Poem about how good it is to live in Rus'. Nekrasov who lives well in Rus'. The history of the creation of Nekrasov's poem

01.12.2021

Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” has its own unique feature. All the names of the villages and the names of the heroes clearly reflect the essence of what is happening. In the first chapter, the reader can meet seven men from the villages of “Zaplatovo”, “Dyryaevo”, “Razutovo”, “Znobishino”, “Gorelovo”, “Neelovo”, “Neurozhaiko”, who argue about who has a good life in Rus', and in no way cannot come to an agreement. No one is even going to give in to another... This is how the work begins in an unusual way, which Nikolai Nekrasov conceived in order, as he writes, “to present in a coherent story everything that he knows about the people, everything that happened to be heard from their lips...”

The history of the poem

Nikolai Nekrasov began working on his work in the early 1860s and completed the first part five years later. The prologue was published in the January issue of Sovremennik magazine for 1866. Then painstaking work began on the second part, which was called “The Last One” and was published in 1972. The third part, entitled “Peasant Woman,” was published in 1973, and the fourth, “A Feast for the Whole World,” was published in the fall of 1976, that is, three years later. It’s a pity that the author of the legendary epic was never able to fully complete his plans - the writing of the poem was interrupted by his untimely death in 1877. However, even after 140 years, this work remains important for people; it is read and studied by both children and adults. The poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is included in the compulsory school curriculum.

Part 1. Prologue: who is the happiest in Rus'

So, the prologue tells how seven men meet on a highway and then go on a journey to find a happy man. Who lives freely, happily and cheerfully in Rus' - this is the main question of curious travelers. Everyone, arguing with another, believes that he is right. Roman shouts that the landowner has the best life, Demyan claims that the life of an official is wonderful, Luka proves that it’s still a priest, the others also express their opinions: “to the noble boyar”, “to the fat-bellied merchant”, “to the sovereign’s minister” or to the tsar .

Such disagreement leads to an absurd fight, which is observed by birds and animals. It is interesting to read how the author reflects their surprise at what is happening. Even the cow “came to the fire, fixed her eyes on the men, listened to crazy speeches and began, dear heart, to moo, moo, moo!..”

Finally, having kneaded each other's sides, the men came to their senses. They saw a tiny chick of a warbler fly up to the fire, and Pakhom took it in his hands. The travelers began to envy the little birdie, who could fly wherever she wanted. They were talking about what everyone wanted, when suddenly... the bird spoke in a human voice, asking to release the chick and promising a large ransom for it.

The bird showed the men the way to where the real self-assembled tablecloth was buried. Wow! Now you can definitely live without having to worry. But the smart wanderers also asked that their clothes not wear out. “And this will be done by a self-assembled tablecloth,” said the warbler. And she kept her promise.

The men began to live a well-fed and cheerful life. But they haven’t yet resolved the main question: who lives well in Rus' after all? And the friends decided not to return to their families until they found the answer to it.

Chapter 1. Pop

On the way, the men met a priest and, bowing low, asked him to answer “in good conscience, without laughter and without cunning,” whether life was really good for him in Rus'. What the priest said dispelled the seven curious people’s ideas about his happy life. No matter how harsh the circumstances may be - a dead autumn night, or a severe frost, or a spring flood - the priest has to go where he is called, without arguing or contradicting. The work is not easy, and besides, the groans of people leaving for another world, the cries of orphans and the sobs of widows completely upset the peace of the priest’s soul. And only outwardly it seems that the priest is held in high esteem. In fact, he is often the target of ridicule among the common people.

Chapter 2. Rural fair

Further, the road leads purposeful wanderers to other villages, which for some reason turn out to be empty. The reason is that all the people are at the fair in the village of Kuzminskoye. And it was decided to go there to ask people about happiness.

The life of the village gave the men some not very pleasant feelings: there were a lot of drunks around, everything was dirty, dull, and uncomfortable. They also sell books at the fair, but they are of low quality; Belinsky and Gogol cannot be found here.

By evening everyone becomes so drunk that even the church with its bell tower seems to be shaking.

Chapter 3. Drunken night

At night the men are on the road again. They hear drunk people talking. Suddenly attention is drawn to Pavlusha Veretennikov, who is making notes in a notebook. He collects peasant songs and sayings, as well as their stories. After everything that has been said is captured on paper, Veretennikov begins to reproach the assembled people for drunkenness, to which he hears objections: “the peasant drinks mainly because he is in grief, and therefore it is impossible, even a sin, to reproach him for this.

Chapter 4. Happy

The men do not deviate from their goal - to find a happy person at any cost. They promise to reward with a bucket of vodka the one who tells that he is the one who lives freely and cheerfully in Rus'. Drinkers fall for such a “tempting” offer. But no matter how hard they try to colorfully describe the gloomy everyday life of those who want to get drunk for nothing, nothing comes of it. The stories of an old woman who had up to a thousand turnips, a sexton who rejoices when someone pours a drink for him; the paralyzed former servant, who for forty years licked the master's plates with the best French truffle, does not at all impress the stubborn seekers of happiness on Russian soil.

Chapter 5. Landowner.

