site http://www.bobych.spb.ru/
“The people are liberated, but are the people happy?”
Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” was, as it were, a departure from the general idea of many works of that time - the revolution. In addition, in almost all works the main characters were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, merchants, and philistines. In the poem, the main characters are former serfs who became free after the decree of 1861. And the main idea of the novel was to search for happy people in Russia. The seven men, the main characters of the poem, put forward different hypotheses about the happiest person in Russia, and these were, as a rule, rich people who were obliged to be happy - merchants, nobles, landowners, boyars, the tsar. But the men went to the people to look for happiness. And the people are those same newly liberated peasants. Peasants are the poorest and most powerless class, and it is more than strange to look for a happy one among them. But there is happiness among the peasants, but at the same time they have much more misfortunes. The peasants are happy, of course, with their freedom, which they received for the first time in hundreds of years. Happy for various reasons: some are happy with an unusually large harvest, others with their great physical strength, others with a successful, non-drinking family. But nevertheless, it is difficult to call the peasants happy, even a little bit. Because with their release they had a lot of their own problems. And the happiness of peasants is usually very local and temporary.
And now, in order... The peasants are freed. This is a happiness that they have not seen for hundreds of years, and perhaps that they have never seen at all. Happiness itself came quite unexpectedly; many were not ready for it and, once released, they were birds raised in a cage and then released into the wild. As a result, the new class of temporarily obliged, freed peasants became the poorest. The landowners did not want to inflate their land, and almost all peasant land belonged either to the landowners or to the community. The peasants did not become free, they only acquired a new kind of dependence on themselves. Of course, this dependence is not the same as serfdom, but it was dependence on the landowner, on the community, on the state. It is very difficult to call this complete freedom or happiness. But the Russian people, accustomed to everything, could find happy moments here too. For a Russian man, the greatest happiness is vodka. If there is a lot of it, then the man becomes very happy. For Russian women, happiness is a good harvest, a clean house, a fed family. This happened quite rarely, so women were less happy than men. The peasant children were also not very happy. They were forced to work for an adult, but at the same time eat for a child, run for vodka, they constantly received from drunken parents and, growing up, became one. But there were individuals who considered themselves happy - people who rejoiced at what an ordinary person might find disgusting or incomprehensible. One rejoiced that his landowner had a “favorite slave.” He and his retinue drank the best overseas wines, ate the best dishes and suffered from the “royal” disease - gout. He was happy in his own way and his happiness should be respected, but ordinary men didn’t like it very much. Others were happy about at least some kind of harvest that could feed them. And this was truly happiness for those peasants who were not at all happy, they were so poor. But this was not the kind of happiness the seven wanderers were looking for. They were looking for true, complete happiness, and therefore one in which nothing else was needed. But such happiness cannot be found. This doesn’t even talk about peasants; the upper classes always have their own problems too. The landowners cannot possibly be happy because their time has passed. Serfdom was abolished and the landowners at the same time lost the enormous influence of their class, which means that Nkha did not have any happiness in her life. But these are landowners, and we were talking about peasants...
References
To prepare this work, materials from the site were used
“The favorite Russian poet, the representative of the good beginnings in our poetry, the only talent in which there is now life and strength” - this is the review N. A. Dobrolyubov gave about N. A. Nekrasov. And indeed, Nekrasov’s lyrics are an exceptional phenomenon in Russian literature, for the poet was able to express in it selfless love for the Fatherland, for the Russian people, was able to truthfully talk about his work, strength, courage, patience, about a just protest against oppression, which has long been accumulating in in his mind, managed to draw the wonderful, endless expanses of our Motherland, great and powerful, like the Russian people themselves.
The focus of the great artist’s attention was always the fate of the Motherland and the people. Nekrasov himself claimed that “he was called to sing of your suffering, amazing the people with patience.”
