This story, among the others that we were assigned, displayed the importance of the role of the peasant in Russia as well as exposing the reality of the upper class. The two Russian Generals did not know what to do or even say when they found themselves stranded on an island. The generals were going to starve if they did not find the peasant. The peasant performed many impressive deeds that made him seem heroic, such as making a snare out of his own hair, making a rope out of wild hemp, or building a boat that survived through “storms and various winds.” The relationship between the peasant and generals can be translated to the lower and upper class of Russia. The upper class relies on the lower class for simple chores that are necessary for the country to survive.
The story made me think of Repin’s “The Barge Haulers on the Volga.” A similar message is sent in the painting as the peasants are literally pulling the ship to shore. The peasant are doing the dreadful chore of pulling the ship that has to done. In this painting the ship signifying the upper class among of things. I am not sure if this is the correct analysis of the painting but “The Story of How One Russian Peasant Fed Two Generals” prompted me to this analysis.
This is a nice connection between the story and the painting, Xander! I definitely think you are right that in both the story and the painting, different as they are, there is the message that the peasantry are carrying the full weight of society and its injustices on their own backs. (And of course, this is where social critique comes into the picture.)
I think those two works make for an interesting juxtaposition. Brennan’s post about the significance of the steamship in the background of Repin’s work comes to mind as well with this comparison, as does the upside-down Russian flag on the barge (a sign of decadence or distress): not only do both works show the exploitation of the landed peasantry and working class by the upper classes, they highlight how the oppressors have grown complacent and failed to prepare for the inevitable tides of change. The generals’ lack of any identity beyond their titles and offices (they identify their home by their street of jurisdiction alone) and inability to pick apples from a tree emphasize this suicidal obstinance.
I think that we have to be carful in comparing two works and their motives when talking about the peasants in Russian society. I think that the transition between the two units of works that praise peasant life (think of Tolstoy’s mowing scene in Anna K) and works that show the torment and the absurdity of how the peasants were treated for century, and how they are becoming integrated into society. I think that this line is often muddied, which is what you are pointed out. Often it is hard to tell whether a work is praising the peasants, or showing how awful society has been to this group of people. I think that this is why these pieces are so interesting, and so engaging is because it points out how weird this line is. We as the viewers and readers are confused whether we should be in shock or in awe.
I agree in the analysis that the upper class relied on the lower class for nearly everything, but I also noticed that the generals were applauded for doing nothing when they came back. There seems to be a culture of rewarding those who didn’t do work and putting down those who do, treating them as inherently lesser people, as evidenced by the negative treatment the peasant received. With the critique on the upper class, I wonder how much this story is applicable to the modern day, especially with the coronavirus showing how the hourly workers are the ones who carry our society.