Maybe luck will smile on them here - the seekers of the happy Russian man assumed when they met the landowner Gavrila Afanasyich Obolt-Obolduev on the road. At first he was frightened, thinking that he had seen robbers, but having learned about the unusual desire of the seven men who blocked his way, he calmed down, laughed and told his story.

Maybe before the landowner considered himself happy, but not now. Indeed, in the old days, Gabriel Afanasyevich was the owner of the entire district, a whole regiment of servants, and organized holidays with theatrical performances and dances. He didn’t even hesitate to invite peasants to the manor’s house to pray on holidays. Now everything has changed: the Obolta-Obolduev family estate was sold for debts, because, left without peasants who knew how to cultivate the land, the landowner, who was not used to working, suffered heavy losses, which led to a disastrous outcome.

Part 2. The Last One

The next day, the travelers went to the banks of the Volga, where they saw a large hay meadow. Before they had time to talk with the locals, they noticed three boats at the pier. It turns out that this is a noble family: two gentlemen with their wives, their children, servants and a gray-haired old gentleman named Utyatin. Everything in this family, to the surprise of the travelers, happens according to such a scenario, as if the abolition of serfdom had never happened. It turns out that Utyatin became very angry when he learned that the peasants had been given free rein and fell ill with a blow, threatening to deprive his sons of their inheritance. To prevent this from happening, they came up with a cunning plan: they persuaded the peasants to play along with the landowner, posing as serfs. They promised the best meadows as a reward after the master’s death.

Utyatin, hearing that the peasants were staying with him, perked up, and the comedy began. Some even liked the role of serfs, but Agap Petrov could not come to terms with his shameful fate and expressed everything to the landowner’s face. For this the prince sentenced him to flogging. The peasants played a role here too: they took the “rebellious” one to the stable, put wine in front of him and asked him to shout louder, for visibility. Alas, Agap could not bear such humiliation, got very drunk and died that same night.

Next, the Last One (Prince Utyatin) arranges a feast, where, barely moving his tongue, he makes a speech about the advantages and benefits of serfdom. After this, he lies down in the boat and gives up the ghost. Everyone is glad that they finally got rid of the old tyrant, however, the heirs are not even going to fulfill their promise to those who played the role of serfs. The hopes of the peasants were not justified: no one gave them any meadows.

Part 3. Peasant woman.

No longer hoping to find a happy person among men, the wanderers decided to ask women. And from the lips of a peasant woman named Korchagina Matryona Timofeevna they hear a very sad and, one might say, terrible story. Only in her parents' house was she happy, and then, when she married Philip, a ruddy and strong guy, a hard life began. The love did not last long, because the husband left to work, leaving his young wife with his family. Matryona works tirelessly and sees no support from anyone except the old man Savely, who lives a century after hard labor that lasted twenty years. Only one joy appears in her difficult fate - her son Demushka. But suddenly a terrible misfortune befell the woman: it is impossible to even imagine what happened to the child due to the fact that the mother-in-law did not allow her daughter-in-law to take him with her to the field. Due to an oversight by his grandfather, the boy is eaten by pigs. What a mother's grief! She mourns Demushka all the time, although other children were born in the family. For their sake, a woman sacrifices herself, for example, she takes punishment when they want to flog her son Fedot for a sheep that was carried away by wolves. When Matryona was pregnant with another son, Lidor, her husband was unjustly taken into the army, and his wife had to go to the city to seek the truth. It’s good that the governor’s wife, Elena Alexandrovna, helped her then. By the way, Matryona gave birth to a son in the waiting room.

Yes, life was not easy for the one who was nicknamed “lucky” in the village: she constantly had to fight for herself, and for her children, and for her husband.

Part 4. A feast for the whole world.

At the end of the village of Valakhchina there was a feast, where everyone was gathered: the wandering men, Vlas the elder, and Klim Yakovlevich. Among those celebrating are two seminarians, simple, kind guys - Savvushka and Grisha Dobrosklonov. They sing funny songs and tell different stories. They do this because ordinary people ask for it. From the age of fifteen, Grisha firmly knows that he will devote his life to the happiness of the Russian people. He sings a song about a great and powerful country called Rus'. Is this not the lucky one whom the travelers were so persistently looking for? After all, he clearly sees the purpose of his life - in serving the disadvantaged people. Unfortunately, Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov died untimely, not having time to finish the poem (according to the author’s plan, the men were supposed to go to St. Petersburg). But the thoughts of the seven wanderers coincide with the thoughts of Dobrosklonov, who thinks that every peasant should live freely and cheerfully in Rus'. This was the main intention of the author.

The poem by Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov became legendary, a symbol of the struggle for the happy everyday life of ordinary people, as well as the result of the author’s thoughts about the fate of the peasantry.

Current page: 1 (book has 13 pages in total)

Font:

100% +

Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov
Who can live well in Rus'?

* * *

Yu. Lebedev
Russian Odyssey

In the “Diary of a Writer” for 1877, F. M. Dostoevsky noticed a characteristic feature that appeared in the Russian people of the post-reform era - “this is a multitude, an extraordinary modern multitude of new people, a new root of Russian people who need truth, one truth without conditional lies, and who, in order to achieve this truth, will give everything decisively.” Dostoevsky saw in them “the advancing future Russia.”