At the end of his creative path Nekrasov writes the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” - his most remarkable and most complex work. In it, the revolutionary poet, the poet of people's grief and anger, managed, despite the most stringent censorship conditions, to raise burning and topical issues of contemporary life. Nekrasov creates a poem about the people and for the people, written in the folk language, and about it many times more than about “Ruslan and Lyudmila”, one can say: “Here is the Russian spirit, here it smells of Russia.”
Through the eyes of peasant wanderers looking for an answer to the question “who lives well in Rus',” Nekrasov showed all the dissatisfaction with the reform of 1861, when the “liberation of peasants from the land” was carried out, when “peasants were forced to pay not only for their land, but also for your freedom" (V.I. Lenin).
In search of happiness and happy wanderers everywhere they see only the plight of the working people; in all its wretchedness and ugliness, “peasant happiness” appears, “holey, with patches, hunchbacked, with calluses.” People's “happiness”, mixed with sweat and blood, can best tell about the life of the people.
The “happiness” of the five-ruble earnings of a young, broad-shouldered stonemason who gets up “before the sun” and works “until midnight”, the “happiness” of a mason who has worked too hard at back-breaking work and returned to his homeland to die, the “happiness” of who has fought in twenty battles and gone through hardships and trials is fragile. peacetime and still a surviving soldier. But what then is “misfortune” if such hard labor can be called happiness?
They rang the funeral service for the former landowner's life, they are being destroyed noble estates, but next to the peasant there are still “three shareholders: God, the Tsar and the Master.” “The peasant’s navel is cracking” from backbreaking work. As before, the peasant “works himself to death and drinks until he is half to death.” Even more terrible is the situation of the peasant woman, who is under double oppression: serfdom and family oppression.
Rumor left Matryona Timofeevna lucky, but it was through the example of her “happy” life that Nekrasov showed without embellishment the difficult lot of a peasant woman. All her happiness lies in a non-drinking family, marriage by voluntary consent and in an oral petition for the release of her husband from illegal recruitment. There was much more grief in this woman’s life! WITH early childhood she is forced to share the difficult peasant fate of her family. In her husband’s family, she endured the despotism of her mother-in-law, the need to leave small children in someone else’s hands when she went to work, the loss of her firstborn, the bitter situation of the mother of a slave son, and constant separation from her husband, who went to work. And to all this are added new misfortunes: fires, crop failures, loss of livestock, the threat of poverty and orphanhood of children. For a woman, will is an integral condition of happiness, but the keys to female happiness, from... our free will, are abandoned, lost from God himself!
The reform of 1861 only partially liberated women. She is “still a slave in the family, but the mother of a free son”! Serfdom was abolished, but centuries of slavery left a deep imprint on the consciousness of the peasants. Self-righteous landowners who despised work did not want to recognize the peasant as a human being. Arbitrariness and despotism reigned in the nests of the nobility. Pan Glukhovsky in the world “honors only woman, gold, honor and wine,” but tortures, torments, and hangs his slaves. The Posledysh also “shows off”, not even allowing the thought that the peasants were still recognized as having human rights.
There are many crippled destinies and no consciences of landowners, but this does not prevent them from sleeping peacefully. But in the meantime, the people are awakening. There are fewer and fewer slaves, for whom “the heavier the punishment, the... nicer the gentlemen.” A consciousness of their strength, their human rights is already awakening in them, a consciousness that should illuminate their lives in a different way. The work in “their mowings” is in full swing in a friendly and cheerful manner. All hearts are full of hope, everyone lives with a premonition of a better fate. This consciousness lives in the soul of everyone, even the most seedy vahlak, raising him above those around him. But this is just hope. Nekrasov shows the same Vakhlaks, “whom, instead of the master, the volost will tear.” And the peasants themselves are beginning to understand that the reform did not give them true freedom: “that there is a black peasant soul here,” but “everything ends in wine.” Only sometimes a team comes, and you can guess that
Revolted
In abundance of gratitude
A village somewhere.
