From a modern perspective, “Peasants” is problematic, and it’s worth digging into why that is before looking at the novella itself.
First of all, the title. Using a title like “Peasants” is like calling a story set in the Hasidic community “Jews,” or one set in Kentucky “Rednecks.” Obviously you can’t apply modern sensibilities to something written more than 100 years ago, but it’s hard not to feel that the title is a transgression.
Secondly, “Peasants,” were it to appear today, could well be labeled trauma porn; that’s what this tale is: a long, relentless look at suffering. It’s written by someone who has observed peasant life from some distance–from childhood visits to his grandfather’s farm, during travels around the country, and most of all from his experience spending time at his country house outside of Moscow. Yes, this is a story about poor rural people written by a city dude with a weekend house (though the city dude did treat the peasants as a doctor).
Setting that aside (if not too far to the side), “Peasants” is the story of Nikolay, a waiter in Moscow who, due to ill health, must quit his job and return to his home village with his wife and daughter. His time in the city has opened his eyes to the poverty and need of his family and the village, and the villagers in turn resent him as a burden, as his health prevents him from earning any money. Not only that, Nikolay did not bring money home to help pay for his keep.
There’s not really a plot; it’s more a tale of time passing. Various awful things happen: fires, squabbles, misunderstandings, physical suffering, etc. etc. etc.
Like “The New Villa” and plenty of other Chekhov stories, the portrayal of the rural poor is pitiless. Nikolay’s family is cruel, loveless, suspicious, and ignorant. A drunken brother-in-law beats his wife and no one dares stand up to him. The grandmother is mean, stingy and judgmental. (She is referred to by everyone as “Granny,” and she’s a real horror.)
The peasants in this story blame the local council, “the Zemstvo,” for all their troubles–fines levied, property snatched, even for crop failures. But they don’t actually know what the Zemstvo is–and Chekhov takes pains to note that these particular peasants are especially ignorant, because other peasants in other villages have become shopkeepers and factory owners and have served on their local Zemstvos.
In other words, there’s a bit of finger-pointing going on in “Peasants”: Would you just look at these lazy, shiftless good-for-nothings?!? Why can’t they work hard and better themselves like the good peasants?
On the other hand, it’s certainly fair to note that the local gentry are hardly any better than the poor.
It’s a miserable, unkind world.
The only kindness that can be found in this story comes from Olga, Nikolay’s wife, who, like him, misses life in Moscow.
Interesting side note: According to Chekhov biographer Donald Rayfield, Chekhov wanted to continue this story with the daughter returning to the city and becoming a prostitute–but the censors of the day wouldn’t allow it. That ending truly would have created a world of hopelessness. At least as the story stands now, the world of the peasants has one small hope: escape. (Nikolay takes the other route out of town, by dying.)
Interesting side note No. 2: Tolstoy didn’t like this story one bit. He thought it was too harsh. He was probably right. It’s trauma porn.
READ THIS? READ THAT!
“Too Early,” written about 10 years before “Peasants,” has Chekhov’s typical weakness when writing about the rural poor, which is that he pokes fun at them. But the story broadens and gives the two main characters, Slyunka and Ryabov, a measure of dignity.
A Chekhov Circus 