At the very beginning of the 20th century, another writer, V. G. Korolenko, made a discovery that struck him from a summer trip to the Urals: “At the same time as in the centers and at the heights of our culture they were talking about Nansen, about Andre’s bold attempt to penetrate in a balloon to North Pole - in the distant Ural villages there was talk about the Belovodsk kingdom and their own religious and scientific expedition was being prepared.” Among ordinary Cossacks, the conviction spread and strengthened that “somewhere out there, “beyond the bad weather,” “beyond the valleys, beyond the mountains, beyond the wide seas,” there exists a “blessed country,” in which, by the providence of God and the accidents of history, it has been preserved and flourishes throughout integrity is the complete and complete formula of grace. This is a real fairy-tale country of all centuries and peoples, colored only by the Old Believer mood. In it, planted by the Apostle Thomas, true faith blooms, with churches, bishops, patriarchs and pious kings... This kingdom knows neither theft, nor murder, nor self-interest, since true faith gives birth there to true piety.”

It turns out that back in the late 1860s, the Don Cossacks corresponded with the Ural Cossacks, collected quite a significant amount and equipped the Cossack Varsonofy Baryshnikov and two comrades to search for this promised land. Baryshnikov set off through Constantinople to Asia Minor, then to the Malabar coast, and finally to the East Indies... The expedition returned with disappointing news: it failed to find Belovodye. Thirty years later, in 1898, the dream of the Belovodsk kingdom flares up with renewed vigor, funds are found, and a new pilgrimage is organized. On May 30, 1898, a “deputation” of Cossacks boarded a ship departing from Odessa for Constantinople.

“From this day, in fact, the foreign journey of the deputies of the Urals to the Belovodsk kingdom began, and among the international crowd of merchants, military men, scientists, tourists, diplomats traveling around the world out of curiosity or in search of money, fame and pleasure, three natives, as it were, got mixed up from another world, looking for ways to the fabulous Belovodsk kingdom.” Korolenko described in detail all the vicissitudes of this unusual journey, in which, despite all the curiosity and strangeness of the conceived enterprise, the same Russia of honest people, noted by Dostoevsky, “who need only the truth”, who “have an unshakable desire for honesty and truth”, appeared indestructible, and for the word of truth each of them will give his life and all his advantages.”

By the end of the 19th century, not only the top of Russian society was drawn into the great spiritual pilgrimage, all of Russia, all of its people, rushed to it. “These Russian homeless wanderers,” Dostoevsky noted in a speech about Pushkin, “continue their wanderings to this day and, it seems, will not disappear for a long time.” For a long time, “for the Russian wanderer needs precisely universal happiness in order to calm down - he will not be reconciled cheaper.”

“There was approximately the following case: I knew one person who believed in a righteous land,” said another wanderer in our literature, Luke, from M. Gorky’s play “At the Depths.” “There must, he said, be a righteous country in the world... in that land, they say, there are special people inhabiting... good people!” They respect each other, they simply help each other... and everything is nice and good with them! And so the man kept getting ready to go... to look for this righteous land. He was poor, he lived poorly... and when things were so difficult for him that he could even lie down and die, he did not lose his spirit, and everything happened, he just grinned and said: “Nothing!” I'll be patient! A few more - I’ll wait... and then I’ll give up this whole life and - I’ll go to the righteous land...” He had only one joy - this land... And to this place - it was in Siberia - they sent an exiled scientist... with books, with plans he, a scientist, with all sorts of things... The man says to the scientist: “Show me, do me a favor, where the righteous land lies and how to get there?” Now it was the scientist who opened his books, laid out his plans... he looked and looked - no nowhere is there a righteous land! “Everything is true, all the lands are shown, but the righteous one is not!”

The man doesn’t believe... There must be, he says... look better! Otherwise, he says, your books and plans are of no use if there is no righteous land... The scientist is offended. My plans, he says, are the most faithful, but there is no righteous land at all. Well, then the man got angry - how could that be? Lived, lived, endured, endured and believed everything - there is! but according to plans it turns out - no! Robbery!.. And he says to the scientist: “Oh, you... such a bastard!” You are a scoundrel, not a scientist...” Yes, in his ear - once! Moreover!.. ( After a pause.) And after that he went home and hanged himself!”

The 1860s marked a sharp historical turning point in the destinies of Russia, which henceforth broke with the legal, “stay-at-home” existence and the whole world, all the people set off on a long path of spiritual quest, marked by ups and downs, fatal temptations and deviations, but the righteous path lies precisely in passion , in the sincerity of his inescapable desire to find the truth. And perhaps for the first time, Nekrasov’s poetry responded to this deep process, which covered not only the “tops”, but also the very “bottoms” of society.

1

The poet began work on the grandiose plan of a “people's book” in 1863, and ended up mortally ill in 1877, with a bitter awareness of the incompleteness and incompleteness of his plan: “One thing I deeply regret is that I did not finish my poem “To whom in Rus' live well." It “should have included all the experience given to Nikolai Alekseevich by studying the people, all the information about them accumulated “by word of mouth” over twenty years,” recalled G. I. Uspensky about conversations with Nekrasov.

