Throughout the three stories assigned, the effort to challenge the perception of the peasant and noble classes is apparent–just as the itinerants were doing through their various works of art. Which struck me in the literature, however, was not only only painting the peasantry in a more positive, humane, valued, light, but the obvious goal to expose the hypocrisy and foolishness of the nobles.
Throughout the texts, the peasants, not the nobles are presented as the heros and wise ones of the story. In “Khor and Kalinych”, both peasants educate and enlighten the narrator. The dynamic between the narrator, Khor, and Kalinych reveal the value that peasants bring to society. But beyond that, Khor and Kalinych’s “master”, Polutykin heavily depends on their presence to survive–which flips the popularly held belief that peasants are dependent on their master.
This ‘role-reversal’ is taken even farther in “The Story of How One Russian Peasant Fed Two Generals”. Even the title begins to challenge the statically held power-dynamic between master and peasant, suggesting the general class is, in fact, dependent on the peasants. Furthermore, the text illustrates the generals as foolish, uneducated, and unable to support themselves. It is only after the peasant enters the story that the two nobles are able to survive–highlighting not only the practical skills and abilities peasants often go uncredited for but also revealing how nobles depend on peasants to stay alive. Perhaps the most pointed critique of the noble class comes when the generals refer to the peasant as “lazybones” prompting the reader to realize that those in the noble class are the true “lazybones”.
Finally, in “Three Deaths” I found it fascinating how the tree’s death is included in the title and is the most beautifully described of the three. This further highlights how the superfluous nature of the noble class goes unrewarded in the long run, and that the simple nature of the tree is to be most valued.