But the most striking sign of the awakening of the people are the “rebel” peasants, people's intercessors. Even the robber Kudeyar, seeing the impunity of the crimes of the landowners, takes on the noble role of the people's avenger. The personification of the heroic power and unshakable will of the Russian people is presented in the poem “branded, but not a slave” Savely, the “hero of Svyatorussky”. Both Ermil Girin and Grisha Dobrosklonov are also new people in semi-feudal Russia. These are future revolutionaries who understand that the Share of the people, their Happiness is Light and Freedom First of all!
Comparing the pictures of pre- and post-reform Russia, Nekrasov leads us to the conviction that the liberation of the peasants of the land bases did not bring them happiness. And to the question “The people are liberated, but are the people happy?” - the poet answers negatively. That is why throughout Russia the working people are rising up, straightening their heroic shoulders. The long-awaited victory may not come soon, but it will certainly happen, because
The army rises -
Countless!
The strength in her will affect
Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” was, as it were, a departure from the general idea of many works of that time - the revolution. In addition, in almost all works the main characters were representatives of the upper classes - the nobility, merchants, and philistines. In the poem, the main characters are former serfs who became free after the decree of 1861. And the main idea of the novel was to search for happy people in Russia. The seven men, the main characters of the poem, put forward different hypotheses about the happiest person in Russia, and these were, as a rule, rich people who were obliged to be happy - merchants, nobles, landowners, boyars, the tsar. But the men went to the people to look for happiness. And the people are those same newly liberated peasants. Peasants are the poorest and most powerless class, and it is more than strange to look for a happy one among them. But there is happiness among the peasants, but at the same time they have much more misfortunes. The peasants are happy, of course, with their freedom, which they received for the first time in hundreds of years. Happy for various reasons: some are happy with an unusually large harvest, others with their great physical strength, others with a successful, non-drinking family. But nevertheless, it is difficult to call the peasants happy, even a little bit. Because with their release they had a lot of their own problems. And the happiness of peasants is usually very local and temporary.
And now, in order... The peasants are freed. This is a happiness that they have not seen for hundreds of years, and perhaps that they have never seen at all. Happiness itself came quite unexpectedly; many were not ready for it and, once released, they were birds raised in a cage and then released into the wild. As a result, the new class of temporarily obliged, freed peasants became the poorest. The landowners did not want to inflate their land, and almost all peasant land belonged either to the landowners or to the community. The peasants did not become free, they only acquired a new kind of dependence on themselves. Of course, this dependence is not the same as serfdom, but it was dependence on the landowner, on the community, on the state. It is very difficult to call this complete freedom or happiness. But the Russian people, accustomed to everything, could find happy moments here too. For a Russian man, the greatest happiness is vodka. If there is a lot of it, then the man becomes very happy. For Russian women, happiness is a good harvest, a clean house, a fed family. This happened quite rarely, so women were less happy than men. The peasant children were also not very happy. They were forced to work for an adult, but at the same time eat for a child, run for vodka, they constantly received from drunken parents and, growing up, became one themselves. But there were individuals who considered themselves happy - people who rejoiced at what an ordinary person might find disgusting or incomprehensible. One rejoiced that his landowner had a “favorite slave.” He and his retinue drank the best overseas wines, ate the best dishes and suffered from the “royal” disease - gout. He was happy in his own way and his happiness should be respected, but ordinary men didn’t like it very much. Others were happy about at least some kind of harvest that could feed them. And this was truly happiness for those peasants who were not at all happy, they were so poor. But this was not the kind of happiness the seven wanderers were looking for. They were looking for true, complete happiness, and therefore one in which nothing else was needed. But such happiness cannot be found. This doesn’t even talk about peasants; the upper classes always have their own problems too. The landowners cannot possibly be happy because their time has passed. Serfdom was abolished and the landowners at the same time lost the enormous influence of their class, which means that Nkha did not have any happiness in her life. But these are landowners, and we were talking about peasants...