However, the question of the “incompleteness” of “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is very controversial and problematic. Firstly, the poet’s own confessions are subjectively exaggerated. It is known that a writer always has a feeling of dissatisfaction, and the larger the idea, the more acute it is. Dostoevsky wrote about The Brothers Karamazov: “I myself think that not even one tenth of it was possible to express what I wanted.” But on this basis, do we dare to consider Dostoevsky’s novel a fragment of an unrealized plan? It’s the same with “Who Lives Well in Rus'.”

Secondly, the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” was conceived as an epic, that is, a work of art depicting with the maximum degree of completeness and objectivity an entire era in the life of the people. Since folk life is limitless and inexhaustible in its countless manifestations, the epic in any of its varieties (poem-epic, novel-epic) is characterized by incompleteness and incompleteness. This is its specific difference from other forms of poetic art.

"This tricky song
He will sing to the end of the word,
Who is the whole earth, baptized Rus',
It will go from end to end."
Her Christ-pleaser himself
He hasn’t finished singing - he’s sleeping in eternal sleep -

This is how Nekrasov expressed his understanding of the epic plan in the poem “Peddlers.” The epic can be continued indefinitely, but you can also put an end to it at some high point in its path.

Until now, researchers of Nekrasov’s work are arguing about the sequence of arrangement of parts of “Who Lives Well in Rus',” since the dying poet did not have time to make final orders in this regard.

It is noteworthy that this dispute itself involuntarily confirms the epic nature of “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” The composition of this work is built according to the laws of classical epic: it consists of separate, relatively autonomous parts and chapters. Outwardly, these parts are connected by the theme of the road: seven truth-seekers wander around Rus', trying to resolve the question that haunts them: who can live well in Rus'? In the “Prologue” there seems to be a clear outline of the journey - a meeting with a landowner, an official, a merchant, a minister and a tsar. However, the epic lacks a clear and unambiguous sense of purpose. Nekrasov does not force the action and is in no hurry to bring it to an all-resolving conclusion. As an epic artist, he strives for a complete recreation of life, for revealing the entire diversity of folk characters, all the indirectness, all the meandering of folk paths, paths and roads.

The world in the epic narrative appears as it is - disordered and unexpected, devoid of linear movement. The author of the epic allows for “digressions, trips into the past, leaps somewhere sideways, to the side.” According to the definition of the modern literary theorist G.D. Gachev, “the epic is like a child walking through the cabinet of curiosities of the universe. One character, or a building, or a thought caught his attention - and the author, forgetting about everything, plunges into it; then he was distracted by another - and he gave himself up to him just as completely. But this is not just a compositional principle, not just the specificity of the plot in the epic... Anyone who, while narrating, makes “digressions”, lingers on this or that subject for an unexpectedly long time; the one who succumbs to the temptation to describe both this and that and is choked with greed, sinning against the pace of the narrative, thereby speaks of the wastefulness, the abundance of being, that he (being) has nowhere to rush. In other words: it expresses the idea that being reigns over the principle of time (while the dramatic form, on the contrary, emphasizes the power of time - it is not for nothing that a seemingly only “formal” demand for the unity of time was born there).

The fairy-tale motifs introduced into the epic “Who Lives Well in Rus'” allow Nekrasov to freely and easily deal with time and space, easily transfer the action from one end of Russia to the other, slow down or speed up time according to fairy-tale laws. What unites the epic is not the external plot, not the movement towards a clear result, but the internal plot: slowly, step by step, the contradictory but irreversible growth of national self-awareness, which has not yet come to a conclusion, is still on the difficult roads of quest, becomes clear. In this sense, the plot-compositional looseness of the poem is not accidental: it expresses through its disorganization the diversity and diversity of people’s life, which thinks about itself differently, evaluates its place in the world and its purpose differently.

In an effort to recreate the moving panorama of folk life in its entirety, Nekrasov also uses all the wealth of oral folk art. But the folklore element in the epic also expresses the gradual growth of national self-awareness: the fairy-tale motifs of the “Prologue” are replaced by the epic epic, then by lyrical folk songs in “Peasant Woman” and, finally, by the songs of Grisha Dobrosklonov in “A Feast for the Whole World”, striving to become folk and already partially accepted and understood by the people. The men listen to his songs, sometimes nod in agreement, but they have not yet heard the last song, “Rus”: he has not yet sung it to them. And therefore the ending of the poem is open to the future, not resolved.

If only our wanderers could be under one roof,
If only they could know what was happening to Grisha.

But the wanderers did not hear the song “Rus”, which means they did not yet understand what the “embodiment of people’s happiness” was. It turns out that Nekrasov did not finish his song not only because death got in the way. People’s life itself did not finish singing his songs in those years. More than a hundred years have passed since then, and the song begun by the great poet about the Russian peasantry is still being sung. In “The Feast,” only a glimpse of the future happiness is outlined, which the poet dreams of, realizing how many roads lie ahead before its real embodiment. The incompleteness of “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is fundamental and artistically significant as a sign of a folk epic.

“Who Lives Well in Rus'” both as a whole and in each of its parts resembles a peasant lay gathering, which is the most complete expression of democratic people's self-government. At such a gathering, residents of one village or several villages included in the “world” resolved all issues of common worldly life. The gathering had nothing in common with a modern meeting. The chairman leading the discussion was absent. Each community member, at will, entered into a conversation or skirmish, defending his point of view. Instead of voting, the principle of general consent was in effect. The dissatisfied were convinced or retreated, and during the discussion a “worldly verdict” matured. If there was no general agreement, the meeting was postponed to the next day. Gradually, during heated debates, a unanimous opinion matured, agreement was sought and found.

A contributor to Nekrasov’s “Domestic Notes”, the populist writer N. N. Zlatovratsky described the original peasant life this way: “This is the second day that we have had gathering after gathering. You look out the window, now at one end, now at the other end of the village, there are crowds of owners, old people, children: some are sitting, others are standing in front of them, with their hands behind their backs and listening attentively to someone. This someone waves his arms, bends his whole body, shouts something very convincingly, falls silent for a few minutes and then starts convincing again. But suddenly they object to him, they object somehow at once, their voices rise higher and higher, they shout at the top of their lungs, as befits such a vast hall as the surrounding meadows and fields, everyone speaks, without being embarrassed by anyone or anything, as befits a free a gathering of equal persons. Not the slightest sign of formality. Foreman Maxim Maksimych himself stands somewhere on the side, like the most invisible member of our community... Here everything goes straight, everything becomes an edge; if anyone, out of cowardice or calculation, decides to get away with silence, he will be mercilessly exposed. And there are very few of these faint-hearted people at especially important gatherings. I saw the most meek, most unrequited men who<…>at gatherings, in moments of general excitement, they were completely transformed and<…>they gained such courage that they managed to outdo the obviously brave men. At the moments of its apogee, the gathering becomes simply an open mutual confession and mutual exposure, a manifestation of the widest publicity.”

Nekrasov’s entire epic poem is a flaring up worldly gathering that is gradually gaining strength. It reaches its peak in the final "Feast for the Whole World." However, a general “worldly verdict” is still not passed. Only the path to it is outlined, many initial obstacles have been removed, and on many points a movement towards general agreement has been identified. But there is no conclusion, life has not stopped, gatherings have not stopped, the epic is open to the future. For Nekrasov, the process itself is important here; it is important that the peasantry not only thought about the meaning of life, but also set out on a difficult, long path of truth-seeking. Let's try to take a closer look at it, moving from “Prologue. Part one" to "The Peasant Woman", "The Last One" and "A Feast for the Whole World".

2

In the "Prologue" the meeting of seven men is narrated as a great epic event.

In what year - calculate
Guess what land?
On the sidewalk
Seven men came together...

This is how epic and fairy-tale heroes came together for a battle or a feast of honor. Time and space acquire an epic scope in the poem: the action is carried out throughout Rus'. The tightened province, Terpigorev district, Pustoporozhnaya volost, the villages of Zaplatovo, Dyryavino, Razutovo, Znobishino, Gorelovo, Neelovo, Neurozhaina can be attributed to any of the Russian provinces, districts, volosts and villages. The general sign of post-reform ruin is captured. And the question itself, which excited the men, concerns all of Russia - peasant, noble, merchant. Therefore, the quarrel that arose between them is not an ordinary event, but great debate. In the soul of every grain grower, with his own private destiny, with his own everyday interests, a question arose that concerns everyone, the entire people's world.

Each one in his own way
Left the house before noon:
That path led to the forge,
He went to the village of Ivankovo
Call Father Prokofy
Baptize the child.
Groin honeycomb
Carried to the market in Velikoye,
And the two Gubina brothers
So easy with a halter
Catch a stubborn horse
They went to their own herd.
It's high time for everyone
Return on your own way -
They are walking side by side!

Each man had his own path, and suddenly they found a common path: the question of happiness united the people. And therefore, before us are no longer ordinary men with their own individual destiny and personal interests, but guardians for the entire peasant world, truth-seekers. The number “seven” is magical in folklore. Seven Wanderers– an image of great epic proportions. The fabulous flavor of the “Prologue” raises the narrative above everyday life, above peasant life and gives the action an epic universality.

The fairy-tale atmosphere in the Prologue has many meanings. Giving events a national sound, it also turns into a convenient method for the poet to characterize national self-consciousness. Let us note that Nekrasov plays with the fairy tale. In general, his treatment of folklore is more free and relaxed compared to the poems “Peddlers” and “Frost, Red Nose”. Yes, and he treats the people differently, often makes fun of the peasants, provokes readers, paradoxically sharpens the people's view of things, and laughs at the limitations of the peasant worldview. The intonation structure of the narrative in “Who Lives Well in Rus'” is very flexible and rich: here is the author’s good-natured smile, condescension, light irony, bitter joke, lyrical regret, sorrow, reflection, and appeal. The intonation and stylistic polyphony of the narrative in its own way reflects the new phase of folk life. Before us is the post-reform peasantry, which has broken with the immovable patriarchal existence, with the age-old worldly and spiritual settled life. This is already a wandering Rus' with awakened self-awareness, noisy, discordant, prickly and unyielding, prone to quarrels and disputes. And the author does not stand aside from her, but turns into an equal participant in her life. He either rises above the disputants, then becomes imbued with sympathy for one of the disputing parties, then becomes touched, then becomes indignant. Just as Rus' lives in disputes, in search of truth, so the author is in an intense dialogue with her.

In the literature about “Who Lives Well in Rus'” one can find the statement that the dispute between the seven wanderers that opens the poem corresponds to the original compositional plan, from which the poet subsequently retreated. Already in the first part there was a deviation from the planned plot, and instead of meeting with the rich and noble, truth-seekers began to interview the crowd.

But this deviation immediately occurs at the “upper” level. For some reason, instead of the landowner and the official whom the men had designated for questioning, a meeting takes place with a priest. Is this a coincidence?

Let us note first of all that the “formula” of the dispute proclaimed by the men signifies not so much the original intention as the level of national self-awareness that manifests itself in this dispute. And Nekrasov cannot help but show the reader its limitations: men understand happiness in a primitive way and reduce it to a well-fed life and material security. What is it worth, for example, such a candidate for the role of a lucky man, as the “merchant” is proclaimed, and even a “fat-bellied one”! And behind the argument between the men - who lives happily and freely in Rus'? - immediately, but still gradually, muffled, another, much more significant and important question arises, which makes up the soul of the epic poem - how to understand human happiness, where to look for it and what does it consist of?

In the final chapter, “A Feast for the Whole World,” through the mouth of Grisha Dobrosklonov, the following assessment is given of the current state of people’s life: “The Russian people are gathering their strength and learning to be citizens.”

In fact, this formula contains the main pathos of the poem. It is important for Nekrasov to show how the forces that unite them are maturing among the people and what civic orientation they are acquiring. The intent of the poem is by no means to force the wanderers to carry out successive meetings according to the program they have planned. Much more important here is a completely different question: what is happiness in the eternal, Orthodox Christian understanding and are the Russian people capable of combining peasant “politics” with Christian morality?

Therefore, folklore motifs in the Prologue play a dual role. On the one hand, the poet uses them to give the beginning of the work a high epic sound, and on the other hand, to emphasize the limited consciousness of the disputants, who deviate in their idea of happiness from the righteous to the evil paths. Let us remember that Nekrasov spoke about this more than once for a long time, for example, in one of the versions of “Song to Eremushka,” created back in 1859.

Pleasures change
Living does not mean drinking and eating.
There are better aspirations in the world,
There is a nobler good.
Despise the evil ways:
There is debauchery and vanity.
Honor the covenants that are forever right
And learn them from Christ.

These same two paths, sung over Russia by the angel of mercy in “A Feast for the Whole World,” are now opening up before the Russian people, who are celebrating a funeral service and are faced with a choice.

In the middle of the world
For a free heart
There are two ways.
Weigh the proud strength,
Weigh your strong will:
Which way to go?

This song sounds over Russia, coming to life from the lips of the messenger of the Creator himself, and the fate of the people will directly depend on which path the wanderers take after long wanderings and meanderings along Russian country roads.

For now, the poet is pleased only by the very desire of the people to seek the truth. And the direction of these searches, the temptation of wealth at the very beginning of the journey, cannot but cause bitter irony. Therefore, the fairy-tale plot of the “Prologue” is also characterized by the low level of peasant consciousness, spontaneous, vague, with difficulty making its way to universal issues. The people's thought has not yet acquired clarity and clarity; it is still fused with nature and is sometimes expressed not so much in words as in action, in deed: instead of thinking, fists are used.

Men still live by the fairy-tale formula: “go there - I don’t know where, bring that - I don’t know what.”

They walk as if they are being chased
Behind them are gray wolves,
What's further is quick.
…
I would probably kiss you the night
So they went - where, not knowing...

Is this why the disturbing, demonic element grows in the Prologue? “The woman you meet,” “the clumsy Durandiha,” turns into a laughing witch in front of the men’s eyes. And Pakhom wanders his mind for a long time, trying to understand what happened to him and his companions, until he comes to the conclusion that the “goblin played a nice joke” on them.

The poem makes a comic comparison of a men's argument with a bullfight in a peasant herd. And the cow, which had gotten lost in the evening, came to the fire, stared at the men,

I listened to crazy speeches
And I began, my dear,
Moo, moo, moo!

Nature responds to the destructiveness of the dispute, which develops into a serious fight, and in the person of not so much good as its sinister forces, representatives of folk demonology, classified as forest evil spirits. Seven eagle owls flock to watch the arguing wanderers: from seven large trees “the midnight owls laugh.”

And the raven, a smart bird,
Arrived, sitting on a tree
Right by the fire,
Sits and prays to the devil,
To be slapped to death
Which one!

The commotion grows, spreads, covers the entire forest, and it seems that the “forest spirit” itself laughs, laughs at the men, responds to their squabble and massacre with malicious intentions.

A booming echo woke up,
Let's go for a walk,
Let's go scream and shout
As if to tease
Stubborn men.

Of course, the author's irony in the Prologue is good-natured and condescending. The poet does not want to judge men harshly for the wretchedness and extreme limitations of their ideas about happiness and a happy person. He knows that this limitation is associated with the harsh everyday life of a peasant, with such material deprivations in which suffering itself sometimes takes on unspiritual, ugly and perverted forms. This happens whenever the people are deprived of their daily bread. Let us remember the song “Hungry” heard in “The Feast”:

The man is standing -
It's swaying
A man is coming -
Can't breathe!
From its bark
It's unraveled
Melancholy-trouble
Exhausted...

3

And in order to highlight the limitations of the peasant understanding of happiness, Nekrasov brings the wanderers together in the first part of the epic poem not with a landowner or an official, but with a priest. The priest, a spiritual person, closest to the people in his way of life, and due to his duty called upon to guard a thousand-year-old national shrine, very accurately compresses the vague ideas about happiness for the wanderers themselves into a capacious formula.

– What do you think is happiness?
Peace, wealth, honor -
Isn't that right, dear friends? -
They said: “Yes”...

Of course, the priest himself ironically distances himself from this formula: “This, dear friends, is happiness according to you!” And then, with visual convincingness, he refutes with all his life experience the naivety of each hypostasis of this triune formula: neither “peace,” nor “wealth,” nor “honor” can be placed as the basis of a truly human, Christian understanding of happiness.

The priest's story makes men think about a lot. The common, ironically condescending assessment of the clergy here reveals itself to be untrue. According to the laws of epic storytelling, the poet trustingly surrenders to the priest’s story, which is constructed in such a way that behind the personal life of one priest, the life of the entire clergy rises and stands tall. The poet is in no hurry, does not rush with the development of the action, giving the hero full opportunity to express everything that lies in his soul. Behind the life of the priest, the life of all of Russia in its past and present, in its different classes, is revealed on the pages of the epic poem. Here are dramatic changes in the noble estates: the old patriarchal-noble Rus', which lived sedentarily and was close to the people in morals and customs, is becoming a thing of the past. The post-reform waste of life and the ruin of the nobles destroyed its centuries-old foundations and destroyed the old attachment to the family village nest. “Like the Jewish tribe,” the landowners scattered throughout the world, adopting new habits that were far from Russian moral traditions and legends.

In the priest’s story, a “great chain” unfolds before the eyes of savvy men, in which all the links are firmly connected: if you touch one, it will respond in the other. The drama of the Russian nobility brings with it drama into the life of the clergy. To the same extent, this drama is aggravated by the post-reform impoverishment of the peasant.

Our villages are poor,
And the peasants in them are sick
Yes, women are sad,
Nurses, drinkers,
Slaves, pilgrims
And eternal workers,
Lord give them strength!

The clergy cannot be at peace when the people, their drinker and breadwinner, are in poverty. And the point here is not only the material impoverishment of the peasantry and nobility, which entails the impoverishment of the clergy. The priest's main problem lies elsewhere. The man’s misfortunes bring deep moral suffering to sensitive people from the clergy: “It’s hard to live on pennies with such labor!”

It happens to the sick
You will come: not dying,
The peasant family is scary
At that hour when she has to
Lose your breadwinner!
Give a farewell message to the deceased
And support in the remaining
You try your best
The spirit is cheerful! And here to you
The old woman, the mother of the dead man,
Look, he's reaching out with the bony one,
Calloused hand.
The soul will turn over,
How they jingle in this little hand
Two copper coins!

The priest’s confession speaks not only about the suffering that is associated with social “disorders” in a country that is in a deep national crisis. These “disorders” that lie on the surface of life must be eliminated; a righteous social struggle against them is possible and even necessary. But there are also other, deeper contradictions associated with the imperfection of human nature itself. It is these contradictions that reveal the vanity and slyness of people who strive to present life as sheer pleasure, as a thoughtless intoxication with wealth, ambition, and complacency that turns into indifference to one’s neighbor. The priest in his confession deals a crushing blow to those who profess such morality. Talking about parting words to the sick and dying, the priest speaks about the impossibility of peace of mind on this earth for a person who is not indifferent to his neighbor:

Go where you are called!
You go unconditionally.
And even if only the bones
Alone broke, -
No! gets wet every time,
The soul will hurt.
Don't believe it, Orthodox Christians,
There is a limit to habit:
No heart can bear
Without any trepidation
Death rattle
Funeral lament
Orphan's sadness!
Amen!.. Now think,
What's the peace like?..

It turns out that a person completely free from suffering, living “at ease, happily” is a stupid, indifferent person, morally defective. Life is not a holiday, but hard work, not only physical, but also spiritual, requiring self-denial from a person. After all, Nekrasov himself affirmed the same ideal in the poem “In Memory of Dobrolyubov,” the ideal of high citizenship, surrendering to which it is impossible not to sacrifice oneself, not to consciously reject “worldly pleasures.” Is this why the priest looked down when he heard the question of the peasants, which was far from the Christian truth of life - “is the priest’s life sweet” - and with the dignity of an Orthodox minister addressed the wanderers:

... Orthodox!
It is a sin to grumble against God,
I bear my cross with patience...

And his whole story is, in fact, an example of how every person who is ready to lay down his life “for his friends” can bear the cross.

The lesson taught to the wanderers by the priest has not yet benefited them, but nevertheless brought confusion into the peasant consciousness. The men unitedly took up arms against Luka:

- What, did you take it? stubborn head!
Country club!
That's where the argument gets into!
"Nobles of the bell -
The priests live like princes."
…
Well, here's what you've praised
A priest's life!

The author’s irony is not accidental, because with the same success it was possible to “finish” not only Luka, but also each of them separately and all of them together. The peasant scolding here is again followed by the shadow of Nekrasov, who laughs at the limitations of the people’s original ideas about happiness. And it is no coincidence that after meeting with the priest, the behavior and way of thinking of the wanderers changes significantly. They become more and more active in dialogues, and intervene more and more energetically in life. And the attention of wanderers is increasingly beginning to be captured not by the world of masters, but by the people’s environment.

(351 words) 140 years ago the epic poem by N.A. was written. Nekrasov “Who can live well in Rus'?”, describing the difficult life of the people. And if the poet were our contemporary, how would he answer the question posed in the title? In the original poem, the men were going to look for a happy one among landowners, officials, priests, merchants, noble boyars, sovereign ministers and, in the end, intended to reach the tsar. During the search, the heroes' plan changed: they learned the stories of many peasants, townspeople, even robbers. And the lucky one among them was seminarian Grisha Dobrosklonov. He saw his happiness not in peace and contentment, but in intercession for his beloved Motherland, for the people. It is unknown how his life will turn out, but it was not lived in vain.

After almost a century and a half, who is happy? If you follow the original plan of the heroes, it turns out that almost all of these paths also remain thorny. Being a farmer is extremely unprofitable, because growing agricultural products is more expensive than selling them. Businessmen constantly maneuver in a changing market situation, risking burnout every day. Official work remains dull; it is free only in areas close to the government. Presidential service is complex and responsible, because the lives of millions depend on it. The priests received fairly comfortable conditions, unlike the 19th century, but respect became even less.

What about the people? City dwellers mostly live from paycheck to paycheck, being under constant time pressure. They finish their work day, go home, sit down to watch TV, and then go to bed. And so every day, all my life. Existence is not so poor (at least compared to the 19th century), but it is becoming increasingly standardized. Villagers live more bleakly, because the villages are dying: there are no roads, hospitals, schools. Only old people live there, others have nothing to do - either run or drink.

If material wealth is taken as a criterion for happiness, then in our time deputies live well. Their job is to receive a salary of 40 subsistence minimums and periodically attend meetings. But if the criterion of happiness is intangible, then the happiest person today is the person free from routine and fuss. You can’t completely get rid of this, but you can build your inner world in such a way that the “tint of little things” won’t drag you down: achieve some goals, love, communicate, be interested. You don't need to be anyone specific to do this. In order to live well, you need to be able to sometimes look around and think about something intangible.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

"was conducted by the writer for more than one year. As Nekrasov himself said, this was his favorite brainchild. In it, he wanted to talk about the difficult and harsh life in Russia at the end of the 19th century. This narrative was not the most flattering to some sections of society, so the work had an ambiguous fate.

History of creation

Work on the poem began in the early 60s of the 19th century. This is evidenced by the mentioned exiled Poles. The uprising itself and their arrest occurred in 1863–1864. The first part of the manuscript was marked by the author himself as 1865.

Nekrasov began to continue work on the poem only in the 70s. The second, third and fourth parts were released in 1872, 1873 and 1876 respectively. In general, Nikolai Alekseevich planned to write 7 parts according to some data, and 8 parts according to others. However, due to serious illness, he was unable to do this.

Already in 1866, a prologue to the poem appeared in the first issue of the Sovremennik magazine. Nekrasov printed the first part for 4 years. This was due to the unfavorable attitude of the censor towards the work. In addition, the position of the printed publication itself was quite precarious. Immediately after its release, the censorship committee spoke unflatteringly about the poem. Although they approved it for publication, they sent their comments to the highest censorship authority. The first part itself was published in its entirety only eight years after it was written.

The subsequent parts of the poem published later caused even more indignation and disapproval of the censor. This dissatisfaction was argued by the fact that the work was clearly negative in nature and an attack on the noble class. All parts were published on the pages of Otechestvennye zapiski. The author never saw a separate edition of the work.

In recent years, Nekrasov was seriously ill, but continued to actively oppose censorship. They did not want to publish the fourth part of the poem. Nikolai Alekseevich made many concessions. He rewrote and deleted many episodes. He even wrote praise to the king, but this did not have any effect. The manuscript was published only in 1881 after the death of the writer.

Plot

At the beginning of the story, the main characters are asked the question of who can live well in Rus'. Six options were presented: to the landowner, the official, the priest, the merchant, and the tsar. The heroes decide not to return home until they receive an answer to this question.

The poem consists of, but it is not complete. Anticipating his imminent death, Nekrasov finished the work in a hurry. A clear and precise answer was